[Federal Register: September 28, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 187)]
[Notices]
[Page 56667]
[DOCID:fr28se05-92]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP96-312-149]

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

September 21, 2005.
    Take notice that, on September 16, 2005, Tennessee Gas Pipeline
Company (Tennessee) submitted a compliance filing pursuant to the
Commission's September 9, 2005, Order in the above-referenced
proceeding.
    Tennessee states that copies of the filing were served on parties
on the official service list in the above-captioned proceeding.
    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 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>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-5282 Filed 9-27-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


										6560-50-P
                        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                40 CFR Part 51
                      [EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0605; FRL-      ]
                                 RIN 2060-AQ38
Air Quality:  Revision to Definition of Volatile Organic Compounds  -  Exclusion of trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene and 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene

AGENCY:   Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION:   Proposed rule.
SUMMARY:   EPA is proposing to revise the Agency's definition of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) for purposes of preparing state implementation plans (SIPs) to attain the national ambient air quality standards for ozone under Title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA). This proposed revision would add 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (also known as HFO-1234yf) and trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (also known as HFO-1234ze) to the list of compounds excluded from the definition of VOC on the basis that these compounds make a negligible contribution to tropospheric ozone formation.
DATES:  Comments must be received on or before [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
Public Hearing:  If anyone contacts us requesting to speak at a public hearing on or before [INSERT DATE 15 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], we will hold a public hearing in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Additional information about the hearing would be published in a subsequent Federal Register notice.
ADDRESSES:   Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0605, by one of the following methods:
   * www.regulations.gov.   Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
   * E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0605.
   * Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0605.
   * Mail:  Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0605, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode:  6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460.
   * Hand Delivery:  EPA Docket Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Room: 3334, Mail Code: 6102T, Washington, D.C. 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0605. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions:  Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0605. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov, or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov website is an "anonymous access" system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0605, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0605 is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  David Sanders, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Policy Division, Mail Code C539-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
 I.   General Information
 A.  Does this action apply to me?
	Entities potentially affected by this proposed rule include, but not necessarily limited to, states (typically state air pollution control agencies) that control VOCs, and industries involved in the manufacture or use of refrigerants, aerosol propellants, and blowing agents for insulating foams.
Industry group
SIC[a]
NAICS[b]
Refrigerants
Aerosol propellants
Blowing agents
2869, 358
2869
2869, 3079
233415, 238220, 3411, 44811
3411
326140, 326150, 3411
[a] Standard Industrial Classification.
[b] North American Industry Classification System.

 	This proposed rule is applicable to all manufacturers, distributors, and users of these chemical compounds.  In addition to this rule, the use of these compounds is subject to restrictions under other parts of the CAA and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Specifically, the use of these compounds as aerosol propellants, blowing agents, or refrigerants, or any other use in which they would substitute for chlorofluorocarbons, hydrochlorofluorocarbons, or their substitutes, is subject to restrictions under the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program (CAA §612; 40 CFR 82 subpart G). The SNAP program has issued determinations for trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (HFO-1234ze) as a suitable foam and refrigerant substitute (74 FR 50129, September 30, 2009; 75 FR 34017, June 16, 2010) and a final approval for 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (HFO-1234yf), (76 FR 17488, March 29, 2011), as a substitute for use in the motor vehicle air conditioning end-use as a replacement for ozone depleting substances. Furthermore, HFO-1234yf is subject to a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) under TSCA.(75 FR 65987, October 27, 2010). The implications of these other regulations are discussed in more detail in Section III.
 B.  What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
 	Submitting CBI:  Do not submit this information to EPA through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
 C.  How can I find information about a possible public hearing?
 	Public Hearing:  To request a public hearing or information pertaining to a public hearing on this document, contact Ms. Pamela S. Long,  Air Quality Policy Division, Mail code C504-03, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC  27711, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER>, electronic e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
D.  How is this preamble organized?
The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:
 I.  General Information
 	A.  Does this action apply to me?
 	B.  What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
 	C.  How can I find information about a possible public hearing?
 	D.  How is this preamble organized?
 II.  Background
 	A.  Petition to list 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene
 	B.  Petition to list trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene
III.  EPA Response to the Petitions
 IV.  Proposed Action
 V.  Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
      A. Executive Order 12866:  Regulatory Planning and Review
      B. Paperwork Reduction Act
      C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
      D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
      E. Executive Order 13132:  Federalism
      F. Executive Order 13175:  Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments
      G. Executive Order 13045:  Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks
      H. Executive Order 13211:  Actions that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
      I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
      J. Executive Order 12898:  Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.

II.   Background
	Tropospheric ozone, commonly known as smog, is formed when VOCs and nitrogen oxides (NOx) react in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight. Because of the harmful health effects of ozone, EPA and state governments limit the amount of VOCs  that can be released into the atmosphere. The VOCs are those organic compounds of carbon which form ozone through atmospheric photochemical reactions. Different VOCs have different levels of reactivity -- that is, they do not react to form ozone at the same speed or do not form ozone to the same extent. Some VOCs react slowly, or form less ozone; therefore, changes in their emissions have limited effects on local or regional ozone pollution episodes. It has been EPA's policy that organic compounds with a negligible level of reactivity should be excluded from the regulatory definition of VOC so as to focus VOC control efforts on compounds that do significantly increase ozone concentrations. EPA also believes that exempting such compounds creates an incentive for industry to use negligibly reactive compounds in place of more highly reactive compounds that are regulated as VOCs. EPA lists these negligibly reactive compounds in its regulations (at 40 CFR 51.100(s)) and excludes them from the definition of VOC.
	The CAA requires the regulation of VOCs for various purposes. Section 302(s) of the CAA specifies that EPA has the authority to define what this term means, and hence what compounds shall be treated as VOCs for regulatory purposes. The policy of excluding negligibly reactive compounds from the VOC definition was laid out in the "Recommended Policy on Control of Volatile Organic Compounds" (42 FR 35314, July 8, 1977). EPA uses the reactivity of ethane as the threshold for determining whether a compound has negligible reactivity. Compounds that are less reactive than, or equally reactive to, ethane under certain assumed conditions may be deemed negligibly reactive and therefore suitable for exemption from the regulatory definition of VOC. Compounds that are more reactive than ethane continue to be considered VOCs for regulatory purposes and therefore subject to control requirements. The selection of ethane as the threshold compound was based on a series of smog chamber experiments that underlay the 1977 policy.
	EPA has used three different metrics to compare the reactivity of a specific compound to that of ethane:  (i) the reaction rate constant (known as kOH) with the hydroxyl radical (OH), (ii) the maximum incremental reactivities (MIR) of ethane and the compound in question expressed on a reactivity per mass basis; and (iii) the MIR of ethane and the compound in question expressed on a reactivity per mole basis. Differences between these three metrics are discussed below.
       The kOH is the reaction rate constant of the compound with the OH radical in the air. This reaction is typically the first step in a series of chemical reactions by which a compound breaks down in the air and participates in the ozone-forming process. If this step is slow, the compound will likely not form ozone at a very fast rate. The kOH values have long been used by EPA as a measure of photochemical reactivity and ozone-forming activity, and they have been the basis for most of EPA's previous exclusions of negligibly reactive compounds. The kOH metric is inherently a molar comparison, i.e., it measures the rate at which molecules react.
      The MIR values, both by mole and by mass, are a more recently developed measure of photochemical reactivity derived from a computer-based photochemical model. This measurement considers the complete ozone forming activity of a compound, not merely the first reaction step. Further explanation of the MIR metric can be found in: W. P. L. Carter, "Development of Ozone Reactivity Scales for Volatile Organic Compositions," Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, Vol. 44, 881-899, July 1994.
      The MIR values for compounds are typically expressed as grams of ozone formed per gram of VOC (mass basis), but may also be expressed as grams of ozone formed per mole of VOC (molar basis). For comparing the reactivities of two compounds, using the molar MIR values considers an equal number of molecules of the two compounds. Alternatively, using the mass MIR values compares an equal mass of the two compounds, which will involve different numbers of molecules, depending on the relative molecular weights. The molar MIR comparison is consistent with the original smog chamber experiments, which compared equal molar concentrations of individual VOCs that underlie the original selection of ethane as the threshold compound. It is also consistent with previous reactivity determinations based on inherently molar kOH values. By contrast, the mass MIR comparison is more consistent with how MIR values and other reactivity metrics have been applied in reactivity-based emission limits, such as the national VOC emissions standards for aerosol coatings (73 FR 15604). Many other VOC regulations contain limits based upon a weight of VOC per volume of product, such as EPA's regulations for limiting VOC emissions from architectural and industrial maintenance coatings (65 FR 7736). However, the fact that regulations are structured to measure VOC content by weight for ease of implementation and enforcement does not necessarily control whether VOC exemption decisions should be made on a weight basis as well.
      The choice of the molar basis versus the mass basis for the ethane comparison can be significant. Given the relatively low molecular weight of ethane, use of the mass basis tends to result in more VOCs being classified as "negligibly reactive" than in the case of the molar basis. In some cases, a compound might be considered less reactive than ethane and eligible for VOC exemption under the mass basis but not under the molar basis. The compounds considered in this proposal, trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene and 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene, fall into this category, where the molar MIR value is greater than that of ethane, but the mass MIR value is less than that of ethane.
      EPA has considered the choice between a molar or mass basis for the comparison to ethane in past rulemakings and guidance. Most recently, in "Interim Guidance on Control of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ozone State Implementation Plans" published on September 13, 2005 (70 FR 54046), EPA stated:
      "...a comparison to ethane on a mass basis strikes the right balance between a threshold that is low enough to capture compounds that significantly affect ozone concentrations and a threshold that is high enough to exempt some compounds that may usefully substitute for more highly reactive compounds.
        When reviewing compounds that have been suggested for VOC-exempt status, EPA will continue to compare them to ethane using kOH expressed on a molar basis and MIR values expressed on a mass basis."

      In this action, EPA is proposing to exempt these compounds using the comparison to ethane on the mass basis MIR value, because MIR values are available for these compounds and EPA believes that this comparison is appropriate.
      EPA's 2005 Interim Guidance also notes that, although VOC exemption decisions should be based on the contribution of a compound to tropospheric ozone formation, the EPA may consider whether granting a VOC exemption may lead to other significant risks to human health and the environment that would not be addressed adequately by existing programs or policies. Such considerations with respect to the two compounds considered here are discussed further in Section III.
A.  Petition to list 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (HFO-1234yf)
      Honeywell, Inc. submitted a petition to EPA on June 29, 2009, requesting that 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene be exempted from VOC control based on its low reactivity relative to ethane. The petitioner indicated that 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene may be used as a refrigerant for refrigeration and air-conditioning. Honeywell also indicated that it expects 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene to be widely used as a replacement for HFC-134a in motor vehicle air-conditioners (MVAC), and that 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene has been specifically developed for this purpose. Honeywell argues that as a replacement for use in motor vehicle air conditioners there will be an environmental advantage in that the global warming potential (GWP) of 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene is 4, which is substantially lower than the GWP for HFC-134a (100-year GWP = 1430) which 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene is designed to replace. Honeywell submitted several documents, including several peer-reviewed journal articles, to support this petition which have been added to the docket for this action.
B.  Petition to list trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene  (HFO-1234ze)
	Honeywell, Inc. also submitted a petition to EPA on December 2, 2009, requesting that trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene be exempted from VOC control based on its low reactivity relative to ethane. The petitioner indicated that trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene may be used in a variety of applications including as a refrigerant, an aerosol propellant, and a blowing agent for insulating foam. Honeywell submitted several documents, including several peer-reviewed journal articles, to support its petition, all of which have been added to the docket for this action.
III.  EPA Response to the Petitions
	EPA's response to the petitions is based on a consideration of a) the contribution that the chemicals make to tropospheric ozone formation based on a comparison of reactivity metrics, and b) the potential for other significant health and environmental risks that may not be adequately addressed by other programs or policies.
	Table 1 presents three reactivity metrics for ethane and for 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (CAS 754-12-1) and trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (CAS 29118-24-9) which are discussed in this proposed rule.
   Table 1  - Reactivities of ethane, trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene and
                          2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene
Compound
kOH (cm[3]/molecule-sec)
MIR        (g O3/mole VOC)
MIR
(g  O3/gram VOC)
Ethane
2.4 x 10-13
8.4
0.28
2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene
(HFO-1234yf)
10.5 x 10-13
31.92
0.28
trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene
(HFO-1234ze)
9.25 x 10-13
11.2
0.098
Notes:
   1. kOH value for ethane is from:  R. Atkinson., D. L. Baulch, R. A. Cox, J. N. Crowley, R. F. Hampson, Jr., R. G. Hynes, M. E. Jenkin, J. A. Kerr, M. J. Rossi, and J. Troe (2004), Summary of evaluated kinetic and photochemical data for atmospheric chemistry.
   2. kOH value for trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene is from: R. Sondergaard, O. J. Nielsen, M. D. Hurley, T. J. Wallington, and R. Singh, "Atmospheric chemistry of trans-CF3CH=CHF:  kinetics of the gas-phase reactions with Cl atoms, OH radicals, and O3." Chemical Physics Letters, 443 (2007) 199-204.
   3. kOH value for 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene is from:  O.J. Nielson, M.S. Javadi, M.P. Sulbaek Anderson, M.D. Hurley, T.J. Wallington, R. Singh, "Atmospheric Chemistry of CF3CF=CH2:  kinetics and mechanisms of gas-phase reactions with Cl atoms, OH Radicals, and O3," Chemical Physical Letters, 439 (2007) 18-22.
   4. Maximum incremental reactivity or MIR (g O3/g VOC) values of ethane, trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene and 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene are from: William P. L. Carter, "Development of the SAPRC-07 chemical mechanism and updated ozone reactivity scales" (updated 1/27/10). http://www.engr.ucr.edu/~carter/SAPRC/saprc07.pdf.
   5. Molar MIR (g O3/mole VOC) values were calculated from the mass MIR (g O3/g VOC) values by determining the number of moles per gram of the relevant organic compound.

      From the data in Table 1, it can also be seen that 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene has a higher kOH value than ethane, meaning that it initially reacts more quickly in the atmosphere than ethane. A molecule of 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene is also more reactive than a molecule of ethane, as shown by the molar MIR (g O3/mole VOC) values, because  equal numbers of moles have equal numbers of molecules. However, a gram of 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene is less reactive, or creates less ozone on the day of its emission to the atmosphere, than a gram of ethane. This is because 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene has a molecular weight (114) that is more than three times that of ethane (molecular weight 30), thus requiring less than a third the number of molecules of 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene per gram than the number of molecules of ethane per gram.
      From the data in Table 1, it can be seen that trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene has a higher kOH value than ethane, meaning that it initially reacts more quickly in the atmosphere than ethane. A molecule of trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene is also more reactive than a molecule of ethane, as shown by the molar MIR (g O3/mole VOC) values, since equal numbers of moles have equal numbers of molecules. However, a gram of trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene is less reactive, or creates less ozone on the day of its emission to the atmosphere, than a gram of ethane. This is because trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene has a molecular weight (114) that is more than three times that of ethane (molecular weight 30), thus requiring less than a third the number of molecules of trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene per gram than the number of molecules of ethane needed per gram.
      For the petitions submitted by Honeywell, the data supports the contention that the reactivity of the compounds in the petitions are equal to or lower than that of ethane on a mass MIR basis.
      EPA also considered the results of a peer-reviewed study, in which, among other things, potential air quality impacts from generation of ground-level ozone were modeled using a regional-scale 3-dimensional atmospheric model. This study found that, if 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene was used in all automobiles and was only emitted from automobiles, the incremental amount of ozone formed from its degradation in the atmosphere was only 0.01% of total ozone formed during the simulation. The baseline for this analysis was that if 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene were not used in automobiles, the refrigerant that auto manufacturers would continue to use is HCF-134a which, because of its slower reaction time, would produce a smaller incremental amount of ozone. However, the study also noted that if 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene were used in additional applications, e.g., non-vehicle refrigerant applications, its contribution to ozone formation would be greater. Thus, the additional information from this study shows that 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene does produce ozone, but the amount is unlikely to have a significant impact on local air quality under current conditions. The study authors also considered the potential for the use of 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene to increase the deposition of trifluoroacetic acid, a product of atmospheric degradation, into water bodies. The authors concluded that the modeled concentrations of deposited trifluoroacetic acid from the use of 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene in automobiles were well below levels of concern for aquatic toxicity; however, the  potential for long-term accumulation of trifluoroacetic acid in water bodies is still somewhat uncertain.
      The definition of VOC, and thus the exclusion from that definition, applies to all uses of a chemical. The currently known uses for the chemicals being considered here are regulated as substitutes for stratospheric ozone-depleting substances (ODS) under the SNAP program. Under SNAP, EPA reviews all new substitutes for ODS and allows their use in specific applications where the overall risks to human health and the environment associated with their use are comparable to or less than those of other compounds used in the same manner.
      EPA's SNAP program has issued determinations of acceptability for trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (HFO-1234ze) as an acceptable substitute for certain ODS in a number of foam blowing end uses and as a refrigerant in non-mechanical heat transfer as stated in Section I.
      EPA proposed an approval (74 FR 53445, October 19, 2009) for 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (HFO-1234yf) as an acceptable ODS substitute for use in MVAC, subject to specific use conditions, in place of CFC-12 and HFC-134a and issued final approval in March 2011 as stated in Section I. HFC-134a, which is not an ozone depleting substance but has a high global warming potential (100 year GWP = 1430), has largely replaced CFC-12 in motor vehicle air conditioners. Substituting 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (HFO-1234yf) for HFC-134a is environmentally beneficial as the global warming potential of HFO-1234yf is much lower (100 year GWP = 4). EPA received a petition on May 7, 2010, (with a follow up petition on November 16, 2010) from the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Institute for Governance & Sustainable Development, and the Environmental Investigation Agency (a non-governmental organization) asking EPA to remove HFC-134a from the list of acceptable substitutes under the SNAP program for use in motor vehicle air conditioners.
      Under TSCA, EPA has performed a pre-manufacture review for 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (HFO-1234yf) (75 FR 65987, Oct. 27, 2010). Based on toxicity testing data submitted as part of the pre-manufacture notice for HFO-1234yf, EPA identified health concerns for developmental toxicity and lethality to workers and consumers if they were exposed to a significant amount of HFO-1234yf via inhalation. As a result, EPA has requested additional toxicity testing and issued a SNUR for 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (HFO-1234yf). The SNUR  requires manufacturers or other affected parties to submit a notice (a Significant New Use Notice, or SNUN) to EPA at least 90 days before the manufacture, import, or processing of HFO-1234yf for the following uses: a) use other than as a refrigerant in MVAC systems in new passenger cars and vehicles; b) commercial use other than in new passenger cars and vehicles in which the charging of MVAC systems with HFO-1234yf was done by the motor vehicle original equipment manufacturer (OEM); and c) distribution in commerce of products intended for use by a consumer for the purpose of servicing, maintenance and disposal involving HFO-1234yf.  By issuing this SNUR, the Agency will: a) receive a SNUN of any person's intent to manufacture, import, or process the chemical substance for the described significant new use before that activity begins; b) have an opportunity to review and evaluate data submitted with a SNUN before the notice submitter begins manufacturing, importing, or processing a listed chemical substance for the described significant new use; and c) be able to regulate prospective manufacture, import, or processing of a listed chemical substance before the described significant new use of that chemical substance occurs, if warranted.
      In issuing the SNUR, EPA did not raise concerns about potential exposures due to the use of HFO-1234yf in MVAC as approved under the SNAP program, as the use restrictions under SNAP are expected to minimize environmental release and exposures. Other potential applications that may lead to significant exposures would trigger a SNUN and would likely trigger further review under SNAP. EPA believes these processes will provide adequate opportunity to address any health effects issues associated with possible increased use of HFO-1234yf which might result from a VOC exemption.
      In summary, for both trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (HFO-1234ze) and 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (HFO-1234yf), EPA believes that a) these chemicals qualify as negligibly reactive with respect to their contribution to tropospheric ozone formation, and b) any non-tropospheric ozone related risks associated with potential increased use are adequately addressed by other existing programs and policies. We invite the public to submit comments and additional information relevant to the issue of these compounds' overall risks to human health and the environment, and on whether such information should be considered in connection with the decision to grant an exemption from the regulatory definition of VOC.
IV.  Proposed Action
      EPA is responding to the petitions by proposing to revise its definition of VOC at 40 CFR 51.100(s) to add trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene and 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene to the list of compounds that are exempt from the regulatory definition of VOC because they are negligibly reactive on the basis that they are less reactive than ethane on a mass MIR basis.
V.  Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A.	Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
	Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is treated as a significant regulatory action because some may view it as raising novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under EO 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action.
B.	Paperwork Reduction Act
      This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). It does not contain any recordkeeping or reporting requirement.
C.	Regulatory Flexibility Act
      The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of this notice on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that is a small industrial entity as defined in the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards. (See 13 CFR 121.); (2) A governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) A small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
      After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule will not impose any requirements on small entities.
       We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.
D.	Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
	This action contains no federal mandates under the provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments, or the private sector. Therefore, this action is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
      This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
 E.  	Executive Order 13132 - Federalism
       This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This action addresses the exemption of a set of chemical compounds from the VOC definition. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and state and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from state and local officials.
 F.	Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments
      This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the federal government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian Tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
      Although Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule, EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal officials.
 G.	Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks
      This action is not subject to EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as defined in EO 12866. While this proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order, EPA has reason to believe that ozone has a disproportionate effect on active children who play outdoors (62 FR 38856; 38859, July 18, 1997). EPA has not identified any specific studies on whether or to what extent these chemical compounds may affect children's health. EPA has placed the available data regarding the health effects of HFO-1234yf in Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0032 which is the docket for the SNUR for this compound.
       The public is invited to submit comments or identify peer-reviewed studies and data, of which EPA may not be aware, that assess results of early life exposure to the chemical compounds herein.
 H.	Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
       This action is not a "significant energy action" as defined in Executive Order 13211, "Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use" (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. This action proposes to revise EPA's definition of VOCs for purposes of preparing SIPs to attain the NAAQS for ozone under title I of the CAA.
 I.	National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
 	Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 ("NTTAA"), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d), (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
J.	Executive Order 12898:  Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
	Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.
	EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it will not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment.

Page 28 of 29 - Air Quality:  Revision to Definition of Volatile Organic Compounds  -  Exclusion of trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene and 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51
 	Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  - _________________________
 Dated:

 _________________________
 Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

For reasons set forth in the preamble, part 51 of chapter I of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 51-REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND SUBMITTAL OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS.
  1.  The authority citation for Part 51, Subpart F, continues to read as follows:
  Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401, 7411, 7412, 7413, 7414, 7470-7479, 7501-7508, 7601, and 7602.
                            §51.100  -  [Amended]
  2.  Section 51.100 is amended at the end of paragraph (s)(1) introductory text by removing the words "and perfluorocarbon compounds which fall into these classes:" and adding in their place a semi-colon and the words "; trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene; 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene and perfluorocarbon compounds which fall into these classes:".


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 27 (Thursday, February 11, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9038-9039]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02741]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2020-0369; FRL-10016-82-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Two Revised Sulfur Dioxide Rules for
Lake County

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve revisions to the Indiana sulfur dioxide (SO2) State
Implementation Plan (SIP). The State of Indiana has requested these SIP
revisions in order to satisfy the requirements of a Federal consent
decree. If approved, these revisions would limit annual bypass venting
limits in the sulfur-containing waste gas emissions from a coking and
power generating facility in Lake County, Indiana which is owned and
operated by Indiana Harbor Coke Company (IHCC) and Cokenergy LLC
(Cokenergy). The revisions would also require Cokenergy to operate and
maintain a permanent SO2 flow rate monitor and improve the
percent control capture efficiency of the facility. The rulemaking also
includes technical corrections and clarifications that do not have a
substantive effect of the application of the rule.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 15, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2020-0369 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, 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. 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 http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Lee, Physical Scientist,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The EPA Region 5 office is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays and
facility closures due to COVID-19.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

I. Background

    On July 10, 2020, the Indiana Department of Environmental
Management (IDEM) submitted a request for revisions of the Indiana
SO2 SIP for IHCC and Cokenergy, which operate a coking and
power generating facility in East Chicago, Indiana. IHCC operates four
coke oven batteries, and Cokenergy uses the coke oven gases to generate
steam and electricity. The electricity and coke are used by the
neighboring steel mill operated by ArcelorMittal. Under the terms of a
consent decree entered on October 25, 2018, the two companies requested
that Indiana revise 326 Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) 7-4.1-7
(Cokenergy) and 326 IAC 7-4.1-8 (IHCC) to address emissions of sulfur-
containing waste gases. See United States and the State of Indiana v.
Indiana Harbor Coke Company and Suncoke Energy, Inc. and Coke Energy,
LLC, Civil Action No. 18-cv-35 (N.D.Ind. 2018). Indiana's adoption and
submittal of these revised rules to EPA for approval into the SIP
satisfy part of the consent decree's requirements.

II. Changes for the Facility

    IHCC's coke batteries produce coke as their main product. Hot coke
oven gas is generated from heating coal in coke ovens to approximately
2,000 [deg]F. The volatile products from the coal, produced by the high
heat, are then combusted with oxygen to provide heat from above and gas
flues in the bottom of the chamber collect the combustion gases and
provide heat from below. This recycling of gases is the fuel used for
the ovens during normal operations. Once almost all the coke oven gases
are combusted, the gas passes from the different ovens in a battery
into a common tunnel and passes into an afterburner which oxidizes any
gases that are not fully combusted. The gas stream is then directed to
one of the sixteen heat recovery steam generators (HRSGs) operated by
Cokenergy, where this heat is used to make steam to generate
electricity. The coke oven gas cools as it passes through the HRSG,
allowing the gas to be routed through air pollution control devices,
including a flue gas desulfurization (FGD) unit and a baghouse, before
venting through the main stack. When a HRSG is offline because of
maintenance, malfunction or process concerns, or for any other reason,
some of the gases must be vented through the common tunnel afterburner
to a bypass vent stack because the extreme temperature of the gases
would damage the pollution control equipment downstream. IHCC has
sixteen bypass vent stacks, one associated with each HRSG.
    The revised SIP decreases the amount of coke oven gas which can be
allowed to vent to the atmosphere through the bypass vent stacks.
Previously, the facility was permitted to vent fourteen percent (14%)
of the coke oven waste gas through the common tunnel on an annual
basis. Now, during normal operation of the HRSG, the revised rule
limits venting gases out through the bypass vent stacks to a maximum of
thirteen percent (13%) of the coke oven waste gases leaving the common
tunnel, as determined on an annual basis. However, if Cokenergy
undertakes HRSG ``retubing,'' as defined in 326 IAC 7-4.1-7(e), then
venting gases out through the bypass vent stacks is allowed up to a
maximum of fourteen percent (14%) of the coke oven waste gases leaving
the common tunnel, as determined on an annual basis for the calendar
year that Cokenergy undertakes the HRSG retubing. The rule requires the
facility to verify that the fourteen percent venting limit in 326 IAC
7-4.1-7(d)(1) is warranted by the retubing activities. If less than
3.25% of the annual venting is due to the retubing activities, then the
facility may only vent 13% of their annual emissions via the bypass
vent stacks. Overall, this action would increase the control capture
efficiency of the facility by increasing the percentage of the exhaust
gas stream routed to control devices.
    Rule 326 IAC 7-4.1-7 retains the combined SO2 limit for
Cokenergy's heat recovery coke carbonization waste gas stack and the
16-bypass vent stacks operated by IHCC for a 24-hour average
SO2 emission limit of 1,656 pounds per

hour. The revised rule adds a requirement that Cokenergy install,
operate, and maintain a permanent SO2 flow rate monitor to
continuously measure the flow rate in the heat recovery coke
carbonization waste gas stack.
    The revised proposed rule 326 IAC 7-4.1-8 continues to require that
IHCC comply with the following requirements: The coke ovens must
recycle the gases emitted during the coking process in such a way that
the recycled gases must be the only fuel source used for the ovens
during normal operations, the gases must not be routed directly to the
atmosphere unless they first pass through the common tunnel
afterburner, and a maximum of 19% of the coke oven waste gases leaving
the common tunnel may be vented to the atmosphere on a 24-hour basis.
The sulfur dioxide limits on IHCC's coke oven battery operations in 326
IAC 7-4.1-8(a) are unchanged. 326 IAC 7-4.1-8 includes the same new
limitations on bypass vent stack usage as in 326 IAC 7-4.1-7, as
discussed above. The rulemaking also includes technical corrections and
clarifications that do not have a substantive effect of the application
of the rules.

III. Compliance With the Clean Air Act (CAA)

    CAA section 110(l) states that SIP revisions cannot be approved if
they interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress. EPA proposes to find that this proposed
action is consistent with CAA section 110(l) because the proposed
changes retain and/or tighten the existing SO2 limits. EPA
is therefore proposing to approve Indiana's revised rules 326 IAC 7-
4.1-7 and 326 IAC 7-4.1-8.

IV. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve Indiana's July 10, 2020 request to
revise 326 IAC 7-4.1-7 and 326 IAC 7-4.1-8. The proposed SO2
SIP revisions are expected to strengthen the SIP and will also fulfill
the requirements of the Federal consent decree with Cokenergy LLC and
IHCC.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA
rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to
incorporate by reference Indiana rules 326 IAC 7-4.1-7 ``Cokenergy LLC
sulfur dioxide emission limitations'' and 326 IAC 7-4.1-8 ``Indiana
Harbor Coke Company sulfur dioxide emission limitations'', effective on
April 24, 2020. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
documents generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the
EPA Region 5 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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 CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because it is not a significant regulatory
action 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 CAA; 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, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: February 3, 2021.
Cheryl Newton,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2021-02741 Filed 2-10-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 101 (Thursday, May 24, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24095-24096]
[FR Doc No: 2018-11158]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EL18-68-000; EL18-69-000]

Notice of Filing: Transource Maryland, LLC; Transource
Pennsylvania, LLC

    Take notice that on May 10, 2018, Transource Maryland, LLC and
Transource Pennsylvania, LLC submitted a response to the March 15, 2018
Show Cause Order.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Alcoa Power Generation, Inc.--Long Sault Division, et al.,
162 FERC ] 61,224 (2018) (Show Cause Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission,

888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
[email protected], or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on May 31, 2018.

    Dated: May 18, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-11158 Filed 5-23-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 166 (Monday, August 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 43724]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18512]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment To Dispose of 4.68 Acres
of Airport Land at Houlton International Airport, Houlton, ME

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is being given that the FAA is considering a request
from the Town of Houlton to dispose of 4.68 acres of land. The parcel
is located within the airport industrial park as is not needed for
aeronautical purposes. There is adequate developable area on the
airport to meet the future twenty year need for projected activity. The
airport will obtain fair market value for the disposal of the land and
the income derived from this disposal will be placed in the airport's
operation and maintenance funds for the facility.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 26, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov, and follow the instructions on providing comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W 12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Interested persons may inspect the request and supporting documents
by contacting the FAA at the address listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jorge E. Panteli, Compliance and
Land Use Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration New England Region
Airports Division, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, Massachusetts
01803. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts on November 20, 2017.
Gail Lattrell,
Acting Director, ANE-600.
[FR Doc. 2018-18512 Filed 8-24-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


From:		"Higgins, Cortney"<EMAIL_ADDRESS> To:		Robin Dunkins/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, James Hirtz/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc:	Bill Schrock/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, John Bradfield/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Kelley Spence/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date:		07/03/2012 12:02 PM

Subject:	RE: Pulp and Paper RTR draft final rule

________________________________________

Hi Robin,

Can we also get the revised risk assessment and any supporting documents/memos/TSDs, including the response to comments document?

Thanks,

Cortney


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 217 (Monday, November 15, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62962-62964]
[FR Doc No: 2021-24696]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0971; Airspace Docket No. 21-AGL-8]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of VOR Federal Airway V-44 and Revocation of
VOR Federal Airway V-446 in the Vicinity of Samsville, IL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR)
Federal airway V-44 and revoke VOR Federal airway V-446. The FAA is
proposing this action due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR
portion of the Samsville, IL, VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/
DME) navigational aid (NAVAID). The Samsville VOR is being
decommissioned in support of the FAA's VOR Minimum Operational Network
(MON) program.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 30, 2021.

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-2021-0971; Airspace Docket No. 21-AGL-8 at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Rules and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is also available for inspection at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on
the availability of FAA Order JO 7400.11F at NARA, email:
[email protected] or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use

of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it would modify the National Airspace System (NAS) as
necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic.

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 (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2021-0971; Airspace Docket No. 21-AGL-8) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to FAA Docket No. FAA-2021-0971; Airspace Docket No. 21-AGL-8.'' The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified comment
closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the comment
closing date. 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 https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://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 ADDRESSES section for 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 office of the Operations Support Group, Central
Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood
Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

Background

    The FAA is planning to decommission the Samsville, IL, VOR in
September 2022. The Samsville VOR was one of the candidate VORs
identified for discontinuance by the FAA's VOR MON program and listed
in the Final policy statement notice, ``Provision of Navigation
Services for the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen)
Transition to Performance-Based Navigation (PBN) (Plan for Establishing
a VOR Minimum Operational Network),'' published in the Federal Register
of July 26, 2016 (81 FR 48694), Docket No. FAA-2011-1082.
    Although the VOR portion of the Samsville VOR/DME is planned for
decommissioning, the co-located DME portion of the NAVAID is being
retained to support current and future area navigation (RNAV) flight
procedure requirements.
    The air traffic service (ATS) routes affected by the Samsville VOR
decommissioning are VOR Federal airways V-44 and V-446. With the
planned decommissioning of the Samsville VOR, the remaining ground-
based NAVAID coverage in the area is insufficient to enable the
continuity of the affected ATS routes. As such, the proposed
modification to V-44 would result in a larger gap in the existing
airway and the proposed revocation of V-446 in its entirety.
    To overcome the proposed modification and revocation to the
affected VOR Federal airways, instrument flight rules (IFR) traffic
could use portions of adjacent VOR Federal airways, including V-4, V-7,
V-52, V-72, and V-221, or receive air traffic control (ATC) radar
vectors to fly around or through the affected area. Additionally, IFR
pilots equipped with RNAV capabilities could also navigate point to
point using the existing NAVAIDs and fixes that would remain in place
to support continued operations though the affected area. Visual flight
rules (VFR) pilots who elect to navigate via the affected ATS routes
could also take advantage of the adjacent ATS routes or ATC services
listed previously.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to amend VOR
Federal airway V-44 and remove VOR Federal airway V-446 due to the
planned decommissioning of the Samsville, IL, VOR. The proposed VOR
Federal airway actions are described below.
    V-44: V-44 currently extends between the Columbia, MO, VOR/DME and
the Samsville, IL, VOR/DME; and between the Falmouth, KY, VOR/DME and
the Albany, NY, VOR/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC). The airspace
within restricted areas R-4001B, R-5002A, R-5002B, and R-5002E are
excluded when active; the airspace within V-139 and V-308 airways are
excluded; and the airspace below 2,000 feet mean sea level (MSL)
outside the United States is excluded. The FAA proposes to remove the
airway segment between the Centralia, IL, VORTAC and the Samsville, IL,
VOR/DME. In reviewing the existing airway, the FAA determined R-4001B,
R-5002A, R-5002B, and R-5002E do not overlap the controlled airspace
within 4 nautical miles of the V-44 centerline; therefore, the FAA is
proposing to remove the exclusion regarding the airspace within R-
4001B, R-5002A, R-5002B, and R-5002E when active. Additionally, the FAA
is proposing to remove the language excluding the airspace within the
V-139 and V-308 airways as well. The unaffected portions of the
existing airway would remain as charted.
    V-446: V-446 currently extends between the Troy, IL, VORTAC and the
Samsville, IL, VOR/DME. The FAA proposes to remove the airway in its
entirety.
    All NAVAID radials listed in the VOR Federal airway description
below are unchanged and stated in True degrees.
    VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order
JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021,
which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The ATS routes
listed in this document would be published subsequently in FAA Order JO
7400.11.

    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    In consideration of the foregoing, 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 part 71 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

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

Paragraph 6010(a) Domestic VOR Federal Airways.

* * * * *

V-44 [Amended]

    From Columbia, MO; INT Columbia 131[deg] and Foristell, MO,
262[deg] radials; Foristell; to Centralia, IL. From Falmouth, KY;
York, KY; Parkersburg, WV; Morgantown, WV; Martinsburg, WV; INT
Martinsburg 094[deg] and Baltimore, MD, 300[deg] radials; Baltimore;
INT Baltimore 122[deg] and Sea Isle, NJ, 267[deg] radials; Sea Isle;
INT Sea Isle 040[deg] and Deer Park, NY, 209[deg] radials; Deer
Park; INT Deer Park 041[deg] and Bridgeport, CT, 133[deg] radials;
Bridgeport; INT Bridgeport 324[deg] and Pawling, NY, 160[deg]
radials; Pawling; INT Pawling 342[deg] and Albany, NY, 181[deg]
radials; to Albany. The airspace below 2,000 feet MSL outside the
United States is excluded.
* * * * *

V-446 [Removed]

* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 3, 2021.
Michael R. Beckles,
Acting Manager, Rules and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2021-24696 Filed 11-12-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 161 (Monday, August 22, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51250-51251]
[FR Doc No: 2022-18121]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2022-0408]

Special Local Regulations; 2nd Annual St. Petersburg P1 Powerboat
Gran Prix; Tampa Bay, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notification of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce a special local regulation for
certain waters of Tampa Bay, FL. in the vicinity of the St. Petersburg
Pier during the Annual St. Petersburg P1 Powerboat Grand Prix. Our
regulation for marine events within the Seventh Coast Guard District,
Sector St. Petersburg identifies the regulated area for this event.
During the enforcement period, all persons and vessels, except those
persons and vessels participating in the high speed boat races, are
prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or
remaining within the regulated area without obtaining permission from
the Captain of the Port (COTP) St. Petersburg or a designated
representative.

DATES: This rule will be enforced daily from 6:30 a.m. until 7:00 p.m.,
on September 3, 2022 through September 4, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notification of enforcement, call or email Marine Science Technician
Second Class Regina Cuevas, Sector St. Petersburg Prevention
Department, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the special
local regulation in 33 CFR 100.703, Table 1 to Sec.  100.703, Item No.
5, for the St. Petersburg P-1 Powerboat Grand Prix, from 6:30 a.m.
until 7:00 p.m., on September 3, 2022 through September 4, 2022. This
action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable
waterways during this event. Our regulation for recurring marine
events, in Sec.  100.703, Table 1 to Sec.  100.703, Item No. 5,
specifies the location of the regulated area for the St. Petersburg P-1
Powerboat Grand Prix which encompasses portions of Tampa Bay near the
St. Petersburg Pier. During the enforcement period, as reflected in
Sec.  100.703(c), all persons and vessels, except those persons and
vessels participating in the high speed boat races, are prohibited from
entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the
regulated area without obtaining permission from the COTP St.
Petersburg or a designated representative. If you are the operator of a
vessel in the regulated area you must comply with directions from the
Patrol Commander or any designated representative. Spectators are only
allowed inside the regulated area if they remain within a designated
spectator area. Spectators may contact the COTP St. Petersburg or
designated representative to request permission to enter, transit
through, remain within, or anchor in the regulated area. If permission
is granted, spectators must abide by the directions of the COTP St.
Petersburg or a designated representative.
    In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register,
the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this enforcement
period via the Local Notice to Mariners and/or marine information
broadcasts.

    Dated: August 16, 2022.
Michael P. Kahle,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector St Petersburg.
[FR Doc. 2022-18121 Filed 8-19-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: October 31, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 212)]
[Notices]
[Page 64939-64940]
[DOCID:fr31oc08-60]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

October 28, 2008.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP99-176-170.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.

    Description: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, LLC submits
First Revised Sheet 33N et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh Revised
Volume 1, to be effective 11/1/08.
    Filed Date: 10/24/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081027-0195.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 5, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP99-301-227.
    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.
    Description: ANR Pipeline Co. submits an amendment to five Rate
Schedule FTS-3 negotiated rate agreements, to be effective 11/1/08.
    Filed Date: 10/27/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081027-0191.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 10, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-22-001.
    Applicants: Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Eastern Shore Natural Gas Co submits Sixty-Seventh
Revised Sheet No. 7 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume
No. 1, to be effective 10/1/08.
    Filed Date: 10/27/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081027-0190.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, November 4, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-31-000.
    Applicants: Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited Partnership.
    Description: Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited Partnership
submits Forty-Eighth Revised Sheet 1 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff,
Original Volume 2, to be effective 6/30/08.
    Filed Date: 10/24/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081027-0196.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 5, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-33-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gulf Transmission Company.
    Description: Columbia Gulf Transmission Company submits Third
Revised Sheet 0 et al. to its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1,
to be effective 11/26/08.
    Filed Date: 10/27/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081027-0182.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 10, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-34-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp.
    Description: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp. submits Fifty-
Sixth Revised Sheet No. 27 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised
Volume No. 1, to be effective 11/1/08.
    Filed Date: 10/27/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081027-0189.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 10, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: CP09-12-000.
    Applicants: The Narragansett Electric Company d/b/a National Grid.
    Description: The Narragansett Electric Company d/b/a National Grid
submits application for pipeline certificate authorization.
    Filed Date: 10/16/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081022-0370.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 12, 2008.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll-free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-26025 Filed 10-30-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P