[Federal Register: March 10, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 46)]
[Notices]
[Page 11158]
[DOCID:fr10mr10-68]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings No. 1

March 4, 2010.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP10-454-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company.
    Description: El Paso Natural Gas Co submits Fortieth Revised Sheet
No. 1 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1A.
    Filed Date: 03/02/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100303-0207.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 15, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-462-000.
    Applicants: Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company LLC.
    Description: Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company, LLC submits amendments
to negotiated rate letter agreements with Enterprise Products Operating
LLC re the Gulf Crossing Project.
    Filed Date: 03/02/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100303-0217.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 15, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-463-000.
    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Rockies Express Pipeline, LLC submits Seventeenth
Revised Sheet 10 to its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1, to be
effective 3/3/10.
    Filed Date: 03/02/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100303-0218.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 15, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-465-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Gulf South Pipeline Co, LP submits Third Revised Sheet
No. 11 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No. 1.
    Filed Date: 03/02/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100303-0219.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 15, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-467-000.
    Applicants: Dauphin Island Gathering Partners.
    Description: Dauphin Island Gathering Partners submits Eighth
Revised Sheet 6 et al. to its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume 1
to be effective 4/1/10.
    Filed Date: 03/01/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100303-0232.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 15, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-468-000.
    Applicants: CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company submits
amended negotiated rate agreements etc.
    Filed Date: 03/01/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100303-0231.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 15, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-469-000.
    Applicants: CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company submits an
amended negotiated rate agreement between Marabou Midstream Services,
LP.
    Filed Date: 03/01/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100303-0230.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 15, 2010.

    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 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>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-5064 Filed 3-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 31 (Thursday, February 14, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4025-4029]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02214]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2017-0583; FRL-9989-34-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Illinois; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS; Interstate Transport

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve elements of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from
the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) regarding the
infrastructure requirements of section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
for the 2012 annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5) National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or standard). The infrastructure
requirements are designed to ensure that the structural components of
each state's air quality management program are adequate to meet the
state's responsibilities under the CAA. This action pertains
specifically to infrastructure requirements in the Illinois SIP
concerning interstate transport provisions.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 18, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2017-0583 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: Samantha Panock, Environmental
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>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. What is the background of this SIP submission?
II. What guidance and memoranda is EPA using to evaluate this SIP
submission?
III. IEPA's Analysis and Conclusion
IV. EPA's Additional Analysis, Review, and Conclusion
V. What action is EPA taking?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background of this SIP submission?

    This rulemaking addresses a submission from the IEPA dated
September 29, 2017, which describes its infrastructure SIP for the 2012
annual PM2.5 NAAQS (78 FR 3086). Specifically, this
rulemaking addresses the portion of the submission dealing with
interstate pollution transport under CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i),
otherwise known as the ``good neighbor'' provision. The requirement for
states to make a SIP submission of this type arises from Section
110(a)(1) of the CAA, pursuant to which states must submit ``within 3
years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after
the promulgation of a national primary ambient air quality standard (or
any revision thereof),'' a plan that provides for the ``implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) of the
CAA includes a list of specific elements that ``each such plan''
submission must address. EPA commonly refers to such state plans as
``infrastructure SIPs.'' State plans must address four requirements of
the good neighbor provisions (commonly referred to as ``prongs''),
including:

--Prong 1: Prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity
in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment of the
NAAQS in another state;
--Prong 2: Prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity
in one state from interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another
state;
--Prong 3: Prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity
in one state from interfering with measures required to prevent
significant deterioration (PSD) of air quality in another state; and
--Prong 4: Protecting visibility in another state.

    This rulemaking is evaluating whether Illinois' interstate
transport provisions in its PM2.5 infrastructure SIP meet
prongs one and two of the good neighbor requirements of the CAA. Prongs
three and four will be evaluated in a separate rulemaking.
    EPA has developed a consistent framework for addressing the prong
one and two interstate transport requirements with respect to the
PM2.5 NAAQS in several previous Federal rulemakings. The
four basic steps of that framework include: (1) Identifying downwind
receptors that are expected to have problems attaining or maintaining
the NAAQS; (2) identifying which upwind states contribute to these
identified problems in amounts sufficient to warrant further review and
analysis; (3) for states identified as contributing to downwind air
quality problems, identifying upwind emissions reductions necessary to
prevent an upwind state from significantly contributing to
nonattainment or interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS downwind;
and (4) for states that are found to have emissions that significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS
downwind, reducing the identified upwind emissions through adoption of
permanent and enforceable measures. This framework was most recently
applied with respect to PM2.5 in the August 8, 2011 Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) (76 FR 48208), designed to address
both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards, as well as the 1997
and 2008 ozone standards.

II. What guidance and memoranda is EPA using to evaluate this SIP
submission?

    EPA highlighted the statutory requirement to submit infrastructure
SIPs within three years of promulgation of a new NAAQS in an October 2,
2007 guidance document entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required
Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards.'' EPA has
issued additional guidance documents and memoranda, including a
September 13, 2013, guidance document titled ``Guidance on
Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air
Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2).''
    The most recent relevant document is a memorandum published on
March 17, 2016, titled ``Information on the Interstate Transport `Good
Neighbor' Provision for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National
Ambient Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)'' (2016 memorandum). The 2016 memorandum describes
EPA's consistent approach over the years to address interstate
transport and provides EPA's general review of relevant modeling data
and air quality projections as they relate to the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. The 2016 memorandum provides information
relevant to EPA Regional office review of CAA Section 110
(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) ``good neighbor'' provision in infrastructure SIPs with
respect to the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. IEPA's submittal and
this rulemaking consider information provided in that memorandum.
    The 2016 memorandum provides states and EPA Regional offices with
future year annual PM2.5 design values for monitors in the
United States based on quality assured and certified ambient monitoring
data and air quality modeling. The 2016 memorandum further describes
how these projected potential design values can be used to help
determine which monitors should be further evaluated to potentially
address whether emissions from other states significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with

maintenance of the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS at those sites.
The 2016 memorandum explains that, for purposes of addressing
interstate transport for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, it may be
appropriate to evaluate projected air quality in 2021, which is the
attainment deadline for 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS nonattainment areas
classified as Moderate. Accordingly, because the available data
includes 2017 and 2025 projected average and maximum PM2.5
design values calculated through the CAMx photochemical model, the 2016
memorandum suggests approaches states might use to interpolate
PM2.5 values at sites in 2021. The 2016 memorandum indicates
that it may be reasonable to assume receptors projected to have average
and/or maximum design values above the NAAQS in both 2017 and 2025 are
also likely to be either nonattainment or maintenance receptors in
2021. Similarly, the 2016 memorandum indicates that it may be
reasonable to assume that receptors that are projected to attain the
NAAQS in both 2017 and 2025 are also likely to be attainment receptors
in 2021. However, where a potential receptor is projected to be
nonattainment or maintenance in 2017, but projected to be attainment in
2025, the 2016 memorandum suggests that further analysis of the
emissions and modeling may be needed to make a further judgement
regarding the receptor status in 2021.
    The 2016 memorandum indicates that for all but one monitoring site
in the eastern United States, with complete and valid PM2.5
design values from 2009 to 2013, the modeling data shows that monitors
were expected to both attain and maintain the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS in both 2017 and 2025. The modeling results
provided in the 2016 memorandum show that out of seven PM2.5
monitors located in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (PA), one monitor is
expected to be above the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in 2017.
Further, that monitor, the Liberty monitor (ID number 420030064), is
projected to be above the NAAQS only under the model's maximum
projected conditions (used in EPA's interstate transport framework to
identify maintenance receptors) and is projected to both attain and
maintain the NAAQS (along with all Allegheny County monitors) in 2025.
The 2016 memorandum therefore indicates that under such a condition
(where EPA's photochemical modeling indicates an area will maintain the
2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in 2025 but not attain in 2017)
further analysis of the site should be performed to determine if the
site may be a nonattainment or maintenance receptor in 2021 (the
attainment deadline for moderate PM2.5 areas).
    The 2016 memorandum also indicates that based on modeling
projections, there are 17 potential nonattainment or maintenance
receptors in California, located in the San Joaquin Valley and South
Coast nonattainment areas, and one potential receptor in Shoshone
County, Idaho.
    The 2016 memorandum also indicates that for certain states with
incomplete ambient monitoring data, additional information including
the latest available data should be analyzed to determine whether there
are potential downwind air quality problems that may be impacted by
transported emissions. These states include all or portions of Florida,
Illinois, Idaho (outside of Shoshone County), Tennessee, and Kentucky.
With the exception of four counties in Florida, the data quality
problems have subsequently been resolved for these areas, and these
areas now have current design values below the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS and are expected to maintain the NAAQS due to
downward emission trends for nitrogen oxides (NOX) and
sulfur dioxide (SO2).
    IEPA's submittal indicates that the state used data from the 2016
memorandum and supplied its own additional information in its analysis.
EPA considered the analysis from IEPA, as well as additional analysis
conducted by EPA, in its review of the IEPA submittal.

III. IEPA's Analysis and Conclusion

    IEPA's submittal contains a technical analysis of its interstate
transport of pollution relative to the 2012 annual PM2.5
NAAQS. As reflected in the EPA's 2016 memorandum, the only receptor
identified as nonattainment or maintenance on which Illinois was deemed
to have significant impact is the Liberty monitor (42-003-0064) in
Allegheny County, PA located in southwest PA. In this technical
analysis IEPA examined geographical, meteorological, and emissions
factors to evaluate impacts on the Allegheny monitor. As stated
previously, IEPA's technical analysis considers CSAPR rule
implementation and EPA guidance and memoranda. IEPA did not focus on
potential contribution to other areas EPA identified as not attaining
the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS based on monitor data in Alaska,
California, Idaho, Nevada, or Hawaii. The distance between Illinois and
these areas, coupled with the prevailing wind directions, leads IEPA to
conclude that Illinois will not contribute significantly to any of the
potential receptors in those states. Since the Allegheny County, PA,
receptor is the only location considered downwind of Illinois, this
submission focuses on that single receptor. IEPA concluded that
Illinois contributes no significant impacts to the maintenance and
attainment of NAAQS for PM2.5 in Allegheny County, PA, and
therefore existing measures satisfy Illinois' responsibilities under
CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
    IEPA's submission discussed geographical factors that show Illinois
does not contribute to the nonattainment issues at the Allegheny
monitor. As stated in IEPA's submittal, Illinois' nearest point to the
Allegheny monitor is about 400 miles away. At this large distance,
PM2.5 precursor emissions from Illinois are thoroughly
dispersed in the atmosphere long before reaching PA. Furthermore,
Illinois is required to control electric generation units (EGU) year-
round to meet annual budgets of NOX and SO2
associated with CSAPR, so the Illinois contribution to long-range
transport is already being minimized.
    IEPA's submission included a wind rose from the Pittsburgh/
Allegheny airport to demonstrate that the dominant wind directions in
the monitor area are south through west, with the highest frequency
from the south. Local emitting sources located south and west of the
monitor were identified by IEPA in this submittal. Some sources include
Clairton Coke Works (1.3 miles south) and U.S. Steel Corporation (2.0
miles west). The 2011 emissions totals for all the identified sources
were 702 tons/year (TPY) of primary PM2.5, 3,075 TPY of
NOX, and 1,468 TPY of SO2. These large sources of
PM2.5 and precursors of PM2.5 near the monitor
line up with prevailing wind directions in that area, leading IEPA to
conclude that these sources largely contribute to the nonattainment
issues at the Allegheny monitor.
    IEPA's submission evaluated the Illinois emissions data from
federal inventories of NOX and SO2. Emissions of
NOX and SO2 have been steadily decreasing since
the early 2000s due to state and federal control requirements. The
emissions of NOX and SO2 in Illinois from all
identified source categories have decreased by 48.5% and 64%,
respectively, since 2002. Illinois' implementation of Tier 3 vehicle
emission fuel standards will further reduce the on-road emissions going
forward.
    IEPA concludes that that no further measures are necessary to
satisfy Illinois' responsibilities under CAA Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), because

Illinois does not contribute to projected nonattainment or maintenance
issues at the Liberty monitor site. Instead, IEPA found that ambient
air traveling from westerly and southernly winds and large sources of
primary PM2.5, NOX, and SO2 in PA near
the Allegheny monitor are more likely contributing to projected
nonattainment or maintenance issues at the site.

IV. EPA's Additional Analysis, Review, and Conclusion

    The modeling information contained in EPA's 2016 memorandum shows
that one monitor in Allegheny County, PA (the Liberty monitor,
420030064) may have a maintenance issue in 2017, but is projected to
both attain and maintain the NAAQS by 2025. A linear interpolation of
the modeled design values to 2021 shows that the monitor is likely to
both attain and maintain the standard by 2021. Emissions and air
quality data trends help to corroborate this interpolation.
    Over the last decade, local and regional emissions reductions of
primary PM2.5, SO2, and NOX, have led
to large reductions in annual PM2.5 design values in
Allegheny County, PA. In 2007, all of Allegheny County's
PM2.5 monitors exceeded the level of the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS (the 2005-2007 annual average design values
ranged from 12.9-19.8 micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\), as
shown in Table 1). The 2015-2017 annual average PM2.5 design
values now show that only one monitor (Liberty, at 13.0 [micro]g/m\3\)
exceeds the health-based annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 12.0
[micro]g/m\3\.

                                                  Table 1--PM2.5 Annual Design Values in [micro]g/m\3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Monitor              2005-2007  2006-2008  2007-2009  2008-2010  2009-2011  2010-2012  2011-2013  2012-2014  2013-2015  2014-2016  2015-2017
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avalon.........................  .........  .........  .........    * 16.3     * 14.7       13.4       11.4       10.6       10.6     * 10.4     * 10.2
Lawrenceville..................      15.0       14.0       13.1       12.2       11.6       11.1       10.3       10.0        9.7        9.5        9.2
Liberty........................      19.8       18.3       17.0       16.0       15.0       14.8       13.4       13.0       12.6       12.8       13.0
South Fayette..................      12.9     * 11.8       11.7       11.1       11.0       10.5        9.6        9.0        8.8      * 8.5      * 8.4
North Park.....................    * 13.0     * 12.3     * 11.3     * 10.1        9.7        9.4        8.8        8.5        8.5      * 8.2      * 8.2
Harrison.......................      15.0       14.2       13.7       13.0       12.4     * 11.7       10.6       10.0        9.8        9.8        9.8
North Braddock.................      16.2       15.2       14.3       13.3       12.7       12.5      *11.7       11.4       11.2       11.0       10.8
Parkway East Near-Road.........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........    * 10.6     * 10.6
Clairton.......................      15.3       14.3       13.2       12.4     * 11.5     * 10.9      * 9.8        9.5        9.8      * 9.8      * 9.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Value does not contain a complete year worth of data.

    The Liberty monitor is already close to attaining the NAAQS and
expected emissions reductions in the next three years will lead to
additional reductions in measured PM2.5 concentrations.
There are both local and regional components to the measured
PM2.5 levels in Allegheny County and the greater Pittsburgh
area. Previous CSAPR modeling showed that regional emissions from
upwind states, particularly SO2 and NOX
emissions, contribute to PM2.5 nonattainment at the Liberty
monitor. In recent years, large SO2 and NOX
reductions from power plants have occurred in Pennsylvania and states
upwind from the Greater Pittsburgh region. Based on existing CSAPR
budgets, Pennsylvania's energy sector emissions of SO2 will
have decreased 166,000 tons between 2015-2017 as a result of CSAPR
implementation. This is due to both the installation of emissions
controls and retirements of electric generating units.
    Between 2011 and 2016, 27.4 gigawatts of coal-fired EGUs have
retired in Pennsylvania and the closest upwind states (West Virginia,
Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan) according to the
Energy Information Administration's Preliminary Monthly Electric
Generator Inventory, April 2017 (form EIA-860M, at https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia860m/xls/april_generator2017.xlsx). In addition,
between 2017 and 2021, an additional 8.8 gigawatts of coal-fired EGUs
are expected to retire in the same upwind states. This includes large
EGUs such as JM Stuart in Ohio (2,308 megawatts [MW]), Killen Station
in Ohio (600 MW), WH Sammis in Ohio (720 MW), Michigan City in Indiana
(469 MW), Will County in Illinois (510 MW), Baldwin Energy Complex in
Illinois (576 MW), Paradise in Kentucky (1,230 MW), and Baily in
Indiana (480 MW). These regional coal unit retirements will lead to
further emissions reductions which will help ensure that Alleghany
County monitors will not have nonattainment or maintenance issues by
2021.
    In addition to regional emissions reductions and plant closures
noted above, additional local reductions in both direct
PM2.5 and SO2 emissions are also expected to
occur and should also contribute to further declines in Allegheny
County's PM2.5 monitor concentrations. For example,
significant SO2 reductions will occur at U.S. Steel's
integrated steel mill facilities in southern Allegheny County due to
reductions required via federally-enforceable permits issued by
Allegheny County to support its attainment plan submitted to meet
requirements in CAA Section 172(c) for the 1-hr SO2 NAAQS.
Reductions occurred October 2018 largely due to declining sulfur
content in the Clairton Coke Work's coke oven gas (COG) due to upgraded
controls. Because this COG is burned at U.S. Steel's Clairton Coke
Works, Irvin Mill, and Edgar Thompson Steel Mill, these reductions in
sulfur content contribute to much lower PM2.5 formation from
precursors in the immediate future after October 4, 2018 as
SO2 is a precursor to PM2.5. Additionally, the
expected retirement of the Bruce Mansfield Power Plant by June 2021
should reduce precursor emissions from neighboring Beaver County, PA.
The Allegheny County and Beaver County SO2 SIP submissions,
which EPA is reviewing pursuant to CAA requirements, also discuss
expected lower SO2 emissions in the Allegheny County area
resulting from reduced sulfur content requirements in vehicle fuels,
reductions in general emissions due to declining population in the
Greater Pittsburgh region, and several shutdowns of significant
emitters of SO2 in Allegheny County.
    Projected power plant closures and additional emissions controls in
PA and upwind states will help further reduce both direct
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors. Regional emission
reductions will continue to occur from current on-the-books Federal and
state regulations such as the Federal on-road and non-road vehicle
programs, and various rules for major stationary emissions sources.
    EPA modeling projections, the recent downward trend in local and
upwind emissions reductions, the expected

continued downward trend in emissions between 2018 and 2021, and the
downward trend in monitored PM2.5 concentrations all
indicate that the Liberty monitor will attain and be able to maintain
the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by 2021.
    With respect to Florida, in the CSAPR modeling analysis for the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, Florida did not have any potential
nonattainment or maintenance receptors identified for the 1997 or 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. At this time, it is anticipated that this trend
will continue; however, as there are ambient monitoring data gaps in
the 2009-2013 data that could have been used to identify potential
PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance receptors for Miami/
Dade, Gilchrist, Broward and Alachua counties in Florida, the modeling
analysis of potential receptors was not complete for these counties.
However, the most recent ambient data (2015-2017) for these counties
indicates design values well below the level of the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, the highest value for these
observed monitors is 8.0 [micro]g/m\3\ at the Hillsborough County
monitor (12-057-3002), which is well below the NAAQS. This is also
consistent with historical data: Complete and valid design values in
the 2006-2008, 2007-2009 and/or 2008-2010 periods for these counties
were all well below the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. For these
reasons, we find that none of the counties in Florida with monitoring
gaps between 2009-2013 should be considered either nonattainment or
maintenance receptors for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. For
these reasons, we propose to find that emissions from Illinois will not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in Florida.
    The conclusions of IEPA's analysis is consistent with EPA's
expanded review of its submittal. The area (Allegheny County, PA) to
which Illinois' sources potentially contribute is expected to attain
and maintain the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and as
demonstrated in IEPA's submittal, Illinois will not contribute to
projected nonattainment or maintenance issues at any sites in 2021.
IEPA's analysis shows that through permanent and enforceable measures
currently contained in its SIP and other emissions reductions occurring
in Illinois, monitored PM2.5 air quality in the identified
area that Illinois sources may impact will continue to improve, and
that no further measures are necessary to satisfy Illinois'
responsibilities under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Therefore, EPA
is proposing that prongs one and two of the interstate pollution
transport element of Illinois' infrastructure SIP are approvable.

V. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve a portion of IEPA's September 29, 2017
submittal certifying that the current Illinois SIP is sufficient to
meet the required infrastructure requirements under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), specifically prongs one and two, as set forth
above.

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. See 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 SIP approvals are exempted 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, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 21, 2018.
James O. Payne,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2019-02214 Filed 2-13-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION SAN 3904 Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request U. S. EPA/ Office of Air and Radiation 2. OMB control number b. X None a__ __ __ __  __ __ __ __ __ 2060__ __ __

3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. X New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. G Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes X No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. X Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title: NESHAP for Surface Coating of Wood Building Products ( Proposed Rule)

8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) 2034.01 9. Keywords Wood building products, surface coating, lamination, control device, solids, low or no HAP coatings, air pollution, hazardous air pollutant, window, door, panel, reconstituted wood, flooring, tileboard, doorskin, Class I Hardboard, laminate flooring, wood building product manufacturing, stationary sources 10. Abstract: The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) is charged to establish standards to limit hazardous air pollutant ( HAP) emissions from stationary sources. The EPA's enforcement personnel will use the emissions data collected by each wood building products surface coating facility to ( 1) identify existing and new HAP emissions sources subject to wood building products ( surface coating) NESHAP, and ( 2) ensure the proper regulation of HAP emissions. Respondents are owners or operators of facilities that perform surface coating operations on wood building products. Wood building products include any finished or laminated wood product containing at least 50 percent wood or wood fiber that is used in the construction of any residential, commercial, or institutional building. The definition does not include wood furniture, wood furniture components, or pre manufactured housing. It is estimated that 205 major source facilities are subject to the provisions of this NESHAP in the United States and must be in compliance with the requirements of the wood building products ( surface coating) NESHAP within three years of the effective date of the rule. No new growth is expected in the wood building surface coating industry.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. X Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 205 b. Total annual responses 410 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 0 % c. Total hours requested 1 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 1 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 1 2. Adjustment 0 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 1 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 0 c. Total annualized cost requested 1 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 1 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 1 2. Adjustment 0 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. _ P_ Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. X Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1. Q On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. X Semi annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. Q Other ( describe) 17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes X No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Vinson Hellwig Phone: ( 919) 541 2317 OMB 83 I 10/ 95


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 96 (Friday, May 17, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29140-29141]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11708]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-D-0501]

Center for Devices and Radiological Health Appeals Processes:
Questions and Answers About 517A; Draft Guidance for Industry and Food
and Drug Administration Staff; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of the draft guidance entitled ``Center for Devices and
Radiological Health (CDRH) Appeals Processes: Questions and Answers
About 517A.'' This draft document provides CDRH's proposed
interpretation of key provisions of the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic
Act

(FD&C Act), which were added by the FDA Safety and Innovation Act
(FDASIA), as those provisions pertain to requests for documentation of
rationales for significant decisions and requests for supervisory
review of regulatory decisions and actions taken by CDRH. This draft
guidance is not final nor is it in effect at this time.

DATES: Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this
draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the
guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft
guidance by August 15, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the draft
guidance document entitled ``Center for Devices and Radiological Health
Appeals Processes: Questions and Answers About 517A'' to the Division
of Small Manufacturers, International and Consumer Assistance, Center
for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration,
10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 4613, Silver Spring, MD 20993-
0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in
processing your request, or fax your request to<PHONE_NUMBER>. See the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for information on electronic access
to the guidance.
    Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David S. Buckles, Center for Devices
and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. G470, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-5447.

I. Background

    In July of 2012, section 517A of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360g-1)
was added by section 603 of FDASIA (Pub. L. 112-114). CDRH developed
this draft guidance as a companion document to the guidance entitled
``Center for Devices and Radiological Health Appeals Processes,''
(Appeals Guidance) which is also announced in this issue of the Federal
Register, to provide proposed interpretations of the new law. This
document provides interpretations of the terms ``significant
decisions'' and ``substantive summary.'' It also addresses who may
request documentation of significant decisions under section 517A of
the FD&C Act, and how this provision relates to requests under the
Freedom of Information Act. When this guidance is finalized, CDRH
intends to include the questions and answers in this draft guidance as
an appendix to the Appeals Guidance.

II. Significance of Guidance

    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when
finalized, will represent the Agency's current thinking on CDRH's
appeals processes. 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 statute and regulations.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may do
so by using the Internet. A search capability for all CDRH guidance
documents is available at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/default.htm. Guidance
documents are also available at http://www.regulations.gov. To receive
``Center for Devices and Radiological Health Appeals Processes:
Questions and Answers About 517A'' you may either send an email request
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>to receive an electronic copy of the document or
send a fax request to<PHONE_NUMBER> to receive a hard copy. Please use
the document number 1821 to identify the guidance you are requesting.

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    The draft guidance refers to collections of information that are
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The
collections of information in the guidance document ``Center for
Devices and Radiological Health Appeals Processes'' are approved under
OMB control number 0910-0738 (expires April 30, 2016). The draft
guidance also refers to currently approved information collections
found in FDA regulations. The collections of information in 21 CFR part
807 subpart E are approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the
collections of information in 21 CFR part 812 are approved under OMB
control number 0910-0078; the collections of information in 21 CFR part
814 are approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; and the
collections of information in 21 CFR part 814 subpart H are approved
under OMB control number 0910-0332.

V. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding
this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the
Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to
send one set of comments. Identify comments 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, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: May 13, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-11708 Filed 5-16-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 173 (Friday, September 4, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55198-55200]
[FR Doc No: 2020-18309]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 173 / Friday, September 4, 2020 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0404; Notice No. 25-20-04-SC]

Special Conditions: B/E Aerospace, Bombardier Model CL-600-2B16
(604 Variant) Airplane; Seats With Pretensioner Restraint Systems

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed special conditions.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes special conditions for the Bombardier
Inc. (Bombardier) Model CL-600-2B16 (604 variant) airplane. This
airplane, as modified by B/E Aerospace, will have a novel or unusual
design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in
the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. This
design feature is seats with a 3-point shoulder harness incorporating a
pretensioner restraint system. The applicable airworthiness regulations
do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design
feature. These proposed special conditions contain the additional
safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to
establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the
existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: Send comments on or before October 19, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by Docket No. FAA-2020-0404 using
any of the following methods:
     Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/ and follow the online instructions for sending
your comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the
docket website, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all
comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an
association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-19478).
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of
the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shannon Lennon, Airframe and Cabin
Safety Section, AIR-675, Transport Standards Branch, Policy and
Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, Washington 98198;
telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested people to take part in this rulemaking
by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
    The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date for
comments. The FAA may change these special conditions based on the
comments received.

Background

    On June 7, 2019, B/E Aerospace applied for a supplemental type
certificate for seats with 3-point harness and pretensioner restraint
systems in Bombardier Model CL-600-2B16 (604 variant) airplanes. The
604 variant is a derivative of the Bombardier Model CL-600-2B16
airplane currently approved under Type Certificate No. A21EA. This
airplane variant is a twin-engine, transport category airplane with
seating for 22 passengers, including crew, and a maximum take-off
weight of 47,600 pounds.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR) 21.101, B/E Aerospace must show that the Bombardier Model CL-600-
2B16 (604 variant) airplane, as changed, continues to meet the
applicable provisions of the regulations listed in Type Certificate No.
A21EA or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of
application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed
upon by the FAA.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (e.g., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the Bombardier Model CL-600-2B16 (604
variant) airplane because of a novel or unusual design feature, special
conditions are prescribed under the provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the applicant apply for a supplemental type
certificate to modify any other model included on the same type
certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature,
these special conditions would also apply to the other model under
Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Bombardier Model CL-600-2B16 (604 variant) airplane
must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14
CFR part 34, and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part
36.
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type
certification basis under Sec.  21.101.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Bombardier Model CL-600-2B16 (604 variant) airplane will
incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: Seats with
a 3-point shoulder harness incorporating a pretensioner restraint
system to prevent head injuries.

Discussion

    B/E Aerospace has developed a system in which a pretensioning
automotive retractor eliminates slack in the 3-point shoulder harness,
pulling the occupant back into the seat prior to impact. This has the
effect of reducing forward translation of the occupant (reduced head
arc), while reducing the loads in the shoulder harness. B/E Aerospace
will install, in Bombardier Model CL-600-2B16 (604 variant) airplanes,
seats that incorporate a 3-point harness and pretensioner restraint
system to protect seat occupants from head injuries.
    Over the past 10 years, multiple sensor-driven systems have been
installed in various airplanes to meet improved crashworthiness
regulations. A sensor-driven system is defined as any system that
activates due to a signal sent by an impact-triggered inertial sensor.
These types of systems include a lap-belt airbag, a structure-mounted
airbag, and a 3-point harness and pretensioner restraint system.
    Shoulder harnesses have been widely used on flight-attendant seats,
flight-deck seats, in business jets, and in general-aviation airplanes
to reduce occupant head injury in the unlikely event of an emergency
landing. Special conditions, pertinent regulations, and guidance have
been published, relating to other or existing restraint systems.
However, the use of a pretensioner restraint system with a 3-point
harness on transport airplane seats is a novel design.
    Pretensioner technology involves a step change in loading
experienced by the occupant for impacts below and above that at which
the device activates, because the upper torso excursion would be
interrupted by activation of the shoulder harness. This could result in
the head-injury criteria being higher at an intermediate impact
condition than that resulting from the maximum impact condition
corresponding to the test conditions specified in Sec.  25.562.
    The ideal triangular maximum-severity pulse is defined in Advisory
Circular 25.562-1B Dynamic Evaluation of Seat Restraint Systems and
Occupant Protection on Transport Airplanes with Change 1, dated January
10, 2006. For evaluating and testing less-severe pulses to assess the
effectiveness of the pretensioner setting, a similar triangular pulse
should be used with acceleration, rise time, and velocity change scaled
accordingly. The magnitude of the required pulse should not deviate
below the ideal pulse by more than 0.5g until 1.33 t1 is
reached, where t1 represents the time interval between 0 and
t1 on the referenced pulse shape as shown in AC 25.562-1B.
This is an acceptable method of compliance to the test requirements of
these special conditions.
    Additionally, the pretensioner might not provide protection, after
actuation, during secondary impacts. Therefore, the case where a small
impact is followed by a large impact should be addressed. If the
minimum deceleration severity at which the pretensioner is set to
activate is unnecessarily low, the protection offered by the
pretensioner may be lost by the time a second larger impact occurs.
    The existing regulations do not adequately address seats with
pretensioner restraint systems. Therefore, the proposed configuration
requires special conditions.
    Special conditions 1 through 5 address ensuring that the
pretensioner system activates when intended, to provide the necessary
protection of occupants. This includes protection of a range of
occupants under various accident conditions. Special conditions 6
through 11 address maintenance and reliability of the pretensioner
system, including any outside influences on the mechanism, to ensure it
functions as intended.
    These proposed special conditions contain the additional safety
standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a
level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing
airworthiness standards.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
Bombardier Model CL-600-2B16 (604 variant) airplanes as modified by B/E
Aerospace. Should B/E Aerospace apply at a later date for a
supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on
Type Certificate No. A21EA to incorporate the same novel or unusual
design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as
well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature
on one model of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability
and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of
these features on the airplane.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

Authority Citation

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, and
44704.

The Proposed Special Conditions

    Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes the
following special conditions as part of the type certification basis
for Bombardier Model CL-600-2B16 (604 variant) airplanes as modified by
B/E Aerospace.
    In addition to the requirements of Sec. Sec.  25.562, forward-
facing passenger seats incorporating pretensioner restraint systems
must meet the following:
    1. Head Injury Criteria--The Head Injury Criteria value must not
exceed 1,000 units at any condition at which the pretensioner does or
does not deploy, up to the maximum severity pulse that corresponds to
the test conditions specified in Sec.  25.562. Tests must be performed
to demonstrate this, taking into account any necessary tolerances for
deployment.
    2. Protection during Secondary Impacts--The pretensioner activation
setting must be demonstrated to maximize the probability of the
protection being available when needed, considering secondary impacts.
    3. Protection of Occupants Other than 50th Percentile--Protection
of occupants for a range of stature from a 2-year-old child to a 95th
percentile male must be shown. For shoulder harnesses that include
pretensioners, protection of occupants other than a 50th percentile
male may be shown by test or analysis. In addition, the pretensioner
must not introduce a hazard to passengers due to the following seating
configurations:
    a. The seat occupant is holding an infant.
    b. The seat occupant is a child in a child restraint device.
    c. The seat occupant is a pregnant woman.
    4. Occupants Adopting the Brace Position--Occupants in the
traditional brace position when the pretensioner activates must not
experience adverse effects from the pretensioner activation.
    5. Inadvertent Pretensioner Actuation
    a. The probability of inadvertent pretensioner actuation must be
shown to be extremely remote (i.e., average

probability per flight hour of less than 10-7).
    b. The system must be shown not susceptible to inadvertent
pretensioner actuation as a result of wear and tear, or inertia loads
resulting from in-flight or ground maneuvers likely to be experienced
in service.
    c. The seated occupant must not be seriously injured as a result of
inadvertent pretensioner actuation.
    d. Inadvertent pretensioner activation must not cause a hazard to
the airplane nor cause serious injury to anyone who may be positioned
close to the retractor or belt (e.g., seated in an adjacent seat or
standing adjacent to the seat).
    6. Availability of the Pretensioner Function Prior to Flight--The
design must provide means for a crewmember to verify the availability
of the pretensioner function prior to each flight, or the probability
of failure of the pretensioner function must be demonstrated to be
extremely remote (i.e., average probability per flight hour of less
than 10-7) between inspection intervals.
    7. Incorrect Seatbelt Orientation--The system design must ensure
that any incorrect orientation (twisting) of the seatbelt does not
compromise the pretensioner protection function.
    8. Contamination Protection--The pretensioner mechanisms and
controls must be protected from external contamination associated with
that which could occur on or around passenger seating.
    9. Prevention of Hazards--The pretensioner system must not induce a
hazard to passengers in case of fire, nor create a fire hazard if
activated.
    10. Functionality after Loss of Power--The system must function
properly after loss of normal airplane electrical power, and after a
transverse separation in the fuselage at the most critical location. A
separation at the location of the system does not have to be
considered.
    11. High-intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF) and Lightning
Protection--For airplanes that do not already incorporate 14 CFR
25.1316 and 25.1317 into their certification basis, the equipment must
meet the applicable requirements of Sec. Sec.  25.1316 and 25.1317.
Electrostatic discharge must also be considered in the design and
testing of the equipment.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on August 14, 2020.
James E. Wilborn,
Acting Manager, Transport Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-18309 Filed 9-3-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 98 (Monday, May 21, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 30001]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12149]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC12-98-000.
    Applicants: Erie Wind, LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act and Request for Waivers, Confidential Treatment,
Expedited Action and Shortened Comment Period of Erie Wind, LLC.
    Filed Date: 5/9/12.
    Accession Number: 20120509-5096.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/30/12.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER12-938-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Compliance Refund Report for CCSF 36th Quarterly
Filing to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 5/9/12.
    Accession Number: 20120509-5113.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/30/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1753-000.
    Applicants: Wyoming Colorado Intertie, LLC.
    Description: Wyoming Wind and Power Transmission Service Agreement
to be effective 7/9/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/9/12.
    Accession Number: 20120509-5115.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/30/12.
    Docket Numbers: ER12-1754-000.
    Applicants: AmerenEnergy Medina Valley Cogen, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Cancellation of AmerenEnergy Medina Valley
Cogen, LLC.
    Filed Date: 5/9/12.
    Accession Number: 20120509-5140.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/30/12.

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

    Dated: May 10, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-12149 Filed 5-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P