1 July 15, 2004 Request to Reclassify the Detroit Ann Arbor Area to Marginal Nonattainment for Ozone July 15, 2004 This analysis was prepared by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality ( MDEQ) and the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments ( SEMCOG).

The MDEQ and the SEMCOG, the designated lead local agency for air quality planning in the Detroit Ann Arbor ( Southeast Michigan) area, jointly prepared this document supporting a request for reclassification to marginal nonattainment for the eight hour ozone standard. Section 181( a)( 4) of the Clean Air Act states:

" If an area classified under paragraph ( 1) ( Table 1) would have been classified in another category if the design value in the area were five percent greater or five percent less than the level on which such classification was based, the Administrator may, in the Administrator's discretion, ( emphasis added) within 90 days after the initial classification, by the procedure required under paragraph ( 3), adjust the classification to place the area in such other category. In making such adjustment, the Administrator may consider the number of exceedances of a national primary ambient air quality standard for ozone in the area, the level of pollution transport between the area and other affected areas, including both intrastate and interstate transport, and the mix of sources and air pollutants in the area."

This request is made considering these provisions and the criteria outlined in the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's ( EPA's) 1991 criteria for evaluating reclassifications, which is referenced in the final rule for eight hour ozone designations and classifications. In order to meet the 90 day provision of section 181( a)( 4), the EPA is requiring that states' reclassification requests be submitted by July 15, 2004. The EPA will then respond to reclassification requests by September 15, 2004.

We respectfully submit that there are several pieces of evidence supporting a reclassification to marginal nonattainment that are compelling and provide an unequivocal policy basis for support by the Administrator of the EPA.

Clean Air Act: Design Value within Five Percent of Another Category The Clean Air Act ( CAA) allows the EPA Administrator to reclassify ozone nonattainment areas to an adjacent category in subpart 2 " if the design value in the area were five percent greater or five percent less than the level on which such classification was based." The Clean Air Act directs the Administrator to consider other factors in making this adjustment such as number of exceedances, levels of transport, and the mix of pollutants. Further, the EPA 2 July 15, 2004 states it will consider other factors such as emission reductions. Accordingly, there are several relevant pieces of information we ask the Administrator to consider in making a judgment about the merits of this reclassification request.

Because erroneous conclusions often result from decisions based on a single data point, we begin by presenting relevant, long term data on design values in Southeast Michigan. Figure 1 displays eight hour ozone design values from 1990 2003. For twelve consecutive years ( 1991 2002), the ozone design value was 96 parts per billion ( ppb) or less. And, for each of three consecutive years preceding 2003, the design value for the region was below 90 ppb, a level that the EPA would have used to assign Southeast Michigan a marginal classification. Thus far this year ( as of June 30, 2004), there are no peak eight hour averages that exceed 84 ppb ( not yet validated).

Furthermore, the highest design value recorded since 1991 was in 2003. This was the result of an unusual episode that covered large sections of the eastern half of the country and resulted in unusually high ozone levels in Southeast Michigan. Figures 2 and 3 from the EPA's AIRNow website show the large geographic area affected by this episode. In fact, similar ozone levels were recorded in such disparate places as Port Huron and the Seney National Wildlife Refuge, a federal Class 1 area in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. Figure 4 shows the ozone monitoring sites in Michigan, and Table 1 compares eight hour peak averages at various sites in the region with the Seney site on June 25, 2003. The design value would plummet from 97 to 92 ppb if only one day ( June 25) in that multi day episode ( from June 22 to June 25) was not in the database, as shown in Figure 5. Therefore, except for one day in 13 years, the design value in Southeast Michigan would be 96 ppb or less. More details on the unrepresentative nature of the June 2003 episode are provided in a subsequent section.

In the final eight hour ozone designation rule, published on April 30, 2004, the EPA states that moderate nonattainment areas with an eight hour ozone design value of 96 ppb or lower ( from 2001 to 2003) may be eligible for a reclassification to marginal nonattainment. Southeast Michigan's eight hour design value is 97 ppb. However, we submit that a design value of 97 ppb is within the five percent criteria. The ozone implementation rules refers to the criteria set in CAA, Section 181( a)( 4) which provides that if the design value of an area were five percent less or more than the design value on which the classification were based, the Administrator may adjust the classification. The statutory language is five percent, not 5.0 percent. Monitoring values are routinely rounded in practice. Rounding conventions would dictate that 5.49 is the practical equivalent of 5 percent and 97 ppb meets this criteria.

Further, the ozone implementation rule does not list the upper end of marginal as 91 ppb ( See Table 2 in the appendix), as assumed by the EPA in its calculation of the five percent reclassification threshold, and its resulting determination that 3 July 15, 2004 only values of 96 ppb or lower are within five percent of a marginal classification. A footnote* in the new 8 hour ozone classification table, indicates that marginal nonattainment areas' design values range from 85 ppb and up to " but not including" 92 ppb. An 8 hour ozone design value of some value less than 92 and greater than 91 ppb may be used by the Administrator in the five percent determination. Accordingly, using a value of five percent of a number less than 92, added to the lesser value, could yield 97 ppb. This is an area where the Administrator could apply the discretion provided to him under the law.

In summary, several pieces of evidence support the conclusion that Southeast Michigan meets the 5 percent reclassification criterion. They include:   Design values were 96 ppb or less for 12 consecutive years between 1991 and 2002;   The design values for the 3 years preceding the June 2003 episode ( 2000, 2001, 2002) were all below 90 ppb and would have automatically resulted in a marginal classification;   The June 2003 episode was an unusual event ( more detail follows);   June 25, 2003, is the single day over 13 years driving the design value up to 97 ppb.   Emissions in the region on June 25, 2003, had minimal impact on peak ozone levels.   The regional design value would have been 92 ppb but for June 25, 2003; and   A design value of 97 ppb still meets the 5 percent criteria.

Unusualness of June 2003 Ozone Episode The policy implications of the June 2003 ozone episode are clear. If only one day of that multi day episode was excluded ( June 25), the design value for the region would have plummeted to 92 ppb. Thus, this episode and the significant change it produced in the latest 3 year design value, directly resulted in the EPA's determination to classify the region as moderate instead of marginal nonattainment. In other words, June 25, 2003, is the single day over a 13 year period that might be used to determine if Southeast Michigan merits a reclassification to marginal. As the Administrator is empowered in the Clean Air Act to consider several factors in responding to a reclassification petition, this section puts the June 2003 ozone episode in proper context.

There are several indicators that point to the unusualness of this episode. First, the high ozone levels in 2003 were spread to a large area of the eastern United States, as shown in the EPA's AIRNow maps in Figure 2 and 3. In Michigan, even the Upper Peninsula's Seney National Wildlife Refuge, a federal Class 1 __________________________________

* This " but not including" footnote is not present in the 1 hour ozone classification table contained in Section 181 of the CAA. 4 July 15, 2004 area, experienced an eight hour average of 118 ppb, a level close to the 123 ppb monitored in Southeast Michigan at Port Huron on the very same day. At New Haven, the other site that typically records peak ozone levels in the region, the eight hour average only differed from Seney by 1 ppb, as shown in Table 1.

Second, an eight hour average of 123 ppb is unusually high for Southeast Michigan. To demonstrate, the eight hour peak ozone values at all sites in the region for a 12 year period were ranked. Table 3 shows 123 ppb was the highest eight hour value recorded at any site in the entire region over the past 12 years.

Third, the eight hour peak at Tecumseh, the region's rural, upwind site, was well in excess of the standard at 111 ppb ( see Table 4). Peak ozone levels were recorded downwind of Detroit at New Haven ( 119 ppb) and Port Huron ( 123 ppb). Thus, only 8 12 ppb of the peak ozone on that day is attributable to emissions in Southeast Michigan. Just as important, the 111 ppb at the Tecumseh site is indicative of the unusual nature of the episode because it is well beyond any other eight hour average for that site back to 1993. This is supported by back trajectory analyses. Figure 6 shows that the eight hour ozone peak of 111 ppb at Tecumseh on June 25, 2003, was caused by transport from the south. Figure 7 shows that this air mass from Tecumseh passed through the region to the downwind monitoring sites. In other words, the high ozone levels at Tecumseh originated outside of Southeast Michigan and the high ozone at the downwind sites had little to do with emissions in the region.

Table 1 shows that emissions in the region only contributed 8 12 ppb to peak ozone at Port Huron ( the difference between rural, upwind measurements at Tecumseh and downwind at New Haven and Port Huron). And, with the exception of Allen Park and Linwood, which often record lower levels because of NOx scavenging, ozone levels in the region were consistently close to the 111 ppb at Tecumseh. Clearly, transport was overwhelming on June 25, 2003, and emissions in the region contributed little to the extraordinarily high levels of ozone. Nonetheless, June 25, 2003, is the single day in 13 years that drives the latest 3 year design value to 97 ppb and leads to the EPA's moderate classification. This moderate classification results in the automatic imposition of control measures that would not have affected the outcome of that episode or another one like it. Additional supporting evidence is that the episode was so widespread and severe to have resulted in comparable levels of ozone in areas with precursor emission levels approaching zero ( Seney).

In summary, we have been able to verify that ozone levels were unusual during that time frame. Section 181( a)( 4) of the Clean Air Act specifically empowers the Administrator to consider impacts of transport, such as just described, in making a decision on reclassification. Due to the impact of transport on June 25, 2003, using that day as a basis for mandating the control strategy requirements that accompany a moderate classification is inappropriate. The EPA has a history of recognizing that certain monitoring data could lead to faulty regulatory 5 July 15, 2004 applications. We submit this is one such circumstance and request the Administrator use his discretion and consider the impact of June 25, 2003, on this reclassification decision.

This situation is analogous to when State Implementation Plans ( SIPs) were being prepared in response to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Ozone levels in the summer of 1988 were also extraordinarily high, making modeling demonstrations of attainment unrealistic and unachievable; i. e., requiring massive precursor emission reductions. Nonetheless, many states, including Michigan, were able to achieve attainment of the ozone NAAQS with more modest emission reductions. ( As indicated later, a recent circuit court ruling upholds and reinforces the EPA's ability to go beyond air quality modeling results and consider " weight of evidence" in making attainment related decisions. Also, according to the EPA's February 19, 2004, document on Early Action Compact ( EAC) areas1, weight of evidence procedures can be used for an EAC area's attainment test.)

Section 181 of the Clean Air Act specifically empowers the Administrator to consider " the level of pollution transport between the area and other affected areas, including both intrastate and interstate transport" in making reclassification decisions. Accordingly, we respectfully request that, in making his decision, the Administrator weigh the evidence showing that emissions in the region contributed less than 10 percent to peak ozone levels on the single day in 13 years driving the design value up to 97 ppb resulting in an automatic moderate classification for Southeast Michigan. In addition, we ask the Administrator to consider the June 2003 episode in conjunction with the other relevant evidence presented in the remainder of this support document.

Expected Emissions Reductions: On Road Mobile Sources Table 5 was prepared by SEMCOG to demonstrate the expected reductions in vehicle emissions expected in Southeast Michigan over the next few years. These data were prepared using EPA's latest Mobile model, Mobile 6.2, using SEMCOG's local transportation data inputs and travel projections. These figures demonstrate that vehicle emissions of the two main ozone precursors: volatile organic compounds ( VOC) and nitrogen oxides ( NOx) will decline by 40 percent and 37 percent, respectively, between 2002 and 2007, even after accounting for increasing levels of travel. Moreover, the declining trend will continue well into 2010, reaching reductions of 54 percent for both pollutants.

To address modeling uncertainties, SEMCOG projected the emissions impact of doubling the rate of growth in travel. Results, in Figures 8 and 9, show this decline will occur even if SEMCOG's forecasted growth in travel was doubled! These reductions are due to the Tier 2 emission standards, heavy duty emission 1 February 19, 2004. Frequently Asked Questions on eight hour Ozone Early Action Compacts Volume 2: Weight of Evidence 6 July 15, 2004 standards, lower sulfur fuel, more durable emission control systems, and a higher than typical rate of fleet turnover in Southeast Michigan's automotive hub.

Assuming the region was targeting a 15 percent reduction in VOC emissions as is required for moderate areas, and assuming that 2002 mobile source emissions represent about 30 percent of the entire inventory, a reduction of 88 tons per day would need to be achieved. 2 The reduction of 71 tons per day in mobile source emissions represents a considerable fraction of that needed reduction.

While a 15 percent plan was not previously implemented in Southeast Michigan because of redesignation to attainment of the one hour ozone standard, a low vapor pressure fuel was implemented as a contingency measure and results in emission reductions of approximately 9 tons per day ( see Table 6). Thus, 80 of the 88 tons per day needed to achieve a 15 percent reduction are in place.

Tables 7 and 8 show the additional reductions that might be expected from a vehicle testing program that is an automatic requirement in moderate areas. This information is presented to give perspective on how it would impact future episodes of the type experienced in June 2003.

As indicated earlier, these reductions are not of a magnitude to have had any major impact on ozone levels of the type experienced on June 25, 2003. For example, emissions from all sources in the region on that day only contributed 8 12 ppb to the peak ozone in the region. Furthermore, emission levels in the Seney area with an eight hour average of 118 ppb are likely to have been at least an order of magnitude less than emissions in Southeast Michigan. We request the Administrator consider this fact when evaluating whether a moderate or marginal classification is more appropriate for Southeast Michigan.

Even though these major reductions in precursor emissions are occurring, SEMCOG has hired a contractor to evaluate the additional benefits of a wide range of cleaner fuels. The MDEQ and the SEMCOG will assess these results and determine the appropriateness of implementing a fuels measure in the region and Michigan's other nonattainment areas as it relates to both attainment and maintenance issues. This evaluation will include an assessment of fuelrelated benefits from reduced intrastate transport.

Finally, on road mobile source reductions of a similar magnitude will be achieved in upwind regions.

2 Because the 2002 inventory was not available at the time of this submittal, the 2002 on road mobile inventory was estimated to be about 30 percent of the total NOx and VOC inventory. This was determined by using Southeast Michigan's Ozone Maintenance Plan Revision ( submitted to EPA in December 2003), and gauging the decreasing trend in on road mobile source emissions between 2000 and 2002. 7 July 15, 2004 Expected Emissions Reductions: Point Sources The point source component of the region's total inventory continues to decline. Between 1999 and 2002, point source NOx emissions decreased by 37,534 tons/ year and point source VOC emissions decreased by 4,148 tons/ year. 3 Most importantly, the offset provisions are tie barred to the nonattainment designation preventing any increases or expansions from major sources.

Furthermore, the levels of manufacturing have declined in just the past few years. Data for the SEMCOG region from the North American Industrial Classification System of the U. S. Census Bureau show that between March 2000 and March 2004, approximately 81,620 manufacturing jobs have been lost in Southeast Michigan. We present this information merely as anecdotal evidence that manufacturing levels have declined. Even if the manufacturing sector fully recovers, the offset provisions require net decreases in emissions and improvements in air quality prior to permit issuance.

Point source emissions of NOx are projected to decline significantly in Southeast Michigan due to the implementation of the EPA's NOx SIP call rule making. Table 9 shows that NOx emissions from these sources are expected to decline by 85 percent between 2000 and 2007. Further, the compliance date for the SIP call is May 31, 2004, well before 2007. Note that the quote below demonstrates how this rule making is replete with references to the ozone reduction benefits it would provide for both one hour and eight hour attainment.

" The EPA projects that these regional NOx reductions will bring the vast majority of all new ozone nonattainment areas into attainment with the eight hour ozone standard without having to implement more costly local controls. It will also help reduce ozone levels in the remaining nonattainment areas east of the Mississippi River. 4"

In summary, emissions reductions of NOx from implementation of the SIP call between 2000 and 2007 are estimated to be 288 tons per day. An additional 157 tons per day will be achieved from on road mobile sources between 2002 and 2007. As with mobile sources, similar degrees of NOx reductions are expected in upwind areas.

Expected Emissions Changes: Area Sources The only tool available at this time for estimating area source emissions is the EPA's EGAS model. A new version of the EGAS model, which is expected to 3 Point source emission estimates obtained from EPA's Final 1999 National Emissions Inventory ( NEI) and EPA's Preliminary 2002 NEI for the 7 county SEMCOG region. ( Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, St. Clair, Washtenaw, and Wayne Counties) 4 EPA Fact Sheet: Final Rule for Reducing Regional Transport of Ground Level Ozone ( Smog) and Two Related Proposals. September 24, 1998. 8 July 15, 2004 address some of the limitations of the current model, will be available in the fall for developing better area source emission estimates for the SIP.

In addition, the MDEQ is working with the LADCO ( Lake Michigan Air Directors' Consortium) on a project to develop more accurate local area source emission estimates for the SIP. The LADCO has hired a contractor to assist in this effort and to provide guidance to the LADCO states on developing local area source emission estimates for the SIP. The results of this work will be ready by fall 2004.

Expected Emissions Changes: Non road Sources No non road mobile emission estimates are available for this report. The only tool available is the EPA's NONROAD model, which is based on national default data. Like the work for area sources, the MDEQ is working with the LADCO to improve this component of the inventory based on local data. Specifically, the LADCO is developing updated activity, equipment population, and temporal emission profiles for the following categories: construction equipment, agricultural equipment, marine vessels, and recreational vessels. More accurate non road mobile emission estimates will be developed for the SIP.

All the most up to date inventory information will be included in the June 15, 2005, submittal ( see " Commitment to control measures" section) and will be used in formulating a control strategy.

Attainment by 2007 The EPA's 1991 reclassification guidance, which is referenced in the final eighthour rule, stipulates that a request for reclassification be accompanied by evidence demonstrating that the area will be able to attain by the earlier date specified by the lower classification, which is marginal in this case. However, the Clean Air Act is silent on this issue. We ask the EPA to consider that initial marginal classifications were not based on a state's submitted evidence that attainment by 2007 was achievable. Thus, reclassification should not hinge so much on evidence of attainment by 2007, so much as the state's commitment to attain by 2007. Such a commitment is contained at the end of this reclassification request with interim milestones leading to a SIP submittal in 2007.

Nonetheless, the following section includes information supporting the feasibility of achieving attainment by 2007. We request the Administrator consider this information as further evidence that a marginal classification is truly more appropriate for Southeast Michigan. 9 July 15, 2004 Modeling Results: EPA Modeling During formulation and finalization of the ozone transport rulemaking5, the EPA stated its position about the merits of reducing both one hour and eight hour ozone levels. More recently, the Technical Support Document for the Interstate Air Quality Rule ( Air Quality Modeling Analysis, EPA, January 2004, 69 FR 4566) contained modeling information relevant to this request. Table 10 shows a table that was excerpted from that document. It shows EPA's nonattainment projections for a base case scenario, i. e., expected benefits that would accrue in 2010 from implementation of measures in the Clean Air Act and the ozone transport rulemaking. Specifically, all of Southeast Michigan is projected to be in attainment under this base case scenario.

The forecasted benefits in the EPA's 2010 modeling are understated because mobile source emissions are most likely overestimated. As noted earlier, the vehicle fleet in Southeast Michigan turns over faster than average. To demonstrate, Table 11 shows the impact of fleet turnover in the region on emission rates. For example, emission rates for VOCs in 2010 are 41 percent lower than the emission rate that is based on the EPA's national default vehicle registration data.

Discontinuity I n the EPA's 1991 guidance for reclassification requests, an area must show that the " reclassification does not result in an illogical or excessive discontinuity relative to surrounding areas." In other words, a " donut hole" cannot be created where the area would be surrounded by areas at a higher classification.

This would not occur in Southeast Michigan. All adjacent nonattainment areas to Southeast Michigan are Subpart 1 nonattainment areas.

Other Considerations There are several other factors we request the EPA consider in determining the merits of a reclassification to marginal nonattainment.

1. Early attainment: Moderate areas have until 2010 to comply with the new ozone standard. Marginal areas must comply by 2007. By granting this request, the EPA helps keep Michigan on a path to improve air quality sooner. Specifically, controls will be in place ahead of the applicable schedule for moderate areas, or marginal areas not making the early submittal commitments contained in this request.

5 Federal Register, October 27, 1998. Volume 63, Number 207, p. 57355 57404. Known as the " NOx SIP Call." 10 July 15, 2004 2. Continued mobile source reductions: In order to help assure continued air quality improvement, SEMCOG has forecasted mobile source emissions to 2025. As shown in Figure 8, both NOx and VOC emissions will decline so significantly, they will represent a fraction of today's emission levels.

3. Ozone Action: The MDEQ and the SEMCOG are active partners in the highly successful Ozone Action program. Our latest survey shows that over 90 percent of the respondents now recognize the Ozone Action program. 6 More importantly, the majority of residents are taking steps to curb emissions on declared Ozone Action days. As the EPA knows, the exact emission reduction benefits of this program cannot be calculated, but contribute to improved air quality. We commit to continued implementation and support for this program.

Consideration of All Evidence The MDEQ and the SEMCOG recognize the uncertainties inherent in emission modeling, dispersion modeling, and modeling future activity levels. As reflected in a recent court decision, so does the EPA. 7 Accordingly, rather than deciding on any single factor, we request the Administrator holistically consider all the evidence presented in this analysis that supports a policy decision to reclassify Southeast Michigan to marginal nonattainment. That evidence includes:

  The unusualness of the June 2003 episode, most notably June 25, 2003;   Less than 10 percent of the ozone on the worst day in 13 years, the same day contributing to the higher than usual design value, is attributable to emissions from the region. Therefore, subjecting the area to the requirements of moderate areas because of this episode would be inappropriate;   Historical monitoring data show that the regional design value for 12 consecutive years was 96 ppb or less. Absent June 25, 2003, the design value for the last three years would plummet to 92 ppb;   Mobile source emissions will decline by as much as 40 percent between 2002 and 2007 and are projected to continue declining through 2025 ( see Figure 10);   The EPA predicted attainment for Southeast Michigan by 2010 based on implementation of Clean Air Act controls already being phased in and the NOx SIP call rule. Mobile emissions in that analysis were likely overestimated; and   More importantly, Michigan is committing to implement additional control measures necessary for attainment and to early identification and legal authority for implementation ( see following section).

6 SEMCOG Quality of Life Survey. 2002. 7 United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ( Docket No. 02 4107) on May 19, 2004. 11 July 15, 2004 With respect to interpreting modeling results, the ability of the EPA to take a weight of evidence approach was recently reinforced by the U. S. Court of Appeals ( referenced above). The Court clarified that the EPA could consider a variety of factors in addition to modeling results in evaluating the merits of a SIP attainment demonstration. Also, the EPA recognized the merits of a weight of evidence approach in its criteria for implementing Early Action Compacts. And, as previously indicated, other marginal classifications were not premised on a state demonstrating attainment by 2007, the same year the SIP is due. To remedy the dilemma posed by the same deadline for the SIP submittal and attainment, Michigan commits to the early submittals outlined below.

Commitment to Control Measures The State of Michigan is committed to early compliance and maintenance of the ozone standard. As such, Michigan commits to the implementation of control measures necessary to achieve and maintain the ozone standard. The MDEQ and the SEMCOG are working with a task force with broad   based representation to evaluate the merits of several emission reduction alternatives. This includes a special study to quantify the benefits of a wide range of fuels.

The fact that the SIPs are due on the same date attainment is required for marginal areas poses a dilemma. In order to address this dilemma and consistent with the policy approach in Early Action Compacts, Michigan commits to interim milestones in advance of a 2007 SIP submittal should the EPA grant a marginal classification for Southeast Michigan. Specifically, Michigan commits to the following schedule, which will result in emission reductions and cleaner air earlier than under the current moderate classification.

1. June 2005   Identification of additional controls By June 2005, the MDEQ will submit to the EPA, Region 5 an analysis of various emission control strategies. In order to account for the uncertainty of predictive models, Michigan commits to additional control( s). The results of the analysis, evaluation of alternatives, and details of the control strategy, including an air quality assessment, will be in this submittal.

2. June 2006   Adoption of rules/ laws Following the June 2005 submittal, the MDEQ will expeditiously pursue the necessary rules and/ or legislative authority to implement the control strategy for submittal to the EPA by June 2006. 12 July 15, 2004 3. June 2007   Submittal of SIP The complete SIP package will be submitted by June 2007 as specified for marginal nonattainment areas. However, reclassification based on this request places the state on a track for implementation of controls more expeditiously than for either moderate areas or marginal areas, both of which are not required to make any such commitments prior to June 2007.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 195 (Friday, October 7, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 69752]
[FR Doc No: 2016-24206]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0425; FRL-9952-45-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Texas; Control of Air Pollution From Motor Vehicles, Vehicle Inspection
and Maintenance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve revisions to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP). The
revisions to the SIP were submitted in 2015. These revisions are
related to the implementation of the state's motor vehicle emissions
Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program. The EPA is proposing to
approve these revisions pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments should be received on or before November 7,
2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0425,
at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For
additional information on how to submit comments see the detailed
instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule located
in the rules section of this Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John Walser,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of this Federal
Register, the EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in response to this
action no further activity is contemplated. If the EPA receives
relevant adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and
all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final
rule based on this proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second
comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action
should do so at this time.
    For additional information, see the direct final rule which is
located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: September 30, 2016.
Samuel Coleman,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2016-24206 Filed 10-6-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 26, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 207)]
[Notices]
[Page 66352-66353]
[DOCID:fr26oc11-117]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Reports, Forms and Record Keeping Requirements, Agency
Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Information
Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below has been forwarded to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR
describes the nature of the information collections and their expected
burden. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period was
published on June 24, 2011 [76 FR 37189].

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before November 25, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Office of Defects Investigation,<PHONE_NUMBER>. 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., W48-221, Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

    (1) Title: Replaceable Light Source Dimensional Information
Collection, 49 CFR part 564.
    OMB Number: 2127-0563.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Affected Public: Business or other for profit organizations.
    Abstract: The information to be collected is in response to 49 CFR
part 564, ``Replaceable Light Source

Dimensional Information.'' Persons desiring to use newly designed
replaceable headlamp light sources are required to submit
interchangeability and performance specifications to the agency. After
a short agency review to assure completeness, the information is placed
in a public docket for use by any person who would desire to
manufacture headlamp light sources for highway motor vehicles. In
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, reflective
devices and associated equipment,'' part 564 submission are referenced
as being the source of information regarding the performance and
interchangeability information for legal headlamp light sources,
whether original equipment or replacement equipment. Thus, the
submitted information about headlamp light sources becomes the basis
for certification of compliance with safety standards.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 28.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 7.
    (2) Title: Compliance Labeling of Retroreflective Materials heavy
Trailer Conspicuity.
    OMB Number: 2127-0569.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Affected Public: Business or other for profit organizations.
    Abstract: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, ``Lamps
Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment,'' specifies requirements
for vehicle lighting for the purposes of reducing traffic accidents and
their tragic results by providing adequate roadway illumination,
improved vehicle conspicuity, appropriate information transmission
through signal lamps, in both day, night, and other conditions of
reduced visibility. For certifications and identification purposes, the
Standard requires the permanent marking of the letters ``DOT-C2,''
``DOT-C3'', or ``DOT -C4'' at least 3mm high at regular intervals on
retroreflective sheeting material having adequate performance to
provide effective trailer conspicuity.
    The manufacturers of new tractors and trailers are required to
certify that their products are equipped with retroreflective material
complying with the requirements of the standard. The Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) enforces this and other standards
through roadside inspections of trucks. There is no practical field
test for the performance requirements, and labeling is the only
objectives way of distinguishing trailer conspicuity grade material
from lower performance material. Without labeling, FMCSA will not be
able to enforce the performance requirements of the standard and the
compliance testing of new tractors and trailers will be complicated.
Labeling is also important to small trailer manufactures because it may
help them to certify compliance. Because wider stripes or material of
lower brightness also can provide the minimum safety performance, the
marking system serves the additional role of identifying the minimum
stripe width required for retroreflective brightness of the particular
material. Since the differences between the brightness grades of
suitable retroreflective conspicuity material is not obvious from
inspection, the marking system is necessary for tractor and trailer
manufacturers and repair shops to assure compliance and for FMCSA to
inspect tractors and trailers in use. Permanent labeling is used to
identify retroreflective material having the minimum properties
required for effective conspicuity of trailers at night. The
information enables the FMCSA to make compliance inspections, and it
aids tractor and trailer owners and repairs shops in choosing the
correct repair materials for damaged tractors and trailers. It also
aids smaller trailer manufacturers in certifying compliance of their
products.
    The FMCSA will not be able to determine whether trailers are
properly equipped during roadside inspections without labeling. The use
of cheaper and more common reflective materials, which are ineffective
for the application, would be expected in repairs without the labeling
requirement.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 1.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 3.

ADDRESSES: Send comments, within 30 days, to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725-17th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention NHTSA Desk Officer.
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility
and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize
the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including
the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.
    A Comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30
days of publication.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 20, 2011.
Nathaniel Beuse,
Director, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards.
[FR Doc. 2011-27656 Filed 10-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: July 10, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 131)]
[Notices]
[Page 37523-37524]
[DOCID:fr10jy07-53]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-174-001]

Columbia Gulf Transmission Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

June 29, 2007.
    Take notice that on June 26, 2007, Columbia Gulf Transmission
Company (Columbia Gulf) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas
Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff
sheets, with an effective date of January 1, 2008:

Ninth Revised Sheet No. 216
First Revised Sheet No. 216A
First Revised Sheet No. 216B
First Revised Sheet No. 216C
Sixth Revised Sheet No. 217
Sixth Revised Sheet No. 218
First Revised Sheet No. 219

    Columbia Gulf states that the filing is being made in compliance
with the Commission's Order in this docket issued June 11, 2007.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of
the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest
must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

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

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-13306 Filed 7-9-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: July 31, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 146)]
[Notices]
[Page 41715]
[DOCID:fr31jy07-42]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. RP07-515-001 and RP07-497-001 (Not Consolidated)]

Crossroads Pipeline Company; Notice of Request To Change
Effective Date

July 24, 2007.
    Take notice that on July 18, 2007, Crossroads Pipeline Company
(Crossroads) tendered for filing a request that the Commission approve
a change in the effective date of certain tariff sheets that have
either been approved or are pending in the above-referenced proceedings
to coincide with the revised September 1, 2007 launch date of
Crossroads' new Electronic Bulletin Board.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing a
protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

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

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

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

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-14752 Filed 7-30-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: January 23, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 14)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 4121-4123]
[DOCID:fr23ja09-4]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0935; Directorate Identifier 2008-NE-28-AD;
Amendment 39-15790; AD 2009-01-11]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Turbomeca Arriel 2B and 2B1 Turboshaft
Engines

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

    Several cases of loss of internal components from the Hydro
Mechanical Unit (HMU) low fuel pressure switch Hydra-Electric part
number (P/N) 9 550 17 956 0 into the fuel system, have been reported
on Arriel 2 engines.
    The loss of internal components from the low fuel pressure
switch into the fuel system may lead to a rupture of the HP-LP pumps
drive shaft shear pin, and thus to a possible uncommanded in-flight
shutdown (IFSD). On a single-engine helicopter, an uncommanded IFSD
results in an emergency autorotation landing and in certain
conditions may lead to an accident.

    We are issuing this AD to prevent forced autorotation landing, or
an accident.

DATES: This AD becomes effective February 27, 2009. The Director of the
Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain
publications listed in this AD as of February 27, 2009.

ADDRESSES: The Docket Operations office is located at Docket Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-
0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Lawrence, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12
New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on October 30, 2008 (73
FR 64566). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states that:

    Several cases of loss of internal components from the HMU low
fuel pressure switch Hydra-Electric P/N 9 550 17 956 0 into the fuel
system, have been reported on Arriel 2 engines. The loss of internal
components from the low fuel pressure switch into the fuel system
may lead to a rupture of the HP-LP pumps drive shaft shear pin, and
thus to a possible uncommanded IFSD. On a single-engine helicopter,
an uncommanded IFSD results in an emergency autorotation landing and
in certain conditions may lead to an accident.
    The evaluation of this condition prompts the issuance of this
AD, which requires the following actions for the HMUs installed on
Arriel 2 single-engine applications in order to:
     Verify the part number of the low fuel pressure switch;
     If installed, replace the Hydra-Electric low fuel
pressure switch P/N 9 550 17 956 0 (with either of two different P/N
low fuel pressure switches, referenced in the MCAI).
     In case a Hydra-Electric switch P/N 9 550 17 956 0 is
installed or may have been installed on the HMU, verify that no
parts are found in the chamber of the HMU body where the base of the
low fuel pressure switch has been installed.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. We are not referencing the P/Ns of
the serviceable low pressure switch as the MCAI does, in order to
follow FAA policies. This difference is described in a separate
paragraph of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this AD will
affect about 414 products installed on helicopters of U.S. registry. We
also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to comply
with this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required
parts will cost about $256 per product. Based on these figures, we
estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $139,104. Our cost
estimate is exclusive of possible warranty coverage.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Examining the AD Docket

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2009-01-11 Turbomeca: Amendment 39-15790. Docket No. FAA-2008-0935;
Directorate Identifier 2008-NE-28-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective February
27, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Turbomeca Arriel 2B and 2B1 turboshaft
engines. These engines are installed on, but not limited to,
Eurocopter France AS350B3 and EC130 B4 helicopters.

Reason

    (d) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2008-0077,
dated March 13, 2006 (and corrected May 6, 2008), states:

    ``Several cases of loss of internal components from the Hydro
Mechanical Unit (HMU) low fuel pressure switch Hydra-Electric part
number (P/N) 9 550 17 956 0 into the fuel system, have been reported
on Arriel 2 engines. The loss of internal components from the low
fuel pressure switch into the fuel system may lead to a rupture of
the HP-LP pumps drive shaft shear pin, and thus to a possible
uncommanded in-flight shutdown (IFSD). On a single-engine
helicopter, an uncommanded IFSD results in an emergency autorotation
landing and in certain conditions may lead to an accident. `We are
issuing this AD to prevent forced autorotation landing, or an
accident.' ''

Actions and Compliance

    (e) Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) No later than September 30, 2009, perform a one-time
inspection of the HMU, using paragraph 2 of Turbomeca Mandatory
Service Bulletin (MSB) No. 292 73 2826, dated March 13, 2008, to
identify the low fuel pressure switch installed on the adjusted HMU.
    (2) If a Hydra-Electric low fuel pressure switch, part number
(P/N) 9 550 17 956 0 is installed:
    (i) Inspect the low fuel pressure switch and chamber of the HMU
body.
    (ii) If any parts from the low fuel pressure switch are missing
or found in the HMU chamber, replace the HMU with a new or
overhauled HMU equipped with a serviceable low fuel pressure switch.
    (iii) If not, replace only the low fuel pressure switch with a
serviceable low fuel pressure switch.
    (3) If a low fuel pressure switch other than a Hydra-Electric
low fuel pressure switch, P/N 9 550 17 956 0 is installed, and that
is the only type of low fuel pressure switch that has been installed
since new, repair, or overhaul, no further action is required.
    (4) If a Hydra-Electric switch, P/N 9 550 17 956 0, has been or
may have been installed previously, and the conditions of paragraph
(e)(3) of this AD are not met:
    (i) Inspect the chamber of the HMU body.
    (ii) If any parts are found in the HMU chamber, replace the HMU
with a new or overhauled HMU equipped with a serviceable low fuel
pressure switch.

Definition

    (f) For the purpose of this AD, a serviceable low fuel pressure
switch is a switch that has a P/N other than P/N 9 550 17 956 0.

FAA AD Difference

    (g) This AD differs from the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness
Information (MCAI) and/ or service information, by not referencing
the P/Ns of the serviceable low fuel pressure switch, and, defining
a serviceable low fuel pressure switch, for the purpose of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (h) The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

Related Information

    (i) Refer to MCAI EASA AD 2008-0077, dated April 28, 2008 (and
corrected May 6, 2008), for related information.
    (j) Contact James Lawrence, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (781) 238-
7199, for more information about this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (k) You must use Turbomeca Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 292 73
2826, dated March 13, 2008, to do the low fuel pressure switch
installation inspection required by this AD.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Turbomeca, 40220 Tarnos, France; telephone (33) 05 59 74 40 00; fax
(33) 05 59 74 45 15.
    (3) You may review copies at the FAA, New England Region, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA; or at the National Archives
and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on December 30, 2008.
Peter A. White,
Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-31396 Filed 1-22-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


" Bromberg, Kevin L." To: Mary Kissell/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Mike < kevin. bromberg@ s Thrift/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Dave ba. gov> Guinnup/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, "' Edmond_ Toy@ omb. eop. gov'" 02/ 25/ 2004 11: 22 AM < Edmond_ Toy@ omb. eop. gov>, " Holman, Keith W." < Keith. Holman@ sba. gov>, Ken Hustvedt/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA cc: Subject: Plywood Changes  Acrolein and Benzene Testing These chemicals were either not detected at all or were detected were in a very small percentage of tests ( all less than 5%), and that number of small positives is expected in a large dataset. See analysis entitled " Evaluation of Wood Products Source Categories" for further details.

We're waiting for the EPA technical reply, in the meantime  here is the suggested rule language that would make the appropriate changes:

 Table 2 Modifications Needed:

Instead of paragraph ( 5) listing acetaldehyde, acrolein, formaldehyde, and phenol, exclude acrolein, and create its own new paragraph ( 6) for acrolein which will exclude:

Wood products presses except hardboard ( included) Steam Heated or Indirectly Fired Wood products dryers  except in the hardboard and fiberboard industries Misc Sources  except in the hardboard and fibreboard industries Modify old paragraph ( 6) for benzene to exclude:

Wood Products presses Steam Heated or Indirectly Fired Wood products dryers Misc. Wood products sources ( other than dryers, presses and boilers)

 Current version of Table 2 Table 2 to Appendix B to Subpart DDDD of 40 CFR part 63. Emission Test Methods. For... You must... Using... ( 1) each process unit select sampling ports' Method 1 or 1A of 40 CFR location and the number part 60, appendix A of traverse points ( as appropriate). ( 2) each process unit determine velocity and Method 2 in addition to volumetric flow rate; Method 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60 ( as appropriate). ( 3) each process unit conduct gas molecular weight Method 3, 3A, or 3B in analysis appendix A to 40 CFR part 60 ( as appropriate). ( 4) each process unit measure moisture content of Method 4 in appendix A the stack gas to 40 CFR part 60.

( 5) each process unit measure emissions of the NCASI Method following HAP: IM/ CAN/ WP 99.02 ( IBR, acetaldehyde, acrolein, see 40 CFR 63.14( f)); OR formaldehyde, and phenol Method 320 in appendix A to 40 CFR part 63; OR ASTM D6348 03 ( IBR, see 40 CFR 63.14( fb)) provided that percent R as determined in Annex A5 of ASTM D6348 03 is equal or greater than 70 percent and less than or equal to 130 percent. ( 6) each process unit measure emissions of benzene Method 320 in appendix A to 40 CFR part 63; OR ASTM D6348 03 ( IBR, see 40 CFR 63.14 ( fb)) provided that percent R as determined in Annex A5 of ASTM D6348 03 is equal or greater than 70 percent and less than or equal to 130 percent. ( 7) each press that measure emissions of MDI Method 320 in appendix A processes board to 40 CFR part 63; OR containing MDI resin Conditional Test Method ( CTM) 031 which is posted on http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ e mc/ ctm. html ( 8) each direct fired measure emissions of the Method 29 in appendix A process unit following HAP metals: to 40 CFR part 60. You arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, must analyze samples chromium, lead, manganese, using atomic absorption and nickel. spectroscopy ( AAS). ( 9) each reconstituted meet the design specifications wood product press or included in the definition of reconstituted wood wood products enclosure in product board cooler § 63.2292 of subpart DDDD of with a HAP control 40 CFR part 63 device ok  Original Message From: Kissell. Mary@ epamail. epa. gov [ mailto: Kissell. Mary@ epamail. epa. gov] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 9: 54 AM To: Bromberg, Kevin L. Cc: ' Guinnup. Dave@ epamail. epa. gov'; ' Edmond_ Toy@ omb. eop. gov'; Holman, Keith W.; ' Hustvedt. Ken@ epamail. epa. gov'; ' thrift. mike@ epamail. epa. gov' Subject: Re: Plywood  Benzene/ Acrolein Response and other SBA Issues for Boilers and Plywood If you send any more faxes, please also send them to ( 919) 685 3219.

" Bromberg, Kevin L." To: "' Edmond_ Toy@ omb. eop. gov'" < kevin. bromberg@ s < Edmond_ Toy@ omb. eop. gov> ba. gov> cc: Mike Thrift/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Mary Kissell/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Ken 02/ 25/ 2004 09: 41 AM Hustvedt/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Dave Guinnup/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, " Holman, Keith W." < Keith. Holman@ sba. gov> Subject: Plywood  Benzene/ Acrolein Response and other SBA Issues for Boilers and Plywood Mary  still need that contractor response on the benzene/ acrolein that you promised last night otherwise recommend that EPA modify table 2, according to the technical analysis showing that benzene and acrolein are not detected in all processes, based on EPA's own dataset.

Other significant issues yet to be resolved on plywood and plywood:

1. EPA " may" approve look up table risk based exemptions 2. co located issue ( boilers) 3. property boundary  risk analysis 4. 12 month rolling average vs. monthly  note that all the recent MACT rules ( to my recollection) were 12 month rolling averages, instead of monthly limits ( I worked on a series of coating rules most recently). 5. For Dave Guinnup to consider on the issue of: 14 month deadline for submission of risk analyses  two suggestions to consider  24 months if facility needs to make modifications/ 18 months for the others in the preamble  EPA" s expectation that lookup analyses will be reviewed within 30 days; tiered analyses within 60 days to determine if more information is required. Expect approvals within 90 days of receiving all appropriate information 14 months is a rather short deadline  EPA won't need all this time. The expectations in the guidance will help provide incentives for early submission without Mike Thrift's legal problem of tying the agency to a deadline.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 147 (Monday, August 1, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50531-50532]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18085]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2016-N-1984]

Request for Nominations on the Tobacco Products Scientific
Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is requesting that any
industry organizations interested in participating in the selection of
a nonvoting member to represent the interests of tobacco growers to
serve on the Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee for the
Center for Tobacco Products (CTP), notify FDA in writing. FDA is also
requesting nominations for a nonvoting member to represent the
interests of tobacco growers to serve on the Tobacco Products
Scientific Advisory Committee, and an alternate to this representative.
A nominee may either be self-nominated or nominated by an organization
to serve as a nonvoting industry representative. Nominations will be
accepted for current vacancies effective with this notice.

DATES: Any industry organization interested in participating in the
selection of an appropriate nonvoting member to represent the interests
of tobacco growers must send a letter stating that interest to the FDA
by August 31, 2016 (see sections I and II of this document for further
details). Concurrently, nomination materials for prospective candidates
should be sent to FDA by August 31, 2016.

ADDRESSES: All statements of interest from industry organizations
interested in participating in the selection process should be sent to
Caryn Cohen (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). All nominations for
nonvoting industry representatives should be submitted electronically
by accessing the FDA Advisory Committee Membership Nomination Portal
at: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/FACTRSPortal/FACTRS/index.cfm or by mail to Advisory Committee Oversight and Management
Staff, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
32, Rm. 5103, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Information about becoming
a member of an FDA advisory committee can also be obtained by visiting
FDA's Web site at: http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Caryn Cohen, Office of Science, Center
for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Tobacco
Products, Document Control Center, Bldg. 71, Rm. G335, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 1-877-287-1373 (choose
Option 5), email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Agency intends to add nonvoting industry
representatives to the following advisory committee:

I. CTP Advisory Committee

Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee

    The Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee (the Committee)
advises the Commissioner of Food and Drugs (the Commissioner) or
designee in discharging responsibilities related to the regulation of
tobacco products. The Committee reviews and evaluates safety,
dependence, and health issues relating to tobacco products and provides
appropriate advice, information, and recommendations to the
Commissioner.

II. Selection Procedure

    Any industry organization interested in participating in the
selection of an appropriate nonvoting member to represent the interests
of tobacco growers should send a letter stating that interest to the
FDA contact (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) within 30 days of
publication of this document (see DATES). Within the subsequent 30
days, FDA will send a letter to each organization that has expressed an
interest, attaching a complete list of all such organizations; and a
list of all nominees along with their current resumes. The letter will
also state that it is the responsibility of the interested
organizations to confer with one another and to select a candidate,
within 60 days after the receipt of the FDA letter, to serve as the
nonvoting member to represent the interests of tobacco growers for the
committee. The interested organizations are not bound by the list of
nominees in selecting a candidate. However, if no individual is
selected within 60 days, the Commissioner will select the nonvoting
member to represent the interests of tobacco growers.

III. Application Procedure

    Individuals may self-nominate and/or an organization may nominate
one or more individuals to serve as a nonvoting member to represent the
interests of tobacco growers. Contact information, current curriculum
vitae, and the name of the committee of interest should be sent to the
FDA Advisory Committee Membership Nomination Portal (see ADDRESSES)
within 30 days of publication of this document (see DATES). FDA will
forward all nominations to the organizations expressing interest in
participating in the selection process for the committee. (Persons who
nominate themselves as nonvoting industry representatives will not
participate in the selection process.)
    FDA seeks to include the views of women and men, members of all
racial and ethnic groups, and individuals with and without disabilities
on its advisory committees and, therefore encourages nominations of
appropriately qualified candidates from these groups.
    This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14, relating to advisory committees.

    Dated: July 27, 2016.
Janice M. Soreth,
Acting Associate Commissioner, Special Medical Programs.
[FR Doc. 2016-18085 Filed 7-29-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER

EPA Registration Division contact:

INSTRUCTIONS:  Please utilize this outline in preparing the pesticide petition.  In cases where the outline element does not apply, please insert "NA-Remove" and maintain the outline. Please do not change the margins, font, or format in your pesticide petition. Simply replace the instructions that appear in green, i.e., "[insert company name]," with the information specific to your action.

TEMPLATE:

Sekisui Specialty Chemicals

2E8082

	EPA has received a pesticide petition (2E8082) from [Sekisui Specialty Chemicals], [1501 West LBJ Freeway, Dallas, TX 75234] proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.960 to establish to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for [2-pyrrolidone, 1-ethenyl-, polymer with ethenol (CAS Reg. No. 26008-54-8) under 40CFR 180.960] in or on the raw agricultural commodity [as a packaging film for unit dose packaging of pesticides and pool sanitizers].  EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of  FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

	1. Plant metabolism. [NA - Remove]

	2. Analytical method. [NA - Remove]

	3. Magnitude of residues. [NA - Remove]

B. Toxicological Profile

	 [Polymer Exemption Language       2-pyrrolidone, 1-ethenyl-, polymer with ethenol, is composed of at least 3 monomer units and other reactant.              2-pyrrolidone, 1-ethenyl-, polymer with ethenol, consists of a simple weight majority of the polymer molecules. The monomer distribution in the polymer is completely random and the distribution of the molecular weight of the polymer is due largely to the number of monomer units in the individual molecules.              2-pyrrolidone, 1-ethenyl-, polymer with ethenol, will not become cationic in an aquatic environment, and it contains no moieties capable of obtaining a cationic charge.

      2-pyrrolidone, 1-ethenyl-, polymer with ethenol, is composed of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen, and meets the criteria of elemental composition. Sodium exists as a monatomic counterion.                2-pyrrolidone, 1-ethenyl-, polymer with ethenol, will not degrade, decompose or depolymerize.              All materials used to prepare 2-pyrrolidone, 1-ethenyl-, polymer with ethenol, are on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory or are manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5 exemption.              Although the number average molecular weight of 2-pyrrolidone, 1-ethenyl-, polymer with ethenol, exceeds 10,000 and it is water soluble, it does not fit the definition of water absorbing polymer in that it does not absorb its weight of water.              2-pyrrolidone, 1-ethenyl-, polymer with ethenol, consists of a number average molecular weight of 22,900 with zero percent of its oligomeric material weighing below 500 daltons and zero percent of its oligomeric material weighing less than 1,000 daltons.]

             1. Acute toxicity.  [NA  -  Remove]        	2. Genotoxicty. [NA - Remove]

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. [NA - Remove ]

	4. Subchronic toxicity. [NA - Remove ]

	5. Chronic toxicity. [NA - Remove ]

	6. Animal metabolism. [NA - Remove ]

	7. Metabolite toxicology. [NA - Remove ]

	8. Endocrine disruption. [NA - Remove ]

C. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure. [The physical and chemical characteristics of 2-pyrrolidone, 1-ethenyl-, polymer with ethenol leads to the conclusion that there is reasonable certainty of no harm from exposure to the polymer from food or drinking water nor from an aggregate exposure.]

	i. Food. [NA  -  Remove ]

	ii. Drinking water. [NA - Remove]

	2. Non-dietary exposure. [The physical and chemical characteristics of 2-pyrrolidone, 1-ethenyl-, polymer with ethenol leads to the conclusion that there is reasonable certainty of no harm from exposure to the polymer from non-dietary means.]

D. Cumulative Effects

	[At this time there is no information to indicate that any toxic effects produced by 2-pyrrolidone, 1-ethenyl-, polymer with ethenol would be cumulative with any other chemical. Given the compound's categorization as a low risk polymer, and its proposed use in pesticide and sanitizer packaging, there is no expectation of increased risk due to cumulative exposure.]

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population. [Based on the polymer's physical and chemical properties, and that it meets or exceeds the polymer exemption criteria at 40CFR 723.250 for low risk polymers, adverse effects are not expected.]

	2. Infants and children. [Based on the polymer's physical and chemical properties, and that it meets or exceeds the polymer exemption criteria at 40CFR 723.250 for low risk polymers, adverse effects are not expected.]

F. International Tolerances

	[There are no CODEX maximum residue limits established for 2-pyrrolidone, 1-ethenyl-, polymer with ethenol, in or on crops or commodities at this time.]


[Federal Register: September 21, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 181)]
[Notices]
[Page 48080]
[DOCID:fr21se09-53]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2008-D-0514]

Guidance for Industry on End-of-Phase 2A Meetings; Availability

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of a guidance for industry entitled ``End-of-Phase 2A
Meetings.'' This guidance provides information on end-of-phase 2A
(EOP2A) meetings for sponsors of investigational new drug applications
(INDs). The purpose of an EOP2A meeting is to facilitate interaction
between FDA and sponsors who seek guidance related to clinical trial
design employing clinical trial simulation and quantitative modeling of
prior knowledge (e.g., drug, disease, placebo), designing trials for
better dose response estimation and dose selection, and other related
issues. This guidance is intended to further FDA initiatives directed
at identifying opportunities to facilitate the development of
innovative medical products and improve the quality of drug
applications through early meetings with sponsors.

DATES:  Submit written or electronic comments on agency guidances at
any time.

ADDRESSES:  Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance
to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
51, rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed
adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests.
Submit written comments on the guidance to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to http://
www.regulations.gov. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
electronic access to the guidance document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Jogarao Gobburu, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 3186, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-2460.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry
entitled ``End-of-Phase 2A Meetings.'' This guidance will meet one of
the performance goals agreed to under the September 27, 2007,
reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA IV). Under
section XI of the PDUFA IV Performance Goals, Expediting Drug
Development, FDA agreed to publish by the end of fiscal year 2008 a
draft guidance on EOP2A meetings and to complete the final guidance
within 1 year of the close of the public comment period (see http://
www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/UserFees/PrescriptionDrugUserFee/ucm119243.htm
at section XI.A).
    FDA has a long-standing interest in defining dose or exposure-
response relationships for the effectiveness and safety of new drugs.
Accurate dose-response information is important for understanding how
patients should take drugs to maximize desirable effects and minimize
undesirable effects. Dose selection for phase 2 and phase 3 studies is
a challenge in many drug development programs and poor choice may lead
to trial failure. Improving early dose selection may increase the
likelihood of future trial success. FDA recognizes trial planning may
be improved by clinical trial simulations that employ quantitative
models of drug exposure-response, placebo effect, and disease
progression. This guidance on EOP2A meetings is intended to encourage
the best use of this science to facilitate the exploration of trial
design alternatives to increase the likelihood for successful trials.
    In the Federal Register of September 26, 2008 (73 FR 55851), FDA
announced the availability of a draft guidance of the same title. In
response to public comments on the draft version, the guidance has been
revised to clarify the following topics: (1) The type of information
that should be submitted with the meeting request and the background
package and (2) the role of the Office of New Drugs in preparing for
and conducting EOP2A meetings.
    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance
practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the
agency's current thinking on the roles of model-based drug development
together with early interaction between FDA and industry to improve
late phase clinical trial success. It does not create or confer any
rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the
public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies
the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

II. Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) written or electronic comments regarding this document.
Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper copies of any
mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy.
Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets
in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the
Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.

III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The
collections of information in 21 CFR part 312 and the guidance on
``Formal Meetings with Sponsors and Applicants for PDUFA Products''
have been approved under OMB control numbers 0910-0014 and 0910-0429,
respectively.

IV. Electronic Access

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

    Dated: September 16, 2009.
David Horowitz,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-22623 Filed 9-18-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S