[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 223 (Friday, November 18, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 81712-81718]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27672]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2016-0521; FRL-9955-31-Region 8]

Approval and Disapproval and Promulgation of Air Quality
Implementation Plans; Interstate Transport for Wyoming

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing action
on the portions of six submissions from the State of Wyoming that are
intended to demonstrate that the State Implementation Plan (SIP) meets
certain interstate transport requirements of the Clean Air Act (Act or
CAA). These submissions address the 2006 and 2012 fine particulate
matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS), 2008 ozone NAAQS, 2008 lead (Pb) NAAQS, 2010 sulfur dioxide
(SO2) NAAQS and 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
NAAQS. The interstate transport requirements under the CAA consist of
four elements: Significant contribution to nonattainment (prong 1) and
interference with maintenance (prong 2) of the NAAQS in other states;
and interference with measures required to be included in the plan for
other states to prevent significant deterioration of air quality (prong
3) or to protect visibility (prong 4). Specifically, the EPA is
proposing to approve interstate transport prongs 1 and 2 for the 2008
Pb and 2010 NO2 NAAQS, and proposing to approve prong 1 and
disapprove prong 2 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA is also proposing
to approve interstate transport prong 4 for the 2008 Pb and 2010
SO2 NAAQS, and proposing to disapprove prong 4 for the 2006
PM2.5, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2 and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 19, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2016-0521 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from www.regulations.gov. The 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. The 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, 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: Adam Clark, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI). Do not
submit CBI to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly
mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For
CBI information on a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the
outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically
within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as
CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register volume,
date, and page number);
     Follow directions and organize your comments;
     Explain why you agree or disagree;
     Suggest alternatives and substitute language for your
requested changes;
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used;
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced;
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives;
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats; and
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background

    On September 21, 2006, the EPA revised the primary 24-hour NAAQS
for PM2.5 to 35 micrograms per cubic meter

([micro]g/m\3\). 71 FR 61144 (Oct. 17, 2006). On March 12, 2008, the
EPA revised the levels of the primary and secondary 8-hour ozone
standards to 0.075 parts per million (ppm). 73 FR 16436 (Mar. 27,
2008). On October 15, 2008, the EPA revised the level of the primary
and secondary Pb NAAQS to 0.15 [mu]g/m\3\. 73 FR 66964 (Nov. 12, 2008).
On January 22, 2010, the EPA promulgated a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for
NO2 at a level of 100 parts per billion (ppb) while
retaining the annual standard of 53 ppb. 75 FR 6474 (Feb. 9, 2010). The
secondary NO2 NAAQS remains unchanged at 53 ppb. On June 2,
2010, the EPA promulgated a revised primary 1-hour SO2
standard at 75 ppb. 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). Finally, on December
14, 2012, the EPA promulgated a revised annual PM2.5
standard by lowering the level to 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\ and retaining the 24-
hour PM2.5 standard at a level of 35 [mu]g/m\3\. 78 FR 3086
(Jan. 15, 2013).
    Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to
submit SIPs meeting the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2)
within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or
within such shorter period as the EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2)
requires states to address structural SIP elements such as requirements
for monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority that
are designed to provide for implementation, maintenance and enforcement
of the NAAQS. The SIP submission required by these provisions is
referred to as the ``infrastructure'' SIP. Section 110(a) imposes the
obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to the EPA for a new or
revised NAAQS, but the contents of individual state submissions may
vary depending upon the facts and circumstances.
    CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires SIPs to include provisions
prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state
from emitting any air pollutant in amounts that will contribute
significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the
NAAQS in another state. The two provisions of this section are referred
to as prong 1 (significant contribution to nonattainment) and prong 2
(interfere with maintenance). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires SIPs
to contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions that will
interfere with measures required to be included in the applicable
implementation plan for any other state under part C to prevent
significant deterioration of air quality (prong 3) or to protect
visibility (prong 4).
    The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (Department or
WDEQ) submitted the following: A certification of Wyoming's
infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on August 19,
2011; a certification of Wyoming's infrastructure SIP for the 2008 Pb
SIP on October 12, 2011; a certification of Wyoming's infrastructure
SIP for the 2008 ozone NAAQS on February 6, 2014; a certification of
Wyoming's infrastructure SIP for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS on
January 24, 2014; a certification of Wyoming's infrastructure SIP for
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS on March 6, 2015; and a certification of
Wyoming's infrastructure SIP for the 2012 PM2.5 on June 24,
2016.
    Each of these infrastructure certifications addressed all of the
infrastructure elements including section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), referred
to as infrastructure element (D).\1\ In this action, we are only
addressing element (D) prongs 1, 2 and 4 for the 2008 Pb certification,
2008 ozone certification and 2010 NO2 certification, and
prong 4 from the 2010 SO2 and 2006 and 2012 PM2.5
certifications. All other infrastructure elements from these
certifications, including element (D) prong 3 (prevent significant
deterioration of air quality), have been or will be addressed in
separate actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For discussion of other infrastructure elements, see EPA's
``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2),'' September
13, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Evaluation of Significant Contribution to Nonattainment and
Interference With Maintenance of the NAAQS

2008 Ozone NAAQS

    In its February 6, 2014 infrastructure submittal for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS, WDEQ addressed 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2 by presenting
ambient monitoring and wind rose data, among other information,\2\ to
determine that emissions from Wyoming do not significantly contribute
to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS
in any other state. WDEQ focused its analysis on nearby designated
nonattainment areas, and in particular, on a nonattainment area in and
around Denver, Colorado.\3\ Specifically, WDEQ pointed to the attaining
ozone data at a Cheyenne, Wyoming monitor, which is the monitor in
Wyoming that is geographically located closest to the Denver, Colorado
2008 ozone nonattainment area. WDEQ also provided wind rose data in
Cheyenne, Wyoming, which showed that prevailing winds in Cheyenne came
from the west and northwest, which WDEQ asserts indicates the transport
of air pollutants is away from the Denver nonattainment area, which is
located 30 miles south of the southeastern Wyoming border. WDEQ
concludes that the combination of low ozone monitor values in Cheyenne,
Wyoming, and prevailing winds provided evidence that emissions from
Wyoming do not significantly influence air quality in the Denver ozone
nonattainment area. WDEQ also noted that downwind states Kansas,
Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota did not contain nonattainment
areas to which Wyoming could significantly contribute. Accordingly,
WDEQ concludes that emissions from Wyoming do not contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in
any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The State also provided census data and geographic
information to support their assertion regarding prongs 1 and 2 in
the February 6, 2014 submittal.
    \3\ The Denver area, including 7 full counties and 2 partial
counties, was designated as a marginal nonattainment area in a final
action dated May 21, 2012. See 77 FR 30110.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    WDEQ's approach to evaluating its compliance with the CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) as to the 2008 ozone NAAQS is incomplete for two
reasons. First, transported emissions may cause an area to measure
exceedances of the standard even if that area is not formally
designated nonattainment by the EPA. While WDEQ considered its
potential impact to the Denver nonattainment area based on general wind
patterns, the State did not provide analysis showing that it did not
contribute to ozone levels in the Denver nonattainment area on the
particular days with measured exceedances. Moreover, while the State
considered whether there were designated nonattainment areas in four of
several nearby states, WDEQ did not evaluate whether it contributed to
ozone levels elsewhere in Colorado or in other nearby states (e.g., in
Utah) on the days with measured exceedances, whether or not those
exceedances occurred in designated nonattainment areas. The EPA has
routinely interpreted the obligation to prohibit emissions that
``significantly contribute to nonattainment'' of the NAAQS in downwind
states to be independent of formal designations because exceedances can
happen in any area.\4\

Thus, WDEQ did not fully evaluate whether emissions from the State
significantly contribute to nonattainment in other states as required
by prong 1 of element (D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, e.g., Clean Air Interstate Rule, 70 FR 25162, 25265
(May 12, 2005) (``As to impacts, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D) refers
only to prevention of `nonattainment' in other States, not to
prevention of nonattainment in designated nonattainment areas or any
similar formulation requiring that designations for downwind
nonattainment areas must first have occurred.''); Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule, 76 FR 48208, 48211 (Aug. 8, 2011) (evaluating
nonattainment and maintenance concerns based on modeled
projections); Brief for Respondents U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency at 23-24, EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, Case No.
11-1302 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 16, 2015), ECF No. 1532516 (defending the
EPA's identification of air quality problems in CSAPR independent of
area designations). Cf. Final Response to Petition from New Jersey
Regarding SO2 Emissions From the Portland Generating
Station, 76 FR 69052 (Nov. 7, 2011) (finding facility in violation
of the prohibitions of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect
to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS prior to issuance of designations
for that standard).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, WDEQ's submission does not provide any technical analysis
demonstrating that the SIP contains adequate provisions prohibiting
emissions that will interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS
in any other state (prong 2). In remanding the Clean Air Interstate
Rule (CAIR) to the EPA in North Carolina v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit
explained that the regulating authority must give the ``interfere with
maintenance'' clause of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) ``independent
significance'' by evaluating the impact of upwind state emissions on
downwind areas that, while currently in attainment, are at risk of
future nonattainment, considering historic variability.\5\ Wyoming does
not give the ``interfere with maintenance'' clause of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) independent significance because its analysis did
not evaluate the potential impact of Wyoming emissions on areas that
are currently measuring clean data, but that may have issues
maintaining that air quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 531 F.3d 896, 910-11 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (holding that the EPA
must give ``independent significance'' to each prong of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA developed technical information and a related analysis to
assist states with meeting section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and used this technical analysis to support the
recently finalized Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008
Ozone NAAQS (``CSAPR Update'').\6\ As explained below, this analysis
supports the conclusions of WDEQ's analysis for prong 1 and contradicts
the conclusions of WDEQ's analysis regarding prong 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 81 FR 74504 (Oct. 26, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the technical analysis supporting the CSAPR Update, the EPA used
detailed air quality analyses to determine where projected
nonattainment or maintenance areas would be and whether emissions from
an eastern state contribute to downwind air quality problems at those
projected nonattainment or maintenance receptors.\7\ Specifically, the
EPA determined whether a state's contributing emissions were at or
above a specific threshold (i.e., one percent of the ozone NAAQS). If a
state's contribution did not exceed the one percent threshold, the
state was not considered ``linked'' to identified downwind
nonattainment and maintenance receptors and was therefore not
considered to significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the standard in those downwind areas. If a state's
contribution was equal to or exceeded the one percent threshold, that
state was considered ``linked'' to the downwind nonattainment or
maintenance receptor(s) and the state's emissions were further
evaluated, taking into account both air quality and cost
considerations, to determine what, if any, emissions reductions might
be necessary to address the state's obligation pursuant to CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For purposes of the CSAPR Update, ``eastern'' states refer
to all contiguous states east of the Rocky Mountains, specifically
not including: Montana, Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the CSAPR Update, the air quality modeling
contained in the EPA's technical analysis (1) identified locations in
the U.S. where the EPA anticipates nonattainment or maintenance issues
in 2017 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (these are identified as nonattainment
and maintenance receptors), and (2) quantified the projected
contributions from emissions from upwind states to downwind ozone
concentrations at the receptors in 2017. See CSAPR Update at 81 FR
74526. This modeling used the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with
Extensions (CAMx version 6.11) to model the 2011 base year, and the
2017 future base case emissions scenarios to identify projected
nonattainment and maintenance sites with respect to the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS in 2017. The EPA used nationwide state-level ozone source
apportionment modeling (the CAMx Ozone Source Apportionment Technology/
Anthropogenic Precursor Culpability Analysis technique) to quantify the
contribution of 2017 base case nitrogen oxides (NOX) and
volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions from all sources in each
state to the 2017 projected receptors. The air quality model runs were
performed for a modeling domain that covers the 48 contiguous states in
the U.S. and adjacent portions of Canada and Mexico. Id. at 81 FR 74526
through 74527. The updated modeling data released to support the final
CSAPR Update are the most up-to-date information the EPA has developed
to inform our analysis of upwind state linkages to downwind air quality
problems for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. See ``Air Quality Modeling Final
Rule Technical Support Document for the Final CSAPR Update'' in the
docket for this action for more details regarding the EPA's modeling
analysis.
    Consistent with the framework established in the original CSAPR
rulemaking, the EPA's technical analysis in support of the CSAPR Update
applied a threshold of one percent of the 2008 ozone NAAQS of 75 ppb
(0.75 ppb) to identify linkages between upwind states and the downwind
nonattainment and maintenance receptors. See CSAPR Update at 81 FR
74518 through 74519. The EPA considered eastern states whose
contributions to a specific receptor meet or exceed the threshold
``linked'' to that receptor and we analyzed these states further to
determine if emissions reductions might be required from each state to
address the downwind air quality problem. The EPA determined that one
percent was an appropriate threshold to use in that analysis because
there were important, even if relatively small, contributions to
identified nonattainment and maintenance receptors from multiple upwind
states. In response to commenters who advocated a higher or lower
threshold than one percent, the EPA compiled the contribution modeling
results for the CSAPR Update to analyze the impact of different
possible thresholds for the eastern United States. The EPA's analysis
showed that the one percent threshold captures a high percentage of the
total pollution transport affecting downwind states. The EPA's analysis
further showed that the application of a lower threshold would result
in relatively modest increases in the overall percentage of ozone
transport pollution captured, while the use of higher thresholds would
result in a relatively large reduction in the overall percentage of
ozone pollution transport captured relative to the levels captured at
one percent at the majority of the receptors. Id.; See also Air Quality
Modeling Final Rule Technical Support Document for the Final CSAPR
Update, Appendix F, Analysis of Contribution Thresholds. This approach
is consistent with the use of a one percent threshold to identify those
states ``linked'' to air quality

problems with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the original CSAPR
rulemaking, wherein the EPA noted that there are adverse health impacts
associated with ambient ozone even at low levels. 76 FR 48208, 48236
through 48237 (August 8, 2011).
    As to western states, the EPA noted in the CSAPR Update that there
may be geographically specific factors to consider in evaluating
interstate transport, and given the near-term 2017 implementation
timeframe, the EPA focused the final CSAPR Update on eastern states.
See CSAPR Update at 81 FR 74523. Consistent with our statements in the
CSAPR Update, the EPA intends to address western states, like Wyoming,
on a case-by-case basis.
    The EPA's air quality modeling as updated for the final CSAPR
Update projects that for the Western U.S. (outside of California),
there are no nonattainment receptors and only three maintenance
receptors located in the Denver, Colorado area. Wyoming emissions are
projected to contribute above one percent of the NAAQS at one of these
receptors (the ``Douglas County maintenance receptor''; see Table 1,
below). The modeling also shows that multiple upwind states would
collectively contribute to the projected Douglas County maintenance
receptor in Colorado. The EPA found that the contribution to ozone
concentrations from all states upwind of the Douglas County maintenance
receptor in Colorado is about 9.7 percent.\8\ Thus, the collective
contribution of emissions from upwind states represents a large portion
of the ozone concentrations at the projected Douglas County maintenance
receptor in Colorado.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Please see the spreadsheet titled ``Final CSAPR Update--
Ozone Design Values & Contributions,'' in the docket for this
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted, the Agency has historically found that the one percent
threshold is appropriate for identifying interstate transport linkages
for states collectively contributing to downwind ozone nonattainment or
maintenance problems because that threshold captures a high percentage
of the total pollution transport affecting downwind receptors. The EPA
believes contribution from an individual state equal to or above one
percent of the NAAQS could be considered significant where the
collective contribution of emissions from one or more upwind states is
responsible for a considerable portion of the downwind air quality
problem regardless of where the receptor is geographically located. In
this case, three states contributing to the Douglas County maintenance
receptor, including Wyoming, contribute emissions greater than or equal
to one percent of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Given these data, the EPA is
proposing to find that the one percent threshold is also appropriate to
determine the linkage from Wyoming to the Douglas County maintenance
receptor in Colorado with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    The EPA is not necessarily determining that one percent of the
NAAQS is always an appropriate threshold for identifying interstate
transport linkages for all states in the West. For example, the EPA
recently evaluated the impact of emissions from Arizona on two
projected nonattainment receptors identified in California and
concluded that even though Arizona's modeled contribution was greater
than one percent of the 2008 ozone NAAQS, Arizona did not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance at those
receptors. See Proposed Rule, 81 FR 15202 (March 22, 2016); Final Rule,
81 FR 31513 (May 19, 2016). The EPA evaluated the nature of the ozone
nonattainment problem at the California receptors and determined that,
unlike the receptors identified in the East and unlike the Douglas
County maintenance receptor to which Wyoming contributes, only one
state--Arizona--contributed above the one percent threshold to the
California receptors and that the total contribution from all states
linked to the receptors was negligible. See 81 FR at 15203. Considering
this information, along with emissions inventories and emissions
projections showing Arizona emissions decreasing over time, the EPA
determined that Arizona had satisfied the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Id.
Accordingly, where the facts and circumstances support a different
conclusion, the EPA has not directly applied the one percent threshold
to identify states which may significantly contribute to nonattainment
or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states.
    Likewise, the EPA is not determining that because Wyoming
contributes above the one percent threshold, it is necessarily making a
significant contribution that warrants further reductions in emissions.
As noted above, the one percent threshold identifies a state as
``linked,'' prompting further inquiry into whether the contributions
are significant and whether there are cost-effective controls that can
be employed. That inquiry with regard to Wyoming's SIP submittal is
provided below.
    In summary, Table 1 shows the air quality modeling results from the
final modeling in support of the CSAPR Update. The modeling indicates
that Wyoming contributes emissions above the one percent threshold of
0.75 ppb with respect to the Douglas County maintenance receptor in the
Denver, Colorado area.

  Table 1--Maintenance Receptor With Wyoming Contribution Modeled Above
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Wyoming
                                                               modeled
         Monitor I.D.               State         County    contribution
                                                                (ppb)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
80350004.....................  Colorado......  Douglas....          1.18
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Wyoming's largest contribution to any projected downwind
maintenance-only site is 1.18 ppb, which is approximately 1.57% of the
2008 ozone NAAQS of 75 ppb. Thus, the final modeling in support of the
CSAPR Update indicates that the contributions from Wyoming are above
the one percent threshold of 0.75 ppb with respect to the Douglas
County maintenance receptor in the Denver, Colorado area, and the
State's emissions require further evaluation, taking into account both
air quality and cost considerations, to determine what, if any,
emissions reductions might be necessary to address the State's emission
reduction obligation pursuant to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). However, WDEQ in
its SIP submittal neither identified nor included any ozone or ozone
precursor emission reduction measures that the EPA could evaluate to
determine whether the state has fully addressed these transport
impacts. Accordingly, the EPA cannot conclude that Wyoming's SIP
contains sufficient provisions to prohibit emissions that will
interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the Denver,
Colorado area.
    WDEQ's analysis regarding prong 1 is also incomplete as previously
described, but the EPA's modeling indicates that Wyoming does not
contribute above the one percent threshold to any nonattainment
receptors. As discussed above, while the EPA is not necessarily
determining that one percent of the NAAQS is always an appropriate
threshold for identifying interstate transport linkages for all states
in the West, this low level of contribution suggests that Wyoming does
not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS
in any other state. Thus, the EPA is proposing that the Wyoming SIP
meets the 110(a)(2)(D)(i) prong 1 requirement for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

    Based on WDEQ's SIP submittal and the EPA's most recent modeling,
the EPA proposes to approve prong 1 and disapprove the prong 2 portion
of the February 6, 2014, 2008 ozone NAAQS infrastructure submittal. The
EPA is soliciting public comments on this proposed action and will
consider public comments received during the comment period.

2008 Pb NAAQS

    WDEQ's analysis of potential interstate transport for the 2008 Pb
NAAQS discussed the lack of sources with significant Pb emissions near
the State's borders. As noted in our October 14, 2011 Infrastructure
Guidance Memo, there is a sharp decrease in Pb concentrations, at least
in the coarse fraction, as the distance from a Pb source increases. See
``Guidance on Infrastructure SIP Elements Required Under Sections
110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS).'' October 14, 2011 at 8. For this reason, the EPA
found that the requirements of subsection 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1
and 2) could be satisfied through a state's assessment as to whether or
not emissions from Pb sources located in close proximity to their state
borders have emissions that impact the neighboring state such that they
contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
in that state. Id. at 8. In that guidance document, the EPA further
specified that any source appeared unlikely to contribute significantly
to nonattainment unless it was located less than two miles from a state
border and emitted at least 0.5 tons per year of Pb. WDEQ's
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) analysis noted that there are no Pb sources within
two miles of the State's borders. The EPA concurs with the Department's
analysis and conclusion that no Wyoming sources have the combination of
Pb emission levels and proximity to nearby nonattainment or maintenance
areas to contribute significantly to nonattainment in or interfere with
maintenance by other states for this NAAQS. Since Wyoming's SIP is
therefore adequate to ensure that such impacts do not occur, the EPA is
proposing to approve WDEQ's submittal with regard to the requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) prongs 1 and 2 for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

2010 NO2 NAAQS

    Wyoming's 2010 NO2 transport analysis for elements 1 and
2 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) describes how all NO2 monitors
within the State and elsewhere in the U.S. showed no violations of the
NO2 NAAQS. WDEQ asserted that because the entire country had
been designated unclassifiable/attainment for the 2010 NO2
NAAQS, Wyoming sources do not contribute significantly to nonattainment
or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in other states. The
Department's analysis is available in the docket for this action.
    The EPA does not agree with the Wyoming's reliance on area
designations for purposes of determining whether the State has met the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2010
NO2 NAAQS. As noted above, the EPA has routinely interpreted
the obligation to prohibit emissions that significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in downwind
states to be independent of formal designations because exceedances can
happen in any area. However, for the reasons explained below, the EPA
concurs with the conclusion that emissions from the state do not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS in any other state.
    Due to the State's limited technical analysis, the EPA evaluated
NO2 monitoring data from Wyoming and surrounding states in
reaching its conclusion. The EPA notes that the highest monitored
NO2 design values in each state bordering or near Wyoming
are significantly below the NAAQS (see Table 2).\9\ The EPA has
determined that this information supports the State's contention that
it does not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the NO2 NAAQS. As shown in Table 2, the
maximum design values in states bordering Wyoming are well below the
2010 NO2 NAAQS. As the states near Wyoming are not only
attaining, but also maintaining the NAAQS, there are no areas to which
Wyoming could significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ There is not an NO2 design value presented for
Nebraska, as none is available in EPA's Air Trends or AirData Web
sites.
    \10\ The design values for Montana and Utah were derived using
EPA's AirData Web site at https://www3.epa.gov/airdata/ad_rep_mon.html. These are not official design values.

         Table 2--Highest Monitored 2010 NO2 NAAQS Design Values
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                2013-2015
                   State                      design value   % of  NAAQS
                                                  (ppb)       (100 ppb)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado...................................              72           72
Idaho......................................              43           43
Montana....................................         \10\ 29           29
South Dakota...............................              37           37
Utah.......................................              65           65
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Source: https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values.

    In addition to the monitored levels of NO2 in states
near Wyoming being well below the NAAQS, Wyoming's highest official
design value from 2013-2015 was also significantly below this NAAQS-49
ppb, compared to the NAAQS level of 100 ppb.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on all of these factors, EPA concurs with the State's
conclusion that Wyoming does not contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 NO2
NAAQS in other states. The EPA is therefore proposing to determine that
Wyoming's SIP includes adequate provisions to prohibit sources or other
emission activities within the State from emitting NO2 in
amounts that will contribute significantly to nonattainment in or
interfere with maintenance by any other state with respect to the
NO2 NAAQS.

IV. Evaluation of Interference With Measures To Protect Visibility

State Submissions

    In Wyoming's 2008 ozone, 2010 SO2, 2010 NO2
and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure certifications, the
Department pointed to both its Regional Haze SIP and Wyoming Air
Quality Standards and Regulations (WAQSR) Chapter 9, Section 2,
``Visibility,'' to certify that the State meets the visibility
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 4). As explained
below, this information is relevant in determining whether Wyoming's
SIP will achieve the emission reductions that the Western Regional Air
Partnership (WRAP) states mutually agreed are necessary to avoid
interstate visibility impacts in Class I areas. See ``Guidance on
Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air
Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2),'' September 13, 2013, (``2013
Guidance'') at 34.
    WDEQ addressed visibility for the 2008 Pb NAAQS by pointing to the
lack of significant sources of Pb in Wyoming near the State's border.
Id. at 33. The

State did not point to any visibility-related state regulations in its
2006 PM2.5, certification, but generally indicated that they
met this requirement.

Wyoming's Regional Haze SIP

    As stated in the EPA's 2013 Guidance, ``[o]ne way in which prong 4
may be satisfied for any relevant NAAQS is through an air agency's
confirmation in its infrastructure SIP submission that it has an
approved regional haze SIP that fully meets the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308 or 51.309. 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309 specifically require that a
state participating in a regional planning process include all measures
needed to achieve its apportionment of emission reduction obligations
agreed upon through that process.'' Id. at 33.
    On January 12, 2011 and April 19, 2012, Wyoming submitted to the
EPA SIP revisions to address the requirements of the regional haze
program. The EPA approved Wyoming's April 19, 2012 submittal and
partially approved Wyoming's January 12, 2011 submittal in a final
action published December 12, 2012. 77 FR 73926. This included EPA
approval of Wyoming's BART alternative for SO2, which relied
on the State's participation in the backstop SO2 trading
program under 40 CFR 51.309.\12\ In a separate action, the EPA
partially approved and partially disapproved the remainder of Wyoming's
January 12, 2011 SIP revision. 79 FR 5032 (Jan. 30, 2014). In that
action, the EPA disapproved the following portions of the submittal:
Wyoming's NOX Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
determinations for five units at three facilities; the State's
reasonable progress goals; monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements; portions of the long term strategy, and; the provisions
necessary to review reasonably attributable visibility improvement. Id.
at 5038. The EPA also promulgated a final federal implementation plan
(FIP) to address these deficiencies. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Wyoming's ``Western Backstop Sulfur Dioxide Trading
Program'' can be found in Wyoming Air Quality Standards and
Regulations (WAQSR) Chapter 14, Section 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA's Assessment

    The 2013 Guidance states that section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)'s prong 4
requirements can be satisfied by approved SIP provisions that the EPA
has found to adequately address a state's contribution to visibility
impairment in other states. The EPA interprets prong 4 to be pollutant-
specific, such that the infrastructure SIP submission need only address
the potential for interference with protection of visibility caused by
the pollutant (including precursors) to which the new or revised NAAQS
applies. See 2013 Guidance at 33.
    The 2013 Guidance lays out two ways in which a state's
infrastructure SIP submittal may satisfy prong 4. As explained above,
one way is through a state's confirmation in its infrastructure SIP
submittal that it has an EPA approved regional haze SIP in place.
Alternatively, in the absence of a fully approved regional haze SIP, a
state can make a demonstration in its infrastructure SIP submittal that
emissions within its jurisdiction do not interfere with other states'
plans to protect visibility. Such a submittal should point to measures
in the state's SIP that limit visibility-impairing pollutants and
ensure that the resulting reductions conform to any mutually agreed
emission reductions under the relevant regional haze regional planning
organization (RPO) process.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See id. at 34, and also 76 FR 22036 (April 20, 2011)
containing EPA's approval of the visibility requirement of
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) based on a demonstration by Colorado that did
not rely on the Colorado Regional Haze SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    WDEQ worked through its RPO, the WRAP, to develop strategies to
address regional haze. To help states in establishing reasonable
progress goals for improving visibility in Class I areas, the WRAP
modeled future visibility conditions based on the mutually agreed
emissions reductions from each state. The WRAP states then relied on
this modeling in setting their respective reasonable progress goals. As
a result, we consider emissions reductions from measures in Wyoming's
SIP that conform with the level of emission reductions the State agreed
to include in the WRAP modeling to meet the visibility requirement of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
    With regard to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, the EPA proposes to
find that the State's implementation of the Western Backstop Sulfur
Dioxide Trading Program and the agreed upon SO2 reductions
achieved through that program sufficient to meet the requirements of
prong 4.\14\ Under 40 CFR 51.309, certain states, including Wyoming,
can satisfy their SO2 BART requirements by adopting an
alternative program consisting of SO2 emission milestones
and a backstop trading program. See 40 CFR 51.309. Wyoming Air Quality
Standards and Regulations (WAQSR) Chapter 14, section 2 implements the
backstop trading program provisions and the EPA has approved the
State's rules, including the SO2 reduction milestones, as
satisfying its regional haze SO2 obligations. 77 FR 73926
(Dec. 12, 2012). Wyoming's SIP thus contains measures requiring
reductions of SO2 consistent with what the State agreed to
achieve under the WRAP process in order to protect visibility. As a
result, the EPA is proposing to approve 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 4 for
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Specifically, the State is required to reach its
``emissions milestone'' for this program by keeping its
SO2 emissions below 141,849 tons/SO2 in 2018
and each year thereafter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is also proposing to approve Wyoming's prong 4 SIP
submittal for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. The EPA has found that significant
impacts from Pb emissions from stationary sources are expected to be
limited to short distances from the source. The State noted that it
does not have any major sources of Pb located near any bordering state.
Further, when evaluating the extent to which Pb could impact
visibility, the EPA has found Pb-related visibility impacts
insignificant (e.g., less than 0.10 percent). See 2013 Guidance, at 33.
The EPA proposes to approve prong 4 for the 2008 Pb NAAQS based on
Wyoming's conclusion that it does not have any significant sources of
lead emissions near another state's border and that it, therefore, does
not have emissions of Pb that would interfere with the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to visibility.
    The EPA is proposing to disapprove Wyoming's prong 4 infrastructure
SIP submittals for the 2006 PM2.5, 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA's disapproval
of Wyoming's NOX BART determination in our January 30, 2014
final rulemaking included the specific disapproval of the NOx control
measures the State submitted for PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Unit 3,
PacifiCorp Wyodak Unit 1, and Basin Electric Laramie River Units 1, 2
and 3. See 79 FR 5038.
    As noted, Wyoming referenced both its Regional Haze SIP and WAQSR
Chapter 9, Section 2 as justification for the approvability of prong 4
for the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2 and 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS. Because the Department did not provide an alternative
demonstration that its SIP contains measures to limit NOX
emissions in accordance with the emission reductions it agreed to under
the WRAP,\15\ the EPA's disapproval of portions of Wyoming's NOx BART
determination means that Wyoming's SIP does not include measures needed
to ensure that its emissions will not

interfere with other states' plans to protect visibility from the
effects of NAAQS pollutants impacted by NOx. Specifically, NOx is a
precursor of PM2.5 and ozone, and is also a term which
refers to both NO (nitrogen oxide) and NO2. The EPA is
therefore proposing to disapprove prong 4 of Wyoming's infrastructure
certifications with regard to the 2006 PM2.5, 2008 ozone,
2010 NO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The Visibility section of WAQSR Chapter 9, Section 2 does
not address NOx emissions reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the EPA disapproves an infrastructure SIP submission for prong
4, as we are proposing for the 2006 PM2.5, 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, a FIP obligation will
be created. However, as noted previously, the EPA has promulgated a FIP
for Wyoming that corrects all regional haze SIP deficiencies. 79 FR
5032. Therefore, there will be no additional practical consequences
from the disapproval for WDEQ, the sources within its jurisdiction, or
the EPA, and the EPA will not be required to take further action with
respect to these prong 4 disapprovals, if finalized, because the FIP
already in place would satisfy the requirements with respect to prong
4. See 2013 Guidance at 34-35. Additionally, since the infrastructure
SIP submission is not required in response to a SIP call under CAA
section 110(k)(5), mandatory sanctions under CAA section 179 would not
apply because the deficiencies are not with respect to a submission
that is required under CAA title I part D. Id.

V. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
prongs 1, 2 and 4 for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, prong 1 for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS, and prong 4 for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, as shown in Table
3, below. The EPA is also proposing to disapprove prong 4 for the 2006
PM2.5, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2 and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS, and prong 2 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, as shown
in Table 4. The EPA is soliciting public comments on this proposed
action and will consider public comments received during the comment
period.

  Table 3--List of Wyoming Interstate Transport Prongs That the EPA Is
                          Proposing To Approve
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Proposed approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 6, 2014 submittal--2008 Ozone NAAQS: (D)(i)(I) prong 1.
October 12, 2011 submittal--2008 Pb NAAQS: (D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2,
 (D)(i)(II) prong 4.
January 24, 2014 submittal--2010 NO2 NAAQS: (D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2.
March 6, 2015 submittal--2010 SO2 NAAQS:
(D)(i)(II) prong 4.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Table 4--List of Wyoming Interstate Transport Prongs That the EPA Is
                         Proposing To Disapprove
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Proposed disapproval
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 19, 2011 submittal--2006 PM2.5 NAAQS:
(D)(i)(II) prong 4.
February 6, 2014 submittal--2008 Ozone NAAQS:
(D)(i)(I) prong 2, (D)(i)(II) prong 4.
January 24, 2014 submittal--2010 NO2 NAAQS:
(D)(i)(II) prong 4.
June 24, 2016 submittal--2012 PM2.5 NAAQS:
(D)(i)(II) prong 4.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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, the EPA's role is to approve state actions,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly,
this proposed action merely proposes approval of some state law as
meeting federal requirements and proposes disapproval of other state
law because it does not meet federal requirements; this proposed action
does not propose 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);
     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 Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP does not apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the
proposed 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, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by Reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: November 9, 2016.
Shaun L. McGrath,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2016-27672 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


From:
"Tunno, Brett J"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Mon, 03 Oct 2022 16:16:16
To:
"Fischman; Gary"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
U. S. Steel - Coke Ovens Section 114 Request  -  Enclosure 2 Testing Notification - United States Steel Corporation  -  Clairton Plant
Dear Mr. Fischman,

On June 29, 2022, United States Steel Corporation (U. S. Steel)  -  Clairton Plant received a Clean Air Act Section 114 Information Collection Request (ICR) from EPA for information pertaining to the ongoing Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks (PQBS) 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart CCCCC Risk and Technology Review (RTR) and the technology review for Coke Batteries under 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart L.

EPA requested that U. S. Steel submit a notification to the state 21 days before performing any stack tests.  Therefore, U. S. Steel is submitting this testing notification to Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD), which has been delegated regulatory authority by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) for sources in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.

U. S. Steel will conduct testing of the By-Products (or "Keystone") Cooling Tower inlet water the week of October 24, 2022, for TO-15-A analytes, H2S, COS, and CS2.

Please contact myself or Mike Dzurinko at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER> if you have any questions with U. S. Steel's testing notification.

Thank you,

Brett Tunno, DrPH, CPH
Environmental Affairs
United States Steel Corporation
Office:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Cell:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 205 (Tuesday, October 23, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64709-64711]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25387]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0342; Directorate Identifier 2011-SW-028-AD;
Amendment 39-17216; AD 2012-21-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; MD Helicopters, Inc.

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) to
supersede an existing airworthiness directive for MD Helicopters, Inc.
(MDHI), Model MD900 helicopters. The existing AD requires a visual
inspection, and if necessary, an eddy current inspection of the main
rotor lower hub assembly (lower hub) for a crack. If a crack exists,
the AD requires replacing the lower hub with an airworthy lower hub
before further flight. Because that AD was immediately effective, we
declined to require certain long-term actions prior to public comment.
This superseding AD will require the same inspections as the existing
AD but will also require long-term recurring inspections and replacing
the lower hub with an airworthy lower hub. We are issuing this AD to
detect a crack in the lower hub and prevent failure of the lower hub
and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

DATES: This AD is effective November 27, 2012.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain documents listed in this AD as of November 27,
2012.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact MD
Helicopters Inc., Attn: Customer Support Division, 4555 E. McDowell
Rd., Mail Stop M615, Mesa, AZ 85215-9734, telephone 1-800-388-3378, fax
480-346-6813, or at http://www.mdhelicopters.com. You may review a copy
of the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort
Worth Texas 76137.
    Examining the AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket
Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, any
incorporated-by-reference service information, the economic evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations Office, M-30, West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Schrieber, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712; telephone
(562) 627-5348; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    On March 29, 2012, at 77 FR 18963, the Federal Register published
our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14
CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to MDHI Model MD900
helicopters. That NPRM proposed to supersede an existing AD to require
the same inspections as the existing AD but also require recurring
inspections and replacing the lower hub with an airworthy lower hub.
The proposed requirements were intended to detect a crack in the lower
hub and prevent failure of the lower hub and subsequent loss of control
of the helicopter.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD, but we received no comments on the NPRM.

FAA's Determination

    We have reviewed the relevant information and determined that an
unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other
products of these same type designs and that air safety and the public
interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.

Related Service Information

    We reviewed MDHI Service Bulletin SB900-117, dated January 14, 2011
(SB). The SB specifies an initial 100-hour and recurring 300-hour
visual and eddy current inspections of the lower hub for a crack and,
if a crack exists, replacement of the lower hub with an airworthy lower
hub. The SB requires the inspections at the stated intervals or during
the next annual inspection, whichever occurs first. The SB also
specifies replacing the lower hub within three years.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 12 helicopters of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
     Visually inspecting the hub. We estimate that will take
one work-hour at $85 an hour, for a total cost per helicopter of $85
and a total cost of $1,020 for the fleet.
     Eddy current inspecting the lower hub. We estimate that
will take one work-hour at $85 an hour, for a total cost per helicopter
of $85 and a total cost of $1,020 for the fleet.
     Replacing the lower hub. We estimate that will take 11
work-hours at $85 an hour for a total labor cost of $935, and that
parts will cost $12,480 per hub, for a total cost of $13,415 per

helicopter and a total cost of $160,980 for the fleet.
     The costs for U.S. operators will total $163,020, assuming
that the lower hubs for the entire fleet get replaced.

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

    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 DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent
that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; 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.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

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 removing airworthiness directive (AD)
2011-14-05, Amendment 39-16740 (76 FR 41662, July 15, 2011), and adding
the following new AD:

2012-21-01 MD HELICOPTERS, Inc. (MDHI): Amendment 39-17216; Docket
No. FAA-2012-0342; Directorate Identifier 2011-SW-028-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to MDHI Model MD900 helicopters with main rotor
lower hub assembly (lower hub) part number 900R2101008-107, with
serial numbers beginning with 5009, certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a crack in the main
rotor lower hub assembly (lower hub). This condition could result in
failure of the lower hub and subsequent loss of control of the
helicopter.

(c) Other Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2011-14-05, amendment 39-16740 (76 FR
41662, July 15, 2011).

(d) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective November 27, 2012.

(e) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(f) Required Actions

    (1) Within 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) or during the next
annual inspection, whichever occurs first, unless done within the
last 200 hours TIS, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 300
hours TIS or during the next annual inspection, whichever occurs
first:
    (i) Visually inspect the sides and bottom of the area between
the arms for the centering bearing and the areas adjacent to the
bushings of the lower hub assembly for a crack. If there is a crack,
before further flight, replace the lower hub with an airworthy lower
hub.
    (ii) If the lower hub is not replaced as a result of the visual
inspection required by paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this AD, eddy current
inspect the lower hub for a crack by following the Accomplishment
Instructions, paragraphs 2.A(2) through 2.A.(10)., of MD Helicopters
Inc. Service Bulletin SB900-117, dated January 14, 2011. If there is
a crack, before further flight, replace the lower hub with an
airworthy hub.
    (2) The eddy current inspection required by paragraph (f)(1)(ii)
of this AD must be done by a Level II technician with ASNT-TC-1A,
CEN EN 4179, MIL-STD-410, NAS410, or equivalent certification in
eddy current inspections. The technician must have done an eddy
current inspection in the last 12 months.
    (3) Within 3 years, replace the lower hub with an airworthy
lower hub not included in the Applicability section of this AD. This
replacement is terminating action for the requirements of this AD.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office
(LAACO), FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to:
Eric Schrieber, Aviation Safety Engineer, Los Angeles Aircraft
Certification Office, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 3960
Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 2597, Equipment/
furnishing system wiring.

(i) 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 the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) MD Helicopters Inc. Service Bulletin SB900-117, dated
January 14, 2011.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact MD
Helicopters Inc., Attn: Customer Support Division, 4555 E. McDowell
Rd., Mail Stop M615, Mesa, AZ 85215-9734, telephone 1-800-388-3378,
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at http://www.mdhelicopters.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663,
Fort Worth, Texas 76137. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (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 Fort Worth, Texas, on October 5, 2012.
Kim Smith,
Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-25387 Filed 10-22-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 101 (Friday, May 24, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31414-31415]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12396]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0117]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; China Basin, San Francisco, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Third Street Drawbridge across the
China Basin, mile 0.0, at San Francisco, CA. The deviation is necessary
to allow the public to cross the bridge to participate in the scheduled
San Francisco Marathon, a community event. This deviation allows the
bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position during the
deviation period.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 6 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. on June 16,
2013.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2013-0117], is
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the
``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the
line associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email David H. Sulouff, Chief, Bridge
Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the docket,
call Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The City of San Francisco requested a
temporary

change to the operation of the Third Street Drawbridge, mile 0.0, over
China Basin, at San Francisco, CA. The Third Street Drawbridge
navigation span provides a vertical clearance of 7 feet above Mean High
Water in the closed-to-navigation position. The draw opens on signal if
at least one hour notice is given as required by 33 CFR 117.149.
Navigation on the waterway is recreational.
    The drawspan will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position 6
a.m. to 1:30 p.m. on June 16, 2013, to allow participants in the San
Francisco Marathon to cross the bridge during the event. This temporary
deviation has been coordinated with the waterway users. No objections
to the proposed temporary deviation were raised. The drawspan can be
operated upon one hour advance notice for emergencies requiring the
passage of waterway traffic.
    Vessels that can transit the bridge, while in the closed-to-
navigation position, may continue to do so at any time.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: May 9, 2013.
D.H. Sulouff,
Bridge Section Chief, Eleventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2013-12396 Filed 5-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 120 (Monday, June 22, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37411-37413]
[FR Doc No: 2020-13049]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2020-0289; FRL-10010-55-Region 7]

Air Plan Approval; Missouri; Control of Emissions From Industrial
Surface Coating Operations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve revisions to the Missouri State Implementation Plan (SIP)
received on March 20, 2019. The submission revises a Missouri
regulation that restricts emissions of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) from industrial surface coating operations in Clay, Jackson, and
Platte Counties in Missouri. Specifically, the revisions to the rule
remove unnecessary restrictive words, adds exemptions, including
definitions specific to the rule, corrects test method references,
removes obsolete requirements specific to sources that have closed,
changes sections to the standard rule format, and makes minor
clarifications and grammatical changes. The new exemptions are
consistent with the Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) for several
types of surface coating or apply to activities that are regulated
under other federal or state regulations that limit emissions of VOCs.
The new exemptions are needed to make the rule consistent with the St.
Louis version of this rule, 10 Code of State Regulation

(CSR) 10-5.330 Industrial Surface Coating Operations. These exemptions
are not expected to result in an emission increase.
    The other revisions are administrative in nature and do not impact
the stringency of the SIP or air quality. Approval of these revisions
will ensure consistency between State and federally-approved rules.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 22, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2020-0289 to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received will be posted without
change to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Written
Comments'' heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Stone, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Quality Planning Branch, 11201
Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; telephone number (913) 551-
7714; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Written Comments

II. What is being addressed in this document?
III. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
IV. What action is the EPA taking?
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Written Comments

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2020-
0289, at https://www.regulations.gov. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The 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. The 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, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

II. What is being addressed in this document?

    The EPA is proposing to approve revisions to 10 CSR 10-2.230
``Control of Emissions from Industrial Surface Coating Operations'',
which restricts emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from
industrial surface coating operations in Clay, Jackson, and Platte
Counties in Missouri. These revisions are described in detail in the
technical support document (TSD) included in the docket for this
action.
    Missouri received three comments from EPA during the comment
period. Missouri responded to all three comments, as noted in the State
submission included in the docket for this action. In response to EPA's
comments, Missouri submitted a letter providing supplemental
information regarding the revisions.
    Therefore, the EPA is proposing to approve the revisions to this
rule because it will not have a negative impact on air quality.

III. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?

    The State submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also
satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The
state provided public notice of the revisions from August 1, 2018, to
October 4, 2018, and held a public hearing on September 27, 2018. The
state received and addressed eight comments. As explained in more
detail in the TSD which is part of this docket, the SIP revision
submission meets the substantive requirements of the CAA, including
section 110 and implementing regulations.

IV. What action is the EPA taking?

    The EPA is proposing to amend the Missouri SIP by approving the
State's request to revise 10 CSR 10-2.230 ``Control of Emissions from
Industrial Surface Coating Operations''. Approval of these revisions
will ensure consistency between State and federally-approved rules. The
EPA has determined that these changes will not adversely impact air
quality.
    The EPA is soliciting comment on the substantive and administrative
revisions detailed in this proposal and the TSD. The EPA is not
soliciting comment on existing rule text that has been previously
approved by the EPA into the SIP. Final rulemaking will occur after
consideration of any comments.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, the EPA is proposing to include regulatory text
in an EPA final rule that includes incorporation by reference. In
accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to
incorporate by reference the Missouri State Implementation Plan and
Supplemental modeling analyses described in the proposed amendments to
40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to
make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov
and at the EPA Region 7 Office (please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act (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, the EPA's role is to approve State
choices, if they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTA) because this rulemaking does not
involve technical standards; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    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, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: June 10, 2020.
James Gulliford,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend
40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart AA--Missouri

0
2. In Sec.  52.1320, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising
the entry ``10-2.230'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA-Approved Missouri Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       State effective
        Missouri citation                Title               date          EPA approval date       Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Missouri Department of Natural Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Chapter 2--Air Quality Standards and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the Kansas City Metropolitan Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
10-2.230........................  Control of                3/30/2019   [Date of publication of
                                   Emissions from                        the final rule in the
                                   Industrial Surface                    Federal Register],
                                   Coating Operations.                   [Federal Register
                                                                         citation of the final
                                                                         rule].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2020-13049 Filed 6-19-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 218 (Friday, November 9, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67379-67380]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27340]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-D-1057]

Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration
Staff; Highly Multiplexed Microbiological/Medical Countermeasure In
Vitro Nucleic Acid Based Diagnostic Devices; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of the draft guidance entitled ``Highly Multiplexed
Microbiological/Medical Countermeasure In Vitro Nucleic Acid Based
Diagnostic Devices.'' This draft guidance is to provide industry and
Agency staff with recommendations for studies to establish the
analytical and clinical performance of highly multiplexed
microbiological/medical countermeasures in vitro nucleic acid based
diagnostic devices (HMMDs) intended to simultaneously detect and
identify multiple pathogen nucleic acids extracted from a single
appropriate human specimen or culture. This draft guidance is not final
nor is it in effect at this time.

DATES: Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this
draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the
guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft
guidance by February 7, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the draft
guidance document entitled ``Highly Multiplexed Microbiological/Medical
Countermeasure In Vitro Nucleic Acid Based Diagnostic Devices'' to the
Division of Small Manufacturers, International, and Consumer
Assistance, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, rm. 4613, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist
that office in processing your request, or fax your request to 301-847-
8149. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for information on
electronic access to the guidance.
    Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Hobson, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 66, rm. 5555, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    This draft guidance is to provide industry and Agency staff with
recommendations for studies to establish the analytical and clinical
performance of HMMDs intended to simultaneously detect and identify
multiple pathogen nucleic acids extracted from a single appropriate
human specimen or culture. For the purposes of this draft guidance
document the multiplex level that is used to define HMMDs is the
capability to detect >=20 different organisms/targets, in a single
reaction, using a nucleic acid based technology and involves testing
multiple targets through a common process of specimen preparation,
amplification and/or detection, and result interpretation. HMMDs are
used to aid in the diagnosis of infection.
    The scope of this draft guidance includes nucleic acid based
devices that employ technologies such as polymerase chain reaction,
reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction, bead-based liquid
arrays, microarrays, re-sequencing approaches as well as the
measurement of individual targets determined by >=20 separate assays
that are reported out simultaneously through the use of a diagnostic
algorithm. This draft guidance is not intended to address devices that
utilize detection mechanisms other than nucleic acid based approaches.
The document does not apply to devices that are intended to screen
donors of blood and blood components, and donors of human cells,
tissues, and cellular and tissue-based products for communicable
diseases.

II. Significance of Guidance

    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when
finalized, will represent the Agency's current thinking on highly
multiplexed microbiological/medical countermeasure in vitro nucleic
acid based diagnostic devices. It does not create or confer any rights
for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An
alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the
requirements of the applicable statute and regulations.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may do
so by using the Internet. A search capability for all CDRH guidance
documents is available at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/default.htm. Guidance
documents are also available at http://www.regulations.gov. To receive
``Highly Multiplexed Microbiological/Medical Countermeasure In Vitro
Nucleic Acid Based Diagnostic Devices,'' you may either send an email
request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>to receive an electronic copy of the
document or send a fax request to<PHONE_NUMBER> to receive a hard copy.
Please use the document number 1803 to identify the guidance you are
requesting.

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This draft guidance refers to currently approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The
collections of information in 21 CFR parts 801 and 809 have been
approved under OMB control number 0910-0485; the collections of
information in 21 CFR part 807, subpart E, have been approved under OMB
control number 0910-0120; and the collections of information in 21 CFR
part 820 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0073.

V. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either written comments regarding
this document to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) or
electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov. It is only necessary
to send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments
may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: October 31, 2012.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-27340 Filed 11-8-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 23, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 32915]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13163]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2923-006; ER13-1422-008; ER16-454-002; ER18-
2448-003; ER20-1648-003.
    Applicants: Sunbury Generation LP, Ebensburg Power Company, Seward
Generation, LLC, Robindale Retail Power Services, LLC, Inter-Power/
AhlCon Partners, L.P.
    Description: Triennial Market Power Analysis for Northeast Region
of Sunbury Generation LP, et al.
    Filed Date: 6/14/21.
    Accession Number: 20210614-5175.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/13/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2722-004.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Motion of PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits
Extension of Effective Date.
    Filed Date: 6/7/21.
    Accession Number: 20210607-5188.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/18/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-71-004; ER20-72-004; ER20-75-004; ER20-76-006;
ER20-77-004; ER20-79-004.
    Applicants: Coachella Hills Wind, LLC, Coachella Wind Holdings,
LLC, Oasis Alta, LLC, Painted Hills Wind Holdings, LLC, Tehachapi
Plains Wind, LLC, Voyager Wind IV Expansion, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Coachella
Hills Wind, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 6/14/21.
    Accession Number: 20210614-5176.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/6/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1491-003.
    Applicants: Wind Wall 1 LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Wind Wall 1 LLC.
    Filed Date: 6/15/21.
    Accession Number: 20210615-5120.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/6/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2008-000.
    Applicants: Louisiana Generating LLC.
    Description: Request to Recover Costs Associated with Acting as a
Local Balancing Authority of Louisiana Generating LLC.
    Filed Date: 5/27/21.
    Accession Number: 20210527-5077.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/7/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2139-000.
    Applicants: Florida Power & Light Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: FPL & Seminole NITSA No. 162
New Delivery Point to be effective 7/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 6/15/21.
    Accession Number: 20210615-5118.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/6/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2140-000.
    Applicants: Haystack Wind Project, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market-Based
Rate Authorization and Requests for Waivers, et al. to be effective 8/
16/2021.
    Filed Date: 6/15/21.
    Accession Number: 20210615-5132.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/6/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2141-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: E&P Agreement for Noosa
Energy Storage SA 2100 EP-30 to be effective 6/16/2021.
    Filed Date: 6/15/21.
    Accession Number: 20210615-5134.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/6/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2142-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original WMPA, Service
Agreement No. 6090; Queue No. AF2-367 to be effective 5/17/2021.
    Filed Date: 6/16/21.
    Accession Number: 20210616-5025.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/7/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2143-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original WMPA, Service
Agreement No. 6089; Queue No. AF2-368 to be effective 5/17/2021.
    Filed Date: 6/16/21.
    Accession Number: 20210616-5029.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/7/21.

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

    Dated: June 16, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-13163 Filed 6-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 4, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20377-20378]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8027]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP12-512-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC.
    Description: Penalty Revenue Crediting Report of Natural Gas
Pipeline Company of America LLC.
    Filed Date: 3/23/12.
    Accession Number: 20120323-5127.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/4/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP12-513-000.
    Applicants: Kern River Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: Kern River Gas Transmission Company submits tariff
filing per 154.204: 2012 Molycorp Nonconforming to be effective 4/24/
2012.
    Filed Date: 3/23/12.
    Accession Number: 20120323-5131.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/4/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP12-514-000.
    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C. submits tariff
filing per 154.204: Pro Forma Scheduling Priorities Secondary/Primary
Delivery Points to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 3/23/12.
    Accession Number: 20120323-5145.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/4/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP12-515-000.
    Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Southwestern Short Term Amendments to Negotiated Rate
Agreements to be effective 3/27/2012.
    Filed Date: 3/26/12.
    Accession Number: 20120326-5095.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/9/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP12-516-000.
    Applicants: Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Storage Tracker Filing to be effective 3/26/2012.
    Filed Date: 3/26/12.
    Accession Number: 20120326-5128.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/9/12.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP11-1566-011.
    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Rate Case 2011--Settlement Implementation Clean Up
Sheet No. 19 Corrected to be effective 2/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 2/24/12.
    Accession Number: 20120224-5153.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/30/12.

    Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, and service can be found at:
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other
information, call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-
8659.

    Dated: March 27, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-8027 Filed 4-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 17, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 33)]
[Notices]
[Page 8570]
[DOCID:fr17fe06-40]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP05-513-003]

CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Filing

February 10, 2006.
    Take notice that on February 6, 2006, CenterPoint Energy Gas
Transmission Company (CEGT) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas
Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No. 1, Second Substitute Second Revised
Sheet No. 456A, to be effective September 1, 2005.
    CEGT states that the purpose of this filing is to reinstate the
language originally filed by CEGT as allowed by the Commission's Order
on Rehearing dated January 27, 2006 in the above referenced docket.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of
the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest
must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-2271 Filed 2-16-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P