Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Recommended Attainment/ Nonattainment Boundaries in Michigan for the 8 Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard Steven E. Chester Director July 15, 2003 Page 1 Recommended Attainment/ Nonattainment Boundaries in Michigan for the 8 Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard 2000 2002 Design Value Designated Area Designation Parts per million ( ppm)

Southeast Michigan .088 Wayne County Nonattainment Oakland County Nonattainment Macomb County Nonattainment St. Clair County Nonattainment Livingston County Nonattainment Washtenaw County Nonattainment Monroe County Nonattainment Genesee/ Lapeer .084 Genesee County Attainment Lapeer County Attainment Lenawee .085 Lenawee County Nonattainment Cass .090 Cass County Nonattainment Berrien .087 Berrien County Nonattainment Muskegon .089 Muskegon County Nonattainment Ottawa .085 Ottawa County Nonattainment Allegan .092 Allegan County Nonattainment Grand Rapids .082 Kent County Attainment Mason .087 Mason County Nonattainment Benzie .086 Benzie County Nonattainment All other counties Attainment Page 2 Recommended 8 Hour Ozone Designations ( 2000/ 2001/ 2002)

Nonattainment  Wayne, Oakland, Macomb, St. Clair, Livingston, Washtenaw, Monroe, Lenawee, Cass, Berrien, Allegan, Ottawa, Muskegon, Mason, Benzie Attainment  Kent, Genesee, Lapeer Attainment  All other counties Detroit Ann Arbor Flint CMSA Wayne, Oakland, Macomb, St. Clair, Livingston, Washtenaw, Monroe, Lenawee, Lapeer, Genesee Triangle = monitoring site Figure 1 Recommended 8 hour Ozone Designations NOTE: A Michigan map with all county names listed is provided on Page 40. Page 3 Recommended Attainment/ Nonattainment Boundaries In Michigan for the 8 Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard Introduction In July 1997, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) promulgated a new National Ambient Air Quality Standard ( NAAQS) for ozone, referred to as the 8 hour ozone standard. The federal Clean Air Act requires the EPA to seek recommendations from the states' governors for initial designations of the attainment status for all areas of the states when a new or revised standard is promulgated.

The states are also asked to provide recommendations for the appropriate boundaries of all nonattainment areas. The EPA guidance on boundary selection identifies the boundaries of the metropolitan statistical area ( MSA) or consolidated metropolitan statistical area ( CMSA), as defined by the U. S. Office of Management and Budget ( OMB), Census Bureau, as the p resumptive nonattainment area. Generally, an MSA is a core area with a substantial population, plus nearby communities maintaining a large economic and social integration with the core community. State recommendations that deviate from an MSA or CMSA boundary must provide an a nalysis of local factors, such as location relative to the urban core, amount of emissions, population, and prevailing meteorology.

The EPA will review and either affirm the states' recommendations or make modifications as determined to be necessary. Final promulgation of designations is to occur by April 15, 2004, in accordance with a consent agreement between the U. S. Department of Justice and several environmental advocacy groups.

This report provides the basis for recommendations of attainment/ nonattainment designations and boundaries for the 8 hour ozone standard for all areas in the state of Michigan. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality ( MDEQ) has considered the input of local communities and organizations. The Southeast Michigan Council of Governments ( SEMCOG) and the Genesee County Metropolitan Planning Commission ( GCMPC) have provided much of the analysis for the Southeast Michigan area.

Analysis The 8 hour ozone designations are to be based on the design values ( the average of the fourth highest values from each three consecutive years of data at each monitor) calculated from observations from the most recent three year period of record. The ozone design value for an entire region is derived by the measurements of whichever monitor in the region has the highest ozone values. State recommendations are to be based on the period 2000 2002, whereas the EPA indicates that a different data set, 2001 2003, will be the basis of the EPA's final nonattainment determinations. Page 4 Design values in violation of the 8 hour ozone standard have been recorded in Southeast Michigan, Cass County, and the West Michigan counties bordering Lake Michigan with monitors.

As mentioned previously, the EPA presumes that nonattainment area designations for the 8 hour ozone sta ndard reflect the MSA or CMSA to incorporate not only the areas of measured violations, but also the contributing nearby emission source areas. Recommendations that vary from the presumption must be supported with an analysis considering the following eleven factors:

· Emissions and air quality in adjacent areas ( including adjacent C/ MSAs).

· Population density and degree of urbanization, including commercial development ( significant difference from surrounding areas).

· Monitoring data representing ozone concentrations in local areas and larger areas ( urban or regional).

· Location of emission sources ( emission sources and nearby receptors should generally be included in the same nonattainment area).

· Traffic and commuting patterns.

· Expected growth ( including extent, pattern, and rate of growth).

· Meteorology ( weather/ transport patterns).

· Geography topography ( mountain ranges or other air basin boundaries).

· Jurisdictional boundaries ( e. g., counties, air districts, existing 1 hour nonattainment areas, Reservations, etc.).

· Level of control of emission sources.

· Regional emission reductions ( e. g., nitrogen oxides ( NOx) State Implementation Plan ( SIP) call or other enforceable regional strategies).

New Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Area Definitions On June 6, 2003, the OMB established revised definitions of MSAs, new definitions for Micropolitan Statistical Areas ( MiSAs) and Combined Statistical Areas ( CSAs), and provided guidance on uses of the statistical definitions of these areas.

The new OMB definitions resulted in the listing of two large CSAs in Michigan, one in Southeast Michigan and one in West Michigan. These CSAs are comprised of new MSAs and MiSAs with counties grouped differently than in the last 2000 Census update. Four counties have been newly identified for inclusion in MSAs: Barry, Ionia, Newaygo, and Cass.

The former four  county Grand Rapids MSA consisting of Kent, Ottawa, Allegan, and Muskegon counties is changed dramatically, with four separate MSAs and one MiSA. The Grand Rapids Wyoming MSA now consists of Kent, Barry, Ionia, and Newaygo counties. The Muskegon Norton Shores MSA includes only Muskegon County; the Holland Grand Haven MSA includes only Ottawa County, and the Allegan MiSA is comprised of Allegan County.

The former ten county Detroit Ann Arbor Flint CMSA is now four MSAs and one MiSA. The Detroit Warren Livonia MSA is subdivided into two Metropolitan Divisions. The Warren Farmington Hills  Troy Metropolitan Subdivision consists of the counties of Page 5 St. Clair, Oakland, Macomb, Livingston, and Lapeer. The Detroit Livonia Dearborn Metropolitan Division includes only Wayne County. The Flint MSA includes only Genesee County, the Ann Arbor MSA includes only Washtenaw County, the Monroe MSA includes only Monroe County, and the Adrian MiSA is Lenawee County.

The MDEQ has considered the new grouping in the recommendations of nonattainment areas for Michigan. The new MSA delineations are especially appropriate for application in West Michigan ozone transport impacted counties.

Ozone Transport Although the EPA has long recognized that air quality in West Michigan is impacted by overwhelming ozone transport and local emission reductions cannot bring about attainment with the ozone standard, the EPA maintains that nonattainment designations for these counties are appropriate. See Figures 4 through 11 beginning on page 11. The rationale provided by the EPA for this position is that designations provide the public with important information on the air quality in their area.

Designations, however, are legal distinctions that drive emission reduction requirements, not public information tools. Designations very frequently do not reflect actual air quality status. A single violating monitor in a MSA or CMSA results in a nonattainment designation for the entire area even if all other monitors in the area measure attainment levels of ozone. Additionally, designating an area as nonattainment is a simple process, whereas changing that designation to attainment is not. Redesignation to attainment is a huge undertaking demanding many resources and a lengthy process that can take years. An area maintains an erroneous designation throughout those years, thus providing misleading information to the public on actual exposure to excessive levels of ozone. There are many better informed mechanisms in place for providing accurate and timely air quality status to the public, such as the MDEQ web site with near real time ozone levels reported hourly, OzoneAction! Day programs, and the Air Quality Index.

Although nonattainment designations for the West Michigan ozone transport receptor region are inappropriate, the MDEQ recommendations are consistent with the EPA's interpretation of required designations of nonattainment for counties with monitors recording violations of the NAAQS. However, it would be appropriate for the EPA to limit the regulatory mandates required for this transport receptor region through options for flexibility in its upcoming ozone implementation rule. Page 6 West Michigan Monitors sited in the Lake Michigan coastal counties of Berrien, Allegan, Ottawa, Muskegon, Mason, and Benzie are all measuring levels of ozone that violate the 8  hour ozone standard. In addition, ozone levels in Cass County, an inland county, violate the standard. The MDEQ is recommending that the Muskegon Norton Shores MSA, consisting of Muskegon County, be designated nonattainment. See Figure 2, page 9. The MDEQ is also recommending the Holland Grand Haven MSA, consisting of Ottawa County, be designated as nonattainment; and that the Allegan Micropolitan Statistical Area, consisting of Allegan County, be designated as nonattainment. These three counties, Muskegon, Ottawa, and Allegan, should be independent nonattainment areas, which will allow for greater flexibility in control program mandates due to highly disparate design values. The counties of Cass, Berrien, Mason, and Benzie should be independent nonattainment areas, as well. See Figure 2, page 9.

Recommendation of Attainment for the Grand Rapids MSA Kent County should be designated attainment. The two monitors in Kent County are measuring attainment levels of ozone . Although Grand Rapids is the principle city with the highest emission levels, population, and vehicle miles traveled in the entire West Michigan region, violations of the standard are not occurring at the downtown and downwind monitors. Kent County is further inland from Lake Michigan; therefore, ozone levels are lower despite higher emissions of ozone precursors. Kent County is also not causing nonattainment conditions in downwind communities. The monitor in Houghton Lake, which may be considered downwind under prevailing wind conditions , is attaining the NAAQS. The MDEQ believes that the overwhelming ozone transport phenomenon occurring in the Lake Michigan region should be differentiated from the regional ozone transport that is experienced elsewhere in the country. The degree of ozone transport impact on coastal monitors a few miles from the water's edge is truly overwhelming . West Michigan's transport occurs as distinct plume that grows in intensity, despite the lack of added emissions, as the air mass travels across the lake. The widespread, diffuse regional transport that is considered to be background ozone experienced throughout the eastern United States adds to the huge local loading of pollution in large cities, as seen in the Northeast where population densities are extremely high. Local emission reductions occurring downwind from the violating monitors in West Michigan have been shown to be ineffective in reducing the design values. The MDEQ recommends a designation of attainment for Kent County, and the three new counties in the newly defined Grand Rapids MSA. See Figure 3, page 10. The outlying counties barely q ualified for inclusion in the MSA with commuting levels slightly above the 25% threshold. Barry County is at 25.8%, Ionia County is at 26.6%, and Newaygo County is at 26.7%. These three new counties do not have ozone monitors, and emissions and population numbers are low.

Justification for the Exclusion of Cass from the South Bend Mishawaka MSA The county of Cass is part of the South Bend Mishawaka MSA; however, it is the downwind county that will experience air quality improvements as reductions are made in the more urbanized upwind region. Only 5,002 Cass County residents   less than 10% of the county's population   live in the South Bend urbanized area. Fewer than Page 7 15% of Cass County's workers commute to Saint Joseph County, Indiana. However, Cass County qualifies as a central county of the South Bend MSA because it meets the criterion of having at least 5,000 residents in a single urban area of at least 10,000 population. The South Bend urbanized area surpasses the 50,000 population threshold, so its associated counties are metropolitan rather than micropolitan. Because of the low population density, low commuting patterns within the MSA, separate state governments and SIPs, and the prevailing winds from the southwest, Cass County should be excluded from the South Bend Mishawaka MSA, and be designated as an independent nonattainment area.

Recommendation of Separate Nonattainment Areas for Benzie and Mason Counties Benzie and Mason counties are located on the western shore of Lake Michigan. These counties are subjected to overwhelming transport of ozone over Lake Michigan from the southwest. As shown in Table 1 below, these counties have a very low population, and very few sources of VOC and NOx emissions. For these reasons, Michigan is recommending these counties be designated as separate nonattainment areas.

Table 1 West Michigan Population County 1990 Census Estimated 2000 Allegan 90,509 102,600 Kent 500,631 553,500 Muskegon 158,983 166,400 Ottawa 187,768 229,800 Barry 50,057 54,600 Ionia 57,024 61,300 Newaygo 38,206 46,600 Berrien 161,378 162,300 Cass 49,477 49,800 Mason 25,537 27,300 Benzie 12,200 14,500 Office of State Demographer: Michigan Information Center, January 1996 Page 8 Table 2 NOx Emissions ( Tons/ Yr) County Point Area Non road On road Total % of Total Allegan 934.82 573.40 1348.10 4680.73 7537.05 7 % Kent 1133.67 3124.08 4514.99 15982.09 24754.83 24 % Muskegon 6781.08 859.80 1665.98 4701.03 14007.89 14 % Ottawa 36680.13 132.03 2304.79 7795.32 47912.26 47 % Barry 21.42 219.10 434.03 1368.40 2042.94 2 % Ionia 38.22 215.53 580.41 2652.03 3486.19 3 % Newaygo 46.01 279.42 288.87 1127.59 1741.88 2 % TOTAL 45635.35 6403.35 11137.17 38307.18 101483.05 100 %

Table 3 VOC Emissions ( Tons/ Yr) County Point Area Non road On road Total % of Total Allegan 1729.63 3780.12 1882.94 2551.83 9944.51 12 % Kent 4506.39 15318.71 3862.95 12259.31 35947.36 44 % Muskegon 656.18 4307.07 1739.97 3322.44 10025.67 12 % Ottawa 1640.27 5882.60 2484.41 5085.62 15092.89 19 % Barry 89.53 1774.19 710.30 771.85 3345.87 4 % Ionia 109.51 1970.81 476.33 1371.10 3927.75 5 % Newaygo 124.11 1656.61 498.68 612.042 2891.82 4 % TOTAL 8855.62 34690.10 11655.58 25974.56 81175.87 100 %

* Non road and On road emissions totals taken from EPA Final 1999 NEI, Ver. 2. Posted November 2002. Area emission totals taken from EPA Draft 1999 NEI, Ver. 3. Posted March 2003. Point emissions totals taken from MDEQ MAERS 1999 Point Source Inventory. Page 9 Recommended 8 Hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas in West Michigan Muskegon Norton Shores MSA* ° Muskegon Holland Grand Haven MSA* ° Ottawa Allegan Micropolitan Statiscial Area* ° Allegan Benzie Mason Cass Berrien Figure 2 Recommended 8 hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas in West Michigan Page 10 Recommended 8 hour Ozone Attainment Area Grand Rapids MSA*

° Newaygo ° Kent ° Ionia ° Barry Figure 3 Recommended 8 hour Ozone Attainment Area Page 11 Prevailing Winds Demonstrating Transport into West Michigan Ozone roses depict the correlation between wind direction and elevated ozone concentrations ( above 70 parts per billion [ pbb]) at several West Michigan monitoring sites. The roses show that these sites observe the highest ozone concentrations when the wind is out of the southwest.

Figure 4 Holland 2001 Page 12 Figure 5 Holland 2002 Page 13 Figure 6 Jenison 2001 Page 14 Figure 7 Jenison 2002 Page 15 Figure 8 Grand Rapids 2001 Page 16 Figure 9 Grand Rapids 2002 Page 17 Figure 10 Evans 2001 Page 18 Figure 11 Evans 2002 Page 19 Southeast Michigan A nonattainment designation for Southeast Michigan area is warranted. The MDEQ recommends that the nonattainment area boundaries for the for the 8 hour ozone standard remain the same seven counties of Wayne, Oakland, Macomb, St. Clair, Livingston, Washtenaw, and Monroe that comprise the current 1 hour ozone attainment area. These counties also coincide with the Metropolitan Planning Organization ( MPO) boundaries for the region. The existing jurisdictional boundaries for the MPO, SEMCOG, for air quality and transportation planning should not be altered at this time. Past air quality planning has been effective in this region with the existing boundary. The Southeast Michigan area was one of the first major metropolitan areas to reach attainment of the 1 hour ozone standard. A new ambient air quality standard already requires extensive work for states and local areas. There is no compelling reason to further burden the MPOs with the added complications inherent in expanding boundaries. The State of Michigan can require ozone precursor controls on sources outside of nonattainment areas, if needed, except in cases where there is a federal prohibition.

The other three counties in the Detroit Ann Arbor Flint CMSA, Genesee, Lapeer, and Lenawee, should be designated separately. Page 20 8 Hour Ozone Designation Recommendations for the Southeast Michigan Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area ( CMSA)

Wayne Monroe Lenawee Washtenaw Oakland Livingston Macomb St. Clair Genesee Lapeer SEMCOG Region Map 1 1999 Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area for Southeast Michigan Page 21 Monitor > than 0.08 ppm Attainment Nonattainment Nonattainment Wayne Monroe Lenawee Washtenaw Oakland Livingston Macomb St. Clair Genesee Lapeer Monitor < than 0.08 ppm Note: Based on monitoring data for 2000, 2001, and 2002. Map 2 Recommended 8 Hour Ozone Designations for the Southeast Michigan CMSA Tecumseh Ypsilanti Allen Park Linwood East Seven Mile New Haven Port Huron Otisville Flint Oak Park Warren Page 22 Counties Outside the 1999 CMSA The EPA should not include any counties outside of the Southeast Michigan CMSA in its 8 hour ozone designation. Because the surrounding counties either have differing meteorological conditions or a much smaller population and urban area than Detroit, these surrounding counties have very few connections to Southeast Michigan, both in terms of air quality management or transportation planning.

Justification for the Exclusion of Lenawee County Lenawee County, located upwind of the Detroit area, is mostly rural in character and contributes little to the emissions of the Detroit region. The Tecumseh monitor in Lenawee County, has a 2000 2002 design value of .085, so a nonattainment designation is recommended. However, the MDEQ strongly urges EPA to designate Lenawee County as a separate nonattainment area from the seven county recommended nonattainment boundary for Southeast Michigan ( see Map 2, page 21). Lenawee County is likely to reach attainment levels of ozone long before the Detroit region and it should not be burdened with a nonattainment designation long after the county meets the standard, as it would be if included in the Southeast Michigan nonattainment area. Furthermore, Lenawee County is no longer even considered part of the 2000 Combined Statistical Area for Southeast Michigan, according to the U. S. Census. Existing MPO boundaries in Southeast Michigan also need to be considered, since Lenawee County is not part of the existing SEMCOG MPO boundary.

Emissions and air quality Lenawee County comprises only 1.2% and 2.1% of the total NOx and volatile organic compound ( VOC) emissions, respectively, in the Southeast Michigan 1999 CMSA ( Tables 4 and 5, page 28). There is no evidence that reducing Lenawee County's small emissions contribution will reduce 8 hour ozone violations in the Detroit area. Violations of 8 hour ozone in Lenawee County, which is located upwind of the Detroit area, are likely due to ozone transport.

Population density and degree of urbanization including commercial development The 2000 population density of Lenawee County is low at 131.8 persons per square mile ( Table 6, page 29). This is significantly different than Monroe County, which is adjacent to Lenawee, and has a population density of 264.8 persons per square mile. In addition, the 2000 population of Lenawee County represents only 1.8% of the total Southeast Michigan 1999 CMSA population ( Table 7, page 29). The largest metropolitan area in Lenawee County is the city of Adrian, which has 21,574 people according to the 2000 U. S. Census.

Lenawee County is not very urbanized. More than half of the population resides in the rural area ( Table 8a, page 30). In addition, forest and farmla nd account for 81% of the land use according to the Natural Resource Conservation Service. Page 23 Monitoring data There is one ozone monitor in Lenawee County in the city of Tecumseh, which has a 2000 2002 design value of .085 ( Table 9, page 30). This monitor was placed there for the sole purpose of measuring upwind ozone concentrations for the Detroit area. Since 1990, the Tecumseh monitor has recorded only two violations of the 8 hour ozone standard, one in the 1994 1996 period, and the other in the 2000 2002 period. Because this monitor is upwind of the Detroit area in a county that is mostly rural in character, ozone transport is likely the reason for high ozone levels at the Tecumseh site. Therefore, Lenawee County's control strategy will likely be much different than that of the Detroit area.

Location of emission sources There are only two major stationary sources of NOx emissions in Lenawee County ( Map 3, page 37). Surrounding counties in the CMSA have at least double that amount. ( A map of VOC emissions is not available because VOC emissions are not specified into particular grid cells in the DEQ's photochemical modeling process.)

Traffic and commuting patterns Lenawee County contributes only 2% and 1.6% of NOx and VOC on road mobile emissions in the total CMSA ( Tables 4 and 5, page 28). The vehicle miles traveled ( VMT) in Lenawee County is projected to increase by 28.5% from 2000 to 2025, a rate of 1.1% per year. By 2025, only 1.8% of the CMSA's total VMT will be attributed to Lenawee County ( Table 10, page 31).

According to the county to county worker flow data from the 2000 U. S. Census, a small percentage of Lenawee County's workers, 21.8%, commute to the seven county SEMCOG region. These workers comprise only 0.5% of the work force in the sevencounty SEMCOG region ( Table 11a, page 32).

Expected growth Little growth occurred from 1990   2000 in Lenawee County and little growth is expected in future years, both in terms of population and employment. From 1990 2000, the rate of population g rowth was 0.74% per year ( Table 7, page 29). From 2000 to 2020, the population of Lenawee County will increase by 6.9%, a reduction in the rate of growth to 0.33% per year ( Table 12a, page 33). Like the population projections, employment projections show an increase of only 7.2% from 2000 to 2020, a rate of 0.34% per year ( See Table 13, page 34).

Meteorology As shown in the wind rose for Detroit on page 35, Lenawee County's dominant summer winds are from the south and southwest. Detroit is not contributing to Lenawee County's nonattainment problem, and given the information listed in these factors, Lenawee County is not a significant contributor to Detroit's nonattainment problem. Therefore, including them in the same designation boundary is not recommended.

High ozone concentrations in the Detroit area occur downwind of Lenawee County when winds are from the southwest. These winds transport ozone precursors over Page 24 Lakes Erie, Huron, and St. Clair, where ozone forms in the sunlight. It is a common occurrence for the winds to turn southeasterly, creating a lake effect, and pushing high ozone concentrations onshore. This lake effect ozone is typically measured at the Detroit urban monitors, and the downwind monitors in New Haven and Port Huron.

Geography/ topography There are no mountain ranges, air basins, or significant lake effects that need to be considered in Lenawee County.

Jurisdictional boundaries Lenawee County is not a part of SEMCOG's planning boundary or the 1 hour ozone attainment boundary. Including Lenawee County in the seven county recommended nonattainment area, that is, the SEMCOG region, would unnecessarily complicate transportation planning and conformity analyses and provide little air quality benefit for the Detroit area and Lenawee County. The coordination of work between SEMCOG and the Jackson MPO, of which Lenawee County is a member, would be an enormous undertaking with minimal air quality benefit because Lenawee County is neither a major contributor to Detroit's emissions nor a major receptor of Detroit's emissions.

Another item to note is that neither Lenawee County nor any of the other surrounding counties in the Detroit region will be ignored when planning for the new air quality standards. When evaluating ozone levels in the Detroit region, the Tecumseh monitor in Lenawee County is always involved in order to gain a better understanding of upwind ozone concentrations. Furthermore, as stated earlier, the State of Michigan can require emission reductions outside the nonattainment area if needed.

Level of control of emission sources The State of Michigan has historically applied many air quality rules statewide. The State of Michigan can require ozone precursor controls on sources outside of nonattainment areas, if needed, except in cases where there is a federal prohibition. State rules for Reasonably Available Control Technology are applicable statewide.

Regional emission reductions All major NOx sources in the 1999 Southeast Michigan CMSA are subject to NOx SIP call requirements.

Justification for the Exclusion of Genesee and Lapeer Counties Both Genesee and Lapeer counties are located northwest of Detroit. Genesee County's current 1 hour ozone designation boundary should be expanded to include Lapeer County, which is experiencing relatively high growth in both population and VMT. However, Genesee and Lapeer counties should be designated separately from the seven county Detroit region ( Map 2, page 21) for the following reasons:

· Genesee and Lapeer counties neither receive significant emissions from the Detroit region, nor contribute significant emissions to the Detroit region, and · Existing MPO and 1 hour ozone designation boundaries already in existence for Genesee County and the Detroit region should not be altered. Page 25 Emissions and air quality Together Genesee and Lapeer counties contribute 7.2% and 11.5% of the total NOx and VOC emissions, respectively, in the 1999 CMSA ( Tables 4 and 5, page 28). Because prevailing winds in this area are from the southwest, the seven county Detroit region is not a major contributor of emissions to the Genesee/ Lapeer area and vice versa.

Population density and degree of urbanization including commercial development The population density of Genesee County is moderately high at 681.9 persons per square mile, but the population of Genesee County comprises only 8% of the total 1999 CMSA population ( Table 6 and Table 7, page 29). Forty five point eight percent ( 45.8%) of Genesee County's population resides in the urban area ( Table 8c, page 30).

According to the 2000 U. S. Census, Genesee County is the 2000 Flint MSA, and a majority of the county is urbanized area as shown in Map 3, page 37. The urbanized area for the seven county Detroit region is shown in Map 4, page 38. The Detroit urbanized area does have outlying areas that are close to Genesee County, but the urbanized area is centered around Detroit.

Lapeer County is a rural area. It has a low population density of 134.4 persons per square mile and comprises only 1.6% of the total 1999 CMSA population ( Tables 6 and 7, page 29). Only 23.9% of the population lives in the urban area ( Table 8b, page 30). Lapeer County is expected to grow in future years, however, as discussed later in this analysis.

Monitoring data Genesee County has two ozone monitors; one is in Flint and the other is in Otisville. The Flint and Otisville monitors are measuring attainment of the 8 hour ozone standard with a design value of .084 for 2000 2002 ( Table 9, page 30). If the design value of the 2001 2003 ozone data is above the standard, then a nonattainment designation is recommended. The issue is not whether an attainment or nonattainment designation is given for Genesee and Lapeer counties, but that they should be given separate designations from the seven county Detroit region.

There are no ozone monitors in Lapeer County.

Location of emission sources Thirteen major stationary sources of NOx emissions are located in Genesee County. Most of these facilities are located in the central and northern portion of the county and are thus fairly removed from the seven county area.

There are only four major stationary sources of NOx emissions in Lapeer County.

Traffic and commuting patterns Genesee County contributes 9.4% and 9.3% of the NOx and VOC on road mobile emissions, respectively, in the 1999 CMSA ( Tables 4 and 5, page 28). The VMT is Page 26 projected to increase by 29.1% from 2000 to 2025, a stable rate of 1.1% per year. By 2025, Genesee County is expected to account for 9.5% of the total VMT in the 1999 CMSA ( Table 10, page 31). The county to county worker flow data shows that only 16.3% of Genesee County's workers commute to the seven county recommended nonattainment area. This represents a mere 1.4% of the workers i n the seven county area ( Table 11a, page 32).

Lapeer County contributes 2.7% and 1.9% of the on road mobile NOx and VOC emissions, respectively, in the 1999 CMSA ( Tables 4 and 5, page 28). The 2000 2025 projection of VMT growth for Lapeer County, however, is the largest in the region at 43%, a rate of 1.7% per year even though Lapeer County is projected to contribute only 2% of the VMT in the 1999 CMSA by 2025 ( Table 10, page 31). According to worker flow data from the U. S. Census, 40.7% of Lapeer County's workers commute to the seven county region; however, these workers comprise only 0.7% of the work force in the seven county region ( Table 11a, page 32).

Expected growth Genesee County has a rather high population density and a large urban area. The expected population and emplo yment growth, however, is quite low. From 1990 2000, Genesee County's growth rate was 0.12% per year ( Table 7, page 29). From 2000 2020, Genesee County's population is projected to increase by 5.3%, a rate of just 0.25% per year ( Table 12a, page 33). Employment projections for Genesee County are higher than the population projections, but this growth rate is still relatively low. From 2000 2020, total employment will increase by 13.4%, a rate of 0.64% per year ( Table 13, page 34).

In direct contrast to Genesee County, Lapeer County has a rather high population growth rate of 1.6% per year from 1990 2000, second only to Livingston County ( Table 7). From 2000 2020, the population growth rate is expected to increase 21.2%, a rate of 1% per year and the fourth highest in the 1999 CMSA ( Table 12a, page 33). The 2000 2020 total employment projection for Lapeer County is comparable with the employment projection for Genesee County. An increase of 12.6% is expected during this time frame, a rate of 0.6% per year ( Table 13, page 34).

Meteorology A wind rose for Flint, the major city in Genesee County, for April through September 2002 shows that the winds are mainly from the South and Southwest ( Wind Rose 2, page 36). This southwesterly wind flow is similar to Detroit's wind patterns. In other words, Genesee and Lapeer counties, located northwest of Detroit, are neither major contributors nor major receptors of emissions from the Detroit region.

On occasion, however, the two Genesee County monitors measure elevated ozone levels when winds are from the southeast Detroit region. Emission reductions will occur in the seven county Detroit region and can be expected to slightly benefit air quality in these two counties as well. Page 27 Geography/ topography There are no mountain ranges, air basins, or significant lake effects that need to be considered in either Genesee or Lapeer counties.

Jurisdictional boundaries Existing one  hour ozone designation boundaries coincide with the Flint and Detroit MPO boundaries in the region ( Map 5, page 39). Genesee County is the jurisdictional MPO boundary for the Genesee County Metropolitan Planning Commission ( GCMPC). The MPO for the Detroit region, SEMCOG, consists of the seven county recommended nonattainment area for Detroit: Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, St. Clair, Washtenaw, and Wayne counties. These existing MPO jurisdictional boundaries are another reason to have separate designation boundaries for Genesee and Lapeer Counties and the seven county Detroit region. The GCMPC and SEMCOG have distinct procedures in place for conformity analyses and transportation planning that would become unnecessarily complicated if the two areas were included in the same designation boundary.

While the jurisdictional boundary fo r the GCMPC does not include Lapeer County, the 8 hour designation boundary should include both counties because of the high amount of growth that is occurring in Lapeer County. In addition, Genesee and Lapeer counties already coordinate work on several transportation and non transportation related items, primarily due to their membership on the Genesee, Lapeer, and Shiawassee Region V Planning and Development Commission ( GLS Region V PDC). The transportation work that is coordinated through GLS Region V PDC includes:

· Traffic counts; · Highway Performance Monitoring System ( HPMS) work; · The Asset Management program; · MDOT ( Michigan Department of Transportation) Enhancement, Bridge, and Safety Applications; · The regional Rideshare program; and · The Regional Transit Study, which addressed interregional public transportation needs.

The non transportation related work performed by the GLS Region V PDC includes reviewing applications that are eventually submitted to agencies such as the Michigan Department of Natural Resources ( MDNR), the Michigan State Housing Development Authority ( MSHDA), and the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ( HUD). An air quality designation that links these two counties and builds on their existing relationships is more reasonable than including Lapeer County with the Detroit region's designation.

It should be noted that having separate designation boundaries in Southeast Michigan does not mean that there will be no coordination on air quality planning with the various groups located in the 1999 CMSA. The MDEQ, SEMCOG, and the GCMPC are well aware that effective air quality planning must consider surrounding counties, and efforts are currently underway to better understand the nature of 8 hour ozone violations in the entire area. Page 28 Level of control of emission sources The State of Michigan has historically applied many air quality rules statewide. The State of Michigan can require ozone precursor controls on sources outside of nonattainment areas, if needed, except in cases where there is a federal prohibition. State rules for Reasonably Available Control Technology are applicable statewide.

Regional controls All major NOx sources in the 1999 Southeast Michigan CMSA are subject to NOx SIP call requirements.

Table 4 NOx Emissions in Southeast Michigan CMSA ( Tons/ Yr)

COUNTY NOx  Point NOX  Area NOx  Non road NOx  On road NOx Total % of Total Genesee 2,184.17 1,545.10 2,515.95 14,512.77 20,757.99 5.7 Lapeer 22.86 151.75 1,156.44 4,241.33 5,572.38 1.5 Lenawee 118.16 217.12 1,079.36 3,089.57 4,504.21 1.2 Livingston 437.00 361.92 962.45 6,493.80 8,255.17 2.3 Macomb 5,126.40 2,279.34 6,180.68 19,053.01 32,639.43 9.0 Monroe 59,586.38 239.12 2,488.37 5,647.02 67,960.89 18.7 Oakland 1,117.08 3,865.95 7,767.84 30,315.55 43,066.42 11.9 St. Clair 40,577.46 305.38 3,911.48 6,880.01 51,674.33 14.2 Washtenaw 1,170.42 986.83 2,353.54 10,278.74 14,789.53 4.1 Wayne 38,500.28 4,230.14 17,116.01 54,125.94 113,972.37 31.4 TOTAL 148,840.21 14,182.65 45,532.12 154,637.74 363,192.72 100 Table 5 VOC Emissions in Southeast Michigan CMSA ( Tons/ Yr)

COUNTY VOC  Point VOC  Area VOC  Non road VOC  On road VOC Total % of Total Genesee 2,600.21 9,180.23 1,830.99 10,834.21 24,445.64 8.8 Lapeer 1,976.72 2,632.82 806.54 2,170.14 7,586.22 2.7 Lenawee 389.92 2,908.34 648.97 1,892.93 5,840.16 2.1 Livingston 315.74 3,594.28 826.11 3,458.23 8,194.36 2.9 Macomb 3,028.18 14,261.43 4,223.56 15,330.55 36,843.72 13.3 Monroe 6,327.63 2,928.51 1,089.69 3,285.19 13,631.02 4.9 Oakland 5,002.95 20,881.09 8,173.13 23,394.86 57,452.03 20.7 St. Clair 1,209.83 3,794.91 1,009.63 4,155.79 10,170.16 3.7 Washtenaw 633.36 6,357.58 3,043.21 7,200.19 17,234.34 6.2 Wayne 8,707.12 35,437.55 7,783.49 44,716.79 96,644.95 34.8 TOTAL 30,191.66 101,976.74 29,435.32 116,438.88 278,042.60 100 Source for Tables 1 and 2: EPA's Final 1999 NEI version 2, posted November 2002 Page 29 Table 6 Population Density County 2000 Pop./ sq. mi.

Livingston 276.1 Macomb 1,640.5 Monroe 264.8 Oakland 1,368.6 St. Clair 226.7 Washtenaw 454.8 Wayne 3,356.1 Genesee 681.9 Lapeer 134.4 Lenawee 131.8 Source: U. S. Census Table 7 Population of the Southeast Michigan CMSA, 1990 2000 County 1990 Population 2000 Population Population Change Growth Rate (%/ yr) Percent of 2000 Total Pop.

Livingston 115,645 156,951 41,306 3.25 2.9 Macomb 717,400 788,149 70,749 0.90 14.4 Monroe 133,600 145,945 12,345 0.84 2.7 Oakland 1,083,592 1,194,156 110,564 0.93 21.9 St. Clair 145,607 164,235 18,628 1.16 3.0 Washtenaw 282,937 322,895 39,958 1.28 5.9 Wayne 2,111,687 2,061,162  50,525  0.22 37.8 Genesee 430,459 436,141 5,682 0.12 8.0 Lapeer 74,768 87,904 13,136 1.60 1.6 Lenawee 91,476 98,890 7,414 0.74 1.8 Total 5,187,171 5,456,428 269,257 0.47 100 Source: U. S. Census Page 30 Table 8a Lenawee County 2000 Urban/ Rural Split Percentage # of persons in urban area 45,355 45.9 # of persons in rural area 53,535 54.1 TOTAL 98,890 100.0 Table 8b Lapeer county 2000 Urban/ Rural Split Percentage # of persons in urban area 21,038 23.9 # of persons in rural area 66,866 76.1 TOTAL 87,904 100.0 Table 8c Genesee County 2000 Urban/ Rural Split Percentage # of persons in urban area 45,250 45.8 # of persons in rural area 53,640 54.2 TOTAL 98,890 100.0 Table 9 2000 2002 8 Hour Ozone Monitoring Data for the Detroit Ann Arbor Flint CMSA Monitoring Site Purpose 2000 4th High ( ppm) 2001 4th High ( ppm) 2002 4th High ( ppm) Design Value ( ppm) Rounded Design Value ( ppm)

Allen Park Pop exp. 0.067 0.080 0.088 0.078 0.08 Detroit E. 7 Mile Max. conc. 0.080 0.092 0.083 0.085 0.09 Detroit Linwood Pop. exp. 0.077 0.087 0.092 0.085 0.09 Flint Pop. exp. 0.072 0.091 0.088 0.083 0.08 New Haven Max. conc. 0.075 0.095 0.095 0.088 0.09 Oak Park Pop. exp. 0.075 0.090 0.093 0.086 0.09 Otisville Max. conc. 0.074 0.091 0.089 0.084 0.08 Port Huron Pop. exp. 0.080 0.084 0.100 0.088 0.09 Tecumseh Backgrd. 0.082 0.086 0.089 0.085 0.09 Warren Max. conc. 0.077 0.094 0.092 0.087 0.09 Ypsilanti Pop. exp. 0.078 0.092 0.091 0.087 0.09 Note: The monitoring sites in bold type are violating the 8 hour ozone standard. Page 31 Table 10 Summer Daily VMT County Year Genesee Lapeer Lenawee 7 county area 2000 12,492,958 2,344,471 2,362,255 131,999,400 2005 13,361,936 2,578,147 2,506,136 137,029,200 2010 14,335,023 2,831, 985 2,684,798 141,041,600 2015 14,880,237 2,999,375 2,800,613 143,051,700 2020 15,578,700 3,188,047 2,901,403 144,612,400 2025 16,125,918 3,351,425 3,036,161 147,777,100 % Change 29.1 43.0 28.5 12.0 % of Total 2025 VMT 9.5 2.0 1.8 86.8 Source: 7 county area numbers are from SEMCOG's spring 2003 conformity analysis ( Transportation:/ Air_ Quality/ Win03). Numbers for Genesee, Lapeer, and Lenawee Counties provided by MDOT. Page 32 Table 11a Journey to Work Data from the 2000 U. S. Census County # of workers in county # of workers who drive to 7 county area % workers who drive to 7 county area % of workers in 7 county area from county*

Genesee 187,588 30,541 16.3 1.4 Lapeer 40,141 16,340 40.7 0.7 Lenawee 45,822 9,975 21.8 0.5 * The total number of workers in the 7 county SEMCOG area is 2,208,906.

Table 11b Journey to Work Data from the 2000 U. S. Census County # of workers in county # of workers who drive to 3 county area % workers who drive to 3 county area % of workers in 3 county area from county*

Livingston 79,729 3,102 3.9 1.1 Macomb 383,664 1,170 0.3 0.4 Monroe 68,835 823 1.2 0.3 Oakland 603,761 7,248 1.2 2.6 St. Clair 76,437 1,234 1.6 0.5 Washtenaw 169,169 1,249 0.7 0.5 Wayne 827,311 1,008 0.1 0.4 * The total number of workers in the 3 county area is 273,551. The 3 county area refers to Genesee, Lapeer, and Lenawee Counties. Page 33 Table 12a Population Projections for Lapeer, Lenawee, and Genesee Counties County 2000 Estimate 2005 2010 2015 2020 % Change Lapeer 88,306 93,052 96,460 101,226 107,041 21.2 Lenawee 99,039 100,568 101,347 103,077 105,849 6.9 Genesee 436,829 446,585 451,042 466,356 459,851 5.3 Source: April 2003 REMI Model ( Regional Economic Models, Inc.) results, provided by the University of Michigan and the Michigan Department of Transportation.

Table 12b Population Projections for 7 county SEMCOG region County 2000 Census 2005 2010 2015 2020 % Change Livingston 156,951 179,733 196,950 216,914 239,059 52.3 Macomb 788,149 811,251 830,143 851,415 876,371 11.2 Monroe 145,945 156,533 167,375 175,108 182,345 24.9 Oakland 1,194,156 1,229,625 1,258,206 1,288,922 1,309,461 9.7 St. Clair 164,235 171,312 176,795 185,608 192,626 17.3 Washtenaw 322,895 342,163 365,603 384,075 401,076 24.2 Wayne 2,061,162 2,046,588 2,038,012 2,027,915 2,015,793  2.2 Detroit 951,270 928,582 908,883 892,263 878,817  7.6 Balance Wayne 1,109,892 1,118,006 1,129,129 1,135,652 1,136,976 2.4 Source: 2030 Regional Development Forecast for Southeast Michigan, SEMCOG, October 2001 Page 34 Table 13 Projection of Total Employment for Southeast Michigan CMSA Year County 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 % Change Livingston 59,186 70,241 78,188 86,068 91,653 54.9 Macomb 383,308 398,577 411,534 424,620 430,008 12.2 Monroe 54,375 57,942 61,454 65,109 68,313 25.6 Oakland 910,441 961,096 1,016,875 1,058,697 1,076,435 18.2 St. Clair 64,531 66,228 70,456 73,694 76,191 18.1 Washtenaw 230,212 238,518 257,970 268,740 275,285 19.6 Wayne 971,127 987,745 994,590 1,005,996 1,016,710 4.7 Detroit 345,465 330,329 320,391 313,942 309,547  10.4 Balance Wayne 625,662 657,416 674,199 692,054 707,163 13.0 Genesee 177,477 178,758 184,623 190,766 201,247 13.4 Lapeer 49,937 53,573 55,147 55,495 56,226 12.6 Lenawee 50,880 53,405 54,325 54,428 54,568 7.2 Source: Numbers for SEMCOG region are taken from SEMCOG's 2030 Regional Development Forecast, October 2001. Genesee numbers are taken from the Genesee County 2025 Long Range Transportation Plan. Lapeer and Lenawee County's numbers are taken from the 2003 REMI model results, provided by the University of Michigan and MDOT. Page 35 Wind Rose 1   Detroit Page 36 Wind Rose 2   Flint Page 37 Map 3 Federal Urban Air Boundary for Genesee and Lapeer Counties Page 38 Map 4 Southeast Michigan Urbanized Area Page 39 Attainment Attainment No designation Wayne Monroe Lenawee Washtenaw Oakland Livingston Macomb St. Clair Genesee Lapeer Ozone Monitor Map 5 One Hour Ozone Designation Boundaries Southeast Michigan CMSA Page 40 VAN BUREN BERRIEN CASS ST. JOSEPH KALAMAZOO CALHOUN BARRY EATON INGHAM LIVINGSTON OAKLAND MACOMB MONROE WASHTENAW BRANCH HILLSDALE LENAWEE ALLEGAN JACKSON WAYNE MANISTEE MASON LAKE OSCEOLA WEXFORD OCEANA NEWAYGO MECOSTA CLARE GLADWIN MIDLAND BAY EMMET CHEBOYGAN PRESQUE ISLE ANTRIM OTSEGO MONTMORENCY ALPENA ALCONA OSCODA KALKASKA CRAWFORD BENZIE MISSAUKEE ROSCOMMON OGEMAW IOSCO HURON TUSCOLA SANILAC ST. CLAIR ISABELLA LEELANAU BARAGA DELTA IRON ALGER SCHOOLCRAFT LUCE CHIPPEWA MACKINAW GOGEBIC ONTONAGON HOUGHTON KEWEENAW MENOMINEE MARQUETTE CHARLEVOIX KENT OTTAWA MUSKEGON IONIA SHIAWASSEE GENESEE LAPEER CLINTON MONTCALM SAGINAW ARENAC 7 03 GRATIOT GRAND TRAVERSE DICKINSON MICHIGAN


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 228 (Tuesday, November 26, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64985-64987]
[FR Doc No: 2019-25605]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0667; Product Identifier 2019-NM-085-AD; Amendment
39-19791; AD 2019-22-12]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Airbus SAS Model A320-214, -216, -232, and -233 airplanes. This
AD was prompted by a report of undetected contacts between certain
harnesses of the common fuel quantity indicating system and the center
tank structure. This AD requires modification of the fasteners for
certain harness routings, as specified in a European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) AD, which is incorporated by reference. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective December 31, 2019.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 31,
2019.

ADDRESSES: For the material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this AD,
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, Transport Standards 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-2019-0667.

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-2019-
0667; 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 final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2018-0155, dated July 20, 2018
(``EASA AD 2018-0155'') (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A320-214, -216, -232, and -233
airplanes.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus SAS
Model A320-214, -216, -232, and -233 airplanes. The NPRM published in
the Federal Register on August 30, 2019 (84 FR 45690). The NPRM was
prompted by a report of undetected contacts between certain harnesses
of the common fuel quantity indicating system and the center tank
structure. The NPRM proposed to require modification of the fasteners
for certain harness routings.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to address undetected contacts between
certain harnesses of the common fuel quantity indicating system and the
center tank

structure, which could create, in case of a lightning strike with
chafing present, an ignition source inside the center fuel tank,
possibly resulting in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the
airplane. See the MCAI for additional background information.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The FAA has considered the comment
received. United Airlines had no objections to the NPRM.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment
received, and determined that air safety and the public interest
require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor
editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related IBR Material Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2018-0155 describes procedures for modification of the
fasteners for harness routings 17QT and 18QT.
    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.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 5 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 work-hours x $85 per hour = $425...........................            $200             $625           $3,125
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and
associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will 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 that this AD:
    (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.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 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):

2019-22-12 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-19791; Docket No. FAA-2019-0667;
Product Identifier 2019-NM-085-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective December 31, 2019.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus SAS Model A320-214, -216, -232, and -
233 airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2018-0155, dated July 20,
2018 (``EASA AD 2018-0155'').

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 92, Electrical
system installation.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of undetected contacts between
certain harnesses of the common fuel quantity indicating system and
the center tank structure. The FAA is issuing this AD to address
undetected contacts between certain harnesses of the common fuel
quantity indicating system and the center tank structure, which
could create, in case of a lightning strike with chafing present, an
ignition source inside the center fuel tank, possibly resulting in a
fuel tank explosion and consequent loss 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 2018-0155.

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2018-0155

    (1) Where EASA AD 2018-0155 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2018-0155 does not apply
to this AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards 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) 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, International
Section, Transport Standards 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 2018-0155 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.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2018-0155, dated
July 20, 2018.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For information about EASA AD 2018-0155, 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.
    (4) You may view this material at the FAA, Transport Standards
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-
2019-0667.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on November 6, 2019.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-25605 Filed 11-25-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: October 6, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 193)]
[Notices]
[Page 58396]
[DOCID:fr06oc05-66]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EL03-59-003, IN03-10-000, PA02-2-000]

Reliant Energy Services, Inc. et al.; Notice of Filing

September 28, 2005.
    Take notice that on September 7, 2005, Reliant Energy Services,
Inc., Reliant Energy Coolwater, Inc., Reliant Energy Ellwood, Inc.,
Reliant Energy Etiwanda, Inc., Reliant Energy Mandalay, Inc., and
Reliant Energy Ormond Beach, Inc. (collectively, Reliant) filed a
motion for confirmation of waiver and modification of Article IV,
section 4 of the Stipulation and Consent Agreement approved by the
Commission in the above-referenced proceedings.
    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. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    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 online 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 October 5, 2005.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-5505 Filed 10-5-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 152 (Monday, August 8, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52449-52450]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18716]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2016-D-2319]

Ulcerative Colitis: Clinical Trial Endpoints; Draft Guidance for
Industry; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled ``Ulcerative
Colitis: Clinical Trial Endpoints.'' The purpose of this guidance is to
assist sponsors in the clinical development of drugs for the treatment
of ulcerative colitis (UC) in adult and pediatric patients.
Specifically, this guidance addresses FDA's current thinking regarding
efficacy endpoints for UC clinical trials.

DATES: Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this
draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the
guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft
guidance by October 7, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of
Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2016-D-2319 for ``Ulcerative Colitis: Clinical Trial Endpoints;
Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability.'' Received comments will be
placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential
Submissions,'' publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at
the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not
wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available,
you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body
of your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to
the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave.,
Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one
self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your
requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the draft guidance document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Bugin, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 5232, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-2302.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry
entitled ``Ulcerative Colitis: Clinical Trial Endpoints.'' The purpose
of this draft guidance is to assist sponsors in the clinical
development of drugs for the treatment of UC in adult and pediatric
patients. Specifically, this draft guidance addresses FDA's current
thinking regarding efficacy endpoints for UC clinical trials.
    UC is a chronic, relapsing disease characterized by diffuse mucosal
inflammation of the colon. UC involves the rectum and it may extend
proximally in a contiguous pattern to affect part of the colon or the
entire colon. Clinical manifestations of active disease include bloody
diarrhea (with or without mucus), urgency, tenesmus, abdominal pain,
weight loss, fever, and malaise. In patients with extensive or severe
inflammation, acute complications such as severe bleeding and toxic
megacolon may occur. There is an increased risk of colorectal cancer in
UC patients compared to the general population; risk factors include
long duration of disease, extensive colonic involvement, severe
inflammation and epithelial dysplasia, and childhood-onset disease. The
signs and symptoms of UC in adults and children are similar; however,
abdominal pain, disease involving the entire colon, extra-intestinal
manifestations, proctitis (among girls), and disease severity
necessitating colectomy are more common in children.
    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when
finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on clinical trial
endpoints for UC. It does not establish any rights for any person and
is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative
approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes
and regulations.

II. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information that are subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR parts 312 and 314 have
been approved under OMB control numbers 0910-0014 and 0910-0001,
respectively.

IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidance
at either http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: August 3, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-18716 Filed 8-5-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 211 (Tuesday, November 1, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67435-67436]
[FR Doc No: 2011-28260]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0523; FRL-9485-7]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; Continuous Release Reporting
Regulations (CRRR) Under CERCLA 1980 (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that an Information
Collection Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an
existing approved collection. The ICR, which is abstracted below,
describes the nature of the information collection and its estimated
burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before December 1,
2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2011-0523, to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov,
(our preferred method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by
mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code
28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB
by mail to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th
Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynn M. Beasley, Regulation and Policy
Development Division, Office of Emergency Operations, (5104A),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 564-2625; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On June 28, 2011 (76 FR 37809), EPA sought comments on this
ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any
additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB
within 30 days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0523, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Superfund
Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room
is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-
1744, and the telephone number for the Superfund Docket is (202) 566-
0276.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA
receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, confidential business information (CBI), or other
information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For
further information about the electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.
    Title: Continuous Release Reporting Regulations (CRRR) under CERCLA
1980 (Renewal).
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 1445.11, OMB Control No. 2050-0086.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2011.
Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor
the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: Section 103(a) of CERCLA, as amended, requires the person
in charge of a vessel or facility to immediately notify the National
Response Center (NRC) of a hazardous substance release into the
environment if the amount of the release equals or exceeds the
substance's reportable quantity (RQ). The RQ of every hazardous
substance can be found in Table 302.4 of 40 CFR 302.4.
    Section 103(f)(2) of CERCLA provides facilities relief from this
per-occurrence notification requirement if the hazardous substance
release at or above the RQ is continuous and stable in quantity and
rate. Under the Continuous Release Reporting Requirements (CRRR), to
report such a release as a continuous release you must make an

initial telephone call to the NRC, submit an initial written report to
the EPA Region, and, if the source and chemical composition of the
continuous release does not change and the level of the continuous
release does not significantly increase, submit a follow-up written
report to the EPA Region one year after submission of the initial
written report. If the source or chemical composition of the previously
reported continuous release changes, notifying the NRC and EPA Region
of a change in the source or composition of the release is required.
Further, a significant increase in the level of the previously reported
continuous release must be reported immediately to the NRC according to
section 103(a) of CERCLA. Finally, any change in information submitted
in support of a continuous release notification must be reported to the
EPA Region.
    The reporting of a hazardous substance release that is equal to or
above the substance's RQ allows the Federal government to determine
whether a Federal response action is required to control or mitigate
any potential adverse effects to public health or welfare or the
environment.
    The continuous release of hazardous substance information collected
under CERCLA section 103(f)(2) is also available to EPA program offices
and other Federal agencies who use the information to evaluate the
potential need for additional regulations, new permitting requirements
for specific substances or sources, or improved emergency response
planning. State and local government authorities and facilities subject
to the CRRR use release information for purposes of local emergency
response planning. Members of the public, who have access to release
information through the Freedom of Information Act, may request release
information for purposes of maintaining an awareness of what types of
releases are occurring in different localities and what actions, if
any, are being taken to protect public health and welfare and the
environment.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 10.2
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: The usage and release of hazardous
substances are pervasive throughout industry. EPA expects a number of
different industrial categories to report hazardous substance releases
under the provisions of the CRRR. No one industry sector or group of
sectors is disproportionately affected by the information collection
burden.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 3,865.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 315,966.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $15,456,936 includes $146,705
annualized capital or O&M costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 14,625 hours in
the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of
Approved ICR Burdens. This increase reflects EPA's use of data on the
actual number of continuous release reports from several regions and
applying a growth rate consistent with prior years reporting. The
average annual percent increase in facilities in the previous ICR was
approximately 7.5%. The same percent increase was assumed for this ICR.
The unit burden hours per respondent information collection activity
remains the same as the previous ICR.

     Dated: October 25, 2011.
John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2011-28260 Filed 10-31-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 114 (Friday, June 12, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35928-35929]
[FR Doc No: 2020-12721]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1980-001.
    Applicants: Cedar Springs Wind, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Cedar Springs Wind, LLC Amendment to
MBR Application to be effective 8/3/2020.
    Filed Date: 6/5/20.
    Accession Number: 20200605-5232.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2008-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Mexico.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Limited Modifications to
Formula Rate Template to be effective 6/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 6/5/20.
    Accession Number: 20200605-5223.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2009-000.
    Applicants: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to Formula Rate
Template in Attachment M of OATT to be effective 7/15/2020.
    Filed Date: 6/5/20.
    Accession Number: 20200605-5231.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2010-000.
    Applicants: Horizon West Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Horizon West Transmission,
LLC Regulatory Asset Deferred Cost Filing to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 6/8/20.
    Accession Number: 20200608-5104.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/29/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2011-000.
    Applicants: New York Power Authority.
    Description: Request for Temporary Waiver, et al of the New York
Power Authority.
    Filed Date: 6/8/20.
    Accession Number: 20200608-5105.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/15/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2012-000.

    Applicants: Orbit Bloom Energy, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Orbit Bloom Energy, LLC
Application for MBR Authority to be effective 6/20/2020.
    Filed Date: 6/8/20.
    Accession Number: 20200608-5110.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/29/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2013-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of ISA No.
3608, Queue No. Y2-100 to be effective 6/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 6/8/20.
    Accession Number: 20200608-5135.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/29/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2014-000.
    Applicants: Rattlesnake Flat, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market-Based
Rate Authorization under Section 205 of the FPA to be effective 8/1/
2020.
    Filed Date: 6/8/20.
    Accession Number: 20200608-5160.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/29/20.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following public
utility holding company filings:

    Docket Numbers: PH20-12-000.
    Applicants: Nevada Gold Mines LLC, Nevada Gold Energy LLC.
    Description: Nevada Gold Mines LLC, et al. submits FERC 65-A
Updated Exemption Notification.
    Filed Date: 6/8/20.
    Accession Number: 20200608-5163.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/29/20.

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

    Dated: June 8, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-12721 Filed 6-11-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 81 (Wednesday, April 27, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24862-24863]
[FR Doc No: 2022-08894]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0914; Airspace Docket No. 21-ASO-10]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment and Establishment of Area Navigation (RNAV) Routes T-
354, and T-421; Eastern United States

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends area navigation (RNAV) route T-354, and
establishes RNAV route T-421 in the eastern United States. The changes
to the routes expand the availability of RNAV routing in support of
transitioning the National Airspace System (NAS) from ground-based to
satellite-based navigation.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, July 14, 2022. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11
and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Rules and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Rules and Regulations
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it modifies the route structure as necessary to preserve
the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the NAS.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No.
FAA-2021-00914, in the Federal Register (86 FR 60183; November 1,
2021), amending T-354 and establishing T-421. Interested parties were
invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written
comments on the proposal. One comment was received but it did not
address any specifics about the proposal.
    United States RNAV T-routes are published in paragraph 6011 of FAA
Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15,
2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The RNAV
routes listed in this document would be subsequently published in FAA
Order JO 7400.11.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations
and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September
15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F lists Class
A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by amending RNAV route T-354, and
establishing T-421 as described below.
    T-354: T-354 currently extends between the BYZIN, MN, waypoint (WP)
and the Cunningham, KY, (CNG) VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/
DME). This action extends T-354 southward from the Cunningham VOR/DME
to the Dyersburg, TN, (DYR) VOR Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC). The
amended T-354 overlies that portion of VOR Federal airway V-47 between
the Cunningham VOR/DME and the Dyersburg VORTAC. Additionally, due to
the planned VOR decommissioning, the Cunningham VOR/DME is replaced by
the MESSR, KY, WP (located 60 feet southwest of the Cunningham VOR/
DME), and the Dyersburg VORTAC is replaced by the HAUSS, TN, WP
(located 60 feet northeast of the Dyersburg VORTAC).
    T-421: T-421 is a new RNAV route that extends between the LYFEE,
AL, WP, and the HAGIE, AL, WP. T-421 overlies that portion of VOR
Federal airway V-7 between the Wiregrass, AL, (RRS) VORTAC, and the
Muscle Shoals, AL, (MSL) VORTAC. Due to the planned VOR
decommissioning, the Wiregrass VORTAC is replaced by the LYFEE WP
(located 60 feet northwest of the Wiregrass VORTAC) and the Muscle
Shoals VORTAC is replaced by the HAGIE WP (located 118 feet northwest
of the Muscle Shoals VORTAC).
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation
of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated,
does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action amending RNAV route T-354
and establishing RNAV route T-421, in support of efforts transitioning
the NAS from ground-based to satellite-based navigation, qualifies for
categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part
1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts:
Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes
from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that
designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and
reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D,
and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting
Points); and paragraph 5-

6.5b, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact
review ``Actions regarding establishment of jet routes and Federal
airways (see 14 CFR 71.15, Designation of jet routes and VOR Federal
airways) . . .''. As such, this action is not expected to result in any
potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA
Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the
FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a
normally categorically excluded action may have a significant
environmental impact requiring further analysis. Accordingly, the FAA
has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant
preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact
study.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10,
2021, and effective September 15, 2021, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6011 United States Area Navigation Routes.

* * * * *

T-354 BYZIN, MN to HAUSS, TN [Amended]

BYZIN, MN                                       WP                             (Lat. 47[deg]29'03.97'' N, long. 096[deg]13'28.09'' W)
Park Rapids, MN (PKD)                           DME                            (Lat. 46[deg]53'53.34'' N, long. 095[deg]04'15.21'' W)
BRNRD, MN                                       WP                             (Lat. 46[deg]20'53.81'' N, long. 094[deg]01'33.54'' W)
SSKYY, WI                                       WP                             (Lat. 45[deg]49'13.60'' N, long. 092[deg]22'28.26'' W)
TONOC, WI                                       Fix                            (Lat. 45[deg]03'47.56'' N, long. 091[deg]38'11.87'' W)
KOETZ, WI                                       WP                             (Lat. 44[deg]13'15.00'' N, long. 091[deg]28'14.00'' W)
HRMNN, WI                                       WP                             (Lat. 43[deg]55'32.51'' N, long. 090[deg]58'04.07'' W)
FOMAG, WI                                       WP                             (Lat. 43[deg]29'38.44'' N, long. 089[deg]46'09.53'' W)
MAYSE, WI                                       WP                             (Lat. 43[deg]10'14.18'' N, long. 089[deg]42'46.52'' W)
HOMRC, IL                                       WP                             (Lat. 41[deg]34'04.67'' N, long. 089[deg]30'20.55'' W)
CPTON, IL                                       WP                             (Lat. 41[deg]06'51.57'' N, long. 089[deg]11'58.93'' W)
BLLUE, IL                                       WP                             (Lat. 40[deg]07'09.20'' N, long. 088[deg]32'45.48'' W)
BOSTN, IL                                       WP                             (Lat. 39[deg]53'46.57'' N, long. 088[deg]26'18.96'' W)
Bible Grove, IL (BIB)                           VORTAC                         (Lat. 38[deg]55'13.24'' N, long. 088[deg]28'54.50'' W)
MESSR, KY                                       WP                             (Lat. 37[deg]00'30.44'' N, long. 088[deg]50'13.16'' W)
HAUSS, TN                                       WP                             (Lat. 36[deg]01'07.37'' N, long. 089[deg]19'03.41'' W)

                                                                      * * * * * * *
T-421 LYFEE, AL to HAGIE, AL [New]

LYFEE, AL                                       WP                             (Lat. 31[deg]17'05.04'' N, long. 085[deg]25'52.67'' W)
CLIOS, AL                                       Fix                            (Lat. 31[deg]41'34.39'' N, long. 085[deg]40'16.19'' W)
BANBI, AL                                       Fix                            (Lat. 31[deg]50'04.30'' N, long. 085[deg]45'35.30'' W)
ZOREL, AL                                       WP                             (Lat. 32[deg]26'31.62'' N, long. 086[deg]11'20.06'' W)
GUMMP, AL                                       WP                             (Lat. 33[deg]04'32.55'' N, long. 086[deg]37'06.44'' W)
VLKNN, AL                                       WP                             (Lat. 33[deg]40'12.47'' N, long. 086[deg]53'58.83'' W)
HAGIE, AL                                       WP                             (Lat. 34[deg]42'25.87'' N, long. 087[deg]29'29.76'' W)

* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 20, 2022.
Scott M. Rosenbloom,
Manager, Airspace Rules and Regulations.
[FR Doc. 2022-08894 Filed 4-26-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P