[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 9, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8777-8778]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02621]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP21-33-000]

ANR Pipeline Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket
Authorization and Establishing Intervention and Protest Deadline

    Take notice that on January 25, 2021, ANR Pipeline Company (ANR),
700 Louisiana Street, Suite 1300, Houston, Texas 77002-2700 filed in
the above referenced docket a prior notice pursuant to sections 157.205
and 157.208 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act
(NGA) and its blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-479-000
requesting authorization to increase the Maximum Allowable Operating
Pressure (MAOP) of its Line 599, located in Acadia Parish, Louisiana.
ANR request an increase of the MAOP, from 858 pounds per square inch
gauge (psig) to 1,050 psig, all as more fully set forth in the request
which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions concerning this application should be directed to
Sorana Linder, Director, Modernization & Certificates, ANR Pipeline
Company,

700 Louisiana Street, Suite 1300, Houston, Texas 77002-2700, by phone
at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Public Participation

    There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review
of this project: you can file a protest to the project, you can file a
motion to intervene in the proceeding, and you can file comments on the
project. There is no fee or cost for filing protests, motions to
intervene, or comments. The deadline for filing protests, motions to
intervene, and comments is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 5, 2021. How
to file protests, motions to intervene, and comments is explained
below.

Protests

    Pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's regulations under
the NGA,\1\ any person \2\ or the Commission's staff may file a protest
to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed or if a
protest is filed and then withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed
time for filing a protest, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be
authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a
protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time
allowed for filing a protest, the instant request for authorization
will be considered by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 157.205.
    \2\ Persons include individuals, organizations, businesses,
municipalities, and other entities. 18 CFR 385.102(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Protests must comply with the requirements specified in section
157.205(e) of the Commission's regulations,\3\ and must be submitted by
the protest deadline, which is April 5, 2021. A protest may also serve
as a motion to intervene so long as the protestor states it also seeks
to be an intervenor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 18 CFR 157.205(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interventions

    Any person has the option to file a motion to intervene in this
proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to request rehearing of
Commission orders issued in this proceeding and to subsequently
challenge the Commission's orders in the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
    To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the
Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure \4\ and the regulations under the NGA \5\ by the
intervention deadline for the project, which is April 5, 2021. As
described further in Rule 214, your motion to intervene must state, to
the extent known, your position regarding the proceeding, as well as
your interest in the proceeding. For an individual, this could include
your status as a landowner, ratepayer, resident of an impacted
community, or recreationist. You do not need to have property directly
impacted by the project in order to intervene. For more information
about motions to intervene, refer to the FERC website at https://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 18 CFR 385.214.
    \5\ 18 CFR 157.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All timely, unopposed motions to intervene are automatically
granted by operation of Rule 214(c)(1). Motions to intervene that are
filed after the intervention deadline are untimely and may be denied.
Any late-filed motion to intervene must show good cause for being late
and must explain why the time limitation should be waived and provide
justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule 214(d) of the
Commission's Rules and Regulations. A person obtaining party status
will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the
Commission and will receive copies (paper or electronic) of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties.

Comments

    Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. The
Commission considers all comments received about the project in
determining the appropriate action to be taken. To ensure that your
comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments
on or before April 5, 2021. The filing of a comment alone will not
serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. To become a party,
you must intervene in the proceeding.

How To File Protests, Interventions, and Comments

    There are two ways to submit protests, motions to intervene, and
comments. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number
CP21-32-000 in your submission. The Commission encourages electronic
filing of submissions.
    (1) You may file your protest, motion to intervene, and comments by
using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the
Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and
Filings. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you are
making; first select General'' and then select ``Protest'',
``Intervention'', or ``Comment on a Filing.'' The Commission's eFiling
staff are available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected]
    (2) You can file a paper copy of your submission. Your submission
must reference the Project docket number CP21-33-000.
    To mail via USPS, use the following address: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426.
    To mail via any other courier, use the following address: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant
either by mail or email (with a link to the document) at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>700 Louisiana Street, Suite 1300, Houston,
Texas 77002-2700. Any subsequent submissions by an intervenor must be
served on the applicant and all other parties to the proceeding.
Contact information for parties can be downloaded from the service list
at the eService link on FERC Online.

Tracking the Proceeding

    Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project
will be available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at
(866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link as described above. The eLibrary link also provides
access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the Commission,
such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. For more information and to register, go to
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Dated: February 3, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-02621 Filed 2-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 24, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 49224]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23069]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4344-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001]

California; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of California (FEMA-4344-DR), dated October 10, 2017, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued October 12, 2017.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of California is hereby amended to include Individual
Assistance for the following area among those areas determined to have
been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the
President in his declaration of October 10, 2017.

    Sonoma County for Individual Assistance (already designated for
debris removal and emergency protective measures [Categories A and
B], including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance
program).

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

Brock Long,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2017-23069 Filed 10-23-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 130 (Thursday, July 7, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44312-44313]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16056]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2016-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1631]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard
determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any
Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the
supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities
listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek
general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and
where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and
FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the
community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in
effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS
report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to
calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings
and the contents of those buildings.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before October 5, 2016.

ADDRESSES: The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report
for each community are available for inspection at both the online
location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in
the tables below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS
report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1631, to
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA proposes to make flood hazard
determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with
section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the
floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any
time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood
hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate
flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM
and FIS report become effective.
    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are
provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the
revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS
report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b)
is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard
determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report
become effective.
    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to
communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are
independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other
pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and
technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the
SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been
engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days
without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional
information regarding the SRP process can be found online at http://floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_fact_sheet.pdf.
    The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables
below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each

community are available for inspection at both the online location and
the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables.
For communities with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies
can be identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM
date listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and
FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA
Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: June 20, 2016.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department
of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Seneca Watershed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata preliminaryfloodhazarddata
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Anderson County, South Carolina and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Anderson.......................  Public Works Building, 1100
                                          Southwood Street, Anderson, SC
                                          29624.
Town of Pendleton......................  Town Municipal Complex, 310
                                          Greenville Street, Pendleton,
                                          SC 29670.
Unincorporated Areas of Anderson County  Anderson County Department of
                                          Development Standards, 401
                                          East River Street, Anderson,
                                          SC 29624.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Oconee County, South Carolina and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Seneca.........................  City Hall, 221 East North 1st
                                          Street, Lower Floor, Seneca,
                                          SC 29678.
Unincorporated Areas of Oconee County..  Oconee County Council Chambers,
                                          Administration Office
                                          Building, 415 South Pine
                                          Street, Walhalla, SC 29691.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Pickens County, South Carolina and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Clemson........................  City Hall, 1250 Tiger
                                          Boulevard, Clemson, SC 29631.
Unincorporated Areas of Pickens County.  Pickens County Building Codes
                                          Administration, 222 McDaniel
                                          Avenue, B-10, Pickens, SC
                                          29671.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2016-16056 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 71 (Friday, April 12, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 22020]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08623]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of New Approval of Information Collection: Critical Parts for
Airplane Propellers

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval for a new information collection.
The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting
comments on the following collection of information was published on
January 28, 2013, vol. 78, no. 18, pages 5859-5860. The Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) is amending the airworthiness standards
for airplane propellers. This action will define what a propeller
critical part is, require the identification of propeller critical
parts by the manufacturer, and establish engineering, manufacture, and
maintenance processes for those parts. These processes will be required
to be recorded and maintained within company manuals. The intended
effect of this rule is to ensure the continued airworthiness of
propeller critical parts by requiring a system of processes to identify
and manage these parts throughout their service life. Adopting this
rule will eliminate regulatory differences between part 35 and European
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) propeller critical parts requirements,
thereby simplifying airworthiness approvals for exports.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by June 11, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy DePaepe at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-XXXX.
    Title: Critical Parts for Airplane Propellers.
    Form Numbers: There are no forms associated with this information
collection activity.
    Type of Review: Clearance of a new information collection.
    Background: On December 1, 2011, FAA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking titled ``Critical Parts for Airplane Propellers'' (76 FR
74749). This activity contains new Paperwork Reduction Act
recordkeeping requirements that were not addressed in that notice of
proposed rulemaking, and which are addressed here. The rule will
require that U.S. companies who manufacture critical parts for airplane
propellers update their manuals to record engineering, manufacture, and
maintenance processes for propeller critical parts. The required manual
updates will be used by the propeller manufacturer to show compliance
with the propeller critical parts requirements. There are currently
three U.S. companies who will be required to revise their manuals to
include these processes.
    Respondents: Three manufacturers.
    Frequency: This is a one time requirement.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 40 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 120 hours.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be
addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of
Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC
20503.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 8, 2013.
Albert R. Spence,
FAA Assistant Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. 2013-08623 Filed 4-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 71 (Wednesday, April 13, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20689-20690]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8817]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-D-0044]

Guidance for Industry on Influenza: Developing Drugs for
Treatment and/or Prophylaxis; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of a guidance for industry entitled ``Influenza:
Developing Drugs for Treatment and/or Prophylaxis.'' This guidance is
intended to assist sponsors in the clinical development of drugs and
therapeutic biological products for the treatment and/or prophylaxis of
illness caused by influenza viruses A and B, including both seasonal
and pandemic varieties. This guidance finalizes the draft guidance
issued February 20, 2009.

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

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance
to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
51, rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed
adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the
guidance document.
    Submit electronic comments on the 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Jeffrey Murray, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, rm. 6360, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-1500.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry
entitled ``Influenza: Development of Drugs for Treatment and/or
Prophylaxis.'' Because of the public health implications of both
epidemic and pandemic influenza, the variable nature of the disease,
the limited therapeutic options, and challenges in studying new
options, FDA is issuing guidance to assist sponsors in all phases of
influenza drug development.
    This guidance addresses nonclinical development, early phases of
clinical development, phase 3 protocol designs and endpoints for the
treatment of both uncomplicated and serious influenza, and protocol
designs for prevention of symptomatic influenza. Other issues that are
addressed in this guidance include the role of animal data in an
influenza drug development program, and considerations relating to the
potential for emergency access to influenza drugs, including advance
development of protocols for further exploration and verification of
drug effects under epidemic and pandemic conditions.
    A draft notice of availability of this guidance was published for
comment in the Federal Register of February 20, 2009 (74 FR 7908).
Comments we received on the draft guidance have been considered and the
guidance has been revised as follows: (1) Clarification on the size of
a safety database needed to support filing of a new drug application
for the treatment of serious influenza; (2) elaboration on why
virologic endpoints are not currently acceptable primary efficacy
endpoints in phase 3 studies; (3) a recommendation for the inclusion of
sensitive and specific assays (e.g., real-time polymerase chain
reaction assay) for laboratory confirmation of influenza infection to
assist in defining the infected population for analyses in influenza
treatment trials; and (4) additional statements regarding proposals for
potential emergency use authorizations of antiviral drugs for
influenza.
    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance
practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the
Agency's current thinking on developing drugs for treatment and/or
prophylaxis of influenza illness. It does not create or confer any
rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the
public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies
the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

II. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved 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 21 CFR parts 312 and 314 have
been approved under OMB control numbers 0910-0014 and 0910-0001,
respectively.

III. Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) either electronic or written comments regarding this
document. It is only necessary to send one set of comments. It is no
longer necessary to send two copies of mailed 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.

IV. Electronic Access

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

    Dated: April 7, 2011.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-8817 Filed 4-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


2 1 2. Responses to Comments EPA Region 2 ( New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands) 2 2 Comment: 1013a 31 Region: 2 State: NJ Area: New York   N. New Jersey Long Island, NY NJ CT Comment: Ocean and Sussex Counties are not included in EPA's recommended nonattainment area, despite their being part of the New York CMSA. These counties must be included in the nonattainment area.

EPA Response: On April 1, 2003 and February 13, 2004, the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) issued guidance for States and Tribes to use in identifying nonattainment areas. A nonattainment area is defined in section 107( d) of the Clean Air Act ( CAA) as an area that is violating an ambient air quality standard, or is contributing to a nearby area that is violating the standard. If an area meets this definition, EPA is obligated to designate the area as nonattainment.

Once we determine that an area is violating the standard, the next step is to determine if there are any nearby areas that are contributing to the violation and should be included in the designated nonattainment area. In addition to the important contribution from longrange transport, we believe that violations which we find in urban areas reflect significant contributions from the associated CMSA/ MSA as well. Therefore, our guidance establishes a presumption that the full metropolitan area contributes to observed violations in urban areas. Nevertheless, our final set of boundaries of nonattainment areas will reflect an area specific overall assessment of currently available technical information relating to nine specific factors: air quality monitoring information, pollutant emissions, population and growth in the area, commuting, vehicle miles traveled, meteorology, terrain, jurisdictional boundaries, and the existing level of control of emissions sources.

New Jersey had submitted an analysis showing why some of their counties should not be included in the nonattainment area. Independent of this, EPA had performed its own technical analysis which addressed each of the nine factors above. The EPA analysis demonstrated that these counties were not in violation of the PM2.5 standard and were not significantly contributing to a nonattainment monitor. Therefore, EPA's analysis verified the State's recommendation concerning Ocean and Sussex counties.

Comment: 1013a 32 Region: 2 State: NJ Area: Philadelphia Wilmington, PA NJ DE Comment: EPA failed to include Cape May, Cumberland and Salem Counties in the Philadelphia nonattainment area. Cape May is adjacent to the CMSA, but is home to the B. L. England coal fired power plant, which emitted over 12,000 tons of SO2 and almost 3,000 tons of NOx in 2002. Cumberland and Salem Counties are within the CMSA; 2 3 Salem County also contains a coal fired power plant. In 2002, the Deepwater power plant in Salem County emitted almost 2,500 tons of SO2 and almost 1,000 tons of NOx. These counties must not be left out of the nonattainment area.

EPA Response: EPA thanks the commenter for his comments regarding the designations for the PM2.5 standard. EPA considered pollutant emissions in our technical analysis and our decision regarding the final set of boundaries for the nonattainment areas. EPA's explanation for not including Cape May, Cumberland, and Salem Counties in the Philadelphia nonattainment area are contained in the TSD.

Comment: 1070 1 Region: 2 State: NJ Area: Philadelphia Wilmington, PA NJ DE Comment: Commissioner Bradley Campbell of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection ( NJDEP) recommends that EPA designate Burlington, Camden, and Gloucester counties as attainment. He notes the following in support of this recommendation:

1. These counties are currently monitoring attainment.

2. Meteorology studies show that prevailing winds blow the three southern New Jersey counties' air pollution away from Philadelphia. Meteorology seems to have been ignored in the EPA's analysis for determining how portions of southern New Jersey should be designated.

3. EPA never announced the priority in which they would consider their original nine factors for determining nonattainment areas nor did they establish cutoffs for most of their factors. EPA also failed to establish clear relationships between monitored PM2.5 design values and factors such as population density and VMT. Some of these factors, like VMT and population, have a relationship to emissions. However, emissions from the counties were already one of the factors that the agency considered. Separately considering VMT and population at best amounts to double counting and at worst is irrelevant.

4. Application of the entire suite of 9 factors has led to confusing and probably incorrect results. For example, upwind sources were not proposed for the Philadelphia area and probably have a far greater impact than the three New Jersey counties.

5. The three New Jersey counties have minimal impact on Philadelphia during its high PM2.5 days when the health impacts would be the greatest, and on most other days throughout the year as well. An analysis of the days when high PM2.5 levels occurs in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania shows only 4 out of 22 days analyzed in a three year period, when emissions from New Jersey could have possibly contributed to those high levels in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 2 4 6. If EPA disregards this evidence, New Jersey will face an increased risk of Federal sanctions even though actions taken in the three counties will be largely irrelevant to nonattainment in Philadelphia.

7. Direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor emissions coming from the three southern New Jersey counties are not as significant as those generated within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Southern New Jersey's point sources are orders of magnitude smaller than those throughout Pennsylvania, and the mobile sources ( which are limited to mostly gasoline fueled vehicles) within New Jersey predominately stay within the State's borders.

The NJDEP also believes it is most important to focus on local PM2.5 contributions, as opposed to regional PM2.5 contributions, in establishing cohesive nonattainment areas. The majority of southern New Jersey's emissions are regional precursors which take time to form particles in the atmosphere, and as such, should not be considered when determining the boundaries of a nonattainment area. Camden speciation data reveals that southern New Jersey PM2.5 emissions are mainly from directly emitted PM2.5 and SO2 emissions, and to lesser extent, NOx emissions. It is unreasonable to expect that regional emissions from a nearby area are significantly contributing to local violations of the standards.

A review of the NJDEP's preliminary 2002 base year inventory confirms the findings from the NJDEP's review of the 2001 NEI emissions ( i. e. that southern New Jersey has relatively low levels of directly emitted PM2.5 emissions). Further, the 2002 preliminary numbers show less of an impact from directly emitted particles than the 2001 NEI values. The NJDEP staff found directly emitted PM2.5 contributions from New Jersey to Pennsylvania to be less than 1 percent of the standard.

8. The NJDEP feels that the EPA's newly developed " weighted emissions scoring process" is arbitrary and seems to expand nonattainment areas to include counties monitoring attainment solely because of their relative emissions levels without any demonstration of their impact on the violating monitors.

EPA Response: On April 1, 2003 and February 13, 2004, the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) issued guidance for States and Tribes to use in identifying nonattainment areas. A nonattainment area is defined in section 107( d) of the Clean Air Act ( CAA) as an area that is violating an ambient air quality standard, or is contributing to a nearby area that is violating the standard. If an area meets this definition, EPA is obligated to designate the area as nonattainment.

Once we determine that an area is violating the standard, the next step is to determine if there are any nearby areas that are contributing to the violation and should be included in the designated nonattainment area. In addition to the important contribution from longrange transport, we believe that violations which we find in urban areas reflect significant contributions from the associated Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area/ Metropolitan Statistical Area ( CMSA/ MSA) as well. Therefore, our guidance 2 5 establishes a presumption that the full metropolitan area contributes to observed violations in urban areas. In fact, the very establishment of CMSA's/ MSA's by the Bureau of the Census recognizes the integral economic and sociologic connection of counties within the metropolitan areas. Nevertheless, our final set of boundaries of nonattainment areas reflects an area specific overall assessment of currently available technical information relating to nine specific factors: air quality monitoring information, pollutant emissions, population and growth in the area, commuting, vehicle miles traveled, meteorology, terrain, jurisdictional boundaries, and the existing level of control of emissions sources. EPA did not weight the nine factors because no two areas are identical. What may be important at one location may not be as important at another location. In one county a major source may be so overwhelming that it alone may set the stage for a nonattainment designation. On the other hand, another county may not be an overwhelming contributor in any one area but may be significant in several categories and thus require a nonattainment designation. Accordingly, EPA used professional judgment as opposed to a straight numerical scale ( or score).

In EPA's June 29, 2004 letter to the State of New Jersey, EPA indicated that Burlington, Camden, and Gloucester counties should be nonattainment for the PM2.5 standard, but invited the states to submit additional justifications, based on the 9 factors, to support their original designation recommendations. The TSD fully explains EPA's rationale for including Burlington, Camden, and Gloucester counties in the Philadelphia nonattainment area.

Responses to New Jersey's specific comments are addressed below:

1. Although Burlington, Camden, and Gloucester counties do not have violating monitors, EPA's overall assessment of available technical information indicates that the counties contribute to Philadelphia metropolitan area nonattainment.

2. EPA used both an analysis of pollution and wind rose data, and 24 hour back trajectories to investigate the influence of weather patterns on observed PM2.5 mass contributions. Although the prevailing winds are primarily from the southwest, there are times when the wind does shift, which would allow emissions from the three New Jersey counties to impact Philadelphia. That, coupled with the fact that these three counties have large sources located along the river bordering the Philadelphia nonattainment area, causes the EPA to determine that New Jersey contributes to nonattainment.

3. The boundaries of nonattainment areas reflect an area specific overall assessment of currently available technical information relating to the nine specific factors. EPA did not weight the nine factors, prioritize factors, or establish specific cutoffs because no two areas are identical. EPA used professional judgment as opposed to using a straight numerical scale ( or score), therefore double counting did not occur. One factor may have been more important in one area than at another location. For example, the presence of large point sources and populations in close proximity to violating monitors in the Philadelphia metropolitan area were important factors which indicate that the New Jersey counties contribute to monitored violations. 2 6 EPA recognizes that many of the 9 factors are indicative of emissions. The other factors also indicate contributions that may not be reflected in the emissions estimates for each county, and indicate whether the counties should be considered an integral part of a metropolitan area which has monitored PM2.5 design values above the standard.

4. Upwind counties with sources of particulate pollution were proposed for inclusion in the Philadelphia metropolitan nonattainment area ( e. g., Bucks and Montgomery counties in Pennsylvania). EPA has strived for consistency in proposing areas with similar contributions to a nonattainment area.

5. Because the design value for the Philadelphia metropolitan area is based on the annual standard, EPA is concerned about contributions to the violating monitors from the three southern New Jersey counties throughout the year, on both high and low PM2.5 days. In addition, the trajectory analyses show back trajectories over a 24 hour period only. Since the New Jersey counties contain multiple large point sources concentrated along the border of Philadelphia and Delaware counties, an analysis of short lived trajectories ( e. g., 20 minute) would be needed in order to prove that New Jersey emissions do not contribute to high PM2.5 levels in Philadelphia. Such data has not been presented by the State.

6. EPA is obligated to designate an area as nonattainment if the area is contributing to a nearby area that is violating the standard. The counties proposed for nonattainment have high PM direct and secondary emissions relative to the other counties in the metropolitan area. Additional reductions in the entire metropolitan area are needed in order for nearby counties with violating monitors to achieve attainment.

7. EPA recognizes that the three New Jersey counties generate less emissions than some of the counties in Pennsylvania. However, the emissions generated are not insignificant, and there is not a major difference when comparing the carbon and NOx emissions from each of the three New Jersey counties with the other counties on the Pennsylvania side of the Philadelphia metropolitan area. For example, when comparing 2001 NEI county totals for carbon, Philadelphia, Delaware, Montgomery, Chester, and Bucks emitted 2,116 tons, 1,458 tons, 1,905 tons, 1,228 tons, and 1,443 tons, respectively, of carbon compared to 1,035 tons, 1,286 tons, and 1,326 tons, respectively, for Gloucester, Camden, and Burlington.

We do not believe that the size of the point sources in New Jersey compared to the size of the point sources in Pennsylvania is a key factor in determining whether New Jersey contributes to Philadelphia nonattainment. Additionally, although most commuters stay within New Jersey, the state has not provided sufficient evidence that the large number of motor vehicles entering Philadelphia from New Jersey do not contribute to Philadelphia nonattainment.

EPA disagrees with the State commenter hat precursor emissions should not be considered. Although it is recognized that precursors do need time to form in the atmosphere, stagnation effects, variable wind conditions, and low emission releases could 2 7 result in precursor emissions impacting nearby areas. The Camden speciation data is also not relevant.

The 2002 NEI emission inventory is preliminary and has not undergone rigorous quality assurance. EPA believes that the 2001 NEI should be the basis for the PM designations. The preliminary 2002 NEI also shows an increase of emissions from Burlington County.

The NJDEP staff analysis showing 1 per cent PM contribution did not consider the impact from precursor emissions. EPA also believes that the New Jersey analysis may be underestimating the impact of PM direct emissions from the local emission sources concentrated along the Delaware River.

8. EPA uses the speciated PM2.5 air quality data, along with other data, to help determine which counties in the area are contributing to the violation. In identifying counties that contribute to an area's violating air quality, it is important to give more weight to emissions ( sources) that contribute to the excess PM2.5 in the urban area. For example, a ton of nitrogen oxide emitted within an area contributes less to the PM2.5 in that area than a ton of organic carbon emissions. Nitrogen oxide takes time to form into PM2.5 in the atmosphere and therefore is more of a regional pollutant. In addition, it will be important to understand which emissions are mostly contributing to an area's PM2.5 level in determining what sources could be effectively controlled within the area.

To give each county in an urban area the proper " weight" for their " contributing" emissions, the emissions in the county must be adjusted in two steps. In step 1, we must determine the county's percentage of the violating area's total emissions. In step 2, we adjust this percentage by the violating area's excess urban emissions for the pertinent speciated PM2.5 component. In doing this, we calculate the excess levels associated with sulfates, nitrates, carbonaceous matter and crustal material. These components represent the vast majority of chemicals that make up PM2.5 in urban areas.

The calculated urban excess for each of the four components is the difference between the speciated PM2.5 components for an urban area and speciated components from a near by rural area. While it may seem best to choose a " rural" FRM ( total mass) monitor and an " urban" FRM monitor for purposes of estimating the mass of the urban excess, this would not allow us to relate the air quality levels to the area's emissions. This situation is one of the main reasons for a monitoring network for speciated PM2.5. Accordingly, we are using the speciated PM2.5 data from rural and urban monitors, along with estimates of emissions within the area, to identify the urban sources with the greatest contribution to the urban excess PM2.5.

It is also important to note that the PM2.5 ( air quality) weighted emissions ( and scores) are considered in the context of all the relevant factors in determining the boundary of a nonattainment area. We consider the other factors, in addition to air quality and emissions, in identifying the counties that should comprise the nonattainment area. As described above, the speciated PM2.5 weighted emissions are used in developing a ranking score ( weight) for each county in a potential nonattainment area. In developing 2 8 these scores, we do not intend that they should be used in a " bright line" manner. Rather, they offer a basis for looking closest at the counties in an area that may contribute the most to the elevated PM2.5 in the area. For the counties with the highest score, we look at the other information, including meteorology, as we determine the collection of counties in a nonattainment area.

Comment: 1009 1 Region: 2 State: NY Area: New York N. New Jersey Long Island, NY NJ CT Comment: Commenter notes that the New York State DEC staff have completed an initial review of EPA's technical analysis that serve as the basis for EPA's proposed modifications to New York's nonattainment recommendation. The commenter requests EPA to respond to questions regarding the following factors: emissions, air quality, traffic and commuting patterns, expected growth, and meteorology. Finally, the commenter requests that a 60 day review of EPA's response to their requests of information be granted given the long term ramifications of the decisions.

EPA Response: Thank you for your July 21, 2004 letter regarding EPA's PM2.5 designation recommendations. We recognize New York's need to gain a timely understanding of the technical basis for EPA's recommendations. My staff has already begun to respond directly to some of New York's questions. They have scheduled a conference call with your staff during the week of July 26, 2004 for the purpose of fully explaining EPA's technical rationale; and they have scheduled a follow up meeting in your offices on August 5, at which time we will undertake to answer any remaining questions.

My staff has advised me that some of the information you requested in your letter was not germane to EPA's considerations in developing its recommendations on PM2.5 designations. Nevertheless, we will attempt to provide you with responses to those requests as quickly as possible.

You asked for additional time to consider EPA's recommendations. EPA Administrator Leavitt has stated publicly that EPA intends to make its final decision by November 17, 2004. While we do not expect that we will be able to provide New York with additional time after September 1, 2004 to submit comments, I believe that this schedule provides sufficient time to consider the matter fully. 2 9 Comment: 1013a 33 Region: 2 State: NY Area: New York N. New Jersey Long Island, NY NJ CT Comment: EPA has not recommended that Duchess, Putnam and Ulster Counties be designated nonattainment. These counties are all part of the New York CMSA and must be included in the nonattainment area.

EPA Response: On April 1, 2003 and February 13, 2004, the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) issued guidance for States and Tribes to use in identifying nonattainment areas. A nonattainment area is defined in section 107( d) of the Clean Air Act ( CAA) as an area that is violating an ambient air quality standard, or is contributing to a nearby area that is violating the standard. If an area meets this definition, EPA is obligated to designate the area as nonattainment.

Once we determine that an area is violating the standard, the next step is to determine if there are any nearby areas that are contributing to the violation and should be included in the designated nonattainment area. In addition to the important contribution from longrange transport, we believe that violations which we find in urban areas reflect significant contributions from the associated CMSA/ MSA as well. Therefore, our guidance establishes a presumption that the full metropolitan area contributes to observed violations in urban areas. Nevertheless, our final set of boundaries of nonattainment areas will reflect an area specific overall assessment of currently available technical information relating to nine specific factors: air quality monitoring information, pollutant emissions, population and growth in the area, commuting, vehicle miles traveled, meteorology, terrain, jurisdictional boundaries, and the existing level of control of emissions sources.

New York had submitted an analysis showing why some of their counties should not be included in the nonattainment area. Independent of this, EPA had performed their own technical analysis which addressed each of the nine factors above. The EPA analysis demonstrated that these counties were not in violation of the PM2.5 standard and were not significantly contributing to a nonattainment monitor. Therefore, EPA's analysis verified the State's recommendation concerning Duchess, Putnam and Ulster counties.

Comment: 1071 1 Region: 2 State: NY Area: New York N. New Jersey Long Island, NY NJ CT Comment: The commenter, on behalf of New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ( NYSDEC), expresses concern about EPA's designation process, as EPA has not followed its own guidance. States were told that the PM implementation guidance would be released prior to making recommendations. Thus far, it has yet to be issued. Guidance which was to be issued regarding the time frame which was consistent with the 2 10 CAA has been superceded by transmittal letters, methods of analysis that are being employed have been put forth without input from the affected parties and EPA has failed to give consideration to its own published research. Specific comments are summarized below:

1. Based on the results from the single monitor in New Haven, Connecticut, EPA staff conducted an analysis which reviewed, among other things, emissions, population, traffic and commuting patterns, and pollution roses to determine that Suffolk, Nassau, Westchester, Rockland and Orange were contributors to the nonattainment levels recorded at the Stiles Street monitor in New Haven, Connecticut. This analysis contradicts a source characterization study that EPA performed by speciating the collected PM2.5 data from eight cities around the country. This study found that 58 percent of the total PM2.5 mass was consistent with regional and transported sources of this pollutant. This study would seem to indicate that the five counties are not significant contributors to the Stiles Street monitor. Proposing these counties as nonattainment would place a burden on areas in New York State that do not contribute significantly to nonattainment and cannot contribute to achieving attainment.

2. New York implements measures to control precursors to PM2.5 on stationary and mobile sources.

3. The commenter notes that EPA uses a meteorology analysis method with regard to the Stiles Street monitor in New Haven, Connecticut that is similar to the method employed by the NY DEC in its February 13, 2004 demonstration. That demonstration showed that emissions from the supplemental counties do not contribute to the nonattainment readings in New York and Bronx Counties.

4. To designate the supplemental counties, which are clearly in attainment, as contributing to a problem at the Stiles Street monitor, when that monitor meets the definition of a microscale monitor, is an error.

5. The commenter is concerned that EPA is ignoring existing research and analysis regarding the nature of PM2.5 and the unique behaviors of direct and secondary emissions over distance. EPA needs to take into consideration not only factors that can serve as indicators of relative emission volumes like VMT and populations, but also how far PM2.5 impact from the sources reach.

6. The " urban excess" method arbitrarily creates a relationship between urban excess in a region and the emissions from the counties near that urban area. EPA has not justified this concept and the New York DEC believes that a pure evaluation of urban excess actually provides support for the original proposal for a five county nonattainment area.

7. The urban excess method has the following limitations: the two monitoring networks IMPROVE and STN, have different sampling and analysis methodologies; when the average concentration of a pollutant at a rural site is higher than the corresponding value 2 11 at the urban site, the urban excess is zero; and the method does not take into account prevailing meteorology.

A detailed technical nine factor analysis is attached to the comment letter.

EPA Response: On April 1, 2003 and February 13, 2004, the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) issued guidance for States and Tribes to use in identifying nonattainment areas. A nonattainment area is defined in section 107( d) of the Clean Air Act ( CAA) as an area that is violating an ambient air quality standard, or is contributing to a nearby area that is violating the standard. If an area meets this definition, EPA is obligated to designate the area as nonattainment.

Once we determine that an area is violating the standard, the next step is to determine if there are any nearby areas that are contributing to the violation and should be included in the designated nonattainment area. In addition to the important contribution from longrange transport, we believe that violations which we find in urban areas reflect significant contributions from the associated Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area/ Metropolitan Statistical Area ( CMSA/ MSA) as well. Therefore, our guidance establishes a presumption that the full metropolitan area contributes to observed violations in urban areas. In fact, the very establishment of CMSA's/ MSA's by the Bureau of the Census recognizes the integral economic and sociologic connection of counties within the metropolitan areas. Nevertheless, our final set of boundaries of nonattainment areas reflects an area specific overall assessment of currently available technical information relating to nine specific factors: air quality monitoring information, pollutant emissions, population and growth in the area, commuting, vehicle miles traveled, meteorology, terrain, jurisdictional boundaries, and the existing level of control of emissions sources. EPA did not weight the nine factors because no two areas are identical. What may be important at one location may not be as important at another location. In one county a major source may be so overwhelming that it alone may set the stage for a nonattainment designation. On the other hand, another county may not be an overwhelming contributor in any one area but may be significant in several categories and thus require a nonattainment designation. Accordingly, EPA used professional judgment as opposed to a straight numerical scale ( or score).

In EPA's June 29, 2004 letter to the State of New York, EPA indicated that Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, Orange, and Rockland counties should be nonattainment for the PM2.5 standard, but invited the states to submit additional justifications, based on the 9 factors, to support their original designation recommendations. The TSD fully explains EPA's rational for including Nassau, Suffolk, Orange, Rockland and Westchester counties in the New York Metropolitan nonattainment area.

Responses to New York's specific comments are addressed below:

1. The supplemental data provided by the State, including the EPA source characterization study, is indicative of a strong regional component. EPA agrees that regional transport is an important issue and is currently addressing the issue of regionally 2 12 transported emissions via the Clean Air Interstate Rule ( CAIR). However, the data presented by the State does not rule out significant contributions to violating monitors in the Bronx and New York from local emission sources in Suffolk, Nassau, Orange and Rockland and Westchester Counties. Large populations, large number of commuters to New York City, and limited transportation routes ( especially Long Island) for goods and service delivery, and the presence of violating monitors near those major transportation routes are indicative of a significant mobile source contribution. Although the State claims that mobile sources only contribute approximately 5 percent of total PM2.5 emissions, this figure is a county wide average. The impact of these emissions seem to be more pronounced near the violating monitors adjacent to the major transportation routes. The State estimate also does not take into effect mobile source precursor emissions.

2. EPA recognizes that New York is implementing measures to control precursors to PM2.5 on stationary and mobile sources. However, EPA is obligated to designate an area as nonattainment if the area is contributing to a nearby area that is violating the standard. The additional counties continue to have high PM direct and secondary emissions relative to the other counties in the metropolitan area. Additional reductions are needed in order for nearby counties with violating monitors to be in attainment.

3. EPA used both an analysis of pollution and wind rose data, and 24 hour back trajectories to investigate the influence of weather patterns on observed PM 2.5 mass contributions. Analysis of the data shows that annual average PM 2.5 concentrations in the New York City area are influenced by emissions in any direction at various times, but less likely to be influenced by emissions from Westchester, Suffolk, Nassau, Orange, and Rockland Counties.

4. EPA has reviewed additional data submitted by the State of Connecticut and concurs that the New Haven site should be classified as a microscale site and that the emissions from the supplemental counties should not be considered as contributing to a problem at the Stiles Street monitor. The supplemental counties are recommended for nonattainment designation based on their contribution to violating monitors in New York and Bronx counties.

5. EPA has not ignored existing research and analysis regarding the nature of PM2.5 and the unique behaviors of direct and secondary emissions over distance. EPA has found that PM2.5 is a pervasive pollutant and is not confined to small areas. Based on the CAA and EPA guidance, the presumptive nonattainment area is all of the counties in the 1999 OMB boundary definitions. The state has not provided an adequate technical analysis demonstrating that Nassau, Suffolk, Orange, Rockland and Westchester counties did not contribute to violations in the CMSA/ MSA.

6. EPA uses the speciated PM2.5 air quality data, along with other data, to help determine which counties in the area are contributing to the violation. In identifying counties that contribute to an area's violating air quality, it is important to give more weight to emissions ( sources) that contribute to the excess PM2.5 in the urban area. For example, a ton of nitrogen oxide emitted within an area contributes less to the PM2.5 in that area 2 13 than a ton of organic carbon emissions. Nitrogen oxide takes time to form into PM2.5 in the atmosphere and therefore is more of a regional pollutant. In addition, it will be important to understand which emissions are mostly contributing to an area's PM2.5 level in determining what sources could be effectively controlled within the area.

To give each county in an urban area the proper " weight" for their " contributing" emissions, the emissions in the county must be adjusted in two steps. In step 1, we must determine the county's percentage of the violating area's total emissions. In step 2, we adjust this percentage by the violating area's excess urban emissions for the pertinent speciated PM2.5 component. In doing this, we calculate the excess levels associated with sulfates, nitrates, carbonaceous matter and crustal material. These components represent the vast majority of chemicals that make up PM2.5 in urban areas.

The calculated urban excess for each of the four components is the difference between the speciated PM2.5 components for an urban area and speciated components from a nearby rural area. While it may seem best to choose a " rural" FRM ( total mass) monitor and an " urban" FRM monitor for purposes of estimating the mass of the urban excess, this would not allow us to relate the air quality levels to the area's emissions. This situation is one of the main reasons for a monitoring network for speciated PM2.5. Accordingly, we are using the speciated PM2.5 data from rural and urban monitors, along with estimates of emissions within the area, to identify the urban sources with the greatest contribution to the urban excess PM2.5.

It is also important to note that the PM2.5 ( air quality) weighted emissions ( and scores) are considered in the context of all the relevant factors in determining the boundary of a nonattainment area. We consider the other factors, in addition to air quality and emissions, in identifying the counties that should comprise the nonattainment area. As described above, the speciated PM2.5 weighted emissions are used in developing a ranking score ( weight) for each county in a potential nonattainment area. In developing these scores, we do not intend that they should be used in a " bright line" manner. Rather, they offer a basis for looking closest at the counties in an area that may contribute the most to the elevated PM2.5 in the area. For the counties with the highest score, we look at the other information, including meteorology, as we determine the collection of counties in a nonattainment area.

7. Although they use similar sampling and analytical methods, EPA recognizes that the STN and IMPROVE networks measure different species and employ different operational protocols. EPA has taken these differences into account when calculating urban excess. Data handling protocols employed by the EPA to put aerosol composition data derived from both these networks on an as similar as possible basis are referenced below.

Reference 2 14 1. Rao, V.; Frank, N.; Rush, A; Dimmick, F; Chemical Speciation of PM2.5 in Urban and Rural Areas. U. S. National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report, 2003 Special Studies Edition, EPA 454/ R 03 005; Research Triangle Park, NC, September 2003.


[Federal Register: April 15, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 71)]
[Notices]
[Page 17470]
[DOCID:fr15ap09-54]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13368-000]

Blue Heron Hydro, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Applications
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comment, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

April 8, 2009.
    On February 6, 2009, Blue Heron Hydro, LLC, filed an application,
pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study
the feasibility of the Townsend Dam Hydroelectric Project, to be
located on the West River, in Windham County, Vermont.
    The proposed Townsend Dam Hydroelectric Project would be located
at: (1) The existing 1,700-foot-long U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Townsend Dam; (2) an existing Corps intake tower and control works, and
(3) an existing 735-acre reservoir with 32,800 acre-feet of storage.
    The project would consist of: (1) Six new turbine generating units
connected to the intake tower with a total installed capacity of 0.96
megawatts; (2) a new 1-mile-long, 45 kilovolt, 3 phase transmission
line and transformer connected to an existing above ground distribution
system; and (3) appurtenant facilities. The Townsend Dam Project would
have an estimated average annual generation of 3,605 megawatt-hours,
which would be sold to local utilities.
    Applicant Contact: Ms. Lori Barg, Blue Heron Hydro, LLC, 113
Bartlett Rd., Plainfield, VT 05667, phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: John Ramer,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to
the Commission's Web site located at http: //www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http: //
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13368) in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-8560 Filed 4-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 158 (Wednesday, August 15, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40506-40507]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17506]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP18-535-000]

Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.; Notice of Request Under
Blanket Authorization

    Take notice that on July 31, 2018, Southern Star Central Gas
Pipeline, Inc. (Southern Star) 4700 State Highway 56, Owensboro,
Kentucky 42301, filed in Docket No. CP18-535-000 a prior notice request
pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.208 of the Commission's
regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Southern Star's
blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-479-000, to increase the
maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) and maximum operating
pressure (MOP) on Southern Star's QB Pipeline (Line QB) in Johnson
County, Kansas.
    Southern Star states that Line QB is a 26-inch pipeline that runs
between the South Glavin Station and the Glavin Station in Johnson
County, Kansas, serving the Kansas City Metropolitan area in Kansas and
Missouri. Most of Line QB was installed in the late 1940's. Due to the
age of the line, the MAOP of Line QB was established under the
``Grandfather Clause'' of the regulations of the United States
Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT), Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). The MAOP of Line QB
established under the Grandfather Clause is 260 pounds per square inch
gauge (psig). Southern Star avers that Line QB was unintentionally
over-pressured due to the failure of a regulator. In response to the
increase in pressure above the grandfathered MAOP, Southern Star
conducted a hydrostatic pressure test meeting the requirements of
PHMSA's regulations. The results of that pressure test support an MAOP
of 280 psig, an increase from the 260 psig grandfathered MAOP. Southern
Star requests to increase both the MAOP and the MOP of Line QB to 280
psig to match the new MAOP supported by the recent pressure test under
PHMSA's regulations.
    Southern Star asserts that, like Line QB, its 26-inch Line QC also
begins at the South Glavin Station. Line QC has an MAOP/MOP of 280
psig, and both lines have a common source of gas, Southern Star's 26-
inch Line Q. Therefore, uprating Line QB to match the pressure on Line
QC will allow Southern Star to equalize pressure in Line QB and Line QC
to share regulation and essentially be operated as one system and more
efficiently.
    Southern Star states that no increased capacity is expected to
occur, and no additional costs are required to increase the MAOP/MOP of
Southern Star's Line QB, all as more fully set forth in the application
which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The
filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected] or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Cindy
Thompson, Manager, Regulatory, Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline,
Inc., 4700 Highway 56, Owensboro, Kentucky 42301, by telephone at (270)
852-4655, or by email at [email protected].
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to section 157.205 of
the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the
request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the
proposed activity shall be deemed to be

authorized effective the day after the time allowed for filing a
protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after
the allowed time for filing a protest, the instant request shall be
treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of
the NGA.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules (18 CFR 157.9),
within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will either:
complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's
public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of
Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and
state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary
reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations
within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's EA.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters, will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
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 seven copies of the protest or intervention to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426.

    Dated: August 8, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-17506 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P