  i

 EPA BIOPESTICIDES AND POLLUTION PREVENTION DIVISION  COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER

 EPA Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division contact: Microbial Pesticides  Branch, Ms. Sheryl Reilly,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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

 SUBMISSION: Email the completed template to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>  TEMPLATE:

 Bayer CropScience LP [Insert petition number]  EPA has received a pesticide petition ([insert petition number]) from Bayer CropScience LP, 2 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC  27709 requesting, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180

 (Options (pick one)

       1. by establishing a tolerance for residues of NA-Remove

       2. to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for

       3. to establish an amendment/expansion of an existing tolerance exemption for the  NA-Remove

 (Options (pick one)

       1. microbial pesticide Streptomyces microflavus, strain AQ 6121

       2. biochemical pesticide [insert name of active ingredient] NA-Remove

       3. plant-pesticide [insert name of active ingredient] in or on [insert commodity].        NA-Remove

 Pursuant to section 408(d)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA, as amended, Bayer CropScience LP has submitted the following summary of information, data, and arguments in support of their pesticide petition. This summary was prepared by Bayer CropScience LP and EPA has not fully evaluated the merits of the pesticide petition. The summary may have been edited by EPA if the terminology used was unclear, the summary contained extraneous material, or the summary unintentionally made the reader conclude that the findings reflected EPA's position and not the position of the petitioner.

 I. Bayer CropScience LP Petition Summary

       [Insert petition number]

 A. Product Name and Proposed Use Practices

 AQ 6121 Technical is the technical grade of the active ingredient/manufacturing use product. The end-use product, AQ 6121 75WP is intended for use as a broad spectrum miticide for the control of i phytophagous mite pests. AQ 6121 75WP is intended primarily for use on a variety of agricultural crops. The end-use product is a 75% a.i. wettable powder formulation that is mixed with water and applied as a foliar spray with spray equipment commonly used for making ground or aerial applications and sprinkler/irrigation systems commonly used for chemigation. It may be used in alternating spray programs or in tank mixes with other registered crop protection products, up to and including the day of harvest.

 B. Product Identity/Chemistry

       1. Identity of the pesticide and corresponding residues. Streptomyces microflavus, strain AQ 6121, including spent fermentation media, is the active ingredient in the proposed formulated end-use product AQ 6121 75WP. Streptomyces microflavus is a mesophilic, saprophytic bacterium belonging to the genus Streptomyces,        found commonly in soil and decaying vegetation.

       2. Magnitude of residues at the time of harvest and method used to determine the residue. No significant residues of Streptomyces microflavus, strain AQ 6121are expected to occur at the time of harvest. The active ingredient consists of a naturally occurring microorganism that has little or no viability in the formulated product, the residues of which have been tested in their entirety (both TGAI and end product) to establish the absence of toxic or pathogenic effects in mammals at levels far in excess of any potential residue at the time of harvest.

       3. A statement of why an analytical method of detecting and measuring the levels of the pesticide residue are not needed. Bayer CropScience LP is submitting a

        petition requesting that EPA establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for the AQ 6121 strain of Streptomyces microflavus, therefore, an analytical method for residues is not applicable. It is expected that, when used as proposed, AQ 6121 would not result in residues that are of toxicological concern.

  C. Mammalian Toxicological Profile

  As the results show below, and the submission application clearly indicate, Streptomyces microflavus strain AQ 6121, including the natural chemistry responsible for its miticidal activity, is not pathogenic, is not cytotoxic, and is not mutagenic. Additionally, the standard battery of acute toxicity tests indicate that AQ 6121 Technical and AQ 6121   75WP elicit no significant toxicity concerns in any of the tests conducted. The results of the studies indicate there are no significant human health risks.

  Studies to evaluate the safety to mammals have been conducted with the AQ 6121   Technical and AQ 6121 75WP, and are summarized as follows:

 Guideline  Test  Subject  AQ 6121 Technical  AQ 6121 75WP  Acute Oral Toxicity  (OCSPP 870.1100)  Rat  LD50 > 2,000 mg/kg in  studies with AQ 6121  Technical  LD50 >5,000 mg/kg  in studies with AQ  6121 75WP  Acute Dermal  Toxicity (OCSPP  870.1200)  Rat  LD50 limit test result  for  AQ 6121 Technical was > 5,050 mg/kg.  LD50 limit test result  for AQ 6121 75WP  end product was >  5,050 mg/kg.  Acute Inhalation  Toxicity (OCSPP  870.1300)  Rat  LC50 for AQ 6121  Technical was > 5.26 mg/L  LC50 for AQ 6121  75WP end-use product was > 5.26 mg/L  Primary Eye  Irritation (OCSPP  870.2400)  Rabbit  AQ 6121 Technical was classified as mildly irritating  AQ 6121 75WP exhibited no adverse positive effects in any of the test animals  Primary Dermal  Irritation (OCSPP  870.2500)  Rabbit  AQ 6121 Technical non-  irritating under the conditions of the test.  AQ 6121 75WP non-  irritating under the conditions of the test.  Dermal  Sensitization  (OCSPP 870.2600)  Mice  N/A  Non-sensitizer  Acute Injection (IP) Toxicity and  Pathogenicity  (OCSPP 885.3200)  Rat  Non-toxic to rats when administered by IP  injection at a single dose of 1.0 x 109 CFU  (colony forming  N/A

 units)/rat.

 Acute Injection (IV) Toxicity and Pathogenicity (OCSPP 885.3200)  Rat  Non-toxic to rats when injected intravenously at a dose of 3.2 x 1010  CFU/mL or 3.2 x 109  CFU/rat and is not pathogenic in the Sprague-Dawley albino rat.  N/A

  The results of toxicity testing with AQ 6121 Technical and AQ 6121 75WP support the conclusion that the proposed use of the active ingredient Streptomyces microflavus, strain   6121 poses no foreseeable risks to human health. Correspondingly, the Tier 1 environmental and ecotoxicology tests performed as part of the registration application support the contention that the use of this active ingredient poses no foreseeable risks to the environment. Due to a lack of residues of toxicological concern neither dietary nor non-dietary exposures would be expected to pose any quantifiable risk.

  D. Aggregate Exposure

        1. Dietary exposure.

              i. Food. Dietary exposure from use of Streptomyces microflavus, strain AQ 6121, as proposed, is not expected to pose any toxicological concerns. AQ 6121 is intended for application to agricultural crops to suppress or control certain important phytophagous mite pests.

              Acute toxicity studies show that Streptomyces microflavus, strain AQ               6121 is not toxic to mammals and support the conclusion that the proposed use of AQ 6121 in end-use products poses no foreseeable risks to human health or the environment. Dietary exposures would not be expected to pose any quantifiable risk due to a lack of residues of toxicological concern.

              ii. Drinking water. Similarly, exposure to humans from residues of Streptomyces microflavus, strain AQ 6121 in consumed drinking water would be unlikely. The proposed use pattern will minimize potential exposure to surface water, and exposure to drinking water (well or ground water) is unlikely to occur. AQ 6121is intended for application to agricultural crops and the end-use product is not applied directly to water.

              The lack of residues of toxicological concern on treated crops and the results of toxicity testing with AQ 6121 Technical and AQ 6121 75WP support the conclusion that the proposed use of Streptomyces microflavus, strain AQ 6121 poses no foreseeable risks to human health or the

             environment. Drinking water exposures would not be expected to pose any quantifiable risk due to a lack of residues of toxicological concern. Furthermore, although Streptomyces microflavus is a naturally occurring microorganism known to exist in terrestrial habitats (soil), it is not likely              to thrive in aquatic environments.

       2. Non-dietary exposure. The potential for non-dietary exposure to the general population, including infants and children, is unlikely as the proposed use sites are agricultural settings. Streptomyces microflavus, strain AQ 6121 is intended for application to agricultural crops to control important phytophagous mite pests.

       The lack of toxicologically significant residues on treated crops, the results of toxicity testing with AQ 6121 Technical and AQ 6121 75WP support the conclusion that the proposed use of AQ 6121 poses no foreseeable risks to human health or the environment. Non-dietary exposures would not be expected to pose any quantifiable risk due to a lack of residues of toxicological concern.

       Additionally, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) mitigates the potential for exposure to applicators and handlers of the proposed products, when used in agricultural settings.

 E. Cumulative Effects

 When used as proposed, it is not expected that Streptomyces microflavus, strain AQ 6121 would result in residues that are of toxicological concern. AQ 6121 is intended for application to agricultural crops to suppress or control certain important phytophagous mite pests.

 Based on the results from mammalian toxicity tests with AQ 6121Technical and AQ  6121 75WP there is no indication of mammalian toxicity of Streptomyces microflavus strain AQ 6121 and no information to indicate that toxic effects would be cumulative. Our current understanding is that Streptomyces microflavus strain AQ 6121 does not  share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other registered substance. Therefore for the purposes of this tolerance exemption petition, Bayer CropScience LP requests the assumption that Streptomyces microflavus strain AQ 6121 does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances and therefore no cumulative effects associated with Streptomyces microflavus strain AQ 6121 would be expected.

 F. Safety Determination

       1. U.S. population. When used as proposed, Streptomyces microflavus, strain AQ  6121 would not result in residues that are of toxicological concern. AQ 6121 is intended for application to agricultural crops to control important phytophagous mite pests. The

 lack of toxicologically significant residues on treated crops and the results of toxicity testing on AQ 6121 Technical and AQ 6121 75WP support the conclusion that the proposed use of AQ 6121poses no foreseeable risks to human health or the environment. There is a reasonable certainty of no harm to the general US population from exposure to this active ingredient.

 2. Infants and children. As mentioned above, it is not expected that, when used as proposed, Streptomyces microflavus, strain AQ 6121 would result in residues that are of toxicological concern. There is a reasonable certainty of no harm for infants and children from exposure to AQ 6121from the proposed uses

 G. Effects on the Immune and Endocrine Systems

 Streptomyces microflavus strain AQ 6121 is a naturally occurring, non-pathogenic organism. To date there is no evidence to suggest that Streptomyces microflavus strain AQ 6121 will compromise the immune or endocrine systems, or that it functions in a manner similar to any known hormone, or that it acts as an endocrine disrupter.

 H. Existing Tolerances

 There is no US EPA Tolerance for Streptomyces microflavus strain AQ 6121.

 I. International Tolerances

 There is no Codex Alimentarius Commission Maximum Residue Level (MRL) for  Streptomyces microflavus strain AQ 6121.

 January 25, 2013


[Federal Register: October 6, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 192)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 51245-51246]
[DOCID:fr06oc09-13]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Parts 151, 155, and 160

[USCG-2008-1070]
RIN 1625-AB27

Nontank Vessel Response Plans and Other Vessel Response Plan
Requirements

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of public meetings; request for comments; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is issuing a correction to an earlier document
that

published on September 25, 2009, in order to correct the date of the
Washington, DC, public meeting. Our earlier notice listed 2 different
dates for the same meeting; the correct date is October 28, 2009.

DATES: The public meetings will be held at the following locations:
     Washington, DC, October 28, 2009, from 1 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.
     Oakland, CA, November 3, 2009, from 1 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.
     New Orleans, LA, November 19, 2009, from 4:30 p.m. to 7
p.m.

Written comments and related material may also be submitted to Coast
Guard personnel specified at that meeting. The comment period for the
proposed rule closes November 30, 2009. All comments and related
material submitted after the meeting must either be submitted to our
online docket via http://www.regulations.gov on or before November 30,
2009, or reach the Docket Management Facility by that date.

ADDRESSES: The public meetings will be held at the following locations:
     Washington, DC--United States Coast Guard Headquarters
Building, Room 4202, 2100 Second St., SW., Washington, DC 20593.
     Oakland, CA--Ronald V. Dellums Federal Building,
Auditorium, 3rd Floor North Tower, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612.
     New Orleans, LA--Ernest N. Morial Convention Center, Room
208, Exhibit Hall A, 900 Convention Center Blvd., New Orleans, LA
70130.
    You may submit written comments identified by docket number USCG-
2008-1070 before or after the meeting using any one of the following
methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
Our online docket for this rulemaking is available on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov under docket number USCG-2008-1070.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, contact Lieutenant Jarrod DeWitz, U.S. Coast
Guard, Office of Vessel Activities, Vessel Response Plan Review Team,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. You may also e-mail questions to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background and Purpose

    The Coast Guard is issuing this correction to an earlier notice
that published on September 25, 2009, (74 FR 48891) in order to correct
the date of the Washington, DC, public meeting. Our earlier notice
listed 2 different dates for the same meeting; the correct date is
October 28, 2009. The time/location of the Washington, DC, public
meeting remains unchanged. The dates/times/locations for the Oakland,
CA, and New Orleans, LA, public meetings remain unchanged.
    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments either orally at a meeting or in writing. If you bring written
comments to a meeting, you may submit them to Coast Guard personnel
specified at the meeting to receive written comments. These comments
will be submitted to our online public docket. All comments received
will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will
include any personal information you have provided.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008 issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Information on Service for Individuals With Disabilities

    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request special assistance at the public meeting,
contact Lieutenant Jarrod DeWitz at the telephone number indicated
under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.

Public Meeting

    The Coast Guard will hold three public meetings regarding this
proposed rulemaking on the following dates and at the following
locations:
     Washington, DC, October 28, 2009, from 1 p.m. to 3:30
p.m., at the United States Coast Guard Headquarters Building, Room
4202, 2100 Second Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593. Note: A
government-issued photo identification (for example, a driver's
license) will be required for entrance to the building.
     Oakland, CA, November 3, 2009, from 1 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.,
at the Ronald V. Dellums Federal Building, Auditorium, 3rd Floor North
Tower, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612. Note: A government-issued
photo identification (for example, a driver's license) will be required
for entrance to the building.
     New Orleans, LA, November 19, 2009, from 4:30 p.m. to 7
p.m., at the Ernest N. Morial Convention Center, Room 208, Exhibit Hall
A, 900 Convention Center Blvd., New Orleans, LA 70130.
    Members of the public may attend these meetings up to the seating
capacity of the rooms. The meetings may conclude before the allotted
time if all matters of concern have been addressed.
    We plan to record each meeting using an audio-digital recorder and
to make that audio recording available through a link in our online
docket. A written summary of comments made and a list of attendees will
be placed in the docket after each meeting concludes.

    Dated: September 30, 2009.
Stefan G. Venckus,
Chief, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law, United States
Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. E9-24008 Filed 10-5-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


The attached EA was revised to correct a calculation error.

The following revisions were made, as shown in redline/ strikeout:

Section 1.0, Executive Summary:

" A total of 1,749 plants recovering approximately 1,408570,000 tons either on site or within the same Industry Group may benefit from the exclusion from RCRA jurisdiction. Metals recovery, solvents recovery, and other recovery account for 678,000 tons, 280,000, and 450613,000 tons, respectively."

4.7 Summary of Management Data Finally, if it is economically feasible to construct on site recovery facilities, part of a population of 1,758 plants ( 1,585 unique plants) disposing approximately 696,000 tons off site may receive benefits from the proposed rule. A break even cost analysis was conducted on the eight waste types from selected SIC codes included in the analysis ( results presented in Table 5 21). Based on the break even cost analysis, 681 of the 1,758 plants ( some plants are double counted because they disposed more than one of the eight waste types) representing 415,000 of the 696,000 tons may construct on site recovery facilities. Incineration, energy recovery and fuel blending, aqueous inorganic treatment, aqueous organic and inorganicHowever, a significant limitation is that it is unknown if all eight of these wastes are of sufficient quality for recovery. Five of the eight wastes types have been identified as likely having sufficient constituent mix/ concentration quality for recovery. Emission control dust ( K061) from the steel works industry has a past history of being recovered for zinc values prior to the delisting of the significantly cheaper Envirosource stabilization technology. Most of the metal containing liquids from the printed circuit board industry were reported being disposed either on site or off site by chemical precipitation and included in this group of waste. Upon further inspection of the Biennial Report data, the copper containing sludge precipitated from this treatment process often goes on to metals recovery. This waste is of sufficient quality for recovery. Spent aluminum potliner ( K088) from the aluminum industry has a proven technology for recovering fluoride values. The Vortec technology has been implemented at least at two sites and licensing agreements can be arranged for construction at other sites. The Vortec technology meets universal treatment standards for potliner waste. Spent catalyst ( K171/ K172) from the petroleum refining industry is believed to be recoverable based on communications with reclaimers. Spent pickle liquor ( K062) from the steel works industry also is believed to have sufficient quality for recovery of acid values. The remaining three wastes are not assumed to be of sufficient quality for recovery in this analysis. Based on the break even analysis for the five waste types of sufficient quality for recovery, 183 out of 331 plants representing 222,000 of the 467,000 tons may construct on site recovery facilities. Incineration, aqueous treatment, stabilization, and disposal account for 8121,000 tons, 305156,000 tons, 171,000 tons, 67,000 tons, 16150,000 tons, and 10797,000 tons, respectively. In addition, part of a population of 86 plants disposing approximately 315,000 tons on site may receive benefits from the proposed rule. A break even cost analysis was conducted on the two waste types from selected SIC codes included in the analysis ( results presented in Table 5 22). Based on the break even cost analysis, 27 of the 86 plants representing 181,000 of the 315,000 tons may construct on site recovery facilities. Aqueous inorganic treatment, other treatment, and disposal account for 35,000 tons, 88,000 tons, and 191,000 tons, respectively.

For the wastes that already are being recovered or were being recovered in 1997 and five waste types being disposed with high recovery potential ( discussed in Section 5), the total number of plants affected is estimated to be 1,749. These plants recover approximately 1,408570,000 tons either on site or within the same industry group and may benefit from the exclusion from RCRA jurisdiction.


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30165-30166]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13846]

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

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: EC18-105-000.
    Applicants: GenOn Energy Management, LLC, GenOn Mid-Atlantic, LLC,
NRG REMA LLC.
    Description: Joint Application of GenOn Energy Management, LLC, et
al. for Approval Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and Request
for Expedited Action.
    Filed Date: 6/20/18.
    Accession Number: 20180620-5120.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/11/18.

    Docket Numbers: EC18-106-000.
    Applicants: Colorado Green Holdings LLC.
    Description: Application for Approval Pursuant to Section 203 of
the Federal Power Act, and Requests for Waivers, Privileged Treatment
and Expedited Consideration of Colorado Green Holdings LLC.
    Filed Date: 6/21/18.
    Accession Number: 20180621-5077.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG18-102-000.
    Applicants: Holloman Lessee LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Holloman Lessee LLC.
    Filed Date: 6/21/18.
    Accession Number: 20180621-5057.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/18.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1667-003.

    Applicants: Battery Utility of Ohio, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Battery Utility of Ohio,
LLC.
    Filed Date: 6/20/18.
    Accession Number: 20180620-5118.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/11/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-469-002.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: Midwest Energy Formula Rate
Revisions Compliance Filing to be effective 1/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 6/21/18.
    Accession Number: 20180621-5025.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1703-001.
    Applicants: Entergy Arkansas, Inc., Entergy Mississippi, Inc.,
Entergy New Orleans, LLC, Entergy Texas, Inc., Entergy Louisiana, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Entergy OpCos Reactive Power Update
Errata (ER18-1703) to be effective 6/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 6/21/18.
    Accession Number: 20180621-5075.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1811-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 1276R17 KCPL NITSA NOA to be
effective 9/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 6/21/18.
    Accession Number: 20180621-5033.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1812-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2018-06-21 SA 3126/3127 ATC-
WEPCo Project Commitment Agrmts Juneautown to be effective 8/21/2018.
    Filed Date: 6/21/18.
    Accession Number: 20180621-5054.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/18.

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

    Docket Numbers: ES18-41-000.
    Applicants: Northern Pass Transmission LLC.
    Description: Application for Authority to Issue Debt Securities of
Northern Pass Transmission LLC.
    Filed Date: 6/20/18.
    Accession Number: 20180620-5131.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/11/18.

    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: June 21, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-13846 Filed 6-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 5, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 24)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 6620-6622]
[DOCID:fr05fe08-20]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0118; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-289-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Model Mystere-Falcon 50
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

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

    This Airworthiness Directive (AD) is issued following the
discovery of a risk of chafing between an electrical feeder bundle
and a bus bar under the circuit breaker panel. Most of the time,
this possible chafing would be dormant and would lead to an
uneventful loss of segregation within the different electrical
system components. However, missing segregation combined with
additional electrical failures may impair flight safety.
* * * * *

Chafing between an electrical feeder bundle and a bus bar under the
circuit breaker panel could lead to electrical arcing, which could
result in smoke and fire in the cockpit. The proposed AD would require
actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in
the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 6, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov.
 Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
; or in person at the Docket Operations office

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1137; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2008-0118;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-289-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov
, including any personal information you provide. We

will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued
Airworthiness Directive 2007-0175, dated June 28, 2007 (referred to
after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    This Airworthiness Directive (AD) is issued following the
discovery of a risk of chafing between an electrical feeder bundle
and a bus bar under the circuit breaker panel. Most of the time,
this possible chafing would be dormant and would lead to an
uneventful loss of segregation within the different electrical
system components. However, missing segregation combined with
additional electrical failures may impair flight safety.
    This AD mandates inspection of the electrical feeder bundle, and
modification of its routing under the circuit breaker panel through
implementation of modification M3093.

Chafing between an electrical feeder bundle and a bus bar under the
circuit breaker panel could lead to electrical arcing, which could
result in smoke and fire in the cockpit.
    The corrective action includes repairing or replacing damaged
wiring; re-routing the feeder cables above the wiring of the ``Avionic
Master'' and ``Aux Bat'' relays; installing a protective sheath on the
feeder cables; adding spacers to separate the bus bar wiring assemblies
from the feeder cables; and adding Teflon protection on the feeder
cables and securing the feeder cables

with wiring retaining strips. You may obtain further information by
examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Dassault has issued Service Bulletin F50-483, dated June 6, 2007,
including Erratum dated July 2007. The actions described in this
service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition
identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 76 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 12 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per
work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Where the
service information lists required parts costs that are covered under
warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs.
As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some
parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these
figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to
be $72,960, or $960 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Dassault Aviation: Docket No. FAA-2008-0118; Directorate Identifier
2007-NM-289-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by March 6, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Dassault Model Mystere-Falcon 50
airplanes, certificated in any category, serial number (S/N) 251 and
S/N 253 and subsequent, without modification M3093 implemented.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 24:
Electrical power.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    This Airworthiness Directive (AD) is issued following the
discovery of a risk of chafing between an electrical feeder bundle
and a bus bar under the circuit breaker panel. Most of the time,
this possible chafing would be dormant and would lead to an
uneventful loss of segregation within the different electrical
system components. However, missing segregation combined with
additional electrical failures may impair flight safety.
    This AD mandates inspection of the electrical feeder bundle, and
modification of its routing under the circuit breaker panel through
implementation of modification M3093.

Chafing between an electrical feeder bundle and a bus bar under the
circuit breaker panel could lead to electrical arcing, which could
result in smoke and fire in the cockpit. The corrective action
includes repairing or replacing damaged wiring; re-routing the
feeder cables above the wiring of the ``Avionic Master'' and ``Aux
Bat'' relays; installing a protective sheath on the feeder cables;
adding spacers to separate the bus bar wiring assemblies from the
feeder cables; and adding Teflon protection on the feeder cables and
securing the feeder cables with wiring retaining strips.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done: Within 13 months after the effective
date of this AD, inspect for damage of the electrical feeder bundle;
repair or replace wiring, as applicable; and modify its routing as
detailed in the accomplishment instructions paragraph of Dassault
Service Bulletin F50-483, dated June 6, 2007, including Erratum
dated July 2007.

FAA AD Differences

    Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, has the authority to approve AMOCs
for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. Send information to ATTN: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1137; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using any approved AMOC on any
airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate
principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office
(FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2007-0175, dated
June 28, 2007; and Dassault Service Bulletin F50-483, dated June 6,
2007, including Erratum dated July 2007, for related information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 24, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-1985 Filed 2-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

	1650 Arch Street

	Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19103

DATE:            June 5, 2012

SUBJECT:	Technical Support Document for the Delaware State
Implementation Plan for Section 110(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act
Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air
Quality Standards

			/s/

FROM:	Rose Quinto, Environmental Engineer

Office of Air Program Planning

TO:		File

			/s/

THRU: 	Donna Mastro, Acting Associate Director

Office of Air Program Planning

A.  INTRODUCTION

	The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking action on a
submittal made by the State of Delaware to meet the Clean Air Act (CAA)
section 110(a)(2) requirements of the 2008 lead national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS).

B.  BACKGROUND

On October 15, 2008, EPA revised the primary and secondary lead NAAQS
from 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) to 0.15 µg/m3.  Section
110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit state implementation plans
(SIPs) that provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement
of new or revised NAAQS within three years following the promulgation of
such NAAQS.  Section 110(a) of the CAA imposes the obligation upon
states to make a SIP submission to EPA for a new or revised NAAQS.  For
the 2008 lead NAAQS, states typically have met many of the basic program
elements required in section 110(a)(2) of the CAA through earlier SIP
submissions in connection with previous lead standards.  Section
110(a)(2) of the CAA lists specific elements that states must meet or
continue to meet in these SIP submissions.  The requirements include SIP
infrastructure elements such as requirements for modeling, monitoring,
and emissions inventories that are designed to assure attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS.  Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA infrastructure
elements (A) through (M) are listed in EPA’s memorandum from Stephen
D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards to the
Regional Air Division Directors, Regions 1-10, “Guidance on
Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements Required Under
Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),” October 14, 2011,  (hereafter referred
to as “Lead Infrastructure Guidance”).

C.  EPA REQUIREMENTS

As discussed above, for the 2008 lead NAAQS, states must provide SIP
submissions, or provide certification that the existing SIP contains
provisions addressing relevant infrastructure SIP elements from sections
110(a)(2)(A) through (M) of the CAA.  To help states meet this statutory
requirement, EPA issued the Lead Infrastructure Guidance, which listed
the basic elements that states must include in their SIPs.

D.  STATE’S SUBMITTAL

On October 17, 2011, Delaware provided a submittal to satisfy the
requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 2008 lead NAAQS.
This submittal addressed the following infrastructure elements that EPA
is proposing to approve:  section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F),
(G), (H), (I), (J), (K), (L), and (M) of the CAA, or portions thereof.

E.  EVALUATION OF STATE SUBMITTAL

1.  Section 110(a)(2)(A)

Delaware has established laws and regulations applicable to the 2008
lead NAAQS that include enforceable emissions limitations and other
control measures, means or techniques, as well as schedules and
timetables for compliance to meet the applicable requirements of the
CAA.

The following enforceable emission limitations and schedules are
contained in Delaware’s approved SIP:  7 DE Admin. Codes 1101, 1103,
1104, 1105, 1107, 1114, 1117 and 1127.  These regulations are identified
as part of the Delaware SIP at 40 CFR 52.420(c).  At present, statutory
authority is set out in Title 7 “Conservation” of the Delaware Code,
Chapter 60—Delaware’s comprehensive water and air resources
conservation law.  Legislative authority giving the Secretary of the
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
(DNREC) the authority to promulgate regulations is codified at 7 Del.
C., Chapter 60.  This authority is applicable to the 2008 lead NAAQS.

2.  Section 110(a)(2)(B)

	Delaware’s SIP-approved 7 DE Admin. Code 1117 - “Source Monitoring,
Record Keeping and Reporting,” and 7 DE Admin. Code 1103 - “Ambient
Air Quality Standards” of the State of Delaware Regulations Governing
the Control of Air Pollution, provide for the establishment and
operation of procedures necessary to monitor, compile, and analyze data
related to ambient air quality.  These regulations are included in
Delaware’s approved SIP listed in 40 CFR 52.420(c) which also apply to
the 2008 lead NAAQS.

Delaware has established and currently operates appropriate devices,
methods, systems, and procedures necessary to monitor, compile, and
analyze data on ambient air quality, and upon request, makes such data
available to the Administrator.

Delaware maintains and operates a multi-station network of ambient
monitors throughout the State to measure ambient air quality levels
within Delaware for comparison to each NAAQS as required by 40 CFR part
58.  Delaware currently measures and reports lead concentrations from
its monitoring site located in Wilmington near MLK Boulevard.

All data is measured using EPA approved methods as either Reference or
Equivalent monitors.  All monitors are subjected to the quality
assurance requirements of 40 CFR part 58, Appendix A, and all samplers
are located at sites that have met the minimum siting requirements of 40
CFR part 58, Appendix E.  The data is submitted to EPA’s Air Quality
System (AQS) system, in a timely manner in accordance with the scheduled
prescribed by EPA in 40 CFR part 58.

In order to keep EPA informed of changes to the sampling network, DNREC
provides EPA Region III with prior notification of any planned changes
to the network.  As needed, details of these changes and anticipated
approvals of the changes are communicated to EPA.  On an annual basis,
Delaware sends EPA a monitoring network plan as required by 40 CFR part
58, section 10.  This plan, approved by EPA on November 11, 2011,
contains all required information including site and monitor
description, analysis methods, operating schedule, monitoring objectives
and scale of representativeness, as well as information on any planned
changes.  DNREC submits data to the AQS system, in a timely manner,
pursuant to the schedule prescribed by the EPA in 40 CFR part 58.
Delaware has and will continue to submit data to EPA’s AQS in a timely
manner in accordance to the scheduled prescribed by EPA in 40 CFR part
58.

3.  Section 110(a)(2)(C)

Delaware has established and currently operates a program to provide for
the enforcement of the enforceable emission limitations and other
control measures, means, or techniques, as well as schedules and time
tables for the compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate, to meet
the applicable requirements of the CAA and to regulate modification and
construction of any stationary source within areas covered by its SIP as
necessary to assure the NAAQS are achieved, including permit programs
required in parts C and D.  Aspects of Delaware’s program for
enforcement are found in those provisions of 7 DE Admin. Codes 1125,
1111 and 1117 as well as the source monitoring, source testing and test
methods, and recordkeeping and reporting provisions of 7 DE Admin. Codes
1112, 1123, 1124, 1126, 1131, 1137, 1139, 1140, 1142, and others in the
approved Delaware SIP.  At present, Delaware as part of its Division of
Air Quality function exercises its programmatic authority to utilize the
enforcement powers set out in 7 Del. C. section 6005 entitled,
“Enforcement; civil and administrative penalties; expenses,” 7 Del.
C., section 6013 entitled “Criminal penalties,” and 7 Del. C.
section 6018 entitled “Cease and desist order.”

EPA will take separate action on the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) for
the 2008 lead NAAQS as it relates to Delaware’s PSD permit program.
Delaware submitted their revised PSD permit program on March 14, 2012.

4.  Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)

The physical properties of lead prevent lead emissions from experiencing
a significant degree of travel in the ambient air.  No complex chemistry
is needed to form lead or lead compounds in the ambient air; therefore,
concentrations of lead are typically highest near lead sources.  More
specifically, there is a sharp decrease in lead concentrations as the
distance from a lead source increases.  According to EPA’s Last
Findings on National Air Quality report, lead concentrations that are
not near a source of lead are approximately 10 times less than the
typical concentrations near the source (  HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/2007/report/trends_ report_full.pdf"
http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/2007/report/trends_ report_full.pdf ).  An
example of the degree to which lead concentration decreases with
distance in ambient air is characterized in the EPA memorandum,
Selection of Airports for the Airport Monitoring Study:  “The Santa
Monica airport monitoring study… reported a three-to four-fold
decrease in ambient lead concentrations over a distance of 80 meters
between two monitors sited to evaluate the lead gradient downwind from
the runway” (  HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/avaition/memo-selc-airport-mon-std
y.pdf"
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/avaition/memo-selc-airport-mon-stdy
.pdf ).

Accordingly, in order for a source to emit lead that may contribute
significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any
other state, the source would need to be a very large source that is
located in close proximity to state boundaries. Delaware does not have
any existing sources of lead that are very large (i.e., none with
emissions greater than 0.5 tons per year (tpy)).  The emissions of lead
from Delaware’s entire point source inventory (2008), in the
aggregate, is less than one tpy of lead, and only two sources (Evraz
Claymont Steel and Indian River Generating Station) have emissions
greater than 0.3 tpy of lead (0.34 and 0.31, respectively).  Even though
Delaware’s largest two lead emitting sources are relatively small,
lead reductions are anticipated due to unit shutdowns and as a
co-benefit to required mercury and sulfur dioxide reduction measures.

	With regard to visibility protection, lead-related visibility effects
from Delaware are insignificant to other Class I areas.  See memorandum
from Mark Schmidt, OAQPS to File, dated November 7, 2011, entitled,
“The Estimated Contribution of Ambient Lead to Class I Area Visibility
Impairment.”  EPA also approved the Delaware regional haze SIP on July
19, 2011

(76 FR 42557).

EPA will take separate action on the portion of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2008 lead NAAQS as it relates to
Delaware’s PSD permit program.  Delaware submitted revisions to their
PSD permit program on March 14, 2012.

5.  Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)

Neither Delaware nor any facility in Delaware is subject to a section
126 rule, and therefore Delaware does not need to demonstrate that it
has met its obligations pursuant to CAA section 126 as it has no
currently pending obligations pursuant to CAA 126(b) or (c).  Delaware
has made the necessary submittals to demonstrate that it has adequate
provisions insuring future compliance with the requirements of sections
126 and 115 of the CAA as may be necessary in accordance with EPA’s
Lead Infrastructure Guidance.

6.  Section 110(a)(2)(E)

Delaware assures EPA that it has adequate authority under state law
pursuant to 7 Del. C. Chapter 60 to carry out its SIP obligations with
respect to the 2008 lead NAAQS.  DNREC does not believe that there is
any prohibition in any Federal or State law that would prevent it from
carrying out its SIP or any portion thereof.  DNREC also assures EPA
that it has, and will continue to have, through the State of Delaware
General Fund and through the Title V fee program, funding to carry out
its SIP obligations.  Furthermore, DNREC believes its funding sources
are sufficient to provide adequate personnel for those purposes.

At present, Delaware fulfills this obligation by virtue of having
adequate personnel and funding through the CAA section 105 grant process
(Federal grant funds), the State of Delaware general fund (state tax
revenues), and appropriated special funds collected by the State of
Delaware from application fees, permit fees, renewal fees, and civil or
administrative penalties or fines under 7 Del. C. Chapter 60.  The
Division of Air Quality is responsible for developing, implementing and
enforcing the SIP.  Delaware does not anticipate the need for additional
resources beyond those to be appropriated in the above manner to carry
out its SIP requirements.

	 Delaware does not rely on localities for specific SIP implementation.
EPA finds Delaware’s infrastructure SIP meets the current Lead
Infrastructure Guidance for CAA section 110(a)(2)(E).

7.  Section 110(a)(2)(F)

Specific monitoring requirements are found throughout the State of
Delaware Regulations governing the Control of Air Pollution, including 7
DE Admin. Codes 1117 and 1103.  These regulations are included in
Delaware’s approved SIP and are listed in 40 CFR 52.420(c) and also
apply to the 2008 lead NAAQS.

Specific emissions reporting requirements are found throughout the State
of Delaware Regulations Governing the Control of Air Pollution,
including 7 DE Admin. Codes 1117 and 1103.  These regulations are
included in Delaware’s approved SIP, as required by the 2008 lead
NAAQS, and are listed in 40 CFR 52.420(c).

Delaware’s SIP requires that owners or operators of stationary sources
monitor and submit periodic reports on the nature and amounts of
emissions and emissions related-date emissions from the sources.  This
may include the installation, maintenance and replacement of equipment,
where appropriate.  This information submitted to DNREC is available to
the public at reasonable times for public inspection pursuant to
Delaware law.  Delaware will continue to require reporting of emissions.

Except as specifically exempted by the Delaware Freedom of Information
Act, 29 Del. C. Chapter 100, Delaware makes all records, reports or
information obtained by the Department or referred to at public hearings
available to the public pursuant to the provisions of the Delaware
Freedom of Information Act, 29 Del. C. Chapter 100.

Other aspects of Delaware’s program for requiring installation and
maintenance of monitoring equipment, and periodic emissions reporting,
are found in the source monitoring, source testing and test methods, and
recordkeeping and reporting provisions of 7 DE Admin. Codes 1112, 1123,
1124, 1126, 1131, 1137, 1139, 1140, 1141, 1142, and others in the
approved Delaware SIP, which are identified at 40 CFR 52.420(c).  EPA
finds Delaware’s infrastructure SIP meets the current Lead
Infrastructure Guidance for CAA section 110(a)(2)(F).

8.  Section 110(a)(2)(G)

Delaware has authority comparable to that in section 303 of the CAA and
adequate contingency plans to implement such authority.

	At present, 7 Del. C. section 6003(a)(1) requires a permit from the
Secretary prior to discharging any air contaminant.  7 Del. C. section
6002(2) defines air contaminant essentially as any substance other than
uncombined water.  7 Del. C. section 6005 allows the Secretary to seek a
preliminary or permanent injunction or temporary restraining order for
discharge of an air contaminant without a permit, and to issue a cease
and desist order for violations (7 Del. C. section 6018).  Therefore, if
any discharge of an air contaminant, including lead, would cause
imminent and substantial endangerment to the health, safety and welfare
of the people of the State of Delaware or the environment, the Secretary
may seek an injunction or temporary restraining order to halt the
violation.

Delaware’s SIP contains an emergency episode plan found in the State
of Delaware Regulations Governing the Control of Air Pollution, 7 DE
Admin. Code 1115, Air Pollution Alert and Emergency Plan, that is
currently approved in the SIP and identified at 40 CFR 52.420(c).

8.  Section 110(a)(2)(H)

	Through the above cited submissions, Delaware demonstrated that it has
adequate authority under the Delaware Code, Chapter 60, Title 7
“Conservation” to revise the SIP.  These submissions also provide
EPA with adequate assurances that Delaware will review and revise its
SIP from time to time as may be necessary to take account of revisions
of such primary or secondary NAAQS or the availability of improved or
more expeditious methods of attaining such standards and, whenever the
Administrator finds, on the basis of information available to the
Administrator, that the plan is substantially inadequate to attain the
NAAQS which it implements, or to otherwise comply with any additional
requirements established under the CAA.

9.  Section 110(a)(2)(I)

	Part D pertains to general requirements for nonattainment areas.  This
does not apply because no part of Delaware is designated as a
nonattainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS (November 22, 2011, 75 FR 72097 at
72106-72107).

10.  Section 110(a)(2)(J)

		Section 121 (relating to consultation).  7 DE Admin. Code 1132,
Transportation Conformity of the State of Delaware Governing the Control
of Air Pollution, provides a legal platform for the various consultation
procedures that have been developed between DNREC, the Delaware
Department of Transportation (DELDOT), and the Metropolitan Planning
Organizations (MPOs).  The MPOs provide the forum for consultation with
local governments.  Delaware’s MPOs are:  WILMAPCO, Kent County MPO,
and the Salisbury-Wicomoco MPO.  Regional planning organizations provide
the forum for inter-state consultations.  Additionally, consultations
with Federal Land Managers are always on going in accordance with EPA
rules.

		Section 127 (relating to public notification).  All SIP revisions and
new/amended regulations undergo public notice and hearing, pursuant to 7
Del. C. Chapters 29 and 60, which include publication in the newspapers
and in the Delaware Register, and which have allowed for comment by both
the public and local political subdivisions.  Delaware believes the
public notice and hearing processes also fulfill the section 121
consultation process.  Approved regulations in the Delaware SIP specify
the organizations responsible for implementing and enforcing the plans.

In addition, DNREC makes real time and historical air quality
information available on its web site.

With regard to visibility protection, there are no new applicable
visibility protection obligations under section 110(a)(2)(J) as a result
of the 2008 lead NAAQS.  Delaware is complying with, and will continue
to comply with the visibility protection and regional haze program
requirements under part C of the CAA.  EPA approved the Delaware
regional haze SIP on July 19, 2011 (76 FR 42557).

EPA will take a separate action on the portion of section 110(a)(2)(J)
for the 2008 lead NAAQS as it relates to PSD permit program.  Delaware
submitted revisions to their PSD permit program on March 14, 2012.

11.  Section 110(a)(2)(K)

Delaware has the authority and technical capability to conduct air
quality modeling in order to assess the effect on ambient air quality
relevant pollutant emissions and will continue to perform modeling.
Delaware will continue to submit to EPA the air quality modeling data as
part of Delaware’s relevant SIP submissions, permit actions, and
through Federal grant commitments or in other ways that EPA may request.

12.  Section 110(a)(2)(L)

Delaware’s submissions adequately address this requirement by
explaining that consistent with Delaware law, Delaware will continue to
require the owner or operator of each major stationary source to pay to
the permitting authority, as a condition of any permit required under
the CAA, a fee sufficient to cover (i) the reasonable costs of reviewing
and acting upon any application for such a permit, and (ii) if the owner
or operator receives a permit for such source, the reasonable costs of
implementing and enforcing the terms and conditions of any such permit
(not including any court costs or other costs associated with any
enforcement action), until such fee requirement is superseded with
respect to such sources by the Administrator’s approval of a fee
program under Title V pursuant to Delaware law.  Delaware currently
fulfills this under the enabling authority of 7 Del. C., sections 6095
to 6099, and fee legislation that currently is renewed every three
years.  Delaware has a fully approved Title V operating permits program.
 See paragraphs (b) and (c) under “Delaware” in Appendix A to 40 CFR
part 70—Approval Status of State and Local Operating Permits Programs.

13.  Section 110(a)(2)(M)

Delaware will continue to provide for consultation and participation by
local political subdivisions affected by the SIP pursuant to the public
notice laws found in 7 Del. C., sections 6006 and 6010, and 29 Del. C.
Chapters 10003, 10004, and 10115, as applicable.  Furthermore, all
Delaware SIP revisions undergo public notice and hearing which have
allowed for comment by the public which includes local political
subdivisions.  The public notice and hearing processes fulfill the
requirements for consultation with local political subdivisions affected
by the SIP.

F.  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED AGENCY ACTION

EPA’s analysis of Delaware’s infrastructure submittals for the 2008
lead NAAQS concludes that Delaware’s submittals meet the requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (H),(I), (J),
(K), (L), and (M), or portions thereof.  It is recommended that a notice
of proposed rulemaking be prepared approving Delaware’s infrastructure
submittals for the 2008 lead NAAQS.

 PAGE

 PAGE  9


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 127 (Friday, July 2, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 38411]
[FR Doc No: 2010-16113]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0035]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Chelsea River, Chelsea and East
Boston, MA, Event--Road Race

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the
P.J. McArdle Bridge across the Chelsea River, mile 0.3, between Chelsea
and East Boston, Massachusetts. This deviation allows the bridge to
remain in the closed position from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on July 24, 2010.
This deviation is necessary to facilitate a public event, the Chelsea
River Revel 5K Road Race.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 8 a.m. through 5 p.m. on July
24, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2010-0035 and are available online
at http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2010-0035 in the
``Keyword'' and then clicking ``Search''. They are also available for
inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or e-mail Mr. John McDonald, Project Officer, First Coast Guard
District, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you
have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The P.J. McArdle Bridge, across the Chelsea
River at mile 0.3, between Chelsea and East Boston, Massachusetts, has
a vertical clearance in the closed position of 21 feet at mean high
water and 30 feet at mean low water. The bridge opens on signal at all
times as required by 33 CFR 117.593.
    The owner of the bridge, the City of Boston, requested a temporary
deviation to facilitate a public event, the Chelsea River Revel 5K Road
Race.
    This deviation allows the bridge to remain closed from 8 a.m. to 5
p.m. on July 24, 2010. Vessels able to pass under the closed draw may
do so at any time.
    The commercial waterway users that transit the Chelsea River were
advised of the requested bridge closure period and offered no
objection.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the bridge must return to its
regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: June 22, 2010.
Gary Kassof,
Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2010-16113 Filed 7-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 4 (Friday, January 5, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 679-680]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00029]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0490; FRL-9972-80-Region 9]

Adequacy Status of Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in Submitted
PM2.5 Serious Area Plan for South Coast; California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of adequacy.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or ``Agency'') is
notifying the public that the Agency has found that the motor vehicle
emissions budgets (MVEBs or ``budgets'') for the years 2017 and 2019 in
the 2016 South Coast Serious Area Plan for the 2006 24-hour fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) (``2016 PM2.5 Plan'' or ``Plan'') are
adequate for transportation conformity purposes. The California Air
Resources Board (CARB) submitted the 2016 PM2.5 Plan to the
EPA on April 27, 2017, as a revision to the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). Upon the effective date of this notice of
adequacy, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and
the U.S. Department of Transportation must use the adequate budgets in
future transportation conformity analyses.

DATES: This finding is effective January 22, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wienke Tax, EPA, Region IX, Air
Division AIR-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901;
(415) 947-4192 or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
    Today's notice is simply an announcement of a finding that we have
already made. EPA Region IX sent a letter to CARB on December 19, 2017,
stating that the MVEBs in the 2016 PM2.5 Plan for the
reasonable further progress (RFP) milestone year of 2017 and attainment
year of 2019 are adequate. The finding is available at the EPA's
conformity website: https://www.epa.gov/state-and-local-transportation/adequacy-review-state-implementation-plan-sip-submissions-conformity.
We announced the availability of the Plan and related budgets on the
EPA's conformity website on October 18, 2017. We received no comments
in response to this announcement. The adequate budgets are provided in
the following table:

              Adequate Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in South Coast 2006 PM2.5 Serious Area Plan
                                          [Annual average tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Volatile                        Directly
                           Budget Year                                organic        Nitrogen      emitted PM2.5
                                                                     compounds        oxides
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017............................................................              99             200              21
2019............................................................              83             169              20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Transportation conformity is required by CAA section 176(c). The
EPA's Transportation Conformity Rule at 40 CFR part 93, subpart A
requires that transportation plans, transportation improvement
programs, and projects conform to SIPs and establishes the criteria and
procedures for determining whether or not they do. Conformity to a SIP
means that transportation activities will not produce new air quality
violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of
the NAAQS.
    The criteria we use to determine whether a SIP's motor vehicle
emission budgets are adequate for conformity purposes are outlined in
40 CFR 93.118(e)(4), promulgated on August 15, 1997 (62 FR 43780,
43781-43783). We further described our process for determining the
adequacy of submitted SIP budgets in our July 1, 2004 final rule (69 FR
40004, 40038), and we used the information in these resources in making
our adequacy determination. Please note that an adequacy review is
separate from the EPA's completeness review and should not be used to
prejudge the EPA's ultimate action on the SIP. Even if we find a budget
adequate, the SIP could later be disapproved.
    Consistent with the requirements set forth in the Fine Particulate
Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State Implementation
Plan Requirements, Final Rule (81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016)
(``PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule''), the 2016 PM2.5
Plan contains RFP budgets for 2020, which is the year following the
attainment year. As explained below, we are not taking action on the
2020 budgets at this time.
    The Transportation Conformity Rule requires that control strategy
SIPs, including the RFP plans and attainment plans required for Serious
PM2.5 nonattainment areas,\1\ contain MVEBs for direct
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors subject to
transportation conformity analyses for each milestone year addressed in
the control strategy.\2\

Under the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, Serious area
PM2.5 attainment plans must define appropriate quantitative
milestones and include projected RFP emission levels for direct
PM2.5 and all PM2.5 plan precursors in each
milestone year. For an area designated nonattainment for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS before January 15, 2015, the attainment plan
must contain quantitative milestones to be achieved no later than 3
years after December 31, 2014, and every 3 years thereafter until the
milestone date that falls within 3 years after the applicable
attainment date (40 CFR 51.1013(a)(4)).\3\ As the EPA explained in the
preamble to the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, it is important
to include a post-attainment year quantitative milestone to ensure
that, if the area fails to attain by the attainment date, the EPA can
continue to monitor the area's progress toward attainment while the
state develops a new attainment plan (see 81 FR 58010, 58063-58064,
August 24, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 40 CFR 93.101 (defining ``control strategy
implementation plan revision'').
    \2\ See 40 CFR 93.101 (defining ``motor vehicle emissions
budget''), 93.102(b)(2)(iv) and (v) (establishing applicability of
part 93 requirements to PM2.5 precursor pollutants) and
93.118(a) (requiring that each transportation plan, TIP, or project
not from a conforming transportation plan and TIP be consistent with
the motor vehicle emissions budget(s) in the applicable
implementation plan (or implementation plan submission)).
    \3\ See also 81 FR 58010, 58058 and 58063-58064 (August 24,
2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.1013(a)(4), the 2016
PM2.5 Plan identifies December 31, 2017, as the first
quantitative milestone date (i.e., the date 3 years after December 31,
2014). The second quantitative milestone date is December 31, 2020, and
is also the last milestone date identified in the Plan because it falls
within 3 years after the December 31, 2019 attainment date for the
area.\4\ Although this post-attainment year quantitative milestone is a
required element of the Serious area plan, it is not necessary to
demonstrate transportation conformity for 2020 in the submitted SIP or
to use the 2020 budgets in transportation conformity determinations
until such time as the area fails to attain the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. Therefore, the EPA is not taking action at this time on the
submitted MVEBs for 2020 in the 2016 PM2.5 Plan.
Additionally, the EPA has not yet started the adequacy process for the
2020 budgets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Under CAA section 188(c)(2), a Serious PM2.5
nonattainment area must attain the PM2.5 NAAQS as
expeditiously as practicable but no later than the end of the tenth
calendar year after the area is designated as nonattainment. Because
the South Coast area was designated as nonattainment for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS effective December 14, 2009 (74 FR 58688,
November 13, 2009), the latest permissible attainment date for the
area is December 31, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the EPA were to either find adequate or approve the post-
attainment milestone year MVEBs now, those budgets would have to be
used in transportation conformity determinations that are made after
the effective date of the adequacy finding or approval even if the
South Coast area ultimately attains the PM2.5 NAAQS by the
Serious area attainment date. This would mean that SCAG \5\ would be
required to demonstrate conformity for the post-attainment date
milestone year and all later years addressed in the conformity
determination (e.g., the last year of the metropolitan transportation
plan) to the post-attainment date RFP budgets rather than the budgets
associated with the attainment year for the area (i.e., the budgets for
2019). The EPA does not believe that it is necessary to demonstrate
conformity using these post-attainment year budgets in areas that
either the EPA anticipates will attain by the attainment date or in
areas that attain by the attainment date. As discussed elsewhere in
this notice, the EPA is announcing that it has found adequate the MVEBs
for the first milestone year (2017) and the attainment year (2019) for
the South Coast PM2.5 nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ SCAG is the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the South
Coast 2006 PM2.5 nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If and when the EPA determines that the South Coast area has failed
to attain the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable attainment
date, the EPA will begin the MVEB adequacy and approval processes for
the post-attainment year (2020) budgets. If the EPA finds the 2020
budgets adequate or approves them, those budgets will have to be used
in subsequent transportation conformity determinations. The EPA
believes that initiating the process to act on the submitted post-
attainment year MVEBs following a determination that the area has
failed to attain by the Serious area attainment date ensures that
transportation activities will not cause or contribute to new
violations, increase the frequency or severity of any existing
violations, or delay timely attainment or any required interim emission
reductions or milestones in the South Coast PM2.5
nonattainment area, consistent with the requirements of CAA section
176(c)(1)(B).

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: December 20, 2017.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2018-00029 Filed 1-4-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 73 (Thursday, April 16, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 20486]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08688]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 5066-001]

Charles L. Woodman; Kinky Creek Operating Company; Notice of
Transfer of Exemption

    1. By letter filed March 30, 2015, Charles L. Woodman informed the
Commission that the exemption from licensing for the Darwin Ranch
Project, FERC No. 5066, originally issued December 1, 1981,\1\ has been
transferred to the Kinky Creek Operating Company. The project is
located on Kinky Creek, a tributary to the Gros Ventre River in Teton
County, Wyoming. The transfer of an exemption does not require
Commission approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 17 FERC ] 62,322, Order Granting Exemption from Licensing of
a Small Hydroelectric Project of 5 Megawatts or Less (1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Kinky Creek Operating Company is now the exemptee of the Darwin
Ranch Project, FERC No. 5066. All correspondence should be forwarded
to: Ms. Kathy Bole, Kinky Creek Operating Company, 19 7th Avenue, San
Francisco, CA 94118.

    Dated: April 6, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-08688 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P