Bifenthrin/ 128825/ IR 4 DACO 7.4.1/ 7.4.2/ OPPTS 860.1500/ OECD IIA 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3 and IIIA 8.3.1, 8.3.2, 8.3.3 Crop Field Trial  Dried Beans and Peas DP#: 310089/ MRID#: 45642701 Page 1 of 8 Primary Evaluator: Sarah J. Levy, Chemist Registration Action Branch 1 ( RAB1) Health Effects Division ( HED; 7509C) Date: 06 APR 2006 Approved by: George Kramer, Ph. D., Chemist RAB1/ HED ( 7509C) Date: 06 APR 2006 This DER was originally prepared under contract by Dynamac Corporation ( 1910 Sedwick Road, Building 100, Suite B, Durham, NC 27713; submitted 10/ 17/ 2005). The DER has been reviewed by HED and revised to reflect current Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP) policies.

STUDY REPORT:

45624701. Culligan, J. ( 2001). Magnitude of the Residue of Bifenthrin and of Sulfentrazone and its Significant Metabolites in/ on Dried Shelled Beans and Peas Treated with Authority   75 DF Herbicide and Capture ® 2EC Insectiside Miticide. Lab Project Number: P 3527. Study No 000CRO01R1. Unpublished study prepared by FMC Corporation. 245 pages.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

A total of 15 field trials were conducted during 2001 on dried beans ( 9 trials) and peas ( 6 trials) during the 2001 growing season. Bifenthrin ( 2 lb/ gal emulsifiable concentrate ( EC)) was applied to dried beans as three broadcast foliar applications at 0.1 lb ai/ A/ application, for a total of 0.3 lb ai/ A/ season. The initial application was made at the 2 to 6 node stage, the second application was made at bloom through pod fill, and the final application was made at early maturity, ~ 14 days prior to normal harvest. Retreatment intervals ( RTIs) for dried beans were 10 44 days. In the six dried pea field trials, bifenthrin ( 2 lb / gal EC) was applied as two broadcast foliar applications at 0.1 lb ai/ A/ application, at approximately 21 and 14 days prior to normal maturity, for a total of 0.2 lb ai/ A/ season. The RTIs for the dried pea trials were 6 7 days. At commercial maturity ( 13 15 day pre harvest intervals ( PHIs), a single control and duplicate treated samples of dried beans or peas were collected from each trial. To examine residue decline, additional duplicate samples were collected at 9, 14, 19, and 27 day PHIs from one dried bean trial and at 12, 15, 20, and 27 day PHIs from one dried pea trial. Samples were stored frozen for up to 2 months, an interval supported by the available storage stability data.

The gas chromatography ( GC)/ mass selective detection ( MSD) method used to determine bifenthrin residues in/ on beans and peas ( FMC Corporation Report No. P 3426M) was adequately validated in conjunction with the field trial analyses. Briefly, bifenthrin residues are extracted with acetone: water, partitioned into hexane, and purified using a silica gel solid phase extraction ( SPE) column. The residues are then analyzed by GC/ MSD. The validated limit of quantitation ( LOQ) was 0.05 ppm, and the limit of detection ( LOD) was 0.01 pm.

Residues of bifenthrin were < 0.01 0.10 ppm in/ on 18 samples of dried beans harvested 13 15 DAT, and < LOQ in/ on all 12 samples of dried peas (< 0.01 0.02 ppm) harvested at 14 15 DAT. The average residues were 0.043 ppm for dried beans and 0.025 ppm for dried peas. Residue decline could not be determined for dried beans, as residues in all samples from the decline trial were < LOD. However, residues in dried peas, although low (  0.02 ppm), did show decline at longer post treatment intervals. Bifenthrin/ 128825/ IR 4 DACO 7.4.1/ 7.4.2/ OPPTS 860.1500/ OECD IIA 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3 and IIIA 8.3.1, 8.3.2, 8.3.3 Crop Field Trial  Dried Beans and Peas DP#: 310089/ MRID#: 45642701 Page 2 of 8 Residues of sulfentrazone ( PC Code129081) and its metabolites were reported in this MRID but were not reviewed in this DER.

STUDY/ WAIVER ACCEPTABILITY/ DEFICIENCIES/ CLARIFICATIONS:

Under the conditions and parameters used in the study, the dried bean and dried pea field trial residue data are classified as scientifically acceptable. The acceptability of this study for regulatory purposes is addressed in the forthcoming U. S. EPA Residue Chemistry Summary Document [ DP#: 310089].

COMPLIANCE:

Signed and dated Good Laboratory Practice ( GLP), Quality Assurance, and Data Confidentiality statements were provided. The study author noted numerous minor deviations from GLP compliance at several trial sites pertaining to collection of data on weather, agricultural practices, maintenance fertilizers and pesticides, raw data collection. However, none of these deviations substantially impacts the validity of the study.

A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Bifenthrin is a non systemic insecticide/ miticide in the class of synthetic pyrethroids. Bifenthrin is formulated as a 2.0 lb/ gal EC and is marketed by FMC Corporation as Capture ® 2 EC ( EPA Reg. No. 279 3069).

TABLE A. 1. Nomenclature of Bifenthrin.

Compound O O Cl F 3 C CH 3 CH 3 C H 3 Common name Bifenthrin Company experimental names Capture ® 2 EC IUPAC name 2 methylbiphenyl 3 ylmethyl( Z)( 1RS, 3RS) 3( 2 chloro 3,3,3 trifluoroprop 1 enyl) 2,2dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate or 2 methylbiphenyl 3 ylmethyl( Z)( 1RS) cis 3( 2 chloro 3,3,3 trifluoroprop 1 enyl) 2,2dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate CAS name rel 2 methyl( 1,1' biphenyl) 3 yl) methyl( 1R, 3R) 3(( 1Z) 2 chloro 3,3,3 trifluoro 1 propenyl) 2,2 dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate CAS # 82657 04 03 End use products/ EP 2.0 lb/ gal EC ( EPA Reg. No. 279 3069) Bifenthrin/ 128825/ IR 4 DACO 7.4.1/ 7.4.2/ OPPTS 860.1500/ OECD IIA 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3 and IIIA 8.3.1, 8.3.2, 8.3.3 Crop Field Trial  Dried Beans and Peas DP#: 310089/ MRID#: 45642701 Page 3 of 8 TABLE A. 2. Physicochemical Properties of the Technical Grade Bifenthrin.

Parameter Value Reference Melting point/ range 68 70.6 ° C pH NA Density at 24 ° C 1.26 g/ mL Water solubility < 0.1 Fg/ L Solvent solubility ( g/ 100 mL) 8.9 in heptane and methanol 125 in acetone, chloroform, ether, methylene chloride, and toluene Vapor pressure ( Pa) at 25 ° C 2.41 x 10 5 Dissociation constant ( pKa) NA Octanol/ water partition coefficient) Kow > 1 x 10 6 UV/ visible absorption spectrum NA Product Chemistry Chapter of the Tolerance Reassessment Eligibility Decision ( TRED)

B. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN B. 1. Study Site Information Dried beans and peas were grown and maintained at each trial site using typical agricultural practices for the respective geographical regions ( Table B. 1.1). Rainfall, irrigation data, and minimum and maximum average monthly temperatures were reported for some of the trial sites, but most sites just reported general weather observations. Compared to 10 year average data, variations from average precipitation and air temperature were reported at several sites, but no extreme weather conditions were noted that would adversely impact the field trial data. Information was also provided on maintenance chemicals and other pesticides used at each site.

TABLE B. 1.1. Trial Site Conditions. Soil characteristics1 Trial Identification ( City, State; Year) Type % OM pH CEC ( meq/ g) Dried Beans Fitchburg, WI; 2001 Silt Loam 2.8 5.5 NR Geneva, MN; 2001 Clay Loam 5.2 6.4 NR Carlyle, IL; 2001 Silt Loam NR NR NR Walworth, WI; 2001 Silt Loam NR NR NR Velva, ND; 2001 Loam NR NR NR Eaton, CO; 2001 Sandy Clay Loam NR NR NR Wellington, CO; 2001 Sandy Loam NR NR NR Live Oak, CA; 2001 Subaco NR NR NR Rupert, ID; 2001 NR NR NR NR Dried Peas Wahpeton, ND; 2001 Silty Clay Loam NR NR NR Jerome, ID; 2001 Loam 1.4 7.4 NR Jerome, ID; 2001 Silt Loam NR NR NR Parkdale, OR; 2001 Loam NR NR NR Walla Walla, WA; 2001 Silt Loam 2.3 7.2 NR Moses Lake, WA; 2001 Silt Loam NR NR NR Bifenthrin/ 128825/ IR 4 DACO 7.4.1/ 7.4.2/ OPPTS 860.1500/ OECD IIA 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3 and IIIA 8.3.1, 8.3.2, 8.3.3 Crop Field Trial  Dried Beans and Peas DP#: 310089/ MRID#: 45642701 Page 4 of 8 1 OM = Organic matter, CEC = Cation exchange capacity. These parameters are optional except in cases where their value affects the use pattern for the chemical. NR = Not reported TABLE B. 1.2. Study Use Pattern. Application Location ( City, State; Year) Trial ID EP1 Method; Timing Volume ( GPA) Single Rate ( lb ai/ A) RTI2 ( days) Total Rate ( lb ai/ A) Tank Mix/ Adjuvants Dried Beans 10.4 0.1  9.9 0.1 29 Fitchburg, WI; 2001 01 2 lb/ gal EC Broadcast Foliar; beginning at 5 6 node stage, and at pod fill and early maturity 9.9 0.1 22 0.3 None 9.8 0.1  10.6 0.1 44 Geneva, MN; 2001 02 2 lb/ gal EC Broadcast Foliar; beginning at V2 stage, and at pod fill and early maturity 10.0 0.1 27 0.3 None 10 0.1  10 0.1 34 Carlyle, IL; 2001 03 2 lb/ gal EC Broadcast Foliar; beginning at 4 5 node stage, and at pod fill and early maturity 10 0.1 31 0.3 None 10.2 0.1  10.1 0.1 27 Walworth, WI; 2001 04 2 lb/ gal EC Broadcast Foliar; beginning at 3rd node stage, and at pod fill and early maturity 10.2 0.1 29 0.3 None 10 0.1  10 0.1 35 Velva, ND; 2001 05 2 lb/ gal EC Broadcast Foliar; beginning at 2nd node stage, and bloom and early maturity 10 0.1 33 0.3 None 10.1 0.1  10.2 0.1 26 Eaton, CO; 2001 06 2 lb/ gal EC Broadcast Foliar; beginning at 3 4 node stage, and at blooming, and early maturity 10.2 0.1 28 0.3 None 10.0 0.1  10.1 0.1 23 Wellington; CO, 2001 07 2 lb/ gal EC Broadcast Foliar; beginning at 3 4 node stage, and bloom and early maturity 10.2 0.1 23 0.3 None 10.0 0.1  10.0 0.1 10 Live Oak, CA; 2001 08 2 lb/ gal EC Broadcast Foliar; beginning at 5 node stage, and at pod fill and early maturity 10.0 0.1 10 0.3 None 10.0 0.1  9.8 0.1 23 Rupert, ID; 2001 09 2 lb/ gal EC Broadcast Foliar; beginning at 2 5 node stage, and at bloom and early maturity 9.4 0.1 22 0.3 None Dried Peas 9.9 0.1  Wahpeton, ND; 2001 10 2 lb/ gal EC Broadcast Foliar; late season 21 and 14 days prior to harvest 10.0 0.1 7 0.2 None 10.3 0.1  Jerome, ID; 2001 11 2 lb/ gal EC Broadcast Foliar; late season 21 and 14 days prior to harvest 10.2 0.1 7 0.2 None 10.6 0.1  Jerome, ID; 2001 12 2 lb/ gal EC Broadcast Foliar; late season 21 and 14 days prior to harvest 10.5 0.1 6 0.2 None 11.0 0.1  Parkdale, OR; 2001 13 2 lb/ gal EC Broadcast Foliar; late season 21 and 14 days prior to harvest 10.0 0.1 7 0.2 None 10.0 0.1  Walla Walla; WA, 2001 14 2 lb/ gal EC Broadcast Foliar; late season 21 and 14 days prior to harvest 10.0 0.1 7 0.2 None 10.0 0.1  Moses Lake; WA, 2001 15 2 lb/ gal EC Broadcast Foliar; late season 21 and 14 days prior to harvest 10.0 0.1 7 0.2 None 1 EP = End use Product 2 RTI = Retreatment Interval Bifenthrin/ 128825/ IR 4 DACO 7.4.1/ 7.4.2/ OPPTS 860.1500/ OECD IIA 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3 and IIIA 8.3.1, 8.3.2, 8.3.3 Crop Field Trial  Dried Beans and Peas DP#: 310089/ MRID#: 45642701 Page 5 of 8 TABLE B. 1.3.1 Trial Numbers and Geographical Locations.

Submitted Requested in US2 NAFTA Growing Region1 Dried Beans Dried Peas Dried Beans Dried Peas 5 4 1 4

7 1  1

8 1  1

9 1  1

10 1  1

11 1 5 1 5 Total 9 6 9 5 1 Regions 13 21 and 1A, 5A, 5B, and 7A were not included as the use is for the US only. 2 Number of trials required for a tolerance on the dried bean and pea, excluding soybean, subgroup 1 C.

B. 2. Sample Handling and Preparation Duplicate control and treated samples of dried beans and peas (  2 pounds) were harvested from each trial site at commercial maturity, 13 15 days following the final application. To examine residue decline, additional duplicate samples were collected at 9, 14, 19, and 27 DAT in one dried bean trial ( WI) and at 12, 15, 20, and 27 in one dried pea trial ( ID). Samples were placed into frozen storage within 2.5 hours of sampling. Samples were shipped frozen by ACDS freezer truck to the analytical laboratory, where samples were stored at  18 ° C until extraction for analysis.

B. 3. Analytical Methodology Samples of dried beans and peas were analyzed for residues of bifenthrin using a GC/ MSD method ( FMC Corporation Method P 2132M). For this method, residues were extracted with acetone: water ( 4: 1, v/ v), centrifuged, and concentrated to remove the acetone. Residues are then diluted with water, partitioned into hexane, and purified using a silica gel SPE column eluted with 10% ethyl acetate/ hexane. Residues are then concentrated and determined by GC/ MSD using the m/ z 181 ion for quantitation with external standards.

Prior to analysis of field trial samples, the method was validated concurrently using control samples of dried beans and peas fortified with bifenthrin at 0.05, 0.1 and 0.2 ppm.

C. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The number and geographic representation of the dried bean and pea field trials are adequate. In the nine dried bean field trials, bifenthrin ( 2 lb / gal EC) was applied as three broadcast foliar applications at 0.1 lb ai/ A/ application, for a total of 0.3 lb ai/ A/ season. The initial application was made at the 2 to 6 node stage, the second application was made at bloom through pod fill, and the final application was made at early maturity, ~ 14 days prior to normal harvest. RTIs for dried beans were 10 44 days. In the six dried pea field trials, bifenthrin ( 2 lb / gal EC) was applied as two broadcast foliar applications at 0.1 lb ai/ A/ application, at approximately 21 and 14 days prior to normal maturity, for a total of 0.2 lb ai/ A/ season. The RTIs for the dried pea trials were 6 7 days. At commercial maturity (~ 14 day PHI), a single control and duplicate treated Bifenthrin/ 128825/ IR 4 DACO 7.4.1/ 7.4.2/ OPPTS 860.1500/ OECD IIA 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3 and IIIA 8.3.1, 8.3.2, 8.3.3 Crop Field Trial  Dried Beans and Peas DP#: 310089/ MRID#: 45642701 Page 6 of 8 samples of dried bean or peas were collected from each trial. To examine residue decline, additional duplicate samples were collected at 9, 14, 19, and 27 day PHIs from one dried bean trial and at 12, 15, 20, and 27 day PHIs from one dried pea trial.

The GC/ MSD method, used to determine bifenthrin residues in/ on dried beans and peas, was adequately validated in conjunction with the field sample analyses. Method validation recoveries from control samples fortified at 0.05 0.20 ppm were 84 99% and averaged 94 ± 6% ( Table C. 1.). The validated LOQ for residues of bifenthrin was 0.05 ppm in/ on dried beans and peas, and the LOD was 0.01 ppm. Adequate sample calculations and example chromatograms were provided.

The samples were stored frozen from collection to analysis for up to two months ( Table C. 2). Storage stability data are not available for dried beans and peas; however, available stability data indicate that bifenthrin is stable for up to 12 months on corn matrices ( Memo, S. Levy, 21 AUG 2002; DP#: 283808). These data will support the storage intervals and conditions of the dried bean and dried pea field trials.

TABLE C. 1. Summary of Concurrent Recoveries of Bifenthrin from Dried Beans and Peas. Analyte Matrix Spike level ( ppm) Sample size ( n) Recoveries (%) Mean " std dev (%) 0.05 4 84 99 91.3 ± 7.4 0.1 2 96, 99 97.5 ± 2.1 Bifenthrin Dried beans and peas 0.2 2 95, 99 97 ± 2.9 TABLE C. 2. Summary of Storage Conditions. Matrix Storage Temperature ( ° C) Actual Storage Duration ( months) Interval of Demonstrated Storage Stability1 ( months) Dried Beans and Peas  18 ° C 2 12 1 Bifenthrin TRED, S. Levy, 21 AUG 2002; DP#: 283808.

In the dried bean field trials, bifenthrin residues were < 0.01 0.10 ppm in/ on 18 samples harvested 13 15 DAT ( Table C. 3.), with 6 of the 18 samples having residues ( 0.05 0.10 ppm) above the LOQ. In the dried pea field trials, all 12 samples harvested at 14 15 DAT had residues below the LOQ (< 0.01 0.02 ppm), with 11 of the 12 samples having residues above the LOD. The average and highest average field trial ( HAFT) residues were 0.043 and 0.095 ppm, respectively, for dried beans, and 0.025 and 0.05 ppm for dried peas.

All samples from the dried bean samples harvested 9 27 DAT from the residue decline trial were < LOD; therefore residue declined could not be determined. However, in the dried pea residue decline trial, residues in/ on dried peas decreased from 0.02 ppm at 12 DAT to < 0.01 ppm by 19 DAT. TABLE C. 3. Residue Data from Dried Beans and Pea Field Trials with Bifenthrin ( EC). Trial ID ( City, State; Year) Zone Crop; Variety Commodity or Matrix Total Rate ( lb ai/ A) PHI ( days) Bifenthrin residues ( ppm) Dried Beans Fitchburg, WI, 2001 5 Bean: Kodiak Dried Seed 0.3 13 ND, ( 0.01) Geneva, MN, 2001 5 Bean: Pinto Dried Seed 0.3 14 ( 0.02), ( 0.03) Carlyle, IL, 2001 5 Bean: Pinto Field Dried Seed 0.3 13 ( 0.03), ( 0.03)

Walworth, WI, 2001 5 Bean, Pinto Dried Seed 0.3 9 ND, ND Bifenthrin/ 128825/ IR 4 DACO 7.4.1/ 7.4.2/ OPPTS 860.1500/ OECD IIA 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3 and IIIA 8.3.1, 8.3.2, 8.3.3 Crop Field Trial  Dried Beans and Peas DP#: 310089/ MRID#: 45642701 Page 7 of 8 TABLE C. 3. Residue Data from Dried Beans and Pea Field Trials with Bifenthrin ( EC). Trial ID ( City, State; Year) Zone Crop; Variety Commodity or Matrix Total Rate ( lb ai/ A) PHI ( days) Bifenthrin residues ( ppm) 14 ND, ND 19 ND, ND Field 27 ND, ND Velva, ND, 2001 7 Bean: Othello Dried Seed 0.3 15 ND, ND Eaton, CO, 2001 8 Bean: Montrose Dried Seed 0.3 14 0.10, 0.09 Wellington, CO, 2001 9 Bean: Bill Z Dried Seed 0.3 14 0.07, 0.10 Live Oak, CA, 2001 10 Bean: Kidney Dried Seed 0.3 14 0.07, 0.05 Rupert, ID, 2001 11 Bean: Othello Dried Seed 0.3 15 ND, ND Dried Peas Wahpeton, ND, 2001 5 Pea: Wando Dried Seed 0.2 14 ( 0.01), ND Jerome, ID 2001 11 Pea: Talbot Dried Seed 0.2 14 ( 0.02), ( 0.01) 12 ( 0.02), ( 0.02) 15 ( 0.02), ( 0.02) 20 ND, ND Jerome, ID 2001 11 Pea: Talbot Dried Seed 0.2 27 ND, ND Parkdale, OR 2001 11 Pea: Progress 9 Dried Seed 0.2 14 ( 0.01), ( 0.02) Walla Walla, WA, 2001 11 Pea: Columbian Dried Seed 0.2 14 ( 0.01), ( 0.02)

Moses Lake, WA, 2001 11 Pea: Caselode Dried Seed 0.2 14 ( 0.01), ( 0.02) ND = Not detectible; (< 0.01 ppm).

TABLE C. 4. Summary of Residue Data from Dried Bean and Pea Field Trials with Bifenthrin ( EC). Residue Levels ( ppm) Commodity Total Applic. Rate ( lb ai/ A) PHI ( days) n Min. Max. HAFT1, 2 Median Mean Std. Dev.

Dried Beans 0.3 13 15 18 0.05 0.10 0.095 0.025 0.043 0.029 Dried Peas 0.2 14 15 12 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.025 0.025 0 1 HAFT = Highest Average Field Trial. 2 In cases where residue levels were < LOQ, ½ LOQ ( 0.025 ppm) was used to calculate the median, mean and standard deviation.

D. CONCLUSION The dried bean and dried pea field trial data are adequate and support the use of up to three ( bean) or two ( pea) foliar applications of bifenthrin ( EC) at 0.1 lb ai/ A/ application, for a maximum seasonal rate of 0.3 or 0.2 lb ai/ A on dried beans and peas, respectively. Bifenthrin/ 128825/ IR 4 DACO 7.4.1/ 7.4.2/ OPPTS 860.1500/ OECD IIA 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3 and IIIA 8.3.1, 8.3.2, 8.3.3 Crop Field Trial  Dried Beans and Peas DP#: 310089/ MRID#: 45642701 Page 8 of 8 E. REFERENCES DP#: 283808 Subject: Bifenthrin. Residue and Product Chemistry Considerations for the Tolerance Reassessment Eligibility Decision ( TRED) From: S. Levy To: T. Myers Dated: 21 AUG 2002 MRID( s): None F. DOCUMENT TRACKING RDI: RAB1 Chemists ( 16 NOV 2005) Petition#: 2E6423 DP#: 310089 PC Code: 128825 Template Version September 2003


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 225 (Tuesday, November 23, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 71353]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29463]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-1076; Directorate Identifier 2009-CE-019-AD;
Amendment 39-16296; AD 2010-10-17]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.
Various Models MU-2B Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is correcting an airworthiness directive (AD) that has
published in the Federal Register. That AD applies to the products
listed above. The reissue date of September 24, 1986, of the MU-2B-60
airplane flight manual (AFM) in table 3 of the Compliance section
(e)(1)(i) is incorrect, in that it is ``September 24, 1985,'' instead
of ``September 24, 1986.'' This document corrects this error. In all
other respects, the original document remains the same.

DATES: This final rule; correction is effective November 23, 2010. The
effective date for AD 2010-10-17 remains July 22, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; 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 address for the
Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Document 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 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Bryant, Propulsion Engineer, FAA,
Fort Worth ACO, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone:
(817) 222-5146; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Airworthiness Directive 2010-10-17,
amendment 39-16296 (75 FR 34349), which supersedes Airworthiness
Directive (AD) 2006-17-01, AD 2006-15-07, AD 2000-02-25, and AD 97-25-
02, currently retains from AD 2006-17-01 the inspection of the engine
torque indication system and possible recalibration of the torque
pressure transducers and requires incorporating all revisions up to and
including the latest revisions of the AFM for certain MHI various
Models MU-2B airplanes.
    As published, table 3 specific to the MHI MU-2B-60 airplane stating
that the MU-2B-60 AFM has a reissued date of September 24, 1986, in the
Compliance section (e) is incorrect, in that it is ``September 24,
1985,'' instead of ``September 24, 1986.''
    No other part of the preamble or regulatory information has been
changed; therefore, only the changed portion of the final rule is being
published in the Federal Register.
    The effective date of this AD remains July 22, 2010.

Correction of Regulatory Text

Sec.  39.13  [Corrected]

0
In the Federal Register of June 17, 2010, AD 2010-10-17; Amendment 39-
16296 is corrected as follows:
    On page 34352, in the Compliance section paragraph (e)(1)(i) in
table 3, under the third column ``Date and version of AFM,'' change the
AFM, Section 6, Reissued date ``September 24, 1986,'' to ``September
24, 1985.''

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on November 17, 2010.
Patrick R. Mullen,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-29463 Filed 11-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 197 (Wednesday, October 12, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 70482]
[FR Doc No: 2016-24589]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Sixty Sixth RTCA SC-186 Automatic Dependent Surveillance--
Broadcast Working Group 4 and Plenary Session

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

ACTION: Sixty Sixth RTCA SC-186 Automatic Dependent Surveillance--
Broadcast Working Group 4 and Plenary Session.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of Sixty Sixth RTCA SC-186 Automatic Dependent Surveillance--
Broadcast Working Group 4 and Plenary Session.

DATES: The meeting will be held November 01-04, 2016, 09:00 a.m.-04:30
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at: RTCA Headquarters, 1150 18th
Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al Secen at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or 202-
330-0647, or The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910,
Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax at (202)
833-9434, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a meeting of the Sixty Sixth RTCA SC-186 Automatic
Dependent Surveillance--Broadcast Working Group 4 and Plenary Session.
The agenda will include the following:

Tuesday, November 1st, 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

Specific Working Group Sessions

All Day, WG-4--Application Technical, 4th Floor Large & Small Conf.
Rooms Requirements, Advanced Interval Management MOPS development

Wednesday, November 2nd, 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

Specific Working Group Sessions

All Day, WG-4--Application Technical, 4th Floor Large & Small Conf.
Rooms Requirements, Advanced Interval Management MOPS development

Thursday, November 3rd, 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

Specific Working Group Sessions

All Day, WG-4--Application Technical, 4th Floor Large & Small Conf.
Rooms Requirements, Advanced Interval Management MOPS development

Friday, November 4th, 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

Plenary Session Agenda

1. Chairman's Introductory Remarks
2. Review of Meeting Agenda
3. Review/Approval of the Sixty-Fifth Meeting Summary
4. FAA Surveillance and Broadcast Services (SBS) Program--Status
5. WG-3--Extended Squitter MOPS/SC-209 Transponder MOPS revisions
     Status
6. WG-4--Application Technical Requirements
     A-IM: Status
7. New Business
8. Other Business
     Update on Aireon activities from Mike Garcia
9. Review Action Items/Work Programs
10. Adjourn Plenary

Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 6, 2016.
Mohannad Dawoud,
Management & Program Analyst, Partnership Contracts Branch, ANG-A17
NextGen, Procurement Services Division, Federal Aviation
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2016-24589 Filed 10-11-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


PART 281  -  APPROVAL OF STATE UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK PROGRAMS

Subpart A - Purpose, General Requirements and Scope

Sec.
281.10 Purpose.
281.11 General requirements.
281.12 Scope and definitions.

Subpart B - Components of a Program Application

281.20 Program application.
281.21 Description of state program.
281.22 Procedures for adequate enforcement.

281.23 Memorandum of agreement.
281.24 Attorney General's statement.

Subpart C - Criteria for No Less Stringent

281.30 New UST system design, construction, installation, and notification.
281.31 Upgrading existing UST systems.
281.32 General operating requirements.
281.33 Release detection.
281.34 Release reporting, investigation, and confirmation.
281.35 Release response and corrective action.
281.36 Out-of-service UST systems and closure.
281.37 Financial responsibility for UST systems containing petroleum.

281.38 Lender liability.
281.39 Operator training.

Subpart D - Adequate Enforcement of Compliance

281.40 Requirements for compliance program and authority.
281.41 Requirements for enforcement authority.
281.42 Requirements for public participation.
281.43 Sharing of information.

Subpart E - Approval Procedures

281.50 Approval procedures for state programs.

281.51 Revision of approved state programs.
Subpart F - Withdrawal of Approval of State Programs

281.60 Criteria for withdrawal of approval of state programs.
281.61 Procedures for withdrawal of approval of state programs.

Authority:  §s 2002, 9004, 9005, 9006 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6912, 6991(c), (d), (e)).

SUBPART A - PURPOSE, GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND SCOPE

§ 281.10 - Purpose

   (a) This part specifies the requirements that state programs must meet for approval by the Administrator under § §9004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, and the procedures EPA will follow in approving, revising and withdrawing approval of state programs.
   (b) State submissions for program approval must be in accordance with the procedures set out in this part.
   (c) A state may apply for approval under this part at any time after the promulgation of release detection, prevention, and corrective action regulations under § §9003 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act.
   (d) Any state program approved by the Administrator under this part shall at all times be conducted in accordance with the requirements of this part.

§ 281.11 - General Requirements

   (a) State Program Elements.  The following substantive elements of a state program must be addressed in a state application for approval:
   (1) Requirements for all existing and new underground storage tanks:
   (i) New UST systems (design, construction, installation, and notification);
   (ii) Upgrading of existing UST systems;
   (iii) General operating requirements;
   (iv) Release detection;
   (v) Release reporting, investigation, and confirmation;
   (vi) Out-of-service USTs and closure;
   (vii) Release response and corrective action;
   (viii) Financial responsibility for UST systems containing petroleum; and
   (ix) Operator training.
   (2) Provisions for adequate enforcement of compliance with the above program elements.
   (b) Final Approval.  The state must demonstrate that its requirements under each state program element for existing and new UST systems are no less stringent than the corresponding federal requirements as set forth in subpart C of this part.  The state must also demonstrate that it has a program that provides adequate enforcement of compliance with these requirements.

   (c) States with programs approved under this part are authorized to administer the state program in lieu of the federal program and will have primary enforcement responsibility with respect to the requirements of the approved program.  EPA retains authority to take enforcement action in approved states as necessary and will notify the designated lead state agency of any such intended action.

§ 281.12 - Scope and Definitions

   (a) Scope
   (1) The Administrator may approve either partial or complete state programs.  A "partial" state program regulates either solely UST systems containing petroleum or solely UST systems containing hazardous substances.  If a "partial" state program is approved, EPA will administer the remaining part of the program.  A "complete" state program regulates both petroleum and hazardous substance tanks.
   (2) EPA will administer the UST program in Indian country, except where Congress has clearly expressed an intention to grant a state authority to regulate petroleum and hazardous substance USTs in Indian country.  In either case, this decision will not impair a state's ability to obtain program approval for petroleum and/or hazardous substances in non-Indian country in accordance with this part.
   (3)  Nothing in this subpart precludes a state from:
   (i) Adopting or enforcing requirements that are more stringent or more extensive than those required under this part; or
   (ii) Operating a program with a greater scope of coverage than that required under this part.  Where an approved state program has a greater scope of coverage than required by federal law, the additional coverage is not part of the federally-approved program.
   (b) Definitions
   (1) The definitions in part 280 apply to this entire part.
   §§
   (2) For the purposes of this part the term "final approval" means the approval received by a state program that meets the requirements in § 281.11(b).

SUBPART B - COMPONENTS OF A PROGRAM APPLICATION

§ 281.20 - Program Application

  Any state that seeks to administer a program under this part must submit an application containing the following parts:
  (a) A transmittal letter from the Governor of the state requesting program approval;
  (b) A description in accordance with § 281.21 of the state program and operating procedures;
  (c) A demonstration of the state's procedures to ensure adequate enforcement;
  (d) A schedule for obtaining needed authorities under interim approval, where applicable;
  (e) A Memorandum of Agreement outlining roles and responsibilities of EPA and the implementing agency;
(f) An Attorney General's statement in accordance with § 281.25 certifying to applicable state authorities; and
  (g) Copies of all applicable state statutes and regulations.
  Note to § 281.20:  EPA has designed an optional application form that is available for use by state applicants.

§ 281.21 - Description of State Program

  	A state seeking to administer a program under this part must submit a description of the program it proposes to administer under state law in lieu of the federal program.  The description of a state's existing or planned program must include:
  (a) The scope of the state program:
  (1) whether the state program regulates UST systems containing petroleum or hazardous substances, or both;
  (2) whether the state is applying for interim or final approval;
  (3) whether the state program is more stringent or broader in scope than the federal program, and in what ways; and
  (4) whether the state has any existing authority over Indian lands or has existing agreements with Indian tribes relevant to the regulation of underground storage tanks.
   (b) The organization and structure of the state and local agencies with responsibility for administering the program.  The jurisdiction and responsibilities of all state and local implementing agencies must be delineated, appropriate procedures for coordination set forth, and one state agency designated as a "lead agency" to facilitate communications between EPA and the state.
   (c) Staff resources to carry out and enforce the required state program elements, both existing and planned, including the number of employees, agency where employees are located, general duties of the employees, and current limits or restrictions on hiring or utilization of staff.
   (d) An existing state funding mechanism to meet the estimated costs of administering and enforcing the required state program elements, and any restrictions or limitations upon this funding.

§ 281.22 - Procedures for Adequate Enforcement

   A state must submit a description of its compliance monitoring and enforcement procedures, including related state administrative or judicial review procedures.

§

   §

§ 281.23 - Memorandum of Agreement

   EPA and the approved state will negotiate a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) containing proposed areas of coordination and shared responsibilities between the state and EPA and separate EPA and state roles and responsibilities in areas including, but not limited to:  implementation of partial state programs; enforcement; compliance monitoring; EPA oversight; and sharing and reporting of information.  At the time of approval, the MOA must be signed by the Regional Administra - tor and the appropriate official of the state lead agency.

§ 281.24 - Attorney General's Statement

   (a) A state must submit a written demonstration from the Attorney General that the laws and regulations of the state provide adequate authority to carry out the program described under § 281.21 and to meet other requirements of this part.  This statement may be signed by independent legal counsel for the state rather than the Attorney General, provided that such counsel has full authority to independently represent the state Agency in court on all matters pertaining to the state program.  This statement must include citations to the specific statutes, administrative regulations, and where appropriate, judicial decisions that demonstrate adequate authority to regulate and enforce requirements for UST systems.  State statutes and regulations cited by the state Attorney General must be fully effective when the program is approved.
   (b) If a state currently has authority over underground storage tank activities on Indian country, the statement must contain an appropriate analysis of the state's authority.

SUBPART C  -  CRITERIA FOR NO LESS STRINGENT

§ 281.30 - New UST System Design, Construction, Installation, and Notification

   In order to be considered no less stringent than the corresponding federal requirements for new UST system design, construction, installation, and notification, the state must have requirements that ensure all new underground storage tanks, and the attached piping in contact with the ground and used to convey the regulated substance stored in the tank, conform to the following:
(a) Be designed, constructed, and installed in a manner that will prevent releases for their operating life due to manufacturing defects, structural failure, or corrosion.  Unless the state requires manufacturer and installer financial responsibility and installer certification in accordance with § 9003(i)(2) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, then the state must meet the following:
(1) Tanks and piping replaced or installed after the state's submission of its state program approval or revision application must use interstitial monitoring within secondary containment in accordance with § 9003(i)(1) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act.
(2) Motor fuel dispenser systems installed and connected to an UST system after the state's submission of its state program approval or revision application must be equipped with under-dispenser containment in accordance with § 9003(i)(1) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act.
Note to paragraph (a):  Codes of practice developed by nationally-recognized organizations and national independent testing laboratories may be used to demonstrate that the state program requirements are no less stringent in this area.;
   (b) Be provided with equipment to prevent spills and tank overfills when new tanks are installed or existing tanks are upgraded, unless the tank does not receive more than 25 gallons at one time.  Flow restrictors used in vent lines are not allowable forms of overfill prevention when overfill prevention is installed or replaced after the state applies for state program approval or revision.
   (c) All UST system owners and operators must notify the implementing state agency of the existence of any new UST system and adequately notify the implementing state agency within a reasonable timeframe when assuming ownership of an UST system using a form designated by the state agency.

§ 281.31 - Upgrading UST Systems

   In order to be considered no less stringent than the corresponding federal upgrading requirements, the state must have requirements that ensure UST systems installed prior to the state applying for state program approval or revision meet the requirements of § 281.30; are upgraded to prevent releases for their operating life due to corrosion, and spills, and overfills; or are permanently closed with the following exceptions:
   (a) Upgrade Requirements for Previously Deferred UST Systems.  Previously deferred wastewater treatment tank systems, airport hydrant fuel distribution systems, and UST systems with field-constructed tanks where installation commenced before the state's submission of its state program approval or revision application must, within three years of the effective date of this §, as amended, or prior to the state's submission of its state program approval or revision application, whichever date is later, meet the requirements of § 281.30 or be permanently closed.
   (b) Upgrade Requirements for Other UST Systems.  States may allow UST systems to be upgraded if the state determines that the upgrade is appropriate to prevent releases for the operating life of the UST system due to corrosion and spill or overfills.

§ 281.32 - General Operating Requirements

   In order to be considered no less stringent than the corresponding federal general operating requirements, the state must have requirements that ensure all new and existing UST systems conform to the following:
(a) Prevent spills and overfills by ensuring that the space in the tank is sufficient to receive the volume to be transferred and that the transfer operation is monitored constantly;
   (b) Where equipped with cathodic protection, be operated and maintained by a person with sufficient training and experience in preventing corrosion, and in a manner that ensures that no releases occur during the operating life of the UST system;
   Note to paragraph (b):  Codes of practice developed by nationally-recognized organizations and national independent testing laboratories may be used to demonstrate the state program requirements are no less stringent.
   (c) Be made of or lined with materials that are compatible with the substance stored;
(d) At the time of upgrade or repair, be structurally sound and upgraded or repaired in a manner that will prevent releases due to structural failure or corrosion during their operating lives;
(e) Have spill and overfill prevention equipment periodically tested in a manner and frequency that ensures its functionality for the operating life of the equipment and have the integrity of secondary containment periodically tested in a manner and frequency that prevents releases during the operating life of the UST system, except on equipment not required to be tested by 40 CFR part 280.
(f) Have operation and maintenance walkthrough inspections periodically conducted in a manner and frequency that ensures proper operation and maintenance for the operating life of the UST system.
(g) Have records of monitoring, testing, repairs, and operation and maintenance walkthrough inspections.  These records must be made readily available when requested by the implementing agency.

§ 281.33 - Release Detection

   In order to be considered no less stringent than the corresponding federal requirements for release detection, the state must have requirements that at a minimum ensure all UST systems are provided with release detection that conforms to the following:
   (a) General Methods.  Release detection requirements for owners and operators must consist of a method, or combination of methods, that is:
   (1) Capable of detecting a release of the regulated substance from any portion of the UST system that routinely contains regulated substances -- as effectively as any of the methods allowed under the federal technical standards -- for as long as the UST system is in operation.  In comparing methods, the implementing agency shall consider the size of release that the method can detect and the speed and reliability with which the release can be detected.
(2) Designed, installed, calibrated, operated and maintained so that releases will be detected in accordance with the capabilities of the method;
(3) Operated and maintained, and electronic and mechanical components are tested periodically, in a manner and frequency that ensures proper operation to detect releases for the operating life of the release detection equipment.
   (b) Phase-in of requirements.  Release detection requirements must, at a minimum, be applied at all UST systems, except for UST systems previously deferred under § 280.10(a)(1), prior to the state's submission of its state program approval or revision application.  Release detection requirements must, at a minimum, be scheduled to be applied to previously deferred UST systems as follows:
   (1) Immediately when a new previously deferred UST system is installed, and
   (2) For any wastewater treatment tank system, airport hydrant fuel distribution system, or UST system with field constructed tanks installed prior to the state's submission of its state program approval or revision application, within three years of the effective date of this §, as amended, or prior to the state's submission of its state program approval or revision application, whichever date is later.
   (3) For any UST system that stores fuel solely for the use of emergency power generators that was installed prior to the state's submission of its state program approval or revision application, within one year of the effective date of this §, as amended, or prior to the state's submission of its state program approval or revision application, whichever date is later.
   (c) Requirements for Petroleum Tanks.  All petroleum tanks must meet the following requirements:
   (1) All petroleum tanks must be sampled, tested, or checked for releases at least monthly, except that
    tanks (that is, tanks and piping protected from releases due to corrosion and equipped with both spill and overfill prevention devices) installed prior to the state's submission of its State Program Approval or revision application may temporarily use monthly inventory control (or its equivalent) in combination with tightness testing (or its equivalent) conducted every five years for the first 10 years after the tank is installed; and
    (2)  New or replaced petroleum tanks must use interstitial monitoring within secondary containment in accordance with § 9003(i)(1) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act except when the state requires manufacturer and installer financial responsibility and installer certification in accordance with § 9003(i)(2) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act.

   (d) Requirements for Petroleum Piping.  All underground piping attached to the tank that routinely conveys petroleum must conform to the following:
   (1) If the petroleum is conveyed under greater than atmospheric pressure:
   (i) The piping must be equipped with release detection that detects a release within an hour by restricting or shutting off flow or sounding an alarm; and
   (ii) The piping must have monthly monitoring applied or annual tightness tests conducted.
   (2) If suction lines are used: (i) tightness tests must be conducted at least once every 3 years, unless a monthly method of detection is applied to this piping; or (ii) the piping is designed to allow the contents of the pipe to drain back into the storage tank if the suction is released and is also designed to allow an inspector to immediately determine the integrity of the piping system.
   (3) New or replaced petroleum piping must use interstitial monitoring within secondary containment in accordance with § 9003(i)(1) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act except when the state requires evidence of financial responsibility and certification in accordance with § 9003(i)(2) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act.

   (e) Requirements for Hazardous Substance UST Systems.
   §§
   All hazardous substance UST systems must use interstitial monitoring within secondary containment of the tanks and the attached under - ground piping that conveys the regulated substance stored in the tank.  For hazardous substance UST systems installed prior to the state's submission of its state program approval or revision application, owners and operators can use another form of release detection if the owner and operator can demonstrate to the state (or the state otherwise determines) that another method will detect a release of the regulated substance as effectively as other methods allowed under the state program for petroleum UST systems and that effective corrective action technology is available for the hazardous substance being stored that can be used to protect human health and the environment.

§ 281.34 - Release Reporting, Investigation and Confirmation

   In order to be considered no less stringent than the corresponding federal requirements for release reporting, investigation, and confirmation, the state must have requirements that ensure all owners and operators conform with the following:
   (a) Promptly investigate all suspected releases, including:
   (1) when unusual operating conditions, release detection signals and environmental conditions at the site suggest a release of regulated substances may have occurred or the interstitial space may have been compromised; and
   (2) when required by the implementing agency to determine the source of a release having an impact in the surrounding area; and
   (b) promptly report all confirmed underground releases and any spills and overfills that are not contained and cleaned up.
   (c) ensure that all owners and operators contain and clean up unreported spills and overfills in a manner that will protect human health and the environment.

§ 281.35 - Release Response and Corrective Action

   In order to be considered no less stringent than the corresponding federal requirements for release response and corrective action, the state must have requirements that ensure:
   (a) All releases from UST systems are promptly assessed and further releases are stopped;
   (b) Actions are taken to identify, contain and mitigate any immediate health and safety threats that are posed by a release (such activities include investigation and initiation of free product removal, if present);
   (c) All releases from UST systems are investigated to determine if there are impacts on soil and ground water, and any nearby surface waters.  The extent of soil and ground-water contamination must be delineated when a potential threat to human health and the environment exists.
   (d) All releases from UST systems are cleaned up through soil and ground water remediation and any other steps, as necessary to protect human health and the environment;
   (e) Adequate information is made available to the state to demonstrate that corrective actions are taken in accordance with the requirements of (a) - (d) above.  This information must be submitted in a timely manner that demonstrates its technical adequacy to protect human health and the environment; and
(f) In accordance with § 280.67, the state must notify the affected public of all confirmed releases requiring a plan for soil and ground water remediation, and upon request provide or make available information to inform the interested public of the nature of the release and the corrective measures planned or taken.

§ 281.36 - Out-of-Service UST Systems and Closure

   In order to be considered no less stringent than the corresponding federal requirements for temporarily closed UST systems and permanent closure, the state must have requirements that ensure UST systems conform with the following:
   (a) Removal from Service.  All new and existing UST systems temporarily closed must:
   (1) continue to comply with general operating requirements, release reporting and investigation, and release response and corrective action;
   (2) continue to comply with release detection requirements if regulated substances are stored in the tank;
   (3) be closed off to outside access; and
   (4) be permanently closed if the UST system has not been protected from corrosion and has not been used in one year, unless the state approves an extension after the owner and operator conducts a site assessment.
   (b) Permanent Closure of UST Systems.  All tanks and piping must be cleaned and permanently closed in a manner that eliminates the potential for safety hazards and any future releases.  The owner or operator must notify the state of permanent UST system closures.  The site must also be assessed to determine if there are any present or were past releases, and if so, release response and corrective action requirements must be complied with.
   (c) All UST systems taken out of service before the effective date of the federal regulations must permanently close in accordance with (b) when directed by the implementing agency.

§ 281.37  Financial Responsibility for UST Systems Containing Petroleum

   (a) In order to be considered no less stringent than the federal requirements for financial responsibility for UST systems containing petroleum, the state requirements for financial responsibility for petroleum UST systems must ensure that:  (1) owners and operators have $1 million per occurrence for corrective action and third-party claims in a timely manner to protect human health and the environment; (2) owners and operators not engaged in petroleum production, refining, and marketing and who handle a throughput of 10,000 gallons of petroleum per month or less have $500,000 per occurrence for corrective action and third-party claims in a timely manner to protect human health and the environment; (3) owners and operators of 1 to 100 petroleum USTs must have an annual aggregate of $1 million; and (4) owners and operators of 101 or more petroleum USTs must have an annual aggregate of $2 million.

   (b) States may allow the use of a wide variety of financial assurance mechanisms to meet this requirement.  Each financial mechanism must meet the following criteria in order to be no less stringent than the federal requirements.  The mechanism must:  be valid and enforceable; be issued by a provider that is qualified or licensed in the state; not permit cancellation without allowing the state to draw funds; ensure that funds will only and directly be used for corrective action and third party liability costs; and require that the provider notify the owner or operator of any circumstances that would impair or suspend coverage.

   (c) States must require owners and operators to maintain records that demonstrate compliance with the state financial responsibility requirements, and these records must be made readily available when requested by the implementing agency.

§

281.38  -  Lender Liability
   (a) A state program that contains a security interest exemption will be considered to be no less stringent than, and as broad in scope as, the federal program provided that the state's exemption:
   (1) Mirrors the security interest exemption provided for in 40 CFR part 280, subpart I; or
   (2) Achieves the same effect as provided by the following key criteria:
   (i) A holder, meaning a person who maintains indicia of ownership primarily to protect a security interest in a petroleum UST or UST system or facility or property on which a petroleum UST or UST system is located, who does not participate in the management of the UST or UST system as defined under § 280.10 of this chapter, and who does not engage in petroleum production, refining, and marketing as defined under § 280.200(b) of this chapter is not:
   (A) An "owner" of a petroleum UST or UST system or facility or property on which a petroleum UST or UST system is located for purposes of compliance with the requirements of 40 CFR part 280; or
   (B) An "operator" of a petroleum UST or UST system for purposes of compliance with the requirements of 40 CFR part 280, provided the holder is not in control of or does not have responsibility for the daily operation of the UST or UST system.
   (ii) [Reserved]
   (b) [Reserved]

281.39  -  Operator Training

   In order to be considered no less stringent than the corresponding federal requirements for operator training, the state must have an operator training program that meets the minimum requirements of § 9010 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act.

SUBPART D  -  ADEQUATE ENFORCEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

§ 281.40 - Requirements for Enforcement Authority

   (a) Any state agency administering a program must have the authority to implement the following remedies for violations of state program requirements:
   (1) To restrain immediately and effectively any person by order or by suit in state court from engaging in any unauthorized activity that is endangering or causing damage to public health or the environment;
   (2) To sue in courts of competent jurisdiction to enjoin any threatened or continuing violation of any program requirement;
   (3) To assess or sue to recover in court civil penalties as follows:
   (i) Civil penalties for failure to notify or for submitting false information pursuant to tank notification requirements must be capable of being assessed up to $5,000 or more per violation.
   (ii) Civil penalties for failure to comply with any state requirements or standards for existing or new tank systems must be capable of being assessed for each instance of violation, up to $5,000 or more for each tank for each day of violation.  If the violation is continuous, civil penalties shall capable of being assessed up to $5,000 or more for each day of violation.
   (4) To prohibit the delivery, deposit, or acceptance of a regulated substance into an underground storage tank identified by the state to be ineligible for such delivery, deposit, or acceptance in accordance with § 9012 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act.
   (b) The burden of proof and degree of knowledge or intent required under state law for establishing violations under paragraph (a)(3) of this §, must be no greater than the burden of proof or degree of knowledge or intent that EPA must provide when it brings an action under Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act.
   (c) A civil penalty assessed, sought, or agreed upon by the state enforcement agency(ies) under paragraph (a)(3) of this § must be appropriate to the violation.

§ 281.41 - Requirements for Enforcement Authority

   (a) Any state agency administering a program must have the authority to implement the following remedies for violations of state program requirements:
   (1) To restrain immediately and effectively any person by order or by suit in state court from engaging in any unauthorized activity that is endangering or causing damage to public health or the environment;
   (2) To sue in courts of competent jurisdiction to enjoin any threatened or continuing violation of any program requirement;
   (3) To assess or sue to recover in court civil penalties as follows:
   (i) Civil penalties for failure to notify or for submitting false information pursuant to tank notification requirements must be capable of being assessed up to $5,000 or more per violation.
   (ii) Civil penalties for failure to comply with any state requirements or standards for existing or new tank systems must be capable of being assessed for each instance of violation, up to $5,000 or more for each tank for each day of violation.  If the violation is continuous, civil penalties shall capable of being assessed up to $5,000 or more for each day of violation.
   (b) The burden of proof and degree of knowledge or intent required under state law for establishing violations under paragraph (a)(3) of this §, must be no greater than the burden of proof or degree of knowledge or intent that EPA must provide when it brings an action under Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act.
   (c) A civil penalty assessed, sought, or agreed upon by the state enforcement agency(ies) under paragraph (a)(3) of this § must be appropriate to the violation.

§ 281.42 - Requirements for Public Participation

   Any state administering a program must provide for public participation in the state enforcement process by providing any one of the following three options:
   (a) Authority that allows intervention analogous to Federal Rule 24(a)(2), and assurance by the appropriate state enforcement agency that it will not oppose intervention under the state analogue to Rule 24(a)(2) on the ground that the applicant's interest is adequately represented by the State.
   (b) Authority that allows intervention as of right in any civil action to obtain the remedies specified in 281.41 by any citizen having an interest that is or may be adversely affected; or
   (c) Assurance by the appropriate state agency that:
   (1) It will provide notice and opportunity for public comment on all proposed settlements of civil enforcement actions (except where immediate action is necessary to adequately protect human health and the environment);
   (2) It will investigate and provide responses to citizen complaints about violations; and
   (3) It will not oppose citizen intervention when permissive intervention is allowed by statute, rule, or regulation.

§ 281.43 - Sharing of Information

(a) States with approved programs must furnish EPA, upon request, any information in state files obtained or used in the administration of the state program.  This information includes:
(1) Any information submitted to the state under a claim of confidentiality.  The state must submit that claim to EPA when providing such information.  Any information obtained from a state and subject to a claim of confidentiality will be treated in accordance with federal regulations in 40 CFR part 2; and
(2) Any information that is submitted to the state without a claim of confidentiality.  EPA may make this information available to the public without further notice.
(b) EPA must furnish to states with approved programs, upon request, any information in EPA files that the state needs to administer its approved state program.  Such information includes:
(1)Any information that is submitted to EPA without a claim of confidentiality; and
(2) Any information submitted to EPA under a claim of confidentiality, subject to the conditions in 40 CFR part 2.

SUBPART E - APPROVAL PROCEDURES

§ 281.50 - Approval Procedures for State Programs

   (a) The following procedures are required for all applications, regardless of whether the application is for a partial or complete program, as defined in § 281.12, or final approval in accordance with § 281.11.
   (b) Before submitting an application to EPA for approval of a state program, the state must provide an opportunity for public notice and comment in the development of its underground storage tank program.
   (c) When EPA receives a state program application, EPA will examine the application and notify the state whether its application is complete, in accordance with the application components required in § 281.20.  The 180-day statutory review period begins only after EPA has determined that a complete application has been received.
   (d) The state and EPA may by mutual agreement extend the review period.
   (e) After receipt of a complete program application, the Administrator will tentatively determine approval or disapproval of the state program.  EPA shall issue public notice of the tentative determination in the Federal Register; in enough of the largest newspapers in the state to attract statewide attention; and to persons on the state agency mailing list and any other persons who the agency has reason to believe are interested.  Notice of the tentative determination must also:
   (1) Afford the public 30 days after the notice to comment on the state's application and the Administrator's tentative determination; and
   (2) Include a general statement of the areas of concern, if the Administrator indicates the state program may not be approved; and
   (3) Note the availability for inspection by the public of the state program application; and
   (4) Indicate that a public hearing will be held by EPA no earlier than 30 days after notice of the tentative determination unless insufficient public interest is expressed, at which time the Regional Administrator may cancel the public hearing.
   (f) Within 180 days of receipt of a complete state program application, the Administrator must make a final determination whether to approve the state program after review of all public comments.  EPA will give notice of its determination in the Federal Register and codify the approved state program.  The notice must include a statement of the reasons for this determination and a response to significant comments received.

§

   §§

   §
   §

   -

§ 281.51 - Revision of Approved State Programs

   (a) Either EPA or the approved state may initiate program revision.  Program revision may be necessary when the controlling federal or state statutory or regulatory authority is changed or when responsibility for the state program is shifted to a new agency or agencies.  The state must inform EPA of any proposed modifications to its basic statutory or regulatory authority or change in division of responsibility among state agencies.  EPA will determine in each case whether a revision of the approved program is required.  Approved state programs must submit a revised application within three years of any changes to this part that requires a program revision.
   (b) Whenever the Administrator has reason to believe that circumstances have changed with respect to an approved state program or the federal program, the Administrator may request, and the state must provide, a revised application as prescribed by EPA.
   (c) The Administrator will approve or disapprove program revisions based on the requirements of this part and of Subtitle I pursuant to the procedures under this §, or under § 281.50 if EPA has reason to believe the proposed revision will receive significant negative comment from the public.
   (1) The Administrator must issue public notice of planned approval or disapproval of a state program revision in the Federal Register; in enough of the largest newspapers in the state to attract statewide attention; and by mailing to persons on the state agency mailing list and to any other persons who the agency has reason to believe are interested.  The public notice must summarize the state program revision, indicate whether EPA intends to approve or disapprove the revision, and provide for an opportunity to comment for a period of 30 days.
   (2) The Administrator's decision on the proposed revision becomes effective 60 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register in accordance with paragraph (c)(1) of this §, unless significant negative comment opposing the proposed revision is received during the comment peri - od.  If significant negative comment is received, EPA must notify the state and within 60 days after the date of publication, publish in the Federal Register either:
     (i) A withdrawal of the immediate final decision, which will then be treated as a tentative decision in accordance with the applicable procedures of § 281.50(e) and (f); or
    (ii) A notice that contains a response to significant negative comments and affirms either that the immediate final decision takes effect or reverses the decision.
   (d) Revised state programs that receive approval must be codified in the Federal Register.

SUBPART F - WITHDRAWAL OF APPROVAL OF STATE PROGRAMS

§ 281.60 - Criteria for Withdrawal of Approval of State Programs

   The Administrator may withdraw program approval when the Agency determines that a state no longer has adequate regulatory or statutory authority or is not administering and enforcing an approved program in accordance with this part.  The state must have adequate capability to administer and enforce the state program.  In evaluating whether such capability exists, the Agency will consider whether the state is implementing an adequate enforcement program by evaluating the quality of compliance monitoring and enforcement actions.

   § 281.61 - Procedures for Withdrawal of Approval of State Programs

   (a) The following procedures apply when a state with an approved program voluntarily transfers to EPA those program responsibilities required by federal law.
   (1) The state must give EPA notice of the proposed transfer, and submit, at least 90 days before the transfer, a plan for the orderly transfer of all relevant program information necessary for EPA to administer the program.
   (2) Within 30 days of receiving the state's transfer plan, EPA must evaluate the plan and identify any additional information needed by the federal government for program administration.
   (3) At least 30 days before the transfer is to occur, EPA must publish notice of the transfer in the Federal Register; in enough of the largest newspapers in the state to attract statewide attention; and to persons on appropriate state mailing lists.
   (b) The following procedures apply when the Administrator considers withdrawing approval.
   (1) When EPA begins proceedings to determine whether to withdraw approval of a state program (either on its own initiative or in response to a petition from an interested person), withdrawal proceedings will be conducted in accordance with procedures set out in 40 CFR 271.23(b) and (c), except for § 271.23(b)(8)(iii) to the extent that it deviates from requirements under § 281.60.
   (2) If the state fails to take appropriate action within a reasonable time, not to exceed 120 days after notice from the Administrator that the state is not administering and enforcing its program in accordance with the requirements of this part, EPA will withdraw approval of the state's program.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 42 (Tuesday, March 3, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12547-12548]
[FR Doc No: 2020-04323]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP20-12-000]

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Leach XPress Project
Amendment and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC's
(Columbia Gas) request for authorization to amend its certificate of
public convenience and necessity granted by the Commission in the Order
Issuing Certificates and Approving Abandonment (Order) issued on
January 19, 2017 in Docket No. CP15-514-000 for the Leach XPress
Project.
    The amendment would involve the current and future operation of the
Ceredo and Crawford Compressor Stations in Wayne County, West Virginia
and Fairfield County, Ohio, respectively. The Commission will use this
EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the amendment is
in the public convenience and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies about issues regarding the amendment. The National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into
account the environmental impacts that could result from its action
whenever it considers the issuance of an authorization. NEPA also
requires the Commission to discover 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, the Commission requests public
comments on the scope of issues to address in the EA. To ensure that
your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your
comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, March 27, 2020.
    You can make a difference by submitting your specific comments or
concerns about the amendment. Your comments should focus on the
potential operational impacts from the amendment. Your input will help
the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the
EA. Commission staff will consider all filed comments during the
preparation of the EA.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for the amendment. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed
amendment and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.

Public Participation

    The Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which
makes it easy to stay informed of all issuances and submittals
regarding the dockets/projects to which you subscribe. These instant
email notifications are the fastest way to receive notification and
provide a link to the document files which can reduce the amount of
time you spend researching proceedings. To sign up go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic
filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-
3676 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please carefully follow these
instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov)
under the link to Documents and Filings. Using eComment is an easy
method for submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov)
under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide
comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking
on eRegister. You will be asked to select the type of filing you are
making; a comment on a particular project is considered a ``Comment on
a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address. Be sure to reference the amendment docket number
(CP20-12-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A,
Washington, DC 20426

Summary of the Proposed Amendment

    Columbia Gas's proposed amendment would modify the Order's noise
level requirement, environmental condition 31, for the Ceredo and
Crawford Compressor Stations. Since issuance of the Leach XPress
Project Order, Columbia Gas has implemented several mitigation measures
to reduce the noise levels at the nearest noise sensitive areas
surrounding the Ceredo Compressor Station, and it claims that it is
infeasible to further mitigate noise levels at this station at the
current level of full-load operations. Columbia Gas did not install and
was not authorized to install any modified compressor units at the
Crawford Compressor Station, and it has confirmed that noise levels at
the Crawford Compressor Station have not increased above the pre-
existing noise levels since issuance of the Leach XPress Project Order.
    Columbia Gas's proposed amendment would restrict any noise level
increases at both stations and would slightly reduce the current noise
levels at the Ceredo Compressor Station, as noted below. Columbia Gas's
requested amendment, however, would modify the noise level restriction
required by environmental condition 31 of the Leach XPress Project
Order that currently requires it to ensure that noise levels do not
exceed an day-night sound level of 55 decibels on the A-weighted scale
at the nearest noise sensitive areas. Columbia Gas requests that the
Commission modify environmental condition 31 to ensure that the noise

generated by the Ceredo and Crawford Compressor Stations is consistent
with the Commission's policy regarding noise levels at legacy
compression stations \1\ that were built and operated prior to the
Commission's noise level criteria included in environmental condition
31.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ If the noise generated by an existing compressor station
already exceeds an day-night sound level of 55 decibels on the A-
weighted scale, any proposed modification or expansion of the
compressor station should not increase above current levels after
installing the new project equipment (Guidance Manual for
Environmental Report Preparation for applications filed under the
Natural Gas Act, February 2017, p.4-133; also see 18 CFR
157.206(b)(5)(ii)(B).
    \2\ The Ceredo Compressor Station was originally constructed in
the mid-1950s and the Crawford Compressor Station was originally
constructed prior to 1920 and has existing compressor units
installed in the 1950s and 1960s. Both compressor stations continue
to use legacy facilities to support system operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The legacy reciprocating units are the most dominant noise source
at the Ceredo Compressor Station, and Columbia Gas's proposed amendment
would also modify its operation of the Ceredo Compressor Station
authorized in the Leach XPress Project Order to reduce operational
noise levels on noise sensitive areas by the following: (1) Using four
instead of five of the seven legacy reciprocating units at any given
time, and (2) increasing the horsepower (hp) rate from 11,000 hp to
13,000 hp from each of three electric-driven compressor units installed
since issuance of the Leach XPress Project Order. This proposed
operational change would not involve any construction activities.
    The general location of the Ceredo and Crawford Compressor Station
facilities is shown in appendix 1.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of appendices were sent to all those
receiving this notice in the mail and are available at www.ferc.gov
using the link called eLibrary or from the Commission'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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Given that no ground disturbance or material construction would
take place within Ceredo or Crawford Compressor Stations, no land would
be required for the amendment.

The EA Process

    The EA will discuss impacts that could occur to noise quality as a
result of the amendment's operational changes and noise mitigation
proposed by Columbia Gas. Commission staff will also evaluate
reasonable alternatives to the proposed amendment, and may make
recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on noise quality.
    The EA will present Commission staffs' independent analysis of the
issues. The EA will be available in electronic format in the public
record through eLibrary \4\ and the Commission's website (https://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/eis.asp). If eSubscribed, you will
receive instant email notification when the EA is issued. The EA may be
issued for an allotted public comment period. Commission staff will
consider all comments on the EA before making recommendations to the
Commission. To ensure Commission staff have the opportunity to address
your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public
Participation section, beginning on page 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the
last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With this notice, the Commission is asking agencies with
jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the
environmental issues of this amendment to formally cooperate in the
preparation of the EA.\5\ Agencies that would like to request
cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing
comments provided under the Public Participation section of this
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 1501.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes noise sensitive receivers
within 0.5 mile of the Ceredo and Crawford Compressor Stations and
anyone who submits comments on the amendment. Commission staff will
update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to
ensure that Commission notices related to this environmental review are
sent to all individuals, organizations, and government entities
interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed amendment.
    If the Commission issues the EA for an allotted public comment
period, a Notice of Availability of the EA will be sent to the
environmental mailing list and will provide instructions to access the
electronic document on the FERC's website (www.ferc.gov). If you need
to make changes to your name/address, or if you would like to remove
your name from the mailing list, please return the attached ``Mailing
List Update Form'' (appendix 2).

Additional Information

    Additional information about the amendment is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC website at www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on General Search and enter the docket number in
the Docket Number field, excluding the last three digits (i.e., CP20-
12). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY, contact (202)
502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of all
formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and
rulemakings.

    Dated: February 26, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-04323 Filed 3-2-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


New BART + CAIR New BART+ CAIR+ CAMR Difference SO2 SO2 SO2 State Name Alabama 255 260 5 District of Columbia 0 0 0 Florida 167 167 0 Georgia 259 241  18 Illinois 244 245 1 Indiana 383 377  6 Iowa 164 163  1 Kentucky 282 264  18 Louisiana 62 62 0 Maryland 24 43 19 Michigan 392 394 2 Minnesota 85 85 0 Mississippi 86 86 0 Missouri 269 266  2 New York 52 49  4 North Carolina 145 125  21 Ohio 239 272 32 Pennsylvania 150 141  9 South Carolina 142 106  36 Tennessee 163 191 28 Texas 362 373 11 Virginia 118 95  23 West Virginia 119 111  8 Wisconsin 151 151 0 Grand Total 4,314 4,267  47 New BART + CAIR New BART+ CAIR+ CAMR Difference NOx NOx NOx State Name Alabama 49 49 0 District of Columbia 0 0 0 Florida 61 61 0 Georgia 67 67 0 Illinois 66 66 0 Indiana 86 82  4 Iowa 44 52 8 Kentucky 78 77  1 Louisiana 30 32 3 Maryland 14 14 0 Michigan 88 94 5 Minnesota 40 40 1 Mississippi 12 8  4 Missouri 62 70 8 New York 37 24  13 North Carolina 51 51 0 Ohio 86 93 7 Pennsylvania 80 74  5 South Carolina 36 37 0 Tennessee 27 27 0 Texas 161 159  2 Virginia 40 40 1 West Virginia 44 40  5 Wisconsin 39 41 2 Grand Total 1,299 1,299 0 New BART New BART + CAIR Difference NOx NOx NOx State Name Thousand tons Thousand tons Thousand tons Alabama 107 49  58 District of Columbia 0 0 0 Florida 133 61  71 Georgia 94 67  27 Illinois 89 66  23 Indiana 182 86  96 Iowa 71 44  27 Kentucky 110 78  33 Louisiana 40 30  10 Maryland 24 14  10 Michigan 95 88  6 Minnesota 57 40  17 Mississippi 31 12  19 Missouri 72 62  10 New York 47 37  9 North Carolina 56 51  5 Ohio 178 86  92 Pennsylvania 149 80  70 South Carolina 38 36  1 Tennessee 76 27  48 Texas 179 161  19 Virginia 61 40  21 West Virginia 85 44  41 Wisconsin 65 39  26 Grand Total 2,041 1,299  742 Old BART Old BART + CAIR Difference NOx NOx NOx State Name Thousand tons Thousand tons Thousand tons Alabama 111 49  62 District of Columbia 0 0 0 Florida 120 61  59 Georgia 77 66  11 Illinois 86 65  21 Indiana 166 84  82 Iowa 51 39  12 Kentucky 91 64  27 Louisiana 38 30  8 Maryland 24 12  12 Michigan 85 85 0 Minnesota 50 37  13 Mississippi 19 12  7 Missouri 66 58  8 New York 44 34  10 North Carolina 56 49  7 Ohio 169 80  89 Pennsylvania 123 77  46 South Carolina 34 36 2 Tennessee 83 27  56 Texas 181 160  21 Virginia 61 38  23 West Virginia 90 44  46 Wisconsin 47 32  15 Grand Total 1872 1239  633 Summary of Differences Between Old analysis and New Analysis for NOx Difference Between New BART Difference Between Old BART State Name and New CAIR + BART and Old CAIR + BART Alabama  58  62 District of Columbia 0 0 Florida  71  59 Georgia  27  11 Illinois  23  21 Indiana  96  82 Iowa  27  12 Kentucky  33  27 Louisiana  10  8 Maryland  10  12 Michigan  6 0 Minnesota  17  13 Mississippi  19  7 Missouri  10  8 New York  9  10 North Carolina  5  7 Ohio  92  89 Pennsylvania  70  46 South Carolina  1 2 Tennessee  48  56 Texas  19  21 Virginia  21  23 West Virginia  41  46 Wisconsin  26  15 Grand Total  742  633 CAIR + BART gets the same or more reductions than BART for all States in the New Analysis Overall, CARI + BART gets more NOx reductions in the New Analysis New BART New BART + CAIR Difference SO2 SO2 SO2 State Name Thousand tons Thousand tons Thousand tons Alabama 227 255 29 District of Columbia 0 0 0 Florida 228 167  61 Georgia 273 259  15 Illinois 333 244  89 Indiana 1,140 383  757 Iowa 193 164  29 Kentucky 519 282  237 Louisiana 36 62 26 Maryland 80 24  56 Michigan 251 392 141 Minnesota 152 85  67 Mississippi 29 86 57 Missouri 249 269 20 New York 140 52  88 North Carolina 101 145 44 Ohio 1,113 239  874 Pennsylvania 343 150  193 South Carolina 160 142  18 Tennessee 580 163  417 Texas 279 362 83 Virginia 205 118  87 West Virginia 394 119  275 Wisconsin 105 151 46 Grand Total 7,131 4,314  2,816 Old BART Old BART + CAIR Difference SO2 SO2 SO2 State Name Thousand tons Thousand tons Thousand tons Alabama 272 255  17 District of Columbia 0 0 0 Florida 159 167 8 Georgia 205 249 44 Illinois 280 239  41 Indiana 1128 353  775 Iowa 96 125 29 Kentucky 307 271  36 Louisiana 31 62 31 Maryland 84 24  60 Michigan 219 385 166 Minnesota 114 72  42 Mississippi 25 86 61 Missouri 184 245 61 New York 131 41  90 North Carolina 91 139 48 Ohio 1100 202  898 Pennsylvania 372 133  239 South Carolina 120 106  14 Tennessee 566 161  405 Texas 257 352 95 Virginia 217 116  101 West Virginia 402 116  286 Wisconsin 58 132 74 Grand Total 6418 4031  2387 Summary of Differences Between Old analysis and New Analysis for SO2 Difference Between New BART Difference Between Old BART State Name and New CAIR + BART and Old CAIR + BART Alabama 29  17 District of Columbia 0 0 Florida  61 8 Georgia  15 44 Illinois  89  41 Indiana  757  775 Iowa  29 29 Kentucky  237  36 Louisiana 26 31 Maryland  56  60 Michigan 141 166 Minnesota  67  42 Mississippi 57 61 Missouri 20 61 New York  88  90 North Carolina 44 48 Ohio  874  898 Pennsylvania  193  239 South Carolina  18  14 Tennessee  417  405 Texas 83 95 Virginia  87  101 West Virginia  275  286 Wisconsin 46 74 Grand Total  2,816  2387 Overall, CAIR+ BART gets more SO2 reductions than BART in the new analysis than in the old analsyis In 15 States, CAIR + BART gets the same or greater reductions than BART in the new analysis In 7 States where CAIR + BART does not get greater reductions than BART, the difference in the new analsysis is less than the difference in the old analysis Alabama is the only State in which CAIR + BART achieved less reductions than BART in both analysis and the difference between CAIR + BART and BART is greater in the new aanlysis than the old analysis 2015 Emissions Dec 04 BART Dec 04 BART New BART New BART Dec 04 CAIR + BART Dec 04 CAIR + BART AR, DE, NJ included forfor PM AR, DE, NJ included for PM State Name Total SO2 ( MTons) Total NOx ( MTons) Total SO2 ( MTons) Total NOx ( MTons) Total SO2 ( MTons) Total NOx ( MTons)

Alabama 272 111 227 107 255 49 District of Columbia 0 0 0 0 0 0 Florida 159 120 228 133 167 61 Georgia 205 77 273 94 249 66 Illinois 280 86 333 89 239 65 Indiana 1128 166 1,140 182 353 84 Iowa 96 51 193 71 125 39 Kentucky 307 91 519 110 271 64 Louisiana 31 38 36 40 62 30 Maryland 84 24 80 24 24 12 Michigan 219 85 251 95 385 85 Minnesota 114 50 152 57 72 37 Mississippi 25 19 29 31 86 12 Missouri 184 66 249 72 245 58 New York 131 44 140 47 41 34 North Carolina 91 56 101 56 139 49 Ohio 1100 169 1,113 178 202 80 Pennsylvania 372 123 343 149 133 77 South Carolina 120 34 160 38 106 36 Tennessee 566 83 580 76 161 27 Texas 257 181 279 179 352 160 Virginia 217 61 205 61 116 38 West Virginia 402 90 394 85 116 44 Wisconsin 58 47 105 65 132 32 Grand Total 6418 1872 7131 2041 4031 1239 New CAIR + BART New CAIR + BART New CAIR + BART + Hg New CAIR + BART + Hg Total SO2 ( MTons) Total NOx ( MTons) Total SO2 ( MTons) Total NOx ( MTons)

255 49 260 49 0 0 0 0 167 61 167 61 259 67 241 67 244 66 245 66 383 86 377 82 164 44 163 52 282 78 264 77 62 30 62 32 24 14 43 14 392 88 394 94 85 40 85 40 86 12 86 8 269 62 266 70 52 37 49 24 145 51 125 51 239 86 272 93 150 80 141 74 142 36 106 37 163 27 191 27 362 161 373 159 118 40 95 40 119 44 111 40 151 39 151 41 4314 1299 4267 1299


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 218 (Thursday, November 10, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 79084]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27247]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a Fintech Forum on Monday, November
14, 2016, in the Auditorium, Room L-002. The meeting will begin at 9:00
a.m. ET. and will be open to the public. Seating will be on a first-
come, first served basis. Doors will be open at 7:45 a.m. ET. Visitors
will be subject to security checks. The forum will be webcast on the
Commission's Web site at www.sec.gov and will be archived for later
viewing.
    The agenda for the forum will discuss financial technology
innovation in the financial services industry. Panelists will be
invited to discuss issues such as blockchain technology, automated
investment advice or robo-advisors, online marketplace lending and
crowdfunding, and how they may impact investors.
    This Sunshine Act notice is being issued because a majority of the
Commission may attend the meeting.
    For further information, please contact Brent J. Fields from the
Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 7, 2016.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-27247 Filed 11-8-16; 11:15 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P