[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 160 (Monday, August 19, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42876-42881]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17665]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2019-0267; FRL-9998-45-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Limited Maintenance Plan for 1997
Ozone NAAQS; Evansville, Fort Wayne, Greene County, Jackson County,
Muncie, and Terre Haute

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a submission from the State of Indiana as a state
implementation plan (SIP) revision in according with the Clean Air Act
(CAA). On April 25, 2019, the state submitted its 1997 8-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or standard) Limited
Maintenance Plan (LMP) for the following Indiana areas:] Evansville,
Fort Wayne, Greene County, Jackson County, Muncie, and Terre Haute. EPA
is proposing to approve the LMPs for these areas because they provide
for the maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS through the end of
the second 10-year portion of the maintenance period. The effect of
this action would be to make federally enforceable certain commitments
related to maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in these areas as
part of the Indiana SIP.

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

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2019-0267 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Leslie, Environmental
Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms ``we'',
``us'', and ``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What action is EPA taking?
II. What is the background for these actions?
III. What is EPA's Evaluation of Indiana's SIP Submittals?
    1. Attainment Emissions Inventory
    2. Maintenance Demonstration
    3. Monitoring Network and Verification of Continued Attainment
    4. Contingency Plan
IV. Transportation Conformity
V. Proposed Action

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA taking?

    Under the CAA, EPA is proposing to approve the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS LMPs for the following Indiana areas: Evansville, Fort Wayne,
Greene County, Jackson County, Muncie, and Terre Haute. Indiana
submitted the LMPs on April 25, 2019.
    These LMPs for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS submitted by Indiana are
designed to maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS through the end of the
second 10-year period beyond redesignation. We are proposing to approve
these LMPs because they meet all applicable requirements under CAA
sections 110 and 175A.

II. What is the background for these actions?

    Ground-level ozone is formed when oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) react in the
presence of sunlight. These two pollutants, referred to as ozone
precursors, are emitted by many types of pollution sources, including
on-road and off-road motor vehicles and engines, power plants and
industrial facilities, and smaller area sources such as lawn and garden
equipment and paints. Scientific evidence indicates that adverse public
health effects occur following exposure to ozone, particularly in
children and adults with lung disease. Breathing air containing ozone
can reduce lung function and inflame airways, which can increase
respiratory symptoms and aggravate asthma or other lung diseases.
    Ozone exposure also has been associated with increased
susceptibility to respiratory infections, medication use, doctor
visits, and emergency department visits and hospital admissions for
individuals with lung disease. Ozone exposure also increases the risk
of premature death from heart or lung disease. Children are at
increased risk from exposure to ozone because their lungs are still
developing, and they are more likely to be active outdoors, which
increases their exposure.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See ``Fact Sheet, Proposal to Revise the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for Ozone,'' January 6, 2010 and 75 FR 2938
(January 19, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1979, under section 109 of the CAA, EPA established primary and
secondary NAAQS for ozone at 0.12 parts per million (ppm), averaged
over a 1-hour period. 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979). On July 18, 1997,
EPA revised the primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone to set the
acceptable level of ozone in the ambient air at 0.08 ppm, averaged over
an 8-hour period. 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997).\2\ EPA set the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS based on scientific evidence demonstrating that ozone
causes adverse health effects at lower concentrations and over longer
periods of time than was understood when the pre-existing 1-hour ozone
NAAQS was set. EPA determined that the 1997 8-hour standard would be
more protective of human health, especially for children and adults who
are active outdoors, and individuals with a preexisting respiratory
disease, such as asthma.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In March 2008, EPA completed another review of the primary
and secondary ozone standards and tightened them further by lowering
the level for both to 0.075 ppm. 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
Additionally, in October 2015, EPA completed a review of the primary
and secondary ozone standards and tightened them by lowering the
level for both to 0.70 ppm. 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required
by the CAA to designate areas throughout the nation as attaining or not
attaining the NAAQS. On April 15, 2004, EPA designated the six Indiana
areas as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and the
designations became effective on June 15, 2004. Under the CAA, states
are also required to adopt and submit SIPs to implement, maintain, and
enforce the NAAQS in designated nonattainment areas and throughout the
state.
    When a nonattainment area has three years of complete, certified
air quality data that has been determined to attain the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, and the area has met other required criteria described in
section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, the state can submit to EPA a request
to be redesignated to attainment, referred to as a ``maintenance
area''.\3\ These six Indiana areas have been redesignated to attainment
of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (70 FR 77026, 72 FR 1292, 70 FR 69085,
70 FR 69085, 70 FR 69443, 71 FR 541). One of the criteria for
redesignation is to have an approved maintenance plan under CAA section
175A. The maintenance plan must demonstrate that the area will continue
to maintain the standard for the period extending ten years after
redesignation and contain such additional measures as necessary to
ensure maintenance and such contingency provisions as necessary to
assure that violations of the standard will be promptly corrected. At
the end of the eighth year after the effective date of the
redesignation, the state must also submit a second maintenance plan to
ensure ongoing maintenance of the standard for an additional ten years.
See CAA section 175A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA sets out the requirements
for redesignation. They include attainment of the NAAQS, full
approval under section 110(k) of the applicable SIP, determination
that improvement in air quality is a result of permanent and
enforceable reductions in emissions, demonstration that the state
has met all applicable section 110 and part D requirements, and a
fully approved maintenance plan under CAA section 175A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has published long-standing guidance for states on developing
maintenance plans. EPA's guidance entitled, ``Procedures for Processing
Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' September 4, 1992
(Calcagni memo) provides that states may generally demonstrate
maintenance by either performing air quality modeling to show that the
future mix of sources and emission rates will not cause a violation of
the NAAQS or by showing that future emissions of a pollutant and its
precursors will not exceed the level of emissions during a year when
the area was attaining the NAAQS (i.e., attainment year inventory). See
Calcagni memo at 9. EPA clarified in three subsequent guidance memos
that certain nonattainment areas could meet the CAA section 175A
requirement to provide for maintenance by demonstrating that the area's
design value \4\ was well below the NAAQS and that the historical
stability of the area's air quality levels showed that the area was
unlikely to violate the NAAQS in the future.\5\ EPA refers to this
streamlined demonstration of maintenance as an LMP. EPA has interpreted
CAA section 175A as permitting this option because section 175A of the
CAA defines few specific content requirements for maintenance plans,
and in EPA's experience implementing the various NAAQS, areas that
qualify for an LMP and have approved LMPs have rarely, if ever,
experienced subsequent violations of the NAAQS. As noted in the LMP
guidance memoranda, states seeking an LMP must still submit the other
maintenance plan elements outlined in the Calcagni memo, including: An
attainment emissions inventory,

provisions for the continued operation of the ambient air quality
monitoring network, verification of continued attainment, and a
contingency plan in the event of a future violation of the NAAQS.
Moreover, states seeking an LMP must still submit its section 175A
maintenance plan as a revision to its SIP, with all attendant notice
and comment procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The ozone design value for a monitoring site is the 3-year
average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average
ozone concentrations. The design value for an ozone nonattainment
area is the highest design value of any monitoring site in the area.
    \5\ See ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable
Ozone Nonattainment Areas'' from Sally L. Shaver, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), dated November 16, 1994;
``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO
Nonattainment Areas'' from Joseph Paisie, OAQPS, dated October 6,
1995; and ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate
PM10 Nonattainment Areas'' from Lydia Wegman, OAQPS,
dated August 9, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the LMP guidance memoranda were originally written with
respect to certain NAAQS,\6\ EPA has extended the LMP interpretation of
section 175A to other NAAQS and pollutants not specifically covered by
the previous guidance memos.\7\ In this case, EPA is proposing to
approve the Indiana LMPs, because the state has made a showing,
consistent with EPA's prior LMP guidance, that each of the six Indiana
area's ozone concentrations are well below the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
and have been historically stable. Indiana has submitted LMPs for the
Evansville, Fort Wayne, Greene County, Jackson County, Muncie, and
Terre Haute, Indiana areas' 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS maintenance area to
fulfill the second maintenance plan requirement in the CAA. Our
evaluation of these 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS LMPs is presented below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The prior memos addressed: Unclassifiable areas under the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS, nonattainment areas for the PM10
(particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than 10
microns) NAAQS, and nonattainment areas for the carbon monoxide
NAAQS.
    \7\ See, e.g., 79 FR 41900 (July 18, 2014) (Approval of second
ten-year LMP for Grant County 1971 SO2 maintenance area).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under CAA section 175A(b), states must submit a revision to the
first maintenance plan eight years after redesignation to provide for
maintenance of the NAAQS for ten additional years following the end of
the first 10-year period. EPA's final implementation rule for the 2008
8-hour ozone NAAQS revoked the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and stated that
one consequence of revocation was that areas that had been redesignated
to attainment (i.e., maintenance areas) for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard no longer needed to submit second 10-year maintenance plans
under CAA section 175A(b).\8\ In South Coast Air Quality Management
District v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit vacated EPA's interpretation that,
because of the revocation of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, second
maintenance plans were not required for ``orphan maintenance areas,''
i.e., areas that had been redesignated to attainment for the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS maintenance areas and were designated attainment for
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. South Coast, 882 F.3d 1138 (D.C. Cir.
2018). Thus, states with these ``orphan maintenance areas'' under the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS must submit maintenance plans for the second
maintenance period. Accordingly, on April 25, 2019, Indiana submitted a
second maintenance plan in the form of an LMP for the following Indiana
areas: Evansville, Fort Wayne, Greene County, Jackson County, Muncie,
and Terre Haute. These LMPs show that each area is expected to remain
in attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS through the end of the
last year of the second 10-year maintenance period, i.e., through the
end of the full 20-year maintenance period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See 80 FR 12315 (March 6, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What is EPA's evaluation of Indiana's SIP submittals?

    EPA has reviewed the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS LMPs which are
designed to maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS within the Evansville,
Fort Wayne, Greene County, Jackson County, Muncie, and Terre Haute,
Indiana areas through the end of the 20-year period beyond
redesignation, as required under CAA section 175A(b). The following is
a summary of EPA's interpretation of the requirements \9\ and EPA's
evaluation of how each requirement is met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Calcagni memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Attainment Emissions Inventory

    For maintenance plans, a state should develop a comprehensive,
accurate inventory of actual emissions for an attainment year to
identify the level of emissions which is sufficient to maintain the
NAAQS. A state should develop this inventory consistent with EPA's most
recent guidance on emissions inventory development. For ozone, the
inventory should be based on typical ozone season workday of VOCs and
NOX, as these pollutants are precursors to ozone formation.
The Indiana LMP's ozone attainment inventories reflect typical summer
weekday emissions in 2014. Table 1 through 7 present a summary of the
inventories for 2014 contained in the maintenance plans.

     Table 1--2014 Typical Summer Day 8-Hour Ozone Emissions for the
                        Evansville, Indiana Area
                               [Tons/day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      VOC         NOX
                 Source category                   emissions   emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonpoint........................................       10.57        2.99
Nonroad.........................................        2.83        3.03
Onroad..........................................        6.93       11.73
Point...........................................        3.66       34.68
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Table 2--2014 Typical Summer Day 8-Hour Ozone Emissions for the Fort
                           Wayne, Indiana Area
                               [Tons/day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      VOC         NOX
                 Source category                   emissions   emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonpoint........................................       15.67        2.94
Nonroad.........................................        5.76        5.38
Onroad..........................................       10.57       21.48
Point...........................................        5.67        6.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Table 3--2014 Typical Summer Day 8-Hour Ozone Emissions for the Greene
                          County, Indiana Area
                               [Tons/day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      VOC         NOX
                 Source category                   emissions   emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonpoint........................................        3.26        0.90
Nonroad.........................................        0.61        0.67
Onroad..........................................        1.23        2.20
Point...........................................        0.06        0.07
------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Table 4--2014 Typical Summer Day 8-Hour Ozone Emissions for the Jackson
                          County, Indiana Area
                               [Tons/day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      VOC         NOX
                 Source category                   emissions   emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonpoint........................................        2.59        0.25
Nonroad.........................................        1.05        1.13
Onroad..........................................        1.73        4.78
Point...........................................        1.38        1.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Table 5--2014 Typical Summer Day 8-Hour Ozone Emissions for the Jackson
                          County, Indiana Area
                               [Tons/day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      VOC         NOX
                 Source category                   emissions   emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonpoint........................................        2.59        0.25
Nonroad.........................................        1.05        1.13
Onroad..........................................        1.73        4.78
Point...........................................        1.38        1.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Table 6--2014 Typical Summer Day 8-Hour Ozone Emissions for the Muncie,
                              Indiana Area
                               [Tons/day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      VOC         NOX
                 Source category                   emissions   emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonpoint........................................        5.21        1.56
Nonroad.........................................        1.26        1.62
Onroad..........................................        3.48        8.32
Point...........................................        0.02        0.36
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Table 7--2014 Typical Summer Day 8-Hour Ozone Emissions for the Terre
                           Haute, Indiana Area
                               [Tons/day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      VOC         NOX
                 Source category                   emissions   emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonpoint........................................        5.40        1.76
Nonroad.........................................        1.64        1.37
Onroad..........................................        3.23        6.06
Point...........................................        1.70       10.44
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Indiana used 2014 summer day emissions from EPA 2014 version 7.0
modeling platform as the basis for the attainment inventory. These data
are based on the most recently available National Emissions Inventory
(2014 NEI version 2).
    Based on our review of the methods, models, and assumptions used by
Indiana to develop the VOC and NOX estimates, we propose to
find that the Indiana 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS LMP areas include a
comprehensive, reasonably accurate inventory of actual ozone precursor
emissions in attainment year 2014, and propose to conclude that the
plan's inventory is acceptable for the purposes of a subsequent
maintenance plan under CAA section 175A(b).

2. Maintenance Demonstration

    The maintenance plan demonstration requirement is considered to be
satisfied in a LMP if the state can provide sufficient information
indicating that air quality in the area is well below the level of the
standard, that past air quality trends have been shown to be stable,
and that the probability of the area experiencing a violation over the
second 10-year maintenance period is low.\10\ These criteria are
evaluated below with regard to the Indiana areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable Ozone
Nonattainment Areas'' from Sally L. Shaver, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (OAQPS), dated November 16, 1994; ``Limited
Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas''
from Joseph Paisie, OAQPS, dated October 6, 1995; and ``Limited
Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate PM10 Nonattainment
Areas'' from Lydia Wegman, OAQPS, dated August 9, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    a. Evaluation of ozone air quality levels.
    To attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the three-year average of
the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations
(design value) at each monitor within an area must not exceed 0.08 ppm.
Based on the rounding convention described in 40 CFR part 50, appendix
I, the standard is attained if the design value is 0.084 ppm or below.
Consistent with prior guidance, EPA believes that if the most recent
air quality design value for the area is at a level that is well below
the NAAQS (e.g., below 85% of the standard, or in this case below 0.071
ppm), then EPA considers the state to have met the section 175A
requirement for a demonstration that the area will maintain the NAAQS
for the requisite period. Such a demonstration assumes continued
applicability of prevention of significant deterioration requirements
and any control measures already in the SIP, and that Federal measures
will remain in place through the end of the second 10-year maintenance
period.
    Table 8 presents the design values for each monitor in the Indiana
areas over the 2016-2018 period. These monitoring sites have recorded
levels well below the level of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS over the
entire first 10-year maintenance period. As shown below, the most
current design values continue to be below the level of 85% of the
NAAQS, consistent with prior LMP guidance.

                                 Table 8--1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS Design Values
                                               [Parts per million]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Design value
               Area                       County          AQS site ID     (DV)  2016-    DV <0.071 ppb  eligible
                                                                             2018                  LMP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evansville.......................  Vanderburgh........       181630013           0.068  Yes.
                                   Vanderburgh........       181630021           0.068  Yes.
                                   Warrick............       181730008           0.069  Yes.
                                   Warrick............       181730011           0.068  Yes.
Fort Wayne.......................  Allen..............       180030002           0.067  Yes.
                                   Allen..............       180030004           0.066  Yes.
Greene County....................  Greene.............       180550001           0.067  Yes.
Jackson County...................  Jackson............       180710001           0.066  Yes.
Muncie...........................  Delaware...........       180350010           0.066  Yes.
Terre Haute......................  Vigo...............       181670018           0.068  Yes.
                                   Vigo...............       181670024           0.067  Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the Evansville, Fort Wayne, Greene County, Jackson
County, Muncie, and Terre Haute, Indiana areas are eligible for the LMP
option, and we propose to find that the long record of monitored ozone
concentrations that attain the NAAQS, together with the continuation of
existing VOC and NOX emissions control programs, adequately
provide for the maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the
Indiana areas through the second 10-year maintenance period and beyond.
    Additional supporting information that these areas are expected to
continue to maintain the standard can be found in EPA modeling
projections of future year design values. This modeling was completed
to assist states with development of interstate transport SIPs for the
2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Those projections, made for the year 2023,
show that the highest design value for these areas occurs in the Greene
County area and is expected to be 0.064 ppm, which is well below the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

3. Monitoring Network and Verification of Continued Attainment

    EPA periodically reviews the ozone monitoring network that Indiana
operates and maintains, in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. This network
is consistent with the ambient air

monitoring network assessment and plan developed by Indiana that is
submitted annually to EPA and that follows a public notification and
review process. EPA has reviewed and approved the Indiana's 2019
Ambient Air Monitoring Network Assessment and Plan. Indiana has
committed to continue to maintain a network in accordance with EPA
requirements.

4. Contingency Plan

    The contingency plan provisions are designed to promptly correct or
prevent a violation of the NAAQS that might occur after redesignation
of an area to attainment. Section 175A of the CAA requires that a
maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems
necessary to assure that the state will promptly correct a violation of
the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance plan should
identify the contingency measures to be adopted, a schedule and
procedure for adoption and implementation of the contingency measures,
and a time limit for action by the state. The state should also
identify specific indicators to be used to determine when the
contingency measures need to be adopted and implemented. The
maintenance plan must include a requirement that the state will
implement all pollution control measures that were contained in the SIP
before redesignation of the area to attainment. See section 175A(d) of
the CAA.
    Indiana's contingency plan defines a warning level and action level
response. A warning level shall be prompted whenever an annual average
fourth high monitored value of 0.089 ppm occurs in a single ozone
season, or a two-year average fourth high monitored value of 0.085 ppm
or greater occurs within the maintenance area. The action level
response shall be prompted whenever a three-year average fourth high
monitored value of 85 ppb or greater occurs within the maintenance
area. In the event that the action level is triggered and is not due to
an exceptional event, malfunction, or noncompliance with a permit
condition or rule requirement, Indiana will determine additional
control measures needed to assure future attainment of NAAQS for ozone.
In this case, measures that can be implemented in a short time will be
selected in order to be in place within 18 months from the close of the
ozone season that prompted the action level.
    Contingency measures to be considered will be selected from a
comprehensive list of measures deemed appropriate and effective at the
time the selection is made. Listed below are example measures that may
be considered. The selection of measures will be based upon cost-
effectiveness, emission reduction potential, economic and social
considerations or other factors that Indiana deems appropriate. Indiana
will solicit input from all interested and affected persons in the
maintenance area prior to selecting appropriate contingency measures.
The listed contingency measures are potentially effective or proven
methods of obtaining significant reductions of ozone precursor
emissions. Because it is not possible at this time to determine what
control measure will be appropriate at an unspecified time in the
future, the list of contingency measures outlined below is not
comprehensive. Indiana anticipates that only a few of these measures
will be required.
    (1) A lower-Reid vapor pressure gasoline program.
    (2) Broader geographic applicability of existing measures.
    (3) A tightening of reasonably available control technology (RACT)
on existing sources covered by EPA Control Technique Guidelines issued
in response to the 1990 CAA Amendments.
    (4) The application of RACT to smaller existing sources.
    (5) A vehicle inspection/maintenance program.
    (6) One or more transportation control measures sufficient to
achieve at least 0.5% reduction in actual area wide VOC emissions.
Transportation measures will be selected from the following, based upon
the factors listed above after consultation with affected local
governments:
    (a) Trip reduction programs, including, but not limited to,
employer-based transportation management plans, area wide rideshare
programs, work schedule changes, and telecommuting.
    (b) Transit improvements.
    (c) Traffic flow improvements.
    (d) Other new or innovative transportation measures not yet in
widespread use that affects state and local governments deemed
appropriate.
    (7) Alternative fuel and diesel retrofit programs for fleet vehicle
operations.
    (8) Controls on consumer products consistent with those adopted
elsewhere in the United States.
    (9) The requirement of VOC or NOX emission offsets for
new and modified major sources.
    (10) The requirement of VOC or NOX emission offsets for
new and modified minor sources.
    EPA finds that Indiana's contingency measures, as well as the
commitment to continue implementing any SIP requirements, satisfy the
pertinent requirements of section 175A.

IV. Transportation Conformity

    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA.
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 (CAA 176(c)(1)(B)). EPA's
conformity rule at 40 CFR part 93 requires that transportation plans,
programs and projects conform to SIPs and establish the criteria and
procedures for determining whether or not they conform. The conformity
rule generally requires a demonstration that emissions from the
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) are consistent with the motor vehicle emissions budget
(MVEB) contained in the control strategy SIP revision or maintenance
plan (40 CFR 93.101, 93.118, and 93.124). A MVEB is defined as ``that
portion of the total allowable emissions defined in the submitted or
approved control strategy implementation plan revision or maintenance
plan for a certain date for the purpose of meeting reasonable further
progress milestones or demonstrating attainment or maintenance of the
NAAQS, for any criteria pollutant or its precursors, allocated to
highway and transit vehicle use and emissions (40 CFR 93.101).
    Under the conformity rule, LMP areas may demonstrate conformity
without a regional emission analysis (40 CFR 93.109(e)).
    However, because LMP areas are still maintenance areas, certain
aspects of transportation conformity determinations still will be
required for transportation plans, programs and projects. Specifically,
for such determinations, RTPs, TIPs and transportation projects still
will have to demonstrate that they are fiscally constrained (40 CFR
93.108), meet the criteria for consultation (40 CFR 93.105) and
Transportation Control Measure implementation in the conformity rule
provisions (40 CFR 93.112 and 40 CFR 93.113, respectively).
Additionally, conformity determinations for RTPs and TIPs must be
determined no less frequently than every four years, and conformity of
plan and TIP amendments and transportation projects is demonstrated in
accordance with the timing requirements specified in 40 CFR 93.104. In
addition, for projects to be approved they must come from a currently
conforming RTP and TIP (40 CFR 93.114 and 93.115).

V. Proposed Action

    Under section 175A of the CAA and for the reasons set forth above,
EPA is proposing to approve the LMPs for the Evansville, Fort Wayne,
Greene County, Jackson County, Muncie, and Terre Haute, Indiana areas
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. These plans were submitted by Indiana
on April 25, 2019, as a revision to the Indiana SIP. We believe the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS LMPs are sufficient to provide for maintenance
of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in these areas over the second
maintenance period.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because it is not a significant regulatory
action under Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone,
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: August 6, 2019.
Cathy Stepp,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2019-17665 Filed 8-16-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: January 3, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 1)]
[Notices]
[Page 111-113]
[DOCID:fr03ja06-72]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP06-29-000; Docket No. CP98-131-006]

Vector Pipeline, LP; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental
Assessment for the Proposed Vector Compression Expansion Project and
Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

December 22, 2005.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the Vector Compression Expansion
Project involving construction and operation of two new compressor
stations by Vector Pipeline, LP (Vector) in Will County, Illinois and
Macomb County, Michigan.\1\ The total horsepower (hp) at the compressor
stations would consist of about 45,000 hp of compression. This EA will
be used by the Commission in its decision-making process to determine
whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Vector's applications in Docket Nos. CP98-131-006 and CP06-
29-000 were filed with the Commission under section 3 of the Natural
Gas Act and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations and section 7
of the Natural Gas Act, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, you may be contacted
by a pipeline company representative about the acquisition of an
easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities.
The pipeline company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable
agreement. However, if the project is approved by the Commission, that
approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if
easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline
company could initiate condemnation proceedings in accordance with
state law.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' was attached to the
project notice (Vector) provided to landowners. This fact sheet
addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of
eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings.
It is available for viewing on the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov
).

Summary of the Proposed Project

    Vector is proposing in Docket No. CP06-29-000 to expand the
transmission capacity of its existing interstate pipeline system by
constructing two new compressor stations. Vector seeks authority to
construct and operate:
     15,000 hp of gas turbine-driven compression at the new
Joliet Compressor Station in Will County, Illinois; and
     30,000 hp of gas turbine-driven compression at the new
Romeo Compressor Station in Macomb County, Michigan.
    Vector also proposes in Docket No. CP98-131-006 to amend its
existing Presidential Permit to transport gas between the United States
and Canada by increasing the maximum capacity from 1,330 MMcfd to 2,300
MMcfd through the existing St. Clair River international border
facilities. No additional border facilities would be constructed.
    Vector indicates that Detroit Edison Company (Detroit Edison) would
construct a 1,900-foot-long distribution line to provide ``3-phase
power'' from the ``existing DTE Facility'' to the Romeo Compressor
Station. Vector indicates that the ``distribution line would be
constructed adjacent to an existing ITC high voltage electric
transmission line fee strip to minimize land requirements, potential
private landowner concerns, and environmental impacts that may be
associated with Detroit Edison's facilities.'' Vector indicates that
water services would be provided by ``Washington Township by extending
the existing water line from the DTE Facility to the Romeo Compressor
Station site. The water line would be about 1,900 feet in length and
would be constructed adjacent to the existing ITC high voltage
transmission line fee strip leading to the Romeo Compressor Station.''
    The location of the project facilities is shown in Appendix 1.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies of all appendices, other
than Appendix 1 (maps), are avaialble on the Commission's Web site
at the ``eLibrary'' link or from the Commissions's Public Reference
Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call (202)
502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the
last page of this notice. Copies of the appendices were sent to all
those receiving this notice in the mail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the proposed facilities would require about 20.0
acres and 10.2 acres of land for the Joliet and Romeo Compressor
Stations, respectively. Following construction, about 4.0 acres and 4.7
acres would be maintained as new aboveground facility sites for the
Joliet and Romeo Compressor Stations, respectively.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals.
This process is referred to as ``scoping''. The main goal of the
scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this Notice of Intent, the Commission staff
requests public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the
EA. All comments received are considered during the preparation of the
EA. State and local government representatives are encouraged to notify
their constituents of this proposed action and encourage them to
comment on their areas of concern.

    In the EA we \3\ will discuss impacts that could occur as a result
of the construction and operation of the proposed project under these
general headings:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``We'', ``us'', and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Office of Energy Projects (OEP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Geology and soils
     Land use
     Water resources, fisheries, and wetlands
     Cultural resources
     Vegetation and wildlife
     Air quality and noise
     Endangered and threatened species
     Hazardous waste
     Public safety
    We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the proposed project
or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen
or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    Our independent analysis of the issues will be in the EA. Depending
on the comments received during the scoping process, the EA may be
published and mailed to Federal, State, and local agencies, public
interest groups, interested individuals, affected landowners,
newspapers, libraries, and the Commission's official service list for
this proceeding. A comment period will be allotted for review if the EA
is published. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make
our recommendations to the Commission.
    To ensure your comments are considered, please carefully follow the
instructions in the public participation section below.

Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    We have already identified issues that we think deserve attention
based on a preliminary review of the proposed facilities and the
environmental information provided by Vector. This preliminary list of
issues may be changed based on your comments and our analysis.
     Potential noise levels at the noise-sensitive areas due to
the operation of the compressor stations
     Conversion of about 3 acres of farm land to industrial use
for the Joliet Compressor Station
     Potential impacts to Federal listed species: Indiana bat
and prairie leaf clover

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the project. By becoming a commentor, your
concerns will be addressed in the EA and considered by the Commission.
You should focus on the potential environmental effects of the
proposal, alternatives to the proposal, and measures to avoid or lessen
environmental impact. The more specific your comments, the more useful
they will be. Please carefully follow these instructions to ensure that
your comments are received in time and properly recorded:
     Send an original and two copies of your letter to: Magalie
R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
St., NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
     Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas
Branch 2.
     Reference Docket No. CP06-29-000.
     Mail your comments so that they will be received in
Washington, DC on or before January 23, 2006.
    Please note that we are continuing to experience delays in mail
deliveries from the U.S. Postal Service. As a result, we will include
all comments that we receive within a reasonable time frame in our
environmental analysis of this project. However, the Commission
strongly encourages electronic filing of any comments or interventions
or protests to this proceeding. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the
instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov under

the ``e-Filing'' link and the link to the User's Guide. Before you can
file comments you will need to create a free account which can be
created on-line.
    We may mail the EA for comment. If you are interested in receiving
it, please return the Information Request (Appendix 2). If you do not
return the Information Request, you will be taken off the mailing list.

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want
to become an official party to the proceeding, or ``intervenor''. To
become an intervenor you must file a motion to intervene according to
Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR
385.214). Intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the
Commission's decision. Motions to Intervene should be electronically
submitted using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov.

Persons without Internet access should send an original and 14 copies
of their motion to the Secretary of the Commission at the address
indicated previously. Persons filing Motions to Intervene on or before
the comment deadline indicated above must send a copy of the motion to
the Applicant. All filings, including late interventions, submitted
after the comment deadline must be served on the Applicant and all
other intervenors identified on the Commission's service list for this
proceeding. Persons on the service list with e-mail addresses may be
served electronically; others must be served a hard copy of the filing.
    Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be
granted intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they
have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which would not be
adequately represented by any other parties. You do not need intervenor
status to have your environmental comments considered.

Environmental Mailing List

    An effort is being made to send this notice to all individuals,
organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially
affected by the proposed project. This includes all landowners who are
potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily
for project purposes, or who own homes within distances defined in the
Commission's regulations of certain aboveground facilities.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC or on the
FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link.

Click on the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the
docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number
field. Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,

contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission now 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. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.html.

    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at http://www.ferc.gov/

EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-8161 Filed 12-30-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


  HYPERLINK
"http://www.state.nj.us/dep/baqp/8hrsip/Appendices-Attachments/G%20for%2
0Fleet%20Turnover%20Benefit%20Calculations.zip"  Appendix D10  –
TSD-1e: CMAQ Model Performance and Assessment 8-HR OTC Ozone Modeling (
Attachments 1-20) (zip file)

ZIP file contains 21 files.

For copies of files access the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection web site:

  HYPERLINK "http://www.state.nj.us/dep/baqp/8hrsip/8hrsip.html#final"
http://www.state.nj.us/dep/baqp/8hrsip/8hrsip.html#final


[Federal Register: January 15, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 10)]
[Notices]
[Page 2600-2601]
[DOCID:fr15ja09-111]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2004-D-0043] (formerly Docket No. 2004D-0510)

Guidance for Industry: Referral Program from the Food and Drug
Administration to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Seafood Inspection Program for the Certification of Fish and Fishery
Products for Export to the European Union and the European Free Trade
Association; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of a guidance document entitled ``Guidance for Industry:
Referral Program from the Food and Drug Administration to the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Seafood Inspection Program for
the Certification of Fish and Fishery Products for Export to the
European Union and the European Free Trade Association.'' The guidance
provides information for seafood processors and other entities that are
interested in obtaining export certificates for fish or fishery
products that are to be shipped to the European Union (EU) and the
European Free Trade Association (EFTA). FDA is also announcing that it
intends to stop issuing EU Export Certificates after February 17, 2009.

DATES: Submit written or electronic comments on the guidance at any
time.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments concerning the guidance to the
Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration,
5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic
comments on the guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written
requests for single copies of the guidance to the Office of Food Safety
(HFS-300), Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug
Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740-3835.
Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in
processing your request. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
electronic access to the guidance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Jones, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition (HFS-325), Food and Drug Administration, 5100
Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740-3835,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In the Federal Register of November 26, 2004 (69 FR 68948) (the
November 26 notice), FDA announced the availability of a draft guidance
entitled ``Proposed Referral Program from the Food and Drug
Administration to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Seafood Inspection Program for the Certification of Live and Perishable
Fish and Fishery Products for Export to the European Union and the
European Free Trade Association.'' In the November 26 notice, FDA
announced that it proposed to operate a Referral Program for a 24-month
period to test the viability and effectiveness of such an arrangement.
During this period, EU Export Certificates for shipments of live and
perishable fish and fishery products destined for the EU, European
Union Accession Partnership Countries (EUAPC), and EFTA Members would
have been issued by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Seafood Inspection Program (NOAA SIP) under the Agricultural Marketing
Act. In addition, FDA indicated that it intended to stop issuing EU
Export Certificates for live and perishable fish and fishery products
during this period. FDA sought comment on this referral program,
including whether it should be expanded beyond live and perishable to
all shipments of fish and fishery products destined for the EU, EU
Accession Partnership Countries, and other countries with certificate
requirements.
    Interested persons were initially given until December 27, 2004, to
comment on the draft guidance. The comment period was subsequently
extended until January 25, 2005 (69 FR 78038, December 29, 2004). The
agency considered and modified the guidance as appropriate.
    The agency is announcing the availability of the final guidance
document entitled ``Guidance for Industry: Referral Program from the
Food and Drug Administration to the National Oceanic and Atmosphere
Administration Seafood Inspection Program for the Certification of Fish
and Fishery Products for the Export to the European Union and the
European Free

Trade Association.'' In this final guidance, FDA is announcing that:
(1) We intend to proceed with a Certification Referral Program to NOAA
SIP, without a 24-month test period, (2) we intend to expand the
program to include all fish and fishery products for export to the EU
and EFTA, and (3) we intend to stop issuing EU Export Certificates
effective February 17, 2009. The agency intends to adopt this approach
because the industry's demand for EU Export Certificates continues to
rise dramatically, and FDA can no longer justify the use of our limited
food safety resources for issuance of EU Export Certificates. The
implementation of this guidance should free up resources that the
agency can allocate for higher priority public health activities that
are intended to protect the U.S. consuming public, while still
providing a mechanism for the industry to continue obtaining EU
certification. Seafood processors and other entities involved in the
exporting of seafood to the EU may obtain EU Export Certificates from
the NOAA SIP.
    FDA is issuing this guidance document as a level 1 guidance
consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR
10.115). This guidance represents FDA's current thinking on this topic.
It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does
not operate to bind FDA, NOAA SIP, or the public. An alternative
approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the
applicable statutes and regulations.

II. Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) written or electronic comments regarding this document.
Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper copies of any
mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy.
Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets
in the heading of this document. The guidance and received comments may
be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday.
    Please note that on January 15, 2008, the FDA Division of Dockets
Management Web site transitioned to the Federal Dockets Management
System (FDMS). FDMS is a Government-wide, electronic docket management
system. Electronic comments or submissions will be accepted by FDA only
through FDMS at http://www.regulations.gov.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the guidance
document at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/guidance.html.

    Dated: January 9, 2009.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. E9-785 Filed 1-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 102 (Thursday, May 28, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30468-30469]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12742]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2015-N-0012]

Molecular Characterization of Multiple Myeloma Black/African
Ancestry Disparity

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of grant funds for the support of the efforts of the
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). FDA is announcing its
intent to accept and consider a single-source application for the award
of a grant to the Multiple Myeloma Service of Memorial Sloan Kettering
Cancer Institute. The goal of the cooperative agreement between CDER
and the Multiple Myeloma Service of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer
Institute is to support the development of appropriate methodologies to
conduct clinical trial design evaluation and determine extrapolation of
findings from the general population to the U.S. Black population.

DATES: Important dates are as follows:
    1. The application due date is July 20, 2015.
    2. The anticipated start date is August 2015.
    3. The opening date is May 18, 2015.
    4. The expiration date is July 21, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic applications to: http://www.Grants.gov.
For more information, see section III of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dickran Kazandjian, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 2320, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-
402-5272; or Vieda Hubbard, Division of Acquisition Support and Grants
(HFA-500), Food and Drug

Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For more information on this funding opportunity announcement (FOA)
and to obtain detailed requirements, please refer to the full FOA
located at: http://www.grants.gov. Search by Funding Opportunity
Number: RFA-FD-15-029.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Funding Opportunity Description

    RFA-FD-15-029
    93.103

A. Background

    Multiple Myeloma (MM) is mainly a disease of older adults with a
median diagnosis age of 65 years and patients younger than 40 represent
only 2 percent of diagnoses. In the United States, 20,000 new cases are
diagnosed annually. Although the etiology of MM remains elusive,
clinical features, observed racial disparity patterns of incidence,
reported familial clustering, and younger incidence in patients of
Black/African ancestry suggests a role for susceptibility genes. Novel
therapies have revolutionized treatment of MM and much of current
research is focused on identifying not only efficacious drugs but also
on the most efficacious time to initiate treatment. MM is a spectrum of
disease which is first manifested by its precursor state Monoclonal
gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) which then evolves into
smoldering myeloma and then finally symptomatic myeloma and therefore
some paradigms of treatment initiation are evolving. Much of this work
involves identifying the molecular aberrations, which classify
patients' risks. However, this work has mostly been done on the
population as a whole. Despite that MM in patients of Black ancestry
clearly has a biologically different natural history; clinically Blacks
are assessed using the same genetic approaches as the whole population.
The proposed project will afford us the opportunity to identify and
characterize MM in the Black population with much higher genetic and
molecular resolution. It will answer questions such as whether Blacks
have, in general, better survival because of the presence of more low
risk genetic aberrations and whether these changes alter the effect of
treatment drug. Our conclusions may have immense regulatory impact. For
example, certain MM therapies may be indicated sooner in the treatment
course in Blacks. Alternatively, some therapies may be found to have
minimal efficacy and indication in Blacks with certain molecular
subtypes. This proposal will be the first study to characterize the
molecular subtypes of MM in Blacks in a systematic fashion, investigate
the effect of these on novel therapy outcomes, and potentially have
major impact on regulatory approvals of future therapies. Therefore, it
is imperative to focus on this under-represented population and at
least begin to understand the differences in MM pathophysiology, which
may ultimately lead to improved outcomes.
    The Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Institute has established a
cohort of Black/African ancestry patients diagnosed with MM. These
patients have been previously enrolled onto clinical trials and bone
marrow biopsy tissue samples are available along with peripheral blood
samples all banked. Furthermore, there has been close monitoring of
these patients and detailed clinical data already exist. This is
crucial to the project. Memorial Sloan Kettering is uniquely positioned
to provide FDA much required data both by their novel technical
platform and also by their available unique patient cohort and biopsy
samples. Finally, organized involvement among a number of Sloan
Kettering/National Cancer Institute (NCI)/FDA working groups on issues
related to endpoints in MM which provides the unique ability to
collaboratively engage FDA, patients, academics, government and
industry so that any important findings may distributed to the
community will be required.

B. Research Objectives

    The research objective is to characterize the molecular subtypes of
MM in patients of Black/African ancestry and investigate the effect of
these on prognosis and novel therapy outcomes.

C. Eligibility Information

    The following organization is eligible to apply: The Multiple
Myeloma Service of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Institute. This
is a sole source request for application because the Multiple Myeloma
Service of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Institute is uniquely
situated to support FDA's scientific mission of protecting and
promoting the public health by initiating and facilitating research
into demographic subpopulations of the United States. It has both the
required patient population and the proprietary technical assays
required to perform the proposed work.

II. Award Information/Funds Available

A. Award Amount

    It is anticipated that FDA/CDER will fund this Cooperative
Agreement up to $172,000 in Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 and $106,000 in FY
2016 in support of this program project. It is anticipated that only
one award will be made, not to exceed $278,000 (direct plus indirect)
for total costs. Awards are contingent upon the availability of funds.

B. Length of Support

    Two-year period of performance beginning on August 2015 or date of
award.

III. Electronic Application, Registration, and Submission

    Only one electronic application will be accepted. To submit an
electronic application in response to this FOA, the applicant should
first review the full announcement located at http://www.Grants.gov.
Search by Funding Opportunity Number: RFA-FD-15-029. (FDA has verified
the Web site addresses throughout this document, but FDA is not
responsible for any subsequent changes to the Web sites after this
document publishes in the Federal Register.) For the electronically
submitted application, the following steps are required.
     Step 1: Obtain a Dun and Bradstreet (DUNS) Number
     Step 2: Register With System for Award Management (SAM)
     Step 3: Obtain Username & Password on http://www.Grants.gov
     Step 4: Authorized Organization Representative (AOR)
Authorization
     Step 5: Track AOR Status
     Step 6: Register With Electronic Research Administration
(eRA) Commons
    Steps 1 through 5, in detail, can be found at http://www07.grants.gov/applicants/organization_registration.jsp. Step 6, in
detail, can be found at https://commons.era.nih.gov/commons/registration/registrationInstructions.jsp. After you have followed
these steps, submit the electronic application to: http://
www.grants.gov.

    Dated: May 20, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-12742 Filed 5-27-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: October 5, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 192)]
[Notices]
[Page 61460]
[DOCID:fr05oc10-53]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2850-015]

Hampshire Paper Company; Notice of Application Tendered for
Filing With the Commission and Establishing Procedural Schedule for
Licensing and Deadline for Submission of Final Amendments

September 24, 2010.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New Major License.
    b. Project No.: 2850-015.
    c. Date Filed: June 17, 2010.
    d. Applicant: Hampshire Paper Company.
    e. Name of Project: Emeryville Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Oswegatchie River in the hamlet of Emeryville,
in St. Lawrence County, New York. The project does not occupy federal
lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Michael McDonald, Facility Manager, Hampshire
Paper Company, 1827 County Road 22, Gouverneur, NY 13642; Telephone
(315) 287-1990.
    i. FERC Contact: John Baummer,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    k. The Project Description: The existing Emeryville Project
consists of: (1) A 16.7-foot-high, 185-foot-long, timber and earth fill
gravity dam with a 17-foot-long concrete spillway equipped with 2.4-
foot-high flashboards and a 4-foot-wide minimum flow rectangular weir
with a minimum elevation of 584.2 feet mean sea level (msl); (2) a 35-
acre reservoir with a normal water surface elevation of 586.6 feet msl;
(3) a 140-foot-long by 30-foot-wide reinforced concrete intake and
headrace structure equipped with four headgates and a trashrack with 5-
inch spacing; (4) a 60-foot-long by 14-foot-diameter steel penstock
leading to; (5) a 67-foot-long by 32-foot concrete powerhouse
containing a horizontal axial flow turbine with a maximum hydraulic
capacity of 1,470 cubic feet per second and a net head of 32 feet,
directly connected to a horizontal generator unit with a rated capacity
of 3,481 kilowatts for an estimated average annual generation of 18,400
megawatt-hours; (6) an 80-foot-long, 23-kilovolt transmission line; and
(7) appurtenant facilities.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or
may be viewed on the Commission's Web site 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, contact FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    m. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    n. Procedural Schedule:
    The application will be processed according to the following Hydro
Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as
appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tendering Notice.....................  September 27, 2010.
Notice of Acceptance/Notice of Ready   November 12, 2010.
 for Environmental Analysis.
Filing of recommendations,             January 11, 2011.
 preliminary terms and conditions,
 and fishway prescriptions.
Commission issues Non-Draft EA.......  May 11, 2011.
Comments on EA.......................  June 10, 2011.
Modified terms and conditions........  August 9, 2011.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    o. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice
of ready for environmental analysis.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-24978 Filed 10-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 127 (Friday, July 1, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38582-38584]
[FR Doc No: 2011-16655]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0394; Airspace Docket No. 11-ASO-17]

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Clemson, SC

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class E Airspace at Clemson, SC,
as a runway extension requires amended Standard Instrument Approach
Procedures at Oconee County Regional Airport. This action would enhance
the safety and airspace management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)
operations at the airport. This action also would recognize the airport
name change to Oconee County Regional Airport.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, Comments must be received on or before
August 15, 2011. The Director of the Federal Register approves this
incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal
Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA, Order
7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,

DC 20590-0001; Telephone: 1-800-647-5527; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must
identify the Docket Number FAA-2011-0394; Airspace Docket No. 11-ASO-
17, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review
received comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this proposed rule by
submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire.
Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and
suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned
regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited
on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and
energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2011-0394; Airspace Docket No. 11-ASO-17) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Annotators wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket
No. FAA-2011-0394; Airspace Docket No. 11-ASO-17.'' The postcard will
be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and
comments submitted through http://www.regulations.gov. Recently
published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's
Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. An
informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at
the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation
Administration, room 210, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia
30337.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend Class E airspace extending upward
from 700 feet above the surface to support new standard instrument
approach procedures developed at Oconee County Regional Airport,
Clemson, SC. Airspace reconfiguration is necessary for continued safety
and management of IFR operations at the airport. Also, the airport name
would be changed from Clemson-Oconee County Airport to Oconee County
Regional Airport.
    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.9U, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15,
2010, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This proposed rulemaking is promulgated under the authority
described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under
that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign
the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This proposed regulation is within the scope
of that authority as it would amend Class E airspace at Oconee County
Regional Airport, Clemson, SC.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

    1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9U, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 18, 2010, effective September 15, 2010,
is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ASO SC E5 Clemson, SC [AMENDED]

Oconee County Regional Airport, SC
    (Lat. 34[deg]40'19'' N., long. 82[deg]53'12'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7.5-mile radius of Oconee County Regional Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on June 27, 2011.
Barry A. Knight,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2011-16655 Filed 6-30-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 144 (Monday, July 28, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43616-43618]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17465]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0177; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-189-AD;
Amendment 39-17912; AD 2014-15-10]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes. This AD was prompted by a
report of a crew alerting system message caused by an inversion of the
wiring in the slats control manifold (SCM). This AD requires an
operational test of the SCM, and replacing the affected SCM with a
serviceable SCM if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and
correct inversion of the wiring in the SCM, which could lead to a
commanded retraction of the median and outboard slats in flight, and
result in reduced controllability of the airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective September 2, 2014.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of September 2,
2014.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0177; or in person at the
Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Dassault
Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201-
440-6700; Internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com. You may view this
referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Dassault Aviation
Model FALCON 7X airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register
on April 4, 2014 (79 FR 18846).
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2013-0195, dated August 27, 2013 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Dassault
Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During a ferry flight, the crew of a Falcon 7X aeroplane
reported a Crew Alerting System Message ``FCS--SLATS INB EXTEND
FAIL'' with associated fault code and root cause: ``FCS SEC FCS
fault/SFCI3 fault''. The crew applied the applicable Aircraft Flight
Manual procedure and the aeroplane landed uneventfully.
    The results of the manufacturer technical investigations
concluded that the cause of this event was an inversion of the
wiring in the slats control manifold (SCM).
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to un-
commanded retraction of the median and outboard slats in flight,
resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Dassault Aviation
issued Service Bulletin (SB) F7X-244, with instructions for an
operational test of the SCM.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires an
operational test of the SCM and, depending on findings,
accomplishment of the applicable corrective actions [replacing the
affected SCM with a serviceable SCM if necessary].

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0177-0002.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We

received no comments on the NPRM (79 FR 18846, April 4, 2014) or on the
determination of the cost to the public.

``Contacting the Manufacturer'' Paragraph in This AD

    Since late 2006, we have included a standard paragraph titled
``Airworthy Product'' in all MCAI ADs in which the FAA develops an AD
based on a foreign authority's AD.
    We have become aware that some operators have misunderstood or
misinterpreted the Airworthy Product paragraph to allow the owner/
operator to use messages provided by the manufacturer as approval of
deviations during the accomplishment of an AD-mandated action. The
Airworthy Product paragraph does not approve messages or other
information provided by the manufacturer for deviations to the
requirements of the AD-mandated actions. The Airworthy Product
paragraph only addresses the requirement to contact the manufacturer
for corrective actions for the identified unsafe condition and does not
cover deviations from other AD requirements. However, deviations to AD-
required actions are addressed in 14 CFR 39.17, and anyone may request
the approval for an alternative method of compliance to the AD-required
actions using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    To address this misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the
Airworthy Product paragraph, we have changed the paragraph and retitled
it ``Contacting the Manufacturer.'' This paragraph now clarifies that
for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a
manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved
by the FAA, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), or Dassault
Aviation's EASA DOA.
    The Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph also clarifies that, if
approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized
signature. The DOA signature indicates that the data and information
contained in the document are EASA-approved, which is also FAA-
approved. Messages and other information provided by the manufacturer
that do not contain the DOA-authorized signature approval are not EASA-
approved, unless EASA directly approves the manufacturer's message or
other information.
    This clarification does not remove flexibility previously afforded
by the Airworthy Product paragraph. Consistent with long-standing FAA
policy, such flexibility was never intended for required actions. This
is also consistent with the recommendation of the Airworthiness
Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee to increase
flexibility in complying with ADs by identifying those actions in
manufacturers' service instructions that are ``Required for
Compliance'' with ADs. We continue to work with manufacturers to
implement this recommendation. But once we determine that an action is
required, any deviation from the requirement must be approved as an
alternative method of compliance.
    We also have decided not to include a generic reference to either
the ``delegated agent'' or ``design approval holder (DAH) with State of
Design Authority design organization approval,'' but instead we have
provided the specific delegation approval granted by the State of
Design Authority for the DAH throughout this AD.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described
previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these
minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (79 FR 18846, April 4, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition;
and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 18846, April 4, 2014).
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 42 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operational test of the slats control   1 work-hour x $85 per                 $0             $85          $3,570
 manifold.                               hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacement
that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have
no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this
replacement:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                Labor cost              Parts cost        product
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement..................................  13 work-hours x $85 per hour =               $0          $1,105
                                                $1,105.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under

Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. 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.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0177; or in person at the
Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information.
The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-
5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2014-15-10 Dassault Aviation: Amendment 39-17912. Docket No. FAA-
2014-0177; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-189-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective September 2, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes,
certificated in any category, manufacturer serial numbers 2 through
101 inclusive; 105, 106, 108 through 140 inclusive; 142 through 148
inclusive; 150 through 153 inclusive; 155, 156, 158, 162 through 164
inclusive; and 167, 169, and 173.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight
Controls.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by report of a crew alerting system message
caused by an inversion of the wiring in the slats control manifold
(SCM). We are issuing this AD to detect and correct inversion of the
wiring in the SCM, which could lead to a commanded retraction of the
median and outboard slats in flight, and result in reduced
controllability of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Operational Test

    Within 600 flight hours or 9 months after the effective date of
this AD, whichever occurs first: Do an operational test of the slats
control manifold (SCM), in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Dassault Aviation Service Bulletin 7X-244, Revision
1, also referred to as 244-R1, dated July 8, 2013. If the
operational test of the SCM fails, before further flight, replace
the affected SCM with a serviceable SCM, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault Aviation Service Bulletin
7X-244, Revision 1, also referred to as 244-R1, dated July 8, 2013.

(h) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph
(g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective
date of this AD using Dassault Aviation Service Bulletin 7X-244,
dated February 14, 2013, which is not incorporated by reference in
this AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Tom
Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information
may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office. The
AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Dassault Aviation's EASA
Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the
approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0195, dated August 27,
2013, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0177-0002.
    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference may be viewed at the addresses specified
in paragraphs (k)(3) and (k)(4) of this AD.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Dassault Aviation Service Bulletin 7X-244, Revision 1, also
referred to as 244-R1, dated July 8, 2013.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Dassault Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 17, 2014.
John P. Piccola,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-17465 Filed 7-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P