[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 197 (Wednesday, October 12, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70418-70419]
[FR Doc No: 2016-24613]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. TX16-3-000]

Jacumba Solar, LLC; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on September 27, 2016, pursuant to section 211 of
the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824j, and Part 36 of the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Regulations, 18 CFR part
36, Jacumba Solar, LLC submitted an application for an order directing
the provision of transmission service and request for expedited action.
    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. On or before the comment date, it
is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons
other than the Applicant.
    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 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on October 18, 2016.

    DATED: September 28, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-24613 Filed 10-11-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL (SAP)

 OPEN MEETING

JANUARY 9 - 12, 2007

FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/

OPP Docket Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

 Docket No.: EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0856

TUESDAY, JANUARY 9, 2007

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, One Potomac Yard, South Bldg.

Conference Center, Lobby Level

 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202

REVIEW OF WORKER EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT METHODS

8:30 A.M.	Introduction and Identification of Panel Members – Steven
Heeringa, Ph.D., FIFRA SAP Chair

8:40 A.M.	Administrative Procedures by Designated Federal Official –
Myrta R. Christian

8:45 A.M.	Opening Remarks – Tina Levine, Ph.D., Director, Health
Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA

8:55 A.M.	Introduction and Overview – Jeff Evans, Health Effects
Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA

9:20 A.M.	Historical Perspective – John Worgan, Health Canada, Pest
Management Regulatory Agency

10:00 A.M.	BREAK

10:15 A.M.	Case Study – Jeff Dawson, Health Effects Division, Office
of Pesticide Programs, EPA

11:45 A.M.	Issues Related to Antimicrobial Pesticides – Cassi Walls,
Ph.D, Antimicrobial Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA

12:00 P.M.	LUNCH

1:00 P.M.	AHETF Overview and Approach – AHETF Representatives Richard
H. Collier, Ph.D., Victor Canez, Ph.D, and Curt Lunchick

2:40 P.M.	AEATF Overview and Approach – AEATF Representative George
Hazelton, Ph.D

3:00 P.M.	BREAK

3:15 P.M.	Public comments

5:00 P.M.	ADJOURNMENT

FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL (SAP)

 OPEN MEETING

JANUARY 9 - 12, 2007

FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/

OPP Docket Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

 Docket No.: EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0856

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 10, 2007

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, One Potomac Yard, South Bldg.

Conference Center, Lobby Level

 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202

REVIEW OF WORKER EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT METHODS

8:30 A.M.	Introduction and Identification of Panel Members – Steven
Heeringa, Ph.D., FIFRA SAP Chair

8:35 A.M.	Administrative Procedures by Designated Federal Official –
Myrta R. Christian

8:40 A.M.	Follow-up from Previous Day’s Discussion – Jeff Dawson,
Jeff Evans, Health Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA

9:00 A.M.	Agency – Biological Monitoring/Passive Dosimetry Comparison
– Sheryl Beauvais Ph. D., California EPA, Department of Pesticide
Regulation

9:45 A.M. 	Agency Methods for Measuring Hand Exposure – Jeff Dawson,
Jeff Evans, Health Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA

10:15 A.M.	BREAK

10:30 A.M.	AHETF Comparison of Passive Dosimetry and Biological
Monitoring – AHETF Representatives John Ross, Ph.D Graham Chester,
Doug Baugher, Ph.D., Bruce Houtman and Curt Lunchick

12:00 P.M.	LUNCH

1:00 P.M.	Questions to the Panel

	1) Data Needs

EPA believes that many studies within our current database have
limitations.  In some

	cases, the Agency is lacking data to address modern pesticide
application equipment and techniques.  EPA believes that additional data
could significantly improve our ability to estimate and better
characterize the range of worker exposure with greater certainty.

	Please comment on these limitations and EPA’s conclusion that
additional data could improve significantly the Agency’s ability to
assess worker exposure.  Also, please comment on the selection criteria
proposed by the AHETF and AEATF in their respective submissions for
evaluating the extent to which existing data would meet EPA’s exposure
assessment needs.

2:30 P.M.	BREAK

2:45 P.M.	Panel Discussion (continued)

2) Passive Dosimetry Performance

The common approach for conducting dermal exposure monitoring studies
relies on the use of whole-body dosimetry, handwashing, and facial/neck
wipes.  In some cases, biological monitoring is also used as an
alternative method.  Exposure estimates in Agency risk assessments,
however, typically rely on “to the skin” measurements (i.e.,
potential dose) coupled with dermal absorption data or dermal toxicity
studies in order to calculate risks.  The Agency believes that these
methods are complementary and that they can provide appropriate
estimates for exposure assessment but that the results directly relate
to the reliability of the inputs used.  Please comment on the Agency’s
conclusion regarding passive dosimetry and biological monitoring,
including whether a systematic bias exists in either approach.

Based on the information presented, the Agency has particular concerns
over three specific aspects of how these studies are conducted including
(1) the possible need to correct for the efficiency of the handwashing
technique; (2) compensating for absorption of residues through the skin
during sample collection periods; and (3) the breakthrough of residues
under whole-body dosimeter garments. Please comment on the need to
systematically account for residue losses due to these potential method
biases.  If there is a need, please describe how these corrections
should be accomplished in a way that could reduce uncertainties in the
resulting exposure estimates.

4:15 P.M.	Panel Discussion (continued)

3) Passive Dosimetry vs. Biomonitoring

EPA believes that a comparison of exposure estimates derived from data
collected through biomonitoring with data collected through passive
dosimetry is the most appropriate way to assess the predictive nature of
a passive dosimetry-based approach for estimating worker exposure.
Please comment on the strengths and limitations of this kind of
comparison for judging the potential utility of passive dosimetry data
in conducting exposure assessments.

EPA has conducted such a comparison using available data and believes
that the

comparison shows sufficient concordance of estimates based on
biomonitoring data and passive dosimetry data to support the conclusion
that a passive dosimetry-based approach can generate data that can be
used to develop relatively predictive estimates of worker exposure for a
wide variety of scenarios and activities.  Please comment on the
adequacy of the analysis to support EPA’s conclusion.

5:30 P.M.	ADJOURNMENT

FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL (SAP)

 OPEN MEETING

JANUARY 9 - 12, 2007

FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/

OPP Docket Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

 Docket No.: EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0856

THURSDAY, JANUARY 11, 2007

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, One Potomac Yard, South Bldg.

Conference Center, Lobby Level

 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202

REVIEW OF WORKER EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT METHODS

8:30 A.M.	Introduction and Identification of Panel Members – Steven
Heeringa, Ph.D., FIFRA SAP Chair

8:35 A.M.	Follow-up from Previous Day’s Discussion – Jeff Dawson,
Jeff Evans, Health Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA

8:50 A.M.	Proportionality Between Exposure and Amount of Active
Ingredient Handled – Matthew Crowley, David J. Miller, Health Effects
Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA

10:00 P.M.	BREAK

10:15 A.M.	Statistical Basis for AHETF Data Development Program –
AHETF representatives Bryce Landenberger, Curt Lunchick and Larry
Holden, Ph.D

12:00 P.M.	LUNCH

1:00 P.M.	Questions to the Panel

4) Normalization of Exposure by Amount of Active Ingredient Handled
(AaiH)

The normalization of exposure by AaiH – the unit exposure – has,
since the mid-1980s, been the principle relationship underlying the use
of exposure data in the Agency's pesticide handler exposure assessments.
 It is based on the assumption that the two variables are proportional.
That is, if one doubles the amount of pesticide they handled or applied,
the resultant exposure will be doubled as well.

The Agency is unsure whether the results of our exploratory work showing
that proportionality between exposure and AaiH is reasonable in some but
not all cases, is a function of limitations of the data within PHED or
whether this relationship is in fact not a reasonable assumption for all
scenarios.  It may be the case that an additional ancillary variable
(e.g., boom length, # of tank mixes, or # de-couplings in a closed
loading system), in addition to or in place of AaiH, may improve the
predictive capabilities of our exposure model.

Though it is recognized that neither the studies in our current database
nor the proposed studies by the AHETF were designed for the primary
purpose of examining proportionality between exposure and AaiH or to
determine the extent to which other parameters influence exposure,
compared with our current database, the Agency believes that the
proposed AHETF studies will generate data that will reinforce the
assumption of proportionality between exposure and AaiH or,
alternatively, inform the applicability of another variable as a more
appropriate predictor of exposure.

Based on the themes presented on this topic including its historical
precedent, its application in risk assessment and subsequent risk
management decisions, the Agency’s exploratory work using the six PHED
scenarios in the case study, and the study design and objectives of the
AHETF, please comment on the assumption of proportionality between
exposure and AaiH, as a default.   Also, please provide comments on
whether the proposed AHETF study design is adequate to evaluate
proportionality between exposure and AaiH?  What other parameters should
AHETF study designs measure in order to improve the prediction
capabilities of our exposure model?

2:30 P.M.	BREAK

2:45 P.M.	Panel Discussion (continued)

5) Within-worker and Between-worker Variability

The proposed AHETF study design does not include true worker replicates
and is not intended to examine the issue of variability within workers.
The AHETF notes that to appropriately investigate this issue would
require significantly more sampling and resources.  They propose,
however, that their single-day exposure distribution results can be used
to evaluate longer term multiple day exposures by placing reasonable
limits on expected intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC):  they
indicate that, from their own research and review of the literature, the
ICC is likely to be between 0.3 and 0.5 over relatively short periods of
time (e.g., seasonal), and likely to be even lower over longer periods
of time.

Please comment on the AHETF’s approach to estimating the number of
samples (MU) needed to determine within worker variability and their
conclusion on the importance of measuring such variability in their
proposed studies.

4:15 P.M.	Defining the Scope of a Data Development Plan Designed to
Quantify Occupational Handler Exposures – David J Miller, Jeff Evans,
Health Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA

5:30 P.M.	ADJOURNMENT

FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL (SAP)

 OPEN MEETING

JANUARY 9 - 12, 2007

FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/

OPP Docket Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

 Docket No.: EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0856

FRIDAY, JANUARY 12, 2007

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, One Potomac Yard, South Bldg.

Conference Center, Lobby Level

 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202

REVIEW OF WORKER EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT METHODS

8:30 A.M.	Introduction and Identification of Panel Members – Steven
Heeringa, Ph.D., FIFRA SAP Chair

8:35 A.M.	Follow-up from Previous Day’s Discussion – Matthew
Crowley, David J Miller, Health Effects Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs, EPA

8:50 A.M.	AHETF Data Development Plan - Considerations – AHETF
representatives Victor Canez, Ph.D, Richard Collier, Ph.D, Bruce
Houtman, Curt Lunchick and Larry Holden, Ph.D

10:00 A.M.	BREAK

10:15 A.M.	Questions to the Panel

6) Sample Size: Number of Sites and Subjects per Scenario/Activity

The Agency’s goal is to ensure that monitoring studies rely on sample
sizes that adequately represent the range of exposure of people who
engage in a particular handler scenario and activity.  It is also
recognized that occupational monitoring studies are costly and have many
logistical obstacles.  The Agency is also concerned about limiting the
numbers of participants in these types of studies in accordance with the
ethical requirements described in Subpart K (40CFR26) and the recent
criteria outlined by the Agency’s Human Studies Review Board.  The
Agency’s current guidelines recommend 15 monitoring units for each
scenario.  In addition, the AHETF has provided a rationale for the
number of samples in their study design.

Please comment on the uncertainties associated with the Agency’s and
AHETF’s recommended number of monitoring units.  In your comments,
please include any recommendations you may have regarding specific
statistical analyses that may assist the Agency in developing better
understanding of these uncertainties and characterizing them in a
complete and transparent manner in Agency assessments based on these
data.

12:00 A.M.	ADJOURNMENT

Please be advised that agenda times are approximate; when the discussion
for one topic is completed, discussions for the next topic will begin.
For further information, please contact the Designated Federal Official
for this meeting, Ms. Myrta Christian, via telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
  PAGE  2  of   NUMPAGES  8


U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - October 2007

Compliance and Enforcement National Priority

Clean Water Act, Wet Weather, Storm Water

What is the Environmental Problem?

Storm water discharges continues to be a national enforcement and
compliance priority.  Storm water runoff from urban areas, including
discharges from municipal storm sewers, industrial facilities and
construction sites can have significant adverse impacts on water
quality.  These water quality impacts can be defined by two key problems
- storm water quality and storm water quantity.  EPA’s National Water
Quality Inventory: 2000 Report, prepared under Section 305(b) of the
Clean Water Act, states that urban storm water runoff and discharges
from storm sewers are a primary cause of impaired water quality in the
United States.  Runoff from rain and melting snow is responsible for
beach closings, swimming and fishing advisories, and habitat
degradation.

As storm water flows through urbanized areas, or over construction or
industrial sites, it can pick up a variety of pollutants that can harm
the environment and public health, including bacteria, sediment, debris,
pesticides, petroleum products, chemicals, solvents, asphalts and acids.
 Without on-site controls, this storm water generally flows untreated
directly to the nearest waterway.  The large number of municipal
separate storm water sewer systems or Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
Systems (MS4s) (about 8,000), construction sites (over 240,000 new sites
per year), and industrial sites (over 100,000), and the diversity of
these activities, make this a large and complex problem.

Changes in land use associated with development and urban sprawl affect
the volume and rate of storm water discharged to receiving streams.  The
volume and rate of storm water runoff will continue to grow as
development replaces porous surfaces with impervious blacktop, rooftops,
compacted soil, and concrete.  In urban areas, it is not uncommon for
impervious surfaces to account for 45% or more of the land cover.  The
increasing volumes and rates of storm water runoff can affect the
equilibrium that exists in natural, undisturbed waters, resulting in
such impacts as increased stream bank erosion, which in turn causes
increased silt in waterways and habitat destruction.  With land
development and sprawl increasing at a rate faster than population
growth, urbanization’s negative impact on water quality is a
significant problem that may only get worse without more aggressive
controls.

How and Why OECA is Addressing the Problem?

EPA will use compliance assistance, compliance monitoring and
enforcement tools, as appropriate, towards achieving goals and
environmental outcomes of the strategy.  During 2008 - 2010, EPA will
focus on three main areas of the storm water program:

(1) homebuilding construction; (2) big box store construction; and, (3)
ready mix concrete with crushed stone and sand and gravel operations.
The size and diversity of these sectors, and the levels of observed
noncompliance, reveal the problem to be national in scope.  As a result,
the Agency can play a unique and significant role in addressing this
problem.  For example, many construction and industrial companies
operate nationwide in multiple states, and EPA has the ability to take
enforcement actions that address these companies on a national basis.
In addition, EPA is able to provide consistent and widespread compliance
assistance to these sectors.  Finally, EPA is also exploring whether the
following sectors should be considered for additional focus in future
years:  MS4s, Ports, Road Building, and Federal Facility Construction.

Highlights from the FY 2005-2007 Planning Cycle

From 2000 - 2006, EPA has conducted over 4,500 storm water inspections
and 37 MS4 audits.  Compliance and enforcement activities in the
construction sector have reduced the amount of sediment that would have
been discharged by an estimated 281 million pounds in FY2005 and 195
million pounds in FY2006.  EPA has provided compliance assistance to
state agencies and the regulated community, and has developed several
enforcement and compliance tools to help meet the strategy goals.  For
example, EPA finalized the Storm Water Post-Inspection Implementation
Guide and its associated fact sheet and web site, and a brochure,
“Role of Local Governments in Implementing the NPDES Storm Water
Program for Construction Sites,” which provide information to the
regulated community about the storm water program.  EPA also provided
numerous seminars and workshops to the regulated community and states on
the storm water program to increase awareness, improve understanding,
improve environmental management practices, and reduce pollution.  To
measure reductions in pollutants discharged as a result of enforcement
activities, EPA developed pollutant reduction calculators for 19 of the
29 non-construction industries included in the Multi-Sector General
Permit.   EPA also issued revised guidance for Expedited Settlement
Offers for the construction sector in response to concerns from the
regulated community, and developed a MS4 Audit/Inspection
Train-the-Trainer Workshop to improve and enhance state capability to
conduct audits and inspections of MS4 permittees.

 Big Box Store:

There is no universal definition of a Big Box Store.  As a result the
Strategy focused on three factors: average square footage of a company's
store (average footprint), the company's total revenues, and the number
of new stores a company projects will be constructed over the next 3
years.  Taken together these factors can be an indicator of a company's
potential impact on the environment.

 Ready Mix Concrete/Crushed Stone/Sand and Gravel:

The Strategy focuses on a group of sectors composed of three
“sub-groups”: 1) sand and gravel producers (SIC code 144), 2)
crushed stone producers (SIC code 142), and 3) ready-mix concrete
producers (SIC 3273).  These sectors were selected based on EPA
inspections which indicated noncompliance and environmental impacts
associated with each sub-sector to be significant and approximately
equivalent.

Final: Storm Water Summary		October 2007

 PAGE

 PAGE   1


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 112 (Monday, June 11, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34378-34379]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14017]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR11-83-002]

Enogex LLC; Notice of Compliance Filing

    Take notice that on May 31, 2012, Enogex LLC (Enogex) filed a
revised Statement of Operating Conditions to comply with an unpublished
Delegated letter order issued on May 4, 2012.
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate proceeding must
file a motion 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 and 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 date as indicated below. Anyone filing
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    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 7 copies of the protest or intervention
to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 13, 2012.

    Dated: June 4, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-14017 Filed 6-8-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 26, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 57)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 13089-13092]
[DOCID:fr26mr09-7]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0888; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-084-AD;
Amendment 39-15840; AD 2009-06-04]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional
Jet Series 100 & 440) Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    Bombardier Aerospace has completed a system safety review of the
CL-600-2B19 aircraft fuel system against new fuel tank safety
standards * * *.
    This assessment showed that there is insufficient electrical
bonding for lightning protection at certain locations inside the
fuel tanks. In addition, the assessment also revealed that existing
bonding jumpers across self-bonded couplings are not required.
Insufficient electrical bonding, if not corrected, could result in
arcing and potential ignition source inside the fuel tank during
lightning strikes and consequent fuel tank explosion.

We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective April 30, 2009.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of April 30,
2009.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov or in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mazdak Hobbi, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New
York 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on August 19, 2008 (73
FR 48312). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    Bombardier Aerospace has completed a system safety review of the
CL-600-2B19 aircraft fuel system against new fuel tank safety
standards, introduced in Chapter 525 of the Airworthiness Manual
through Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA) 2002-043. The identified
non-compliances were assessed using Transport Canada Policy Letter
No. 525-001 to determine if mandatory corrective action is required.
    This assessment showed that there is insufficient electrical
bonding for lightning protection at certain locations inside the
fuel tanks. In addition, the assessment also revealed that existing
bonding jumpers across self-bonded couplings are not required.
Insufficient electrical bonding, if not corrected, could result in
arcing and potential ignition source inside the fuel tank during
lightning strikes and consequent fuel tank explosion.
    To correct the unsafe condition, this directive mandates the
modification of certain bonding jumpers inside the fuel tanks.

Corrective actions include, for certain airplanes, a general visual
inspection to determine if the modification has been done on both sides
of the airplane. You may obtain further information by examining the
MCAI in the AD docket.

Revision to Service Bulletin Information

    Since the NPRM was issued, we have received Revision F of
Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-28-055, dated May 27, 2008. We
referred to Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-28-055, Revision E, dated
March 17, 2008, as the appropriate source of service information for
accomplishing the actions proposed in the NPRM. Revision F of
Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-

28-055 changes Figure 7 in the Accomplishment Instructions and also
includes small editorial changes that do not affect the technical
content of the service bulletin. We have revised paragraphs (f)(1) and
(f)(2) of this AD to refer to Revision F of Bombardier Service Bulletin
601R-28-055, and we have added paragraph (f)(3) of this AD to give
credit for actions done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with Revision E of Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-28-055.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We considered the comments received.

Request To Revise the Costs of Compliance Section

    Air Wisconsin states that the service information does not discuss
warranty consideration for parts needed to do the modification proposed
in the NPRM, and requests that we amend the Costs of Compliance section
of the NPRM to reflect the cost of kits at $427 per airplane.
    We agree to revise the Costs of Compliance section to reflect the
parts cost. The cost per product and fleet cost have increased
accordingly.

Request To Allow Credit for Prior Service Bulletin Revision

    Air Wisconsin states that Revision D of Bombardier Service Bulletin
601R-28-055, dated July 17, 2006, added a statement to modify both
sides of the airplane, and requests that we revise the NPRM to give
credit for actions performed according to Revision D of the service
bulletin. Air Wisconsin notes that Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2007-34 allows compliance with Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-28-055,
Revision D.
    We agree with Air Wisconsin to give credit for Revision D of
Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-28-055, and have revised paragraph
(f)(3) of this AD accordingly. We have also revised Table 1 of this AD
to remove the restriction on Revision D of Bombardier Service Bulletin
601R-28-055. In addition, we have removed Note (1) from the NPRM and
therefore Note (2) of the NPRM becomes Note 1 of this AD. Note (2) is
also revised to remove the difference for Revision D of Bombardier
Service Bulletin 601R-28-055.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data, including the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD with the changes described previously. We determined that these
changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or
increase the scope of the AD.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have required different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences
are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect about 686 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it will take about 18 work-hours per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average
labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $427
per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs
that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no
charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for
affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated
here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the
U.S. operators to be $1,280,762, or $1,867 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this 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 this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); 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.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Examining the AD Docket

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
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 AD:

2009-06-04 Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly Canadair): Amendment 39-15840.
Docket No. FAA-2008-0888; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-084-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective April
30, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional
Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes, serial numbers 7003 through 7067,
and 7069 through 7929, certificated in any category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28: Fuel.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    Bombardier Aerospace has completed a system safety review of the
CL-600-2B19 aircraft fuel system against new fuel tank safety
standards, introduced in Chapter 525 of the Airworthiness Manual
through Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA) 2002-043. The identified
non-compliances were assessed using Transport Canada Policy Letter
No. 525-001 to determine if mandatory corrective action is required.
    This assessment showed that there is insufficient electrical
bonding for lightning protection at certain locations inside the
fuel tanks. In addition, the assessment also revealed that existing
bonding jumpers across self-bonded couplings are not required.
Insufficient electrical bonding, if not corrected, could result in
arcing and potential ignition source inside the fuel tank during
lightning strikes and consequent fuel tank explosion.
    To correct the unsafe condition, this directive mandates the
modification of certain bonding jumpers inside the fuel tanks.
    Corrective actions include, for certain airplanes, a general
visual inspection to determine if the modification has been done on
both sides of the airplane.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done: Within 5,000 flight hours after the
effective date of this AD, do the following actions.
    (1) For airplanes on which none of the Bombardier service
bulletins identified in Table 1 of this AD have been incorporated as
of the effective date of this AD: Modify the fuel tank bonding
jumpers inside the wing and center fuel tanks in accordance with
Part A of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service
Bulletin 601R-28-055, Revision F, dated May 27, 2008.

                                           Table 1--Service Bulletins
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Bombardier service bulletin--                Revision--                            Dated--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
601R-28-055.............................  Original....................  May 4, 2004.
601R-28-055.............................  A...........................  February 14, 2005.
601R-28-055.............................  B...........................  September 14, 2005.
601R-28-055.............................  C...........................  January 9, 2006.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) For airplanes on which any Bombardier service bulletin
identified in Table 1 of this AD has been incorporated as of the
effective date of this AD: Do a general visual inspection of the
inside of the wing and center fuel tanks to determine if the actions
in Part A of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service
Bulletin 601R-28-055, Revision F, dated May 27, 2008, have been done
on both sides of the airplane. If Part A of Bombardier Service
Bulletin 601R-28-055, Revision F, dated May 27, 2008, has not been
done on either side of the airplane, before further flight, do the
actions specified in Part A of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-28-055, Revision F, dated May 27,
2008; for the side of the airplane on which Part A of Bombardier
Service Bulletin 601R-28-055, Revision F, dated May 27, 2008, has
not been done.
    (3) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-28-055, Revision D,
dated July 17, 2006; or Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-28-055,
Revision E, dated March 17, 2008; is acceptable for compliance with
the corresponding requirements of this AD.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 1: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows:
    The MCAI specifies that the modification must be done on all
airplanes in accordance with Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-28-
055, Revision D, dated July 17, 2006, and that accomplishing
Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-28-055, dated May 4, 2004;
Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-28-055, Revision A, dated February
14, 2005; or Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-28-055, Revision B,
dated September 14, 2005; does not satisfy the requirements of the
MCAI. This AD requires doing the modification on airplanes on which
any Bombardier service bulletin identified in Table 1 of this AD,
has not been done. For airplanes on which any Bombardier service
bulletin identified in Table 1 of this AD has been done, this AD
requires inspecting to determine if the modification is done on both
sides of the airplane and modifying the airplane if the modification
was not done on both sides.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Mazdak Hobbi, Aerospace
Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York
Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, New York 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (516) 794-
5531. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the
AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in
the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI,
your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2007-34,
dated December 21, 2007; and Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-28-
055, Revision F, dated May 27, 2008; for related information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) You must use Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-28-055,
Revision F, dated May 27, 2008, to do the actions required by this
AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval,
Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 514-855-
7401; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://
www.bombardier.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://
www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 27, 2009.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E9-6569 Filed 3-25-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 220 (Friday, November 13, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72676-72677]
[FR Doc No: 2020-25079]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4558-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2020-0001]

California; Amendment No. 7 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of California (FEMA-4558-DR), dated August 22, 2020, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued October 15, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of California is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely

affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his
declaration of August 22, 2020.

    Lassen and Tulare Counties for Individual Assistance.
    Lassen and Tulare Counties for Public Assistance, including
direct federal assistance.
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Pete Gaynor,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2020-25079 Filed 11-12-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 241 (Monday, December 16, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 76064-76067]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29555]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0566; FRL-9904-11-Region 5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Michigan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving revisions to the State of Michigan's Clean
Air Act New Source Review (NSR) State Implementation Plan (SIP),
including the Part 1 general provisions rules and the Part 19 rules for
major sources in nonattainment areas. The Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality (MDEQ) submitted the revisions to address, among
other things, the Federal NSR reform rules. EPA is also removing
Michigan rule 336.1220 from the Michigan SIP. This rule is being
replaced by applicable language found in Michigan's Part 19 NSR rules.
MDEQ submitted these revisions to EPA on March 24, 2009.

DATES: This final rule is effective on January 15, 2014.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0566. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division,
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Constantine Blathras,
Environmental Engineer, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5
office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Constantine Blathras, Environmental
Engineer, Air Permit Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. What action is EPA taking?
II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA taking?

    On February 6, 2013, EPA proposed approval of MDEQ's March 24, 2009
request to revise the Part 19 rules in its SIP (78 FR 8485) and
announced a thirty day public comment period. EPA received comments
generally supporting

the proposed approval. However, in its March 6, 2013 comment letter to
EPA, MDEQ noted that the proposed approval did not address its request
to rescind rule 336.1220 from its SIP.
    On August 19, 2013, EPA proposed to rescind rule 226.1220 from the
Michigan SIP (78 FR 50369). EPA also stated in the proposal that we
would not be taking any action in this rulemaking on other Part 2 air
use approval rule revisions. EPA received comments supporting the
proposal to approve the Part 19 revisions and rescind rule 226.1220
from the SIP, and urging EPA to take action on the remaining Part 2 air
use approval rule revisions. EPA will address Michigan's remaining Part
2 rule revisions in a separate rulemaking action.
    EPA is approving the following Michigan air pollution control rules
into the Michigan SIP: (1) Part 1, general provisions. Revisions
include amendments to R336.1102 to R336.1105 (including R336.1103 and
R.336.1104) (definitions: B, C, D, E); R336.1109 (definitions: I);
R336.1112 to R336.1114 (definitions: L, M, N); and R336.1122
(definitions: V). These revisions were made to modify the definitions
that impact the new NSR permitting rules in Part 19 as well as modify
the definition of volatile organic compound. (2) Part 19, NSR for major
sources impacting nonattainment areas. These revisions include changes
to R336.2901 (definitions); R336.2901a (adoption by reference);
R336.2902 (applicability); R336.2903 (additional permit requirements
for sources impacting nonattainment areas); R336.2907 (plantwide
applicability limits or PALs); and R336.2908 (conditions for approval
of a major new source review permit in a nonattainment area). (3) Part
2. EPA is removing rule 336.1220. Although EPA proposed on February 6,
2013 to approve other revisions to Part 2 that Michigan had submitted
on March 24, 2009, EPA is not currently taking any other action
regarding Michigan's Part 2 rules in this action.
    EPA has reviewed the rules MDEQ submitted on March 24, 2009, in
light of the Federal nonattainment air quality permitting regulations
found in 40 CFR 51.165(a) and (b). EPA has found that the rules as
submitted by Michigan for inclusion into its SIP are at least as
stringent as the Federal rules. The Federal rules found at 40 CFR
51.165(a) and (b) specify the elements necessary for approval of a
State permit program for preconstruction review for nonattainment
purposes under Part D of the Clean Air Act. A major source or major
modification that would be located in an area designated as
nonattainment and subject to the nonattainment area permitting rules
must meet stringent conditions designed to ensure that the new source's
emissions will be controlled to the greatest degree possible; that more
than equivalent offsetting emission reductions will be obtained from
existing sources; and that there will be progress toward achieving the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act
and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 14, 2014. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2) of the
Clean Air Act.)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: November 29, 2013.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. In Sec.  52.1170 the table in paragraph (c) is amended by:
0
i. Revising the entries in ``Part 1. General Provisions'' for R
336.1102, R 336.1103, R 336.1104, R 336.1105, R 336.1109, R 336.1112, R
336.1113, R 336.1114, and R 336.1122.
0
ii. Amending ``Part 2. Air Use Approval'' by removing the entry for R
336.1220.
0
iii. Adding six new entries under a new heading ``Part 19. New Source
Review for Major Sources Impacting Nonattainment Areas'' in numerical
order.
    The added and revised text reads as follows:

Sec.  52.1170  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                                            EPA-Approved Michigan Regulations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                State
         Michigan citation                  Title          effective date             EPA approval date                           Comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Part 1. General Provisions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R 336.1102........................  Definitions; B.......       3/28/2008  12/16/2013, [INSERT PAGE NUMBER WHERE   .....................................
                                                                            THE DOCUMENT BEGINS].
R 336.1103........................  Definitions; C.......       3/28/2008  12/16/2013, [INSERT PAGE NUMBER WHERE   .....................................
                                                                            THE DOCUMENT BEGINS].
R 336.1104........................  Definitions; D.......       3/28/2008  12/16/2013, [INSERT PAGE NUMBER WHERE   .....................................
                                                                            THE DOCUMENT BEGINS].
R 336.1105........................  Definitions; E.......       3/28/2008  12/16/2013, [INSERT PAGE NUMBER WHERE   .....................................
                                                                            THE DOCUMENT BEGINS].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R 336.1109........................  Definitions: I.......       3/28/2008  12/16/2013, [INSERT PAGE NUMBER WHERE   .....................................
                                                                            THE DOCUMENT BEGINS].
R 336.1112........................  Definitions; L.......       3/28/2008  12/16/2013, [INSERT PAGE NUMBER WHERE   .....................................
                                                                            THE DOCUMENT BEGINS].
R 336.1113........................  Definitions: M.......       3/28/2008  12/16/2013, [INSERT PAGE NUMBER WHERE   .....................................
                                                                            THE DOCUMENT BEGINS].
R 336.1114........................  Definitions; N.......       3/28/2008  12/16/2013, [INSERT PAGE NUMBER WHERE   .....................................
                                                                            THE DOCUMENT BEGINS].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R 336.1122........................  Definitions; V.......       3/28/2008  12/16/2013, [INSERT PAGE NUMBER WHERE   .....................................
                                                                            THE DOCUMENT BEGINS].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Part 19. New Source Review for Major Sources Impacting Nonattainment Areas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R 336.2901........................  Definitions..........       6/20/2008  12/16/2013, [INSERT PAGE NUMBER WHERE   .....................................
                                                                            THE DOCUMENT BEGINS].
R 336.2901a.......................  Adoption by reference       6/20/2008  12/16/2013, [INSERT PAGE NUMBER WHERE   .....................................
                                                                            THE DOCUMENT BEGINS].
R 336.2902........................  Applicability........       6/20/2008  12/16/2013, [INSERT PAGE NUMBER WHERE   .....................................
                                                                            THE DOCUMENT BEGINS].
R 336.2903........................  Additional permit           6/20/2008  12/16/2013, [INSERT PAGE NUMBER WHERE   .....................................
                                     requirements for                       THE DOCUMENT BEGINS].
                                     sources impacting
                                     nonattainment areas.
R 336.2907........................  Plantwide                   6/20/2008  12/16/2013, [INSERT PAGE NUMBER WHERE   .....................................
                                     applicability limits                   THE DOCUMENT BEGINS].
                                     or PALs.
R 336.2908........................  Conditions for              6/20/2008  12/16/2013, [INSERT PAGE NUMBER WHERE   .....................................
                                     approval of a major                    THE DOCUMENT BEGINS].
                                     new source review
                                     permit in a
                                     nonattainment area.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2013-29555 Filed 12-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 7, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 195)]
[Notices]
[Page 58578]
[DOCID:fr07oc08-60]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2195-011]

Portland General Electric Company; Notice of Extension of Time
for Filing Comments on Settlement Agreement Modification

October 1, 2008.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:

    a. Type of Application: New Major License.
    b. Project No.: P-2195-011.
    c. Date filed: August 26, 2004.
    d. Applicant: Portland General Electric Company.
    e. Name of Project: Clackamas River Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: Clackamas River and Oak Grove Fork in Clackamas
County, Oregon.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)--825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Julie A. Kiel, Director of Hydro Licensing,
121 SW Salmon Street, Portland, Oregon 97204.
    i.  FERC Contact: Nicholas Jayjack,<PHONE_NUMBER>;
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments: October 21, 2008. Reply comments
due by October 31, 2008.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all interveners filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervener files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    Comments may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of
paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.
    k. Background: On March 30, 2006, Portland General Electric Company
(PGE) filed a settlement agreement signed by it and 32 other parties,
including federal and state resource agencies, Indian tribes, and non-
governmental organizations to address issues associated with the
relicensing of the Clackamas River Hydroelectric Project. The
settlement agreement includes proposed license articles for the
protection and enhancement of water quality, fishery resources,
terrestrial resources, recreation resources, land uses, project area
aesthetics, and cultural resources.
    On July 21, 2008, PGE filed a modification of Proposed License
Article 14 to make the settlement agreement consistent with its
proposal in a June 28, 2008, application to Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality for certification pursuant to section 401 of the
Clean Water Act. Specifically, the parties modified Proposed License
Article 14 to stipulate that PGE file a plan for achieving certain
water temperature reductions below the Faraday development tailrace
through either seasonal drawdowns or channelization of Faraday Lake.
    Pursuant to 18 CFR 385.602, comments on the settlement agreement
modification were required to be filed by August 11, 2008 (i.e., not
later than 20 days after the filing of the settlement agreement
modification) with reply comments due 10 days later. There were no
comments filed.
    By this notice and pursuant to 18 CFR 385.602, additional
opportunity is provided to submit comments and reply comments
concerning the modified provisions of the settlement agreement. The
deadline is as specified in item j above.
    l. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at (866)
208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also available for
inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-23622 Filed 10-6-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


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

<META name="generator" content="PDFCreactiveX HTML Export">
<META name="creation-date" content="24/05/2008 08:50:20 ">
<TITLE></TITLE>