Analysis of the Sulfur Dioxide Measurements from the

Columbia Lake NJ Monitor

Draft

February 28, 2011

Bureau of Technical Services

Division of Air Quality

New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection

Executive Summary

NJDEP evaluated data from a sulfur dioxide (SO2) air quality monitor
located 1.2 miles northeast of the coal-fired Portland power plant in
Knowlton Township, Warren County, New Jersey at the Columbia Lake
Wildlife Management Area.  Between September 23, 2010 and February 17,
2011, the monitor measured 1-hour SO2 concentrations that exceeded the
1-hour SO2 NAAQS threshold on nine days. A trajectory analysis was used
to determine the cause of the high monitored concentrations that
exceeded the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS during four episodes when concurrent
hourly emissions data was available.  The analysis found that Portland
Power Plant Units 1 and 2 were the likely cause of each high sulfur
dioxide episode at the monitor. The other large source in the area,
Martins Creek Power Plant, was either not operating or emitting sulfur
dioxide at very low levels during the exceedance hours. In addition, the
highest 10 1-hour sulfur dioxide concentrations monitored between
September 23, 2010 and February 17, 2011 were compared to an estimate of
what AERMOD would predict at that location. AERMOD predictions were
generally lower than the measured 1-hour concentrations at the monitor.

Purpose of This Analysis

This report examines the elevated 1-hour concentrations being measured
at the nearby New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s
(NJDEP) SO2 monitor located at the Columbia Lake Wildlife Management
Area (WMA), New Jersey. Between September 23, 2010 and February 17,
2011, there were nine days where measured 1-hour SO2 concentrations at
the Columbia Lake WMA ambient air monitor exceeded the 1-hour National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) of 75 ppb.

A trajectory analysis was done to determine the cause of the elevated
1-hour SO2 concentrations at this monitor. These air trajectories were
calculated during the hours when measured SO2 concentrations at the
monitor were above 75 ppb and the concurrent SO2 hourly emission rates
data was available. Because this necessary hourly emissions data from
the Portland and Martins Creek Power Plants is currently only available
through December 31, 2010, only four of the nine exceedance days could
be evaluated in this report.

Predictions of the impacts from actual and allowable SO2 emissions from
the Portland Power Plant to 1-hour SO2 concentrations in the vicinity of
the Columbia Lake WMA monitor are documented in the NJDEP Bureau of
Technical Services reports: AERMOD Modeling Analysis of the 1-Hour
Sulfur Dioxide Impacts Due to Emissions from the Portland Generating
Station (July 30, 2010.  This document is an exhibit in NJDEP’s
supplemental 126 Petition dated September 17, 2010. Using the modeling
techniques and assumptions described in this report, AERMOD was run in
several different emission scenarios and its predictions of the 10
highest 1-hour concentrations at the monitoring location were compared
to the 10 highest measured values.

One-Hour Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards

EPA finalized a new 1-hour standard at 196 ug/m3 (75 ppb) on June 3,
2010.  75 Fed. Reg. 35,581.   The new standard was established in the
form of the 99th percentile of the annual distribution of the daily
maximum 1-hour average concentrations.  75 Fed. Reg. 35,550.  When a
full year with 365 days of data is available, the 99th percentile will
be represented by the fourth-highest daily maximum 1-hour concentration.

Columbia Lake WMA Ambient Air Monitor

The Columbia Lake WMA ambient air monitor is located in Knowlton
Township, Warren County NJ.  It is approximately 1.9 km (1.2 miles) to
the northeast of the Unit 1 and 2 stacks at Portland Power Plant. Figure
1 shows the locations of the monitor and power plant relative to each
other. The monitor is 490 ft above mean sea-level (amsl), approximately
200 ft higher than Unit 1 and Unit 2’s stack base elevation of 294 ft
amsl. NJDEP modeled the impacts of Portland’s emissions in the area
where the monitor is located.  The findings are exhibits to NJDEP’s
November 17, 2010 126 petition and documented in the following report:
AERMOD Modeling Analysis of the 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide Impacts Due to
Emissions from the Portland Generating Station (July 30, 2010) This
modeling analysis predicts relatively high SO2 impacts in the area where
the monitor is located.

The hourly SO2 data collected from September 23, 2010 to February 17,
2011 is shown graphically in Figure 2. A listing of the same data in
table format is given in Appendix A. The monitoring data from the
Columbia Lake WMA indicates there is a relatively low background level
of SO2 in the area. Superimposed on this low background are the
occurrences of frequent, very high, short-term SO2 concentrations. This
pattern strongly suggests the existence of a nearby, high emitting point
source of SO2 emissions. The variations in meteorology and, to a lesser
extent, source emissions, result in the monitoring pattern seen in
Figure 2. There is a low baseline overlaid with frequent spikes as
opposed to one of a continual measurement of high SO2 concentrations
with little variation.

The monitoring data indicates that since the monitor began operation on
September 23, 2010, there are nine days when there is at least one hour
with a measured SO2 concentration that exceeds the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. As
listed in Appendix A, these days were September 24, 2010, September 29,
2010, October 30, 2010, December 30, 2010, January 22, 2011, January 24,
2011, February 13, 2011, February 14, 2011, and February 16, 2011. The
emissions information needed to conduct the trajectory analysis was
available for the episodes on four of these days: September 24,
September 29, October 30, 2010 and December 30, 2010.

Figure 1. Location of Columbia WMA Air Monitoring Station in Relation to
the Portland  Power Plants (Warren County NJ, Northampton County PA)

Figure 2. Hourly Sulfur Dioxide Concentrations from the Columbia Lake
WMA Monitor

Sources of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions in the Vicinity of the Portland
Power Plant and the Columbia Lake WMA Monitor

There are two large sources of SO2 emissions located within 15 miles of
the Columbia Lake WMA monitor, Portland Power Plant Units 1 and 2
located 1.9 km (1.18 miles) to the southwest, and the Martins Creek
Power Plant Units 3 and 4, located 14 km (8.7 miles) to the
south-southwest. Figure 3 shows the monitor’s location relative to the
two large power plants. In 2009, the total SO2 emissions from Portland
Power Plant were 30,465 tons. All but 0.4 tons of these emissions were
from Units 1 and 2. Unit 5 at Portland Power Plant, a 150 MW
simple-cycle turbine, operates infrequently and normally fires natural
gas. Between 2007 to 2010, on average Unit 1 operated 6,595 hours per
year and Unit 2 operated 7,022 hours per year.

The total 2009 SO2 emissions from Martins Creek Power Plant were 1,095
tons. These emissions are from the large oil-fired Units 3 and 4 at the
facility. Units 3 and 4 operate much more infrequently than Units 1 and
2 at Portland Power Plant. The average annual operating hours at Martins
Creek between 2007 and 2010 was 1,039 hours for Unit 3 and 584 hours for
Unit 4.

The hourly emissions of SO2 from Portland Power Plant Units 1 and 2 and
the Martins Creek Power Plant Units 3 and 4 were taken from the EPA
Clean Air Markets web site (  HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/emissions/"
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/emissions/ ).

Figure 3. Location of Columbia WMA Air Monitoring Station in Relation to
Portland and Martins Creek Power Plants (Warren County NJ, Northampton
County PA)

The other SO2 sources in the region are either much smaller and/or more
distant from the Columbia Lake WMA monitor than the Portland Power Plant
and the Martins Creek Power Plant. In New Jersey, the facilities in
Warren, Sussex, Morris and Hunterdon Counties in New Jersey that emitted
more than 1 ton/yr of SO2 in 2009 are listed in Table 1.  The emissions
from the sources listed in the table are far below the roughly 31,000
tons/year of SO2 Portland Power Plant has emitted in recent years. The
largest, Warren County District Landfill located approximately 11.8 km
from the Columbia Lake WMA monitor, emits 25.9 tons/yr, 0.08 percent of
the Portland Power Plant’s total 2009 emissions.

Table 1. 2009 Sulfur Dioxide Emissions from Facilities in Warren,
Sussex, and Hunterdon Counties in New Jersey

FaCILITY NAME	COUNTY	MUNICIPALITY	SO2 (TPY)

Warren County District Landfill	Warren	Oxford	25.9

Covanta Warren Energy Resource Co. L.P.	Warren	Oxford	10.6

Atlantic States Cast Iron Pipe	Warren	Phillipsburg	4.7

Mars Chocolate NA LLC	Warren	Hackettstown	4.3

Warren County Landfill Energy, LLC	Warren	Oxford	3.6

Mallinckrodt Baker Inc.	Warren	Phillipsburg	1.2

Sussex County Municipal Utilities Auth.	Sussex	Lafayette	2.1

Hamms Landfill Energy Recovery Project	Sussex	Lafayette	1.1

In Pennsylvania, besides the Portland and Martins Creek Power Plants,
the other sources in the area that emitted more than 20 tons/yr of SO2
in 2009 are listed in Table 4. 2009 is the latest actual emissions data
available in the PADEP eFACTS data base. As can be seen in Table 2,
these sources are more distant and emit much less than the Portland
Power Plant.  The Green Knight/Plainfield Landfill Gas, which emits only
0.15 percent of Portland’s annual emissions, is located 12 miles west
of the Portland Power Plant. The other four sources in the table are all
located to the southwest of the Columbia Lake monitor along a 14 mile
east-west line located approximately 4 miles north, and centered on,
Bethlehem PA

Table 2. 2009 Sulfur Dioxide Emissions from Facilities in Northampton
County PA

Facility Name

Municipality	Distance from Columbia Lake WMA Monitor

SO2 (TPY)

Hercules Cement Co.	Stockertown	19 mi	1,862

Keystone Portland Cement	East Allen Township	25 mi	685

ESSROC	Nazareth	22 mi	799

Northampton Generating Station	Northampton	28 mi	490

Green Knight/

Plainfield Landfill Gas	Plainfield Township	13 mi	46

Air Trajectory Analysis and HYSPLIT Model

The trajectory analysis was conducted with the NOAA Air Resources
Laboratory’s (ARL) HYSPLIT Trajectory Model. Access to the interactive
trajectory model is available at:   HYPERLINK
"http://ready.arl.noaa.gov/"  http://ready.arl.noaa.gov/ . Below is a
description of the HYSPLIT model from the web site:

	The Air Resources Laboratory’s HYbrid Single-Particle Lagrangian
Integrated 	Trajectory (HYSPLIT) model is a complete system for
computing both simple air 	parcel trajectories and complex dispersion
and deposition simulations. The model 	calculation method is a hybrid
between the Lagrangian approach, which uses a 	moving frame of reference
as the air parcels move from their initial location, and 	the Eulerian
approach, which uses a fixed three-dimensional grid as a frame of
reference. In the model, advection and diffusion calculations are made
in a 	Lagrangian framework following the transport of the air parcel,
while pollutant 	concentrations are calculated on a fixed grid. Through
a joint effort between 	NOAA and Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology,
the model uses advection 	algorithms, updated stability and dispersion
equations, a graphical user interface, 	and the option to include
modules for chemical transformations. HYSPLIT can be 	run interactively
on ARL’s READY (Real-time Environmental Applications and 	Display
sYstem) web site, or it can be installed on a PC and run using a
graphical 	user interface.

	The model is designed to support a wide range of simulations related to
the 	atmospheric transport and dispersion of pollutants and hazardous
materials, as 	well as the deposition of these materials (such as
mercury) to the Earth’s surface. 	Some of the applications include
tracking and forecasting the release of 	radioactive material, volcanic
ash, wildfire smoke, and pollutants from various 	stationary and mobile
emission sources. Operationally, the model is used by 	NOAA’s National
Weather Service through the National Centers for 	Environmental
Prediction and at local weather forecast offices.

Several forecast meteorological data sets are available at the web site
to use with the HYSPLIT Trajectory Model. Because of its denser grid
spacing, the NAM (Eta) 12 km grid forecast meteorological data was
selected for use in this analysis. The following start location
coordinates were input into HYSPLIT to estimate the forward and backward
air trajectories:

Columbia Lake WMA  Monitor; 	latitude =  40.924607 N,

longtitude = 75.067825 W

Portland Power Plant;			latitude = 40.909797 N

					longitude = 75.07875 W

All times referenced in the trajectory analysis below are based on local
time Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) or Eastern Standard Time (EST), not
Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) or Coordinated Universal Time (UTC). EDT is -
4 hours different than GMT or UTC. EST is - 5 hours different than GMT
or UTC.

Trajectories were calculated at three heights above ground level. One
trajectory represents a parcel of air located 221 meters above ground.
This is the approximation of the height of the plume emitted from the
Portland Power Plant stacks (121 meter stack height and a 100 meter
plume rise).  A second trajectory was tracked for a parcel of air 10
meters above ground (the lowest height allowed by the HYSPLIT Trajectory
Model). This level is used to represent the height of the Columbia Lake
WMA monitor. A third trajectory of 100 meters was also used in order to
better track the SO2 transport at a height between the plume height and
the monitor’s height.

The trajectories at the three different levels were calculated for a one
hour period. The large dots on some of the trajectories indicate the
distance traveled in a 5 minute increment of time during that hour. The
closer the circles are to each other, the lower the wind speed.

The SO2 emitted from the Portland Power Plant stacks will initially
start near the 221 meter level above ground (i.e., plume height).
However, as the plume is advected downwind towards the Columbia Lake WMA
monitor, it will quickly move to the 100 meter level as the terrain
rises and the plume disperses vertically downward. As the plume
approaches the monitor it will reach the 10 m level (i.e.,
ground-level). Therefore, the path of SO2 emitted from the Portland
Power Plant stack plumes traveling and dispersing horizontally and
vertically towards the Columbia Lake WMA monitor is best represented by
a combination of the 10 meter and 100 meter trajectories.

The NAM (Eta) 12 km forecast meteorological data was selected for use in
this analysis because of the data options in HYSPLIT, it provides the
finest grid resolution. However, a 12 km grid resolution will sometimes
have difficulty giving an exact representation of the wind directions at
the scale of this report (1.9 km between Portland Power Plant and the
Columbia Lake monitor). In addition, the plume will spread laterally as
it is transported downwind due to dispersion. Lack of an exact match of
the air trajectory from Portland to the monitor does not imply the
source is not impacting the monitor.

Evaluation of the Episodes

Episode I (September 24, 2010)

The first episode occurred on September 24, 2010 during the middle of
the day. The 1-hour SO2 concentrations measured during this episode
exceeded the new 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for four hours. The measured values
before, during, and after the exceedances are listed in Table 3. The SO2
values measured during this episode are shown graphically in Figure 4.

The hourly SO2 emissions from the Portland Power Plant Units 1 and 2 and
the Martins Creek Power Plant Units 3 and 4 starting at Hour 10 (10 am)
on September 24, 2010 and continuing through 2 pm are also listed in
Table 3. As can be seen, the hourly emissions from Portland Units 1 and
2 were significant during this time period. The values range from 50 to
60 percent of each unit’s maximum allowable emission rate (Unit 1
allowable emission rate = 5,820 lbs/hr, Unit 2 allowable emission rate =
8,900 lbs/hr). During the period of monitored exceedances of the 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS, the emissions from Martins Creek Units 3 and 4 were
negligible.

Table 3. Hourly Measured Sulfur Dioxide Concentrations at the NJDEP
Columbia Lake WMA Monitor - Hours 10 thru 15 September 24, 2010 a

Hour (EDT)	SO2 (ppb)	SO2 (µg/m3)	Portland Unit 1 (lbs/hr)	Portland Unit
2 (lbs/hr)	Martins Creek Units 3 & 4 (lbs/hr)

10	35	91	2,985	4,771	40

11	98	256	3,140	5,447	44

12	109	285	3,133	5,995	44

13	136	355	3,005	4,933	77

14	89	233	3,034	4,858	243

15	69	179	3,231	5,103	1,809

Exceedance of 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS of 75 ppb (196 ug/m3) in bold.

Figure 4. Hourly Sulfur Dioxide Measurements at the Columbia Lake
Monitor from 8:00 to 17:00 September 24, 2010.

Figures 5 through 8 show the forward, downwind trajectories of three
parcels of air at different heights starting at the Portland Power Plant
stacks. The four hours shown are those when the Columbia WMA monitor
recorded 1-hour SO2 above the 75 ppb threshold. The circles on the three
trajectories indicate the distance transported downwind every 5 minutes.

Figure 5 shows the first hour of this episode (11 am) when the 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS threshold of 75 ppb was exceeded. While there is some
directional wind shear, there is a relatively consistent moderate wind
speed at all three levels. The plume starts on a trajectory that would
carry the plume to the east of the monitor, but is brought back towards
the west at the lower levels. This pattern continues during the next
three hours, as shown by the trajectories in Figures 6 through 8.

Figure 5.  September 24, 2010 Forward 1-Hour Trajectory from the
Portland Power Plant (starting time of 11am EDT)

Red Line = 10 meter above ground trajectory (approximate monitor height)

Blue Line = 100 meter above ground trajectory

Green Line = 221 meter above ground trajectory (approximate initial
plume height)

Columbia Lake WMA Monitor = 98ppb

Figure 6.  September 24, 2010 Forward 1-Hour Trajectory from the
Portland Power Plant (starting time of 12pm EDT)

Red Line = 10 meter above ground trajectory (approximate monitor height)

Blue Line = 100 meter above ground trajectory

Green Line = 221 meter above ground trajectory (approximate initial
plume height)

Columbia Lake WMA Monitor = 109 ppb

Figure 7.  September 24, 2010 Forward 1-Hour Trajectory from the
Portland Power Plant (starting time of 1pm EDT)

Red Line = 10 meter above ground trajectory (approximate monitor height)

Blue Line = 100 meter above ground trajectory

Green Line = 221 meter above ground trajectory (approximate initial
plume height)

Columbia Lake WMA Monitor = 136 ppb

Figure 8.  September 24, 2010 Forward 1-Hour Trajectory from the
Portland Power Plant (starting time of 2pm EDT)

Red Line = 10 meter above ground trajectory (approximate monitor height)

Blue Line = 100 meter above ground trajectory

Green Line = 221 meter above ground trajectory (approximate initial
plume height)

Columbia Lake WMA Monitor = 89 ppb

Episode II (September 29, 2010)

A 1-hour high SO2 episode that occurred on September 29, 2010 was
evaluated. The SO2 concentrations monitored from hours 10 thru14 EDT
(10:00 am to 2:59 pm EST) on September 29, 2010 are listed in Table 4.
During hour 11 the measured 1-hour SO2 concentration in this episode
exceeds the 1 hour SO2 NAAQS. The SO2 values measured before, during,
and after this one hour exceedance are shown graphically in Figure 9.

The hourly SO2 emissions from the Portland Power Plant Units 1 and 2 and
Martins Creek Power Plant Units 3 and 4 during Episode II are also
listed in Table 2. Portland Unit’s 1 and 2 emitted between 50-60
percent of their allowable SO2 during this episode. Martins Creek Units
3 and 4 were not in operation.

Table 4. Hourly Measured Sulfur Dioxide Concentrations at the NJDEP
Columbia Lake WMA Monitor - Hours 10 thru 14 September 29, 2010

Hour (EST)	SO2 (ppb)	SO2 (µg/m3)	Portland Unit 1 (lbs/hr)	Portland Unit
2 (lbs/hr)	Martins Creek Units 3 & 4 (lbs/hr)

10	14	37	3,117	4,926	0

11	92	240	3,197	4,951	0

12	46	120	2,700	4,327	0

13	22	58	3,154	4,854	0

14	5	13	3,218	4,993	0

Exceedance of 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS of 75 ppb (196 ug/m3) in bold.

Figure 9. Hourly Sulfur Dioxide Measurements at the Colombia Lake
Monitor from 9:00 to 14:00 September 29, 2010.

Figure 10 shows the three forward trajectories of the air at different
heights for the one hour during this episode that the monitor’s
measurement exceeded the 1-hour 75 ppb threshold. Little directional or
speed wind shear is shown. The wind speed at all three levels is
relatively low, approximately 3 mph. The plume trajectory carries
directly to the monitor.

Figure 10.  September 29, 2010 Forward 1-Hour Trajectory from the
Portland Power Plant (starting time of 11 am EDT)

Red Line = 10 meter above ground trajectory (approximate monitor height)

Blue Line = 100 meter above ground trajectory

Green Line = 221 meter above ground trajectory (approximate initial
plume height)

Columbia Lake WMA Monitor = 92 ppb

Episode III (October 30, 2010)

The extended period of high SO2 concentrations that occurred on October
30, 2010 was evaluated. The SO2 concentrations monitored from hours 7 -
23 EDT (7:00 am to 11:59 pm EDT) on October 30, 2010 are listed in Table
5. During three of the hours of this episode the measured 1-hour SO2
concentration exceeded the 1 hour SO2 NAAQS. The concentration on hour
20 (183 ppb or 479 ug/m3) is the highest 1-hour concentration measured
between September 23 and February 17, 2011. In addition, the 1-hour SO2
concentration measured on hours 13 and 21 also exceed the 1-hour NAAQS.
The SO2 values measured during this episode are shown graphically in
Figure 11.

Portland Unit’s 1 and 2 emitted between approximately 25- 45 percent
of its allowable SO2 during the exceedances of the NAAQS that occurred
during this episode, while Unit 2 emitted between approximately 35- 45
percent of its allowable SO2 emission rate. These emissions Units 1 and
2 are lower than Episodes I and II.  As in the previous episodes,
Martins Creek Units 3 and 4 were not in operation.

Table 5. Hourly Measured Sulfur Dioxide Concentrations at the NJDEP
Columbia Lake WMA Monitor - Hours 7 thru 23 October 30, 2010

Hour (EST)	SO2 (ppb)	SO2 (µg/m3)	Portland Unit 1 (lbs/hr)	Portland Unit
2 (lbs/hr)	Martins Creek Units 3 & 4 (lbs/hr)

7	3	8	1,830	3,728	0

8	22	58	2,477	3,788	0

9	72	189	2,594	3,830	0

10	31	81	2,618	4,011	0

11	3	8	2,579	3,752	0

12	61	160	1,688	3,428	0

13	83	217	1,553	3,359	0

14	7	18	1,542	2,024	0

15	8	 21	1,527	1,960	0

16	5	13	1,514	2,087	0

17	6	16	1,946	3,824	0

18	3	8	2,818	4,276	0

19	68	178	2,527	3,805	0

20	183	479	2,552	3,848	0

21	149	390	2,202	3,449	0

22	39	102	1,599	2,812	0

23	3	8	1,667	2,085	0

Exceedance of 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS of 75 ppb (196 ug/m3) in bold.

Figure 11. Hourly Sulfur Dioxide Measurements at the Colombia Lake
Monitor from 7:00 to 23:00 October 30, 2010.

The trajectory for the first hour of exceedance (hour 13) is shown in
Figure 12. Though not shown to be directly impacting the monitor, the
winds are in a general direction that transports the plume towards the
monitor. The winds are relatively strong with no vertical wind shear.
Unfortunately, there is no NAM wind trajectory data available from the
HYSPLIT web site for the other two hours episode when the 1-hour NAAQS
is exceeded (hours 20 and 21). Data is available from the previous hour,
hour 19 (7 pm). The trajectories for this hour are shown in Figure 13.
The trajectories at all three levels are toward the monitor.

Figure 12.  October 30, 2010 Forward 1-Hour Trajectory from the Portland
Power Plant (starting time of 1 pm EDT)

Red Line = 10 meter above ground trajectory (approximate monitor height)

Blue Line = 100 meter above ground trajectory

Green Line = 221 meter above ground trajectory (approximate initial
plume height)

Columbia Lake WMA Monitor = 83 ppb

Figure 13.  October 30, 2010 Forward 1-Hour Trajectory from the Portland
Power Plant (starting time of 7 pm EDT)

Red Line = 10 meter above ground trajectory (approximate monitor height)

Blue Line = 100 meter above ground trajectory

Green Line = 221 meter above ground trajectory (approximate initial
plume height)

Columbia Lake WMA Monitor = 68 ppb, next hour (8 pm) = 183 ppm

Episode IV (December 30, 2010)

The final episode evaluated occurred on December 30, 2010 during the
middle of the day. The 1-hour SO2 concentrations measured during this
episode exceeded the new 1-hour SO2 NAAQS during one hour, hour 12
(EST). The measured values before, during, and after the exceedances are
listed in Table 6.

The hourly SO2 emissions from the Portland Power Plant Units 1 and 2 and
Martins Creek Power Plant Units 3 and 4 during Episode IV are also
listed in Table 6. Unit 1’s SO2 emissions were at approximately 55
percent of its allowable rate when high SO2 values were measured at the
monitor. The emissions from Unit 2 were dropping from 45 percent of its
allowable in the previous hour to 0 percent in the subsequent hour after
exceedance. The Martins Creek units were not in operation. The SO2
values measured before, during, and after this episode are shown
graphically in Figure 14.

Table 6. Hourly Measured Sulfur Dioxide Concentrations at the NJDEP
Columbia Lake WMA Monitor - Hours 9 thru 15 December 30, 2010

Hour (EDT)	SO2 (ppb)	SO2 (µg/m3)	Portland Unit 1 (lbs/hr)	Portland Unit
2 (lbs/hr)	Martins Creek Units 3 & 4 (lbs/hr)

9	0	0	3,992	6,365	0

10	17	45	3,890	6,158	0

11	56	147	3,403	3,942	0

12	83	217	3,330	1,713	0

13	39	102	3,213	0	0

14	8	21	3,255	0	0

a. Exceedance of 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS of 75 ppb (196 ug/m3) in bold.

Figure 14. Hourly Sulfur Dioxide Measurements at the Colombia Lake
Monitor from 10:00 to 16:00 December 30, 2010.

Figure 15 shows the three forward trajectories of the air at different
heights for the one hour during this episode that the monitor’s
measurement exceeded the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS level of 75 ppb. A great deal
of vertical directional and speed wind shear is shown. The wind speeds
at the 10m level are low, approximately 3 mph. As the plume travels down
through the atmosphere, the lower level winds transport it in a westerly
direction towards the monitor.

Figure 15.  December 30, 2010 Forward 1-Hour Trajectory from the
Portland Power Plant (starting time of 11 am EDT)

Red Line = 10 meter above ground trajectory (approximate monitor height)

Blue Line = 100 meter above ground trajectory

Green Line = 221 meter above ground trajectory (approximate initial
plume height)

Columbia Lake WMA Monitor = 83 ppb

Comparison of the Concentrations Measured at the Columbia Lake WMA
Ambient Air Monitor with AERMOD Model Predictions

Predictions of the 1-hour SO2 impacts from SO2 emissions from the
Portland Power Plant are documented in the NJDEP Bureau of Technical
Services reports: AERMOD Modeling Analysis of the 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide
Impacts Due to Emissions from the Portland Generating Station (July 30,
2010).  Using the model setup and assumptions described in this
document, an additional AERMOD model run was conducted with a receptor
located at the Columbia Lake WMA monitor.

To our knowledge, meteorological data suitable for use in AERMOD that is
concurrent with the September 23, 2010 to February 17, 2011 monitoring
period is not being collected at this time. Therefore, concentrations at
the Columbia Lake WMA monitor had to be estimated using the September
23, 1993 to February 17, 1994 meteorological data. Three emission
scenarios were modeled.

Emission Scenario #1 (Average Emissions)

The first scenario used the average hourly SO2 emission rates of
Portland Units 1 and 2 during the period when Columbia Lake WMA
monitoring is available. The hourly SO2 emissions data is only available
from 2010; there is no 2011 data. Therefore, concentrations at the
Columbia Lake WMA monitor were estimated using the average hourly SO2
emission rate of Portland Units 1 and 2 from September through December
2010. As in the trajectory analysis, the hourly emissions of SO2 from
Portland Power Plant Units 1 and 2 and the Martins Creek Power Plant
Units 3 and 4 were obtained from the EPA Clean Air Markets web site (
HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/emissions/"
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/emissions/ ).

The average hourly SO2 emission rate from September through December
2010 was as follows:

	Unit 1 = 1,749 lb/hr (30 percent of the allowable emission rate of
5,820 lb/hr),

	Unit 2 = 3,426 lb/hr (38.5 percent of the allowable emission rate of
8,900 lb/hr)

The average hourly heat input for the two units in MMBtu was also
available from the EPA Clean Air Markets web site. The average hourly
heat input during the September through December 2010 time period was as
follows:

Unit 1 = 665 MMBtu/hr (40 percent of the maximum heat input of 1,657
MMBtu/hr),

Unit 2 = 1,281 MMBtu/hr (51 percent of the maximum heat input of 2,512
MMBtu/hr)

The exit velocity of each stack will be a function of the unit’s heat
input. Therefore, each unit’s maximum load exit velocity was reduced
by 60 percent for Unit 1 and 49 percent for Unit 2. Using these adjusted
emission rates and exit velocities, the AEMOD model was run and
predictions made at the location of the Columbia Lake WMA monitor.

Emission Scenario #2 (50 Percent of Allowable Emissions)

The trajectory analysis found that during the monitored exceedances of
the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, Portland Units 1 and 2 on average typically were
emitting SO2 at approximately 50 percent of their allowable rate.
Therefore, AEMOD model was run with Portland Units 1 and 2 were emitting
SO2 at 50 percent of their allowable rate. The exit velocities from the
previous scenario were also used.

Emission Scenario #3 (Allowable Emissions)

The third scenario was run using the allowable SO2 emission rate of both
Unit 1 and Unit 2 and an exit velocity representative of 100 percent
load.

Results

Table 7 compares the 10 highest AERMOD 1-hour predictions for the three
emission scenarios with the top 10 monitored 1-hour SO2 concentrations.
Because the time period of the meteorology (September 23, 1993 thru
February 17, 1994) is not the same year as the monitoring data
(September 23, 2010 thru February 17, 2011), these results should be
considered an approximation of model accuracy in reproducing observed
concentrations at the Columbia Lake WMA monitor.  That said, AERMOD
using the Emission Scenario #1 (average actual SO2 emissions) and
Emission Scenario #2 (50 percent of allowable SO2 emissions) predict
lower concentrations than the monitored values. Emission Scenario #3
(allowable SO2 emissions) provides the most accurate model predictions.
This suggests that in the reports: AERMOD Modeling Analysis of the
1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide Impacts Due to Emissions from the Portland
Generating Station (July 30, 2010), the model predictions made assuming
Portland Unit 1 and 2 are emitting at their allowable SO2 emission rate
may most accurately reflect actual SO2 concentrations in the vicinity of
the plant.

Table 7. Comparison of Top 10 AERMOD Predicted 1-Hour SO2 Concentrations
to Monitored Values a, b

Ranked 1-Hour SO2	Modeled Avg. SO2 Emissions

(ug/m3)	Modeled 50 % of Allowable SO2 Emissions

(ug/m3)	Modeled

Allowable SO2 Emissions (ug/m3)

Monitored Concentrations  (ug/m3)

1	312	443	774	480

2	206	296	463	427

3	189	271	405	390

4	162	234	337	356

5	139	202	289	349

6	133	200	259	291

7	131	192	259	286

8	130	189	257	275

9	125	182	246	257

10	125	181	245	241

# of Exceedence Days	2	4	10	9

a.	Model predictions based on meteorology from Sept. 23, 1993 through
Feb. 17, 1994.

b.	Monitored values measured from Sept. 23, 2010 through Feb. 17, 2011.

CONCLUSION

Monitoring data from the Columbia Lake Wildlife Management Area in
Knowlton Township, Warren County, New Jersey showed exceedances of the
1-hour SO2

NAAQS on nine days between September 23, 2010 and February 17, 2011.  Of
these nine exceedances, four episodes when concurrent hourly emissions
data was available were evaluated.  NJDEP’s trajectory analysis
combined with hourly emissions data determined that the Portland Power
Plant in Northampton County, Pennsylvania was the likely cause of these
exceedances.  In addition, a comparison of AERMOD model runs with the
monitoring data showed that AERMOD generally predicted lower
concentrations than the monitored values.  AERMOD predictions were most
accurate when compared to allowable SO2 emission rates at Portland’s
Units 1 and 2 suggesting that the allowable SO2 emission rates most
accurately reflect actual SO2 concentrations at the Plant.

Appendix A

Hourly Sulfur Dioxide Concentrations Measured at the

Columbia Lake WMA Monitor

(September 23, 2010 through

February 17, 2011)

Date	hr 0	hr

1	hr

2	hr

3	hr

4	hr

5	hr

6	hr

7	hr

8	hr

9	hr

10	hr 11	hr

12	hr 13	hr 14	hr 15	hr 16	hr 17	hr 18	hr 19	hr 20	hr 21	hr 22	hr 23	MAX

9/23/2010	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	41	15	4	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
41

9/24/2010	1	1	1	0	0	1	0	1	6	7	35	98	109	136	89	69	18	4	2	2	2	1	1	1	136

9/25/2010	2	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	2	2	2	1	1	2	2	2	2	2	1	1	1	0	0	0	2

9/26/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	1

9/27/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

9/28/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	16	5	9	3	1	1	0	0	0	16

9/29/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	14	92	46	22	5	17	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	92

9/30/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	7	7	0	7

10/1/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	**	**	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

10/2/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

10/3/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

10/4/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2

10/5/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

10/6/2010	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	36	10	35	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	36

10/7/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	**	**	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

10/8/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	**	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1

10/9/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1

10/10/200	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	2

10/11/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	**	**	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

10/12/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

10/13/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	**	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

10/14/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

10/15/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	**	**	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

10/16/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

10/17/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	3	3	3	3	3	2	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	3

10/18/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

10/19/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	5	15	10	4	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	15

10/20/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	5	27	38	6	66	39	27	31	5	1	0	0	0	0	0	66

10/21/2010	0	5	25	7	0	0	44	57	58	12	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	58

10/22/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

10/23/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	4	5	14	8	7	5	4	4	4	3	2	2	1	1	1	1	14

10/24/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	2	6	2	19	28	14	7	2	1	1	1	1	1	0	28

10/25/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	2	17	52	28	14	32	33	32	0	0	0	0	0	0	6	30	52

10/26/2010	2	1	0	**	**	**	**	0	0	0	4	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
0	4

10/27/2010	0	0	0	0	5	0	0	1	0	4	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	5

Date	hr 0	hr

1	hr

2	hr

3	hr

4	hr

5	hr

6	hr

7	hr

8	hr

9	hr

10	hr 11	hr

12	hr 13	hr 14	hr 15	hr 16	hr 17	hr 18	hr 19	hr 20	hr 21	hr 22	hr 23	MAX

10/28/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	8	41	28	40	67	65	3	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	67

10/29/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	**	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

10/30/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	5	3	22	72	31	3	61	83	7	8	5	6	3	68	183	149	39	3
183

10/31/2010	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1

11/1/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

11/2/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

11/3/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	6	22	11	19	72	43	2	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	72

11/4/2010	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1

11/5/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

11/6/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

11/7/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

11/8/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0

11/9/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

11/10/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	**	**	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

11/11/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

11/12/2010	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1

11/13/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

11/14/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2

11/15/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	4	12	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	12

11/16/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

11/17/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	**	**	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2

11/18/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	1

11/19/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

11/20/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

11/21/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	9	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	9

11/22/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	12	4	16	28	16	1	4	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	28

11/23/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	8	24	33	17	16	10	1	2	0	3	0	0	0	33

11/24/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

11/25/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	18	70	22	16	10	4	4	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	70

11/26/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	12	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	12

11/27/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	7	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	7

11/28/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

11/29/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	**	0	0	0	0	32	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	32

11/30/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	**	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

12/1/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	**	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Date	hr 0	hr

1	hr

2	hr

3	hr

4	hr

5	hr

6	hr

7	hr

8	hr

9	hr

10	hr 11	hr

12	hr 13	hr 14	hr 15	hr 16	hr 17	hr 18	hr 19	hr 20	hr 21	hr 22	hr 23	MAX

12/2/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	**	**	**	**	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

12/3/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0

12/4/2010	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
0	0

12/5/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

12/6/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

12/7/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

12/8/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

12/9/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

12/10/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	**	9	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	9

12/11/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	14	7	8	52	58	7	4	1	1	1	0	4	6	2	58

12/12/2010	3	2	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	7	16	0	0	0	4	0	0	0	16

12/13/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

12/14/2010	0	0	**	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

12/15/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

12/16/2010	0	0	0	0	1	2	11	38	5	5	54	20	35	8	36	5	7	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	54

12/17/2010	1	1	0	0	1	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	0	0	1

12/18/2010	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	12	3	2	5	32	22	14	4	8	4	1	1	0	0	0	32

12/19/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1

12/20/2010	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1

12/21/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	**	**	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

12/22/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

12/23/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

12/24/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

12/25/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

12/26/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

12/27/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

12/28/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	**	**	**	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1

12/29/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

12/30/2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	17	56	83	39	8	8	9	3	2	2	3	2	3	2	83

12/31/2010	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	4	23	71	9	6	6	5	4	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	71

1/1/2011	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	31	7	12	16	33	16	3	1	1	2	1	1	0	0	33

1/2/2011	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	1

1/3/2011	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

1/4/2011	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	2	4	7	8	30	19	5	1	2	4	4	3	2	0	0	30

1/5/2011	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	**	**	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Date	hr 0	hr

1	hr

2	hr

3	hr

4	hr

5	hr

6	hr

7	hr

8	hr

9	hr

10	hr 11	hr

12	hr 13	hr 14	hr 15	hr 16	hr 17	hr 18	hr 19	hr 20	hr 21	hr 22	hr 23	MAX

1/6/2011	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	28	12	20	35	2	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	35

1/7/2011	1	1	1	0	0	1	1	0	0	1	1	10	2	4	2	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	10

1/8/2011	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	11	23	22	6	5	2	2	3	3	2	1	0	23

1/9/2011	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

1/10/2011	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	**	**	**	**	**	0

1/11/2011	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1

1/12/2011	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	4	7	7	6	5	1	0	0	**	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	7

1/13/2011	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

1/14/2011	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	**	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1

1/15/2011	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	8	6	4	21	5	5	18	14	2	2	2	2	2	21

1/16/2011	3	3	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	3

1/17/2011	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	4	3	2	4

1/18/2011	2	2	3	2	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	3

1/19/2011	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	2	2	1	3	1	2	2	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	3

1/20/2011	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	7	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	7

1/21/2011	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	2	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2

1/22/2011	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	2	0	0	0	0	20	43	133	21	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	133

1/23/2011	0	0	1	0	2	5	11	10	8	5	3	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	11

1/24/2011	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	**	**	163	33	76	32	57	7	2	2	3	4	5	6	163

1/25/2011	6	6	7	9	6	5	4	8	6	8	21	14	33	28	27	13	6	6	5	4	4	5	4	4	33

1/26/2011	4	3	4	5	4	5	6	7	6	6	6	6	5	2	1	2	2	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	7

1/27/2011	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

1/28/2011	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	3	6	26	26	21	15	3	2	2	2	2	2	1	0	26

1/29/2011	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	3	3	2	42	13	15	14	3	1	2	2	2	1	0	0	42

1/30/2011	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	4	3	2	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	4

1/31/2011	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

2/1/2011	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

2/2/2011	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0	1	1	1	1	0	1

2/3/2011	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	**	0	0	0	0	0	0	**	0	0	0	1	0	1

2/4/2011	2	6	4	2	4	3	2	2	4	11	11	19	13	15	4	31	44	17	4	4	3	1	1	1	44

2/5/2011	1	1	1	2	2	2	2	2	3	10	8	5	4	2	1	0	0	0	0	0	2	12	7	0	12

2/6/2011	4	5	3	2	2	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	5

2/7/2011	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1	12	37	21	50	46	7	16	17	16	8	3	1	0	0	50

2/8/2011	0	0	0	0	0	**	0	0	0	0	0	0	**	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

2/9/2011	0	0	0	0	0	**	1	1	26	7	9	3	42	33	54	48	4	1	12	7	35	30	14	**	54

Date	hr 0	hr

1	hr

2	hr

3	hr

4	hr

5	hr

6	hr

7	hr

8	hr

9	hr

10	hr 11	hr

12	hr 13	hr 14	hr 15	hr 16	hr 17	hr 18	hr 19	hr 20	hr 21	hr 22	hr 23	MAX

2/10/2011	1	6	4	4	4	4	4	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	6	6	15	15

2/11/2011	22	31	40	7	3	**	2	2	3	18	51	66	**	49	54	37	7	2	3	3	3	2	1	1	66

2/12/2011	0	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	3	20	8	2	2	2	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	20

2/13/2011	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	61	78	85	111	56	71	71	11	3	1	11	1	1	1	111

2/14/2011	0	0	0	0	1	1	3	4	23	38	78	38	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	78

2/15/2011	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	**	**	0	**	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

2/16/2011	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	32	64	105	33	39	21	33	1	4	1	1	0	0	0	1	105

2/17/2011	1	1	1	1	0	0	0	1	2	2	2	2	1	2	2	3	3	2	1	1	1	0	0	0	3

** = missing or bad data

 PAGE

 PAGE   3

NJDEP Division of Air Quality		2/28/2011

Bureau of Technical Services


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 233 (Wednesday, December 6, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57554-57556]
[FR Doc No: 2017-26204]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0972; Airspace Docket No. 16-ANM-9]

Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Rangely, CO

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface, at Rangely Airport, Rangely,
CO, to accommodate new area navigation (RNAV) procedures at the
airport. This action would ensure the safety and management of
instrument flight rules (IFR) operations within the National Airspace
System.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 22, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone:
1-800-647-5527, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2017-0972; Airspace Docket No. 16-ANM-9, at the beginning of your

comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11B at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Clark, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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
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 would establish Class E airspace to support new RNAV procedures
at Rangely Airport, Rangely, CO.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Persons wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2017-0972;
Airspace Docket No. 16-ANM-9''. The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal
Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service
Center, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA
98057.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective
September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11B lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface at Rangely Airport, Rangely, CO,
within an area approximately 10 miles wide, from north to south, and
extending to approximately 10 miles east and 12 miles west of the
airport.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15,
2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

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, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
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 will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 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 7400.11B,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and
effective September 15, 2017, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ANM CO E5 Rangely, CO [New]

Rangely Airport, CO
    (Lat. 40[deg]05'38'' N., long. 108[deg]45'47'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
of Rangely Airport within the area bounded by lat. 40[deg]04'58''
N., long. 109[deg]01'51'' W.; to lat. 40[deg]12'20'' N., long.
108[deg]35'41'' W.; to lat. 40[deg]09'07'' N., long. 108[deg]32'59''
W.; to lat. 40[deg]01'42'' N., long. 108[deg]36'14'' W.; to lat.
39[deg]59'18'' N., long. 108[deg]45'09'' W.; to lat. 40[deg]00'25''
N., long. 109[deg]01'00'' W.; thence to the point of beginning.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on November 21, 2017.
Brian J. Johnson,
Acting Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2017-26204 Filed 12-5-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 87 (Monday, May 8, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 21382]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09248]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 3102-023]

Gaynor L. Bracewell; Jason & Carol Victoria Presley; Notice of
Application for Transfer of License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Protests

    On April 28, 2017, Jason and Carol Victoria Presley (transferees)
filed an application for an after-the-fact transfer of license of the
High Shoals Project No. 3102. The project is located on the Apalachee
River in Walton, Morgan, and Oconee Counties, Georgia. The project does
not occupy Federal lands.
    The applicants seek Commission approval to transfer the license for
the High Shoals Project from Gaynor L. Bracewell (transferor) to the
transferees. Gaynor L. Bracewell passed away on September 27, 2006, and
Jason and Carol Victoria Presley have been operating the project since
that time.
    Applicant's Contacts: Mr. Jason Presley and Ms. Carol Victoria
Presley, 110 Frazier Hill Road, Bishop GA 30621, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    FERC Contact: Patricia W. Gillis,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests:
30 days from the date that the Commission issues this notice. The
Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments,
motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling
system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or
(202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper
copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should
include docket number P-3102-023.

    Dated: May 2, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-09248 Filed 5-5-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 194 (Friday, October 7, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61078-61087]
[FR Doc No: 2022-21829]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2022-N-2375]

Authorization of Emergency Use of an In Vitro Diagnostic Device
for Detection of Monkeypox Virus; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
issuance of an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) (the Authorization)
under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) in response
to an outbreak of monkeypox. FDA has issued an Authorization for an in
vitro diagnostic device as requested by Quest Diagnostics Nichols
Institute (Quest Diagnostics). The Authorization contains, among other
things, conditions on the emergency use of the authorized product. The
Authorization follows the August 9, 2022, determination by the
Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) that there is a public
health emergency, or a significant potential for a public health
emergency, that affects, or has a significant potential to affect,
national security or the health and security of United States (U.S.)
citizens living abroad, and that involves monkeypox virus. On the basis
of such determination, the Secretary of HHS declared, on September 7,
2022, that circumstances exist justifying the authorization of
emergency use of in vitro diagnostics for detection and/or diagnosis of
infection with the monkeypox virus, including in vitro diagnostics that
detect and/or diagnose infection with non-variola Orthopoxvirus,
pursuant to the FD&C Act, subject to terms of any authorization issued
under that section. The Authorization, which includes an explanation of
the reasons for issuance, is reprinted in this document.

DATES: The Authorization is effective as of September 7, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for a single copy of the EUA to the
Office of Counterterrorism and Emerging Threats, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 1, Rm. 4338, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist
that office in processing your request or include a fax number to which
the Authorization may be sent. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section for electronic access to the Authorization.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Ross, Office of
Counterterrorism and Emerging Threats, Food and Drug Administration,
10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 1, Rm. 4332, Silver Spring, MD 20993-
0002,<PHONE_NUMBER> (this is not a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 564 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb-3) allows FDA to
strengthen public health protections against biological, chemical,
nuclear, and radiological agents. Among other things, section 564 of
the FD&C Act allows FDA to authorize the use of an unapproved medical
product or an unapproved use of an approved medical product in certain
situations. With this EUA authority, FDA can help ensure that medical
countermeasures may be used in emergencies to diagnose, treat, or
prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions caused by
biological, chemical, nuclear, or radiological agents when there are no
adequate, approved, and available alternatives (among other criteria).
    Section 564(b)(1) of the FD&C Act provides that, before an EUA may
be issued, the Secretary of HHS must declare that circumstances exist
justifying the authorization based on one of the following grounds: (1)
a determination by the Secretary of Homeland Security that there is a
domestic emergency, or a significant potential for a domestic
emergency, involving a heightened risk of attack with a biological,
chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents; (2) a determination
by the Secretary of Defense that there is a military

emergency, or a significant potential for a military emergency,
involving a heightened risk to U.S. military forces, including
personnel operating under the authority of title 10 or title 50, U.S.
Code, of attack with (A) a biological, chemical, radiological, or
nuclear agent or agents or (B) an agent or agents that may cause, or
are otherwise associated with, an imminently life-threatening and
specific risk to U.S. military forces; \1\ (3) a determination by the
Secretary of HHS that there is a public health emergency, or a
significant potential for a public health emergency, that affects, or
has a significant potential to affect, national security or the health
and security of U.S. citizens living abroad, and that involves a
biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents, or a
disease or condition that may be attributable to such agent or agents;
or (4) the identification of a material threat by the Secretary of
Homeland Security pursuant to section 319F-2 of the Public Health
Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. 247d-6b) sufficient to affect national
security or the health and security of U.S. citizens living abroad.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In the case of a determination by the Secretary of Defense,
the Secretary of HHS shall determine within 45 calendar days of such
determination, whether to make a declaration under section 564(b)(1)
of the FD&C Act, and, if appropriate, shall promptly make such a
declaration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Once the Secretary of HHS has declared that circumstances exist
justifying an authorization under section 564 of the FD&C Act, FDA may
authorize the emergency use of a drug, device, or biological product if
the Agency concludes that the statutory criteria are satisfied. Under
section 564(h)(1) of the FD&C Act, FDA is required to publish in the
Federal Register a notice of each authorization, and each termination
or revocation of an authorization, and an explanation of the reasons
for the action. Under section 564(h)(1) of the FD&C Act, revisions to
an authorization shall be made available on the internet website of
FDA. Section 564 of the FD&C Act permits FDA to authorize the
introduction into interstate commerce of a drug, device, or biological
product intended for use in an actual or potential emergency when the
Secretary of HHS has declared that circumstances exist justifying the
authorization of emergency use. Products appropriate for emergency use
may include products and uses that are not approved, cleared, or
licensed under sections 505, 510(k), 512, or 515 of the FD&C Act (21
U.S.C. 355, 360(k), 360b, and 360e) or section 351 of the PHS Act (42
U.S.C. 262), or conditionally approved under section 571 of the FD&C
Act (21 U.S.C. 360ccc).

II. Criteria for EUA Authorization

    FDA may issue an EUA only if, after consultation with the HHS
Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, the Director of the
National Institutes of Health, and the Director of the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (to the extent feasible and appropriate
given the applicable circumstances), FDA \2\ concludes: (1) that an
agent referred to in a declaration of emergency or threat can cause a
serious or life-threatening disease or condition; (2) that, based on
the totality of scientific evidence available to FDA, including data
from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials, if available, it is
reasonable to believe that (A) the product may be effective in
diagnosing, treating, or preventing (i) such disease or condition or
(ii) a serious or life-threatening disease or condition caused by a
product authorized under section 564, approved or cleared under the
FD&C Act, or licensed under section 351 of the PHS Act, for diagnosing,
treating, or preventing such a disease or condition caused by such an
agent and (B) the known and potential benefits of the product, when
used to diagnose, prevent, or treat such disease or condition, outweigh
the known and potential risks of the product, taking into consideration
the material threat posed by the agent or agents identified in a
declaration under section 564(b)(1)(D) of the FD&C Act, if applicable;
(3) that there is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to
the product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating such disease or
condition; (4) in the case of a determination described in section
564(b)(1)(B)(ii) of the FD&C Act, that the request for emergency use is
made by the Secretary of Defense; and (5) that such other criteria as
may be prescribed by regulation are satisfied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Secretary of HHS has delegated the authority to issue an
EUA under section 564 of the FD&C Act to the Commissioner of Food
and Drugs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No other criteria for issuance have been prescribed by regulation
under section 564(c)(4) of the FD&C Act.

III. The Authorization

    The Authorization follows the August 9, 2022, determination by the
Secretary of HHS that there is a public health emergency, or a
significant potential for a public health emergency, that affects, or
has a significant potential to affect, national security or the health
and security of U.S. citizens living abroad, and that involves
monkeypox virus. Notice of the Secretary's determination was provided
in the Federal Register on August 15, 2022 (87 FR 50090). On the basis
of such determination, the Secretary of HHS declared, on September 7,
2022, that circumstances exist justifying the authorization of
emergency use of in vitro diagnostics for detection and/or diagnosis of
infection with the monkeypox virus, including in vitro diagnostics that
detect and/or diagnose infection with non-variola Orthopoxvirus,
pursuant to section 564 of the FD&C Act, subject to the terms of any
authorization issued under that section. Notice of the Secretary's
declaration was provided in the Federal Register on September 13, 2022
(87 FR 56074). On September 7, 2022, having concluded that the criteria
for issuance of the Authorization under section 564(c) of the FD&C Act
are met, FDA issued an EUA to Quest Diagnostics for the Quest
Diagnostics Monkeypox Virus Qualitative Real-Time PCR, subject to the
terms of the Authorization. The Authorization, which is included below
in its entirety after section IV of this document (not including the
authorized versions of the fact sheets and other written materials),
provides an explanation of the reasons for issuance, as required by
section 564(h)(1) of the FD&C Act. Any subsequent revision to the
Authorization can be found on FDA's web page at: https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/mcm-legal-regulatory-and-policy-framework/emergency-use-authorization.

IV. Electronic Access

    An electronic version of this document and the full text of the
Authorization is available on the internet at: https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/mcm-legal-regulatory-and-policy-framework/emergency-use-authorization.
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07OC22.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07OC22.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07OC22.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07OC22.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07OC22.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07OC22.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07OC22.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07OC22.010

    Dated: September 30, 2022.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-21829 Filed 10-6-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-C


	Posted 8/6/2003

              3:50pm								Served: August 6, 2003

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation

				on the 6th day of August, 2003

In the matter of the citizenship of

     DHL AIRWAYS, INC.

Under 49 U.S.C. §40102(a)(15)

   Docket OST-2002-13089

NOTICE SHORTENING ANSWER PERIOD

On July 30, 2003, the Department issued Order 2003-7-36, reiterating the limited scope of issues in this proceeding; extending the deadline for the Chief Administrative Law Judge (Chief Judge) to submit a Recommended Decision for 30 days; staying the determination of ASTAR’s fitness under 14 CFR § 204.5 pending the consideration of citizenship issues in this proceeding; affirming the decision of the Chief Judge to deny the July 22, 2003 Motion of ASTAR to dismiss or otherwise terminate this proceeding; and affirming the decision of the Chief Judge to deny the July 25, 2003 Motion of DHL Holdings (USA), Inc., and DHL Worldwide Express, Inc., for a declaratory order finding this proceeding to be moot.

On August 1, 2003, the Chief Judge issued a Certification to the Decisionmaker (“Certification”), certifying questions arising from Order 2003-7-36.  On August 4, 2003, Federal Express Corporation (FedEx) and United Parcel Service Co. (UPS) filed a Petition for Reconsideration and/or Clarification, Motion for Immediate Stay of Order 2003-7-36, and Motion to Shorten Answer Period (“Petition”).  On August 4, ASTAR filed a response to the Chief Judge’s Certification.

Under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR § 302.14, answers to the Petition would be due on August 14, 2003.  FedEx and UPS asked us to shorten the answer period to August 8, 2003.  We agree that the public interest supports a shorter answer period but wish to afford parties sufficient time to respond.  Accordingly, we establish Monday, August 11, 2003, as the due date for answers to the Petition and the Certification.  We do not anticipate entertaining replies to answers.

We will serve this Notice on all parties in this docket.

By:

MICHAEL W. REYNOLDS

Acting Assistant Secretary for Aviation

and International Affairs

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at:  http://dms.dot.gov/search

Attachment

SERVICE LIST

DHL AIRWAYS, INC.

Docket OST-2002-13089

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder

Chief Administrative Law Judge

Office of Hearings, M-20, Room 5411

U.S. Department of Transportation

Washington, DC 20590

   FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>

	Robert Jeffrey Kelsey

Federal Express Corporation

3620 Hacks Cross Road

Bldg. B, 2nd Floor

Memphis, TN  38125

   FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Sanford M. Litvack

Joanna R. Swomley

Quinn, Emanueal, Urquhart, Oliver

  & Hedges, LLP

Counsel for DHL Airways, Inc.

805 Third Avenue

New York, NY  10022

   FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>

	Pierre Murphy

Law Office of Pierre Murphy

Counsel for Lynden Air Cargo, LLC

1200 New Hampshire Avenue, NW

Suite 800

Washington, DC 20036

   FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>

David L. Vaughan

Kelley Drye & Warren LLP

Counsel for United Parcel Service Co.

1200 19th Street, NW, Suite 500

Washington, DC  20036

   FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>

	Patricia L. Thomas

Chief, Air Carrier Fitness Division, X-56

U.S. Department of Transportation

Room 6401

400 7th Street, SW

Washington, DC 20590

  FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>

 PAGE   2


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 16 (Tuesday, January 26, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4174-4175]
[FR Doc No: 2016-00880]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 31051; Amdt. No. 3673]

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle Departure Procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain
airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption
of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the
National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational
facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements.
These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the
navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under
instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES: This rule is effective January 26, 2016. The compliance date for
each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of January 26, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:

For Examination

    1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops–M30, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC, 20590-
0001.
    2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the
affected airport is located;
    3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South
MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

Availability

    All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free
of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at nfdc.faa.gov to
register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP
copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service
Area in which the affected airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard A. Dunham III, Flight
Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs
Divisions, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration,
Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South acArthur Blvd. Oklahoma
City, OK. 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125)
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part
97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes
SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory
description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for
an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are
incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1
CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part Sec.  97.20. The applicable FAA forms are
FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when required
by an entry on 8260-15A.
    The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex
nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the
Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use
the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead
refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of
aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by
reference are realized and publication of the complete description of
each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is
unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFRs and specifies
the types of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable
effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its
location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

    The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section.
    The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff
Minimums and/or ODPS as identified in the amendatory language for part
97 of this final rule.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as Amended in the
transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments
may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center
(FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate
flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
    The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff
Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less
than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an
effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
    Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this
amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for
Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and
Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the
conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of
the close and immediaterelationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and
public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary
to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C 553(d),
good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
    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 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. For the same

reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (air).

    Issued in Washington, DC on December 4, 2015.
John Duncan,
Director, Flight Standards Service.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by
establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure
Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114,
40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

0
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:

Effective January 26, 2016

Compliance Date 7 January 2016

Paso Robles, CA, Paso Robles Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Orig
Oxford, CT, Waterbury-Oxford, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 2
Plymouth, IN, Plymouth Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 10, Orig
Plymouth, IN, Plymouth Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 28, Orig
Detroit, MI, Willow Run, ILS OR LOC RWY 23L, Amdt 8
Detroit, MI, Willow Run, RNAV (GPS) RWY 23L, Amdt 2
Lynchburg, VA, Falwell, RNAV (GPS) RWY 28, Orig-B

Effective 4 February 2016

Dillingham, AK, Dillingham, VOR/DME RWY 19, Amdt 7C, CANCELED
Middleton Island, AK, Middleton Island, VOR/DME RWY 20, Amdt 6B,
CANCELED
Talladega, AL, Talladega Muni, VOR/DME RWY 4, Amdt 6A, CANCELED
Lake Village, AR, Lake Village Muni, VOR/DME-B, Amdt 6B, CANCELED
Marshall, AR, Searcy County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Orig
Marshall, AR, Searcy County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Orig
Marshall, AR, Searcy County, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig
Walnut Ridge, AR, Walnut Ridge Rgnl, VOR-A, Amdt 16A, CANCELED
Santa Ynez, CA, Santa Ynez, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2
Denver, CO, Denver Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 8, Amdt 1B
Denver, CO, Denver Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 8, Orig-B
Apalachicola, FL, Apalachicola Rgnl-Cleve Randolph Field, NDB RWY 32,
Amdt 2B, CANCELED
Fort Pierce, FL, St Lucie County Intl, NDB-A, Orig-D, CANCELED
Augusta, GA, Augusta Rgnl at Bush Field, VOR/DME RWY 17, Amdt 4A,
CANCELED
Olney-Noble, IL, Olney-Noble, VOR/DME-A, Amdt 9A, CANCELED
Urbana, IL, Frasca Field, VOR/DME OR GPS-B, Amdt 6A, CANCELED
Anderson, IN, Anderson Muni-Darlington Field, VOR-A, Amdt 9A, CANCELED
Northampton, MA, Northampton, VOR-A, Amdt 5, CANCELED
Provincetown, MA, Provincetown Muni, ILS OR LOC RWY 7, Amdt 9
Provincetown, MA, Provincetown Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 7, Amdt 1
Baltimore, MD, Baltimore/Washington Intl Thurgood Marshall, ILS OR LOC
RWY 15L, Amdt 4 Baltimore, MD, Baltimore/Washington Intl Thurgood
Marshall, ILS OR LOC RWY 28, Amdt 17
Baltimore, MD, Baltimore/Washington Intl Thurgood Marshall, ILS OR LOC
RWY 33R, Amdt 3
Baltimore, MD, Baltimore/Washington Intl Thurgood Marshall, RNAV (GPS)
RWY 33R, Amdt 4
Baltimore, MD, Baltimore/Washington Intl Thurgood Marshall, RNAV (GPS)
Y RWY 28, Amdt 2
Baltimore, MD, Baltimore/Washington Intl Thurgood Marshall, RNAV (RNP)
Z RWY 28, Amdt 1
Baltimore, MD, Baltimore/Washington Intl Thurgood Marshall, VOR RWY 28,
Amdt 24, CANCELED
Presque Isle, ME, Northern Maine Regional Arpt At Presque Is, VOR/DME
RWY 1, Amdt 12B, CANCELED
Gaylord, MI, Gaylord Rgnl, VOR RWY 9, Amdt 2A, CANCELED
Grand Rapids, MI, Gerald R. Ford Intl, VOR RWY 35, Amdt 1A, CANCELED
Muskegon, MI, Muskegon County, VOR-A, Amdt 21, CANCELED
Natchez, MS, Hardy-Anders Field Natchez-Adams County, VOR/DME RWY 13,
Amdt 3, CANCELED
Beaufort, NC, Michael J Smith Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 26, Amdt 3
Erwin, NC, Harnett Rgnl Jetport, VOR/DME RWY 5, Amdt 2B, CANCELED
Myrtle Beach, SC, Myrtle Beach Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 18, Amdt 4
Myrtle Beach, SC, Myrtle Beach Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 36, Amdt 4
Myrtle Beach, SC, Myrtle Beach Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 4
Myrtle Beach, SC, Myrtle Beach Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 4
Myrtle Beach, SC, Myrtle Beach Intl, RNAV (GPS)-A, Amdt 1
Port Angeles, WA, William R Fairchild Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 8, Amdt 3
Port Angeles, WA, William R Fairchild Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 8, Amdt 1
Port Angeles, WA, William R Fairchild Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 26, Amdt 1

[FR Doc. 2016-00880 Filed 1-25-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 24 (Monday, February 8, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8564-8566]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02538]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2020-0712; FRL-10019-50-Region 1]

Air Plan Approval; Rhode Island; Control of Volatile Organic
Compound Emissions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the
State of Rhode Island. These revisions update Rhode Island air
pollution control regulations for volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions from consumer products and architectural and industrial
maintenance coatings. The intended effect of this action is to propose
approval of the revised regulations. This action is being taken under
the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 10, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2020-0712 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly
available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov
or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1, Air and
Radiation Division, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you contact the contact listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays and facility
closures due to COVID-19.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David L. Mackintosh, Air Quality
Planning Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1,
Air and Radiation Division, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, Boston,
MA, tel.<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

 Table of Contents

I. Background and Purpose
II. EPA's Evaluation of the Submittal
III. Proposed Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On January 24, 2020, the Rhode Island Department of Environmental
Management submitted to EPA a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
containing three revised air pollution control regulations: 250-RICR-
120- 05-0, ``General Definitions''; 250-RICR-120-05-31, ``Control of
Volatile Organic Compounds from Consumer Products''; and 250-RICR-120-
05-33, ``Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Architectural
Coatings and Industrial Maintenance Coatings.'' These revised
regulations became effective in Rhode Island on January 9, 2017. In
each regulation Rhode Island has submitted to EPA for incorporation
into the SIP, its subsection 2 ``Application'' has been stricken from
the rule. Rhode Island notes that this language is only relevant in
Rhode Island and not intended to be incorporated into the Rhode Island
SIP.
    On April 1, 2020, Rhode Island modified its January 24, 2020, SIP
revision request by withdrawing 250-RICR-120-05-33, ``Control of
Volatile Organic Compounds from Architectural Coatings and Industrial
Maintenance Coatings.'' On July 22, 2020, Rhode Island submitted to EPA
a SIP revision containing a more recently amended version of 250-RICR-
120-05-33, ``Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Architectural
Coatings and Industrial Maintenance Coatings.'' Again, its subsection 2
``Application''

has been stricken from the rule and will not be incorporated into the
Rhode Island SIP. The amended regulation became effective in Rhode
Island on July 21, 2020.
    On December 28, 2020, Rhode Island modified its January 24, 2020,
SIP revision request by withdrawing 250-RICR-120-05-0, ``General
Definitions'' from the SIP revision, because EPA had since approved a
more recent version of Rhode Island's regulation 0, ``General
Definitions'' effective in the State of Rhode Island on February 9,
2018, in a final rulemaking published September 3, 2020 (85 FR 54924).
    Thus, this proposed action addresses two revised regulations:
``Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Consumer Products'' and
``Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Architectural Coatings and
Industrial Maintenance Coatings'', submitted by Rhode Island on January
24, 2020 and July 22, 2020, respectively. EPA previously approved
earlier versions of these regulations into the Rhode Island SIP on
March 13, 2012 (77 FR 14691).
    Rhode Island is a member state of the Ozone Transport Commission
(OTC), an organization established by Congress under the CAA which is
composed of 12 states, and the District of Columbia, throughout the
Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions. The OTC develops model rules for
the member states to use to reduce the emissions of ground level ozone
precursors. In 2011, OTC authored a model rule limiting VOC content in
architectural and industrial maintenance coatings, which was the second
version of this model rule. Then in 2012, the OTC issued a model rule
to limit the VOC content of consumer products, which was the fourth
version of this model rule. In 2013, the OTC again revised its consumer
products rule to include dual purpose air freshener/disinfectants.

II. EPA's Evaluation of the Submittal

    Rhode Island's revised 250-RICR-120-05-31, ``Control of Volatile
Organic Compounds from Consumer Products'' is based on the 2013 OTC
model rule for consumer products. The regulation generally applies to
``any person who sells, supplies, offers for sale, distributes for sale
or manufactures for sale within Rhode Island any consumer products on
or after the applicable date.'' The regulation limits the VOC content,
expressed in percent of VOC by weight, for certain consumer product
categories, and content limits are restricted based on the product date
of manufacture. Compared to the previously approved EPA version of the
regulation, the revision to the regulation lowers VOC content limits
for 13 consumer product categories and adds nine new consumer product
categories. The revised and new limits apply to the relevant products
manufactured on or after January 1, 2019. Additionally, the revised
regulation incorporates the new product category definitions and
modifies several existing definitions for clarity and consistency with
the 2013 OTC model rule. The regulation has also been updated to
current Rhode Island code of regulations format.
    Rhode Island's revised consumer product regulation continues to
contain limits for more categories of consumer products than EPA's
National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Consumer
Products rule at 40 CFR part 59 Subpart C (63 FR 48831; September 11,
1998). The revised regulation limits are also equal to, or more
stringent than, those found in EPA's consumer products rule.
    Rhode Island's 250-RICR-120-05-33, ``Control of Volatile Organic
Compounds from Architectural Coatings and Industrial Maintenance
Coatings'' is based on the 2011 OTC model rule for adhesives and
sealants. The revised regulation includes all the approaches to
controlling VOC emissions found in EPA's CTG for Miscellaneous
Industrial Adhesives (EPA 453/R-08-005, September 2008): VOC content
limits for adhesives and cleaning solvents; work practices; record
keeping; air pollution control equipment options; surface preparation
requirements; and spray gun cleaning requirements. However, Rhode
Island's rule is more comprehensive than the CTG, since it contains VOC
content limits for sealants and sealant primers (in addition to
adhesives as covered by the CTG) and regulates sellers and
manufacturers (not just appliers of regulated adhesives, adhesive
primers and sealants). While there are minor differences in the named
adhesive categories included in the CTG, those differences are
inconsequential compared to the broader applicability of 250-RICR-120-
05-33 as noted above. The regulation has also been updated to current
Rhode Island code of regulations format.
    In summary, as noted above, EPA has reviewed Rhode Island's revised
VOC regulations and found that they are no less stringent than the
applicable EPA guidance and generally consistent with the OTC
recommendations. EPA is proposing to approve the Rhode Island SIP
revision for these two regulations (excluding those provisions
indicated above that were not submitted by the state), which were
submitted to EPA on January 24, 2020 and July 22, 2020. EPA is
soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this notice or on
other relevant matters. These comments will be considered before taking
final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal
rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to this proposed
rule by following the instructions listed in the ADDRESSES section of
this Federal Register.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the Rhode Island SIP revisions
consisting of two revised regulations 250-RICR-120-05-31, ``Control of
Volatile Organic Compounds from Consumer Products'' and 250-RICR-120-
05-33, ``Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Architectural
Coatings and Industrial Maintenance Coatings,'' excluding the
Application subsections 31.2 and 33.2 respectively.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is proposing to amend regulatory text that
includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of
1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing changes to the Rhode Island SIP as
described in the Proposed Action section above. The EPA has made, and
will continue to make, these documents generally available through
https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 1 Office (please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this preamble for more information).

V. 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 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 proposed 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 proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory
action because this action is not significant under Executive Order
12866;

     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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: February 3, 2021.
Deborah Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2021-02538 Filed 2-5-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


MEMORANDUM

DATE:		May 12, 2015

TO:		Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR - 2013-0602

FROM:	EPA Region 1

SUBJECT:	April 23, 2015, Presentation including Proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants at Northeast Gas Association's 2015 Meeting --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY

      On April 23, 2015, Regional Administrator Curt Spalding spoke at the Northeast Gas Association's 2015 Regional Market Trends Forum.  The presentation included an overview of the proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants.         ATTENDEES

Curt Spalding, EPA John Moskal, EPA Jim Murphy, EPA Steven Leahy, Northeast Gas Association

Approximately 200 people attended this conference.  Attendance was not taken by EPA

Presentation slides are attached.