[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 30 (Friday, February 13, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 8126]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03055]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Third Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 232, Airborne Selective
Calling Equipment

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

ACTION: Meeting Notice of RTCA Special Committee 232, Airborne
Selective Calling Equipment.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the
third meeting of RTCA Special Committee 232, Airborne Selective Calling
Equipment.

DATES: The meeting will be held March 4-5, 2015 from 9:00 a.m.-5:00
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Novotel Paris Orly Rungis Hotel
Rungis, France. Hosted by Rabah Bouda.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: You may contact the RTCA Secretariat,
1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone
at<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Web site http://www.rtca.org for directions.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a meeting of Special Committee 232.

March 4-5

 Welcome/Introductions/Administrative Remarks
 Agenda Overview
 Review/Approval of Minutes from Plenary #2
 Status of Other SELCAL Industry Activities/Committees
 Review of Selective Calling (SELCAL) Action Items
 Review SC-232 Completion Schedule
 Review of Draft MOPS
 Continue Drafting MOPS
 Other Business.
 Date and Place of Next Meetings
 Adjourn

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

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 10, 2015.
Mohannad Dawoud,
Management Analyst, NextGen, Program Oversight and Administration,
Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2015-03055 Filed 2-12-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 107 (Wednesday, June 4, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32273-32274]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12881]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL01-88-013]

Louisiana Public Service Commission v. Entergy Services, Inc.;
Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on May 23, 2014, Entergy Services, Inc., as agent
on behalf of the Entergy Operating Companies \1\ submitted a second
correction to its April 29, 2014 subsequent compliance filing,
providing a second correction to the calculation of the bandwidth
remedy for the period of June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Entergy Operating Companies are Entergy Arkansas, Inc.,
Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, L.L.C., Entergy Louisiana, LLC,
Entergy Mississippi, Inc., Entergy New Orleans, Inc., Entergy Texas,
Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests 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. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention 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 email notification when a document is added to a
subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service,
please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll
free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on June 13, 2014.

    Dated: May 27, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-12881 Filed 6-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 117 (Monday, June 18, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 28153]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12915]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2018-0573]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Curtis Creek, Baltimore, MD

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 I695 Bridge across Curtis Creek,
mile 1.0, at Baltimore, MD. The deviation is necessary to facilitate
maintenance. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-
to-navigation position.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. on June 18, 2018, to 7
p.m. on June 29, 2018.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2018-0573] 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Hal R. Pitts, Bridge
Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard; telephone (757) 398-
6222, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Cianbro Corporation, on behalf of the
Maryland Transportation Authority, owner and operator of the I695
Bridge across Curtis Creek, mile 1.0, at Baltimore, MD, has requested a
temporary deviation from the current operating schedule to accommodate
maintenance. The current operating regulation is set out in 33 CFR
117.557.
    Under this temporary deviation, the east bascule draw of the north
span will be maintained in closed-to-navigation position and the west
bascule draw of the north span will be maintained in the open-to-
navigation position from 7 a.m. on June 18, 2018, through 7 p.m. on
June 29, 2018. The south span will open on signal if at least a one-
hour notice is given. At all other times the bridge will operate per 33
CFR 117.557. During the closure of the east bascule draw of the north
span, the I695 Bridge will provide 100 feet of horizontal clearance and
unlimited vertical clearance in the open position and 200 feet of
horizontal clearance and 58 feet of vertical clearance above mean high
water in the closed position.
    Curtis Creek is used by military vessels, recreational vessels, tug
and barge traffic, fishing vessels, and small commercial vessels. The
Coast Guard has carefully considered the nature and volume of vessel
traffic on the waterway and coordinated with maritime stakeholders in
publishing this temporary deviation.
    Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position or
with the east bascule draw of the north span in the closed position may
do so at any time. The bridge will be able to open on signal for
emergency or urgent vessel transits from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday
through Saturday, if at least a one-hour notice is given; and from 7
p.m. to 7 a.m., and from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Sunday, June 24, 2018, if
at least a four-hour notice is given. There is no immediate alternate
route for vessels unable to pass through the bridge in the closed
position or with the east bascule draw of the north span in the closed
position. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways
through our Local and Broadcast Notice to Mariners of the change in
operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange
their transits to minimize any impact caused by this temporary
deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of this effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: June 12, 2018.
Hal R. Pitts,
Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2018-12915 Filed 6-15-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 51 (Monday, March 16, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14784-14786]
[FR Doc No: 2020-05264]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0979; Product Identifier 2019-NM-182-AD; Amendment
39-19868; AD 2020-05-18]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes. This AD was
prompted by a report of incorrectly engaged lock washer tabs of the
main landing gear (MLG) forward pintle bearing (FPB) at the forward
face of the trunnion block. This AD requires detailed inspections of
the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) side MLG FPB nuts and lock
washer tabs, and depending on findings, accomplishment of repetitive
detailed inspections or corrective actions, as specified in a European
Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is incorporated by
reference. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition
on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective April 20, 2020.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference

of a certain publication listed in this AD as of April 20, 2020.

ADDRESSES: For the material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this AD,
contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany;
phone: +49 221 89990 1000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet:
www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this IBR material on the EASA website
at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this IBR material at the
FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195. It is also available in the AD docket on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2019-0979.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
0979; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Arrigotti, Aerospace
Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2019-0265, dated October 25, 2019
(``EASA AD 2019-0265'') (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus SAS
Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on December 13, 2019 (84 FR 68063). The NPRM was prompted by a
report of incorrectly engaged lock washer tabs of the MLG FPB at the
forward face of the trunnion block. The NPRM proposed to require
detailed inspections of the LH and RH side MLG FPB nuts and lock washer
tabs, and depending on findings, accomplishment of repetitive detailed
inspections or corrective actions, as specified in an EASA AD.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to address absence of an engaged lock
washer tab at the bearing nut, which could cause an unexpected rotation
of the nut and loss of torque, progressively allowing an axial movement
of the bearing housing. This condition, if not detected and corrected,
could lead to collapse of a MLG, possibly resulting in damage to the
airplane and/or injury to occupants. See the MCAI for additional
background information.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The FAA has considered the comment
received. Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) indicated
its support for the NPRM.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment
received, and determined that air safety and the public interest
require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor
editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related IBR Material Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2019-0265 describes procedures for detailed inspections of
the LH and RH side MLG FPB nuts and lock washer tabs for any MLG FPB
nut not correctly locked by the lock washer tab, and depending on
findings, accomplishment of repetitive detailed inspections for
discrepancies or corrective actions. Corrective actions include bending
the washer tab to lock the bearing nut and replacing any parts that
have damage or wear. This material is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 12 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 work-hours x $85 per hour = $170...........................              $0             $170           $2,040
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has received no definitive data that would enable us to
provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this
AD.

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.
    The FAA is 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) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2020-05-18 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-19868; Docket No. FAA-2019-0979;
Product Identifier 2019-NM-182-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective April 20, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041
airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in European
Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2019-0265, dated October 25,
2019 (``EASA AD 2019-0265'').

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of incorrectly engaged lock
washer tabs of the main landing gear (MLG) forward pintle bearing
(FPB) at the forward face of the trunnion block. The FAA is issuing
this AD to address absence of an engaged lock washer tab at the
bearing nut, which could cause an unexpected rotation of the nut and
loss of torque, progressively allowing an axial movement of the
bearing housing. This condition, if not detected and corrected,
could lead to collapse of a MLG, possibly resulting in damage to the
airplane and/or injury to occupants.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, EASA AD 2019-0265.

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2019-0265

    (1) Where EASA AD 2019-0265 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2019-0265 does not apply
to this AD.

(i) No Reporting Requirement

    Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2019-0265
specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD
does not include that requirement.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD. Information may
be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's
EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the
approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): For any service information
referenced in EASA AD 2019-0265 that contains RC procedures and
tests: Except as required by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD, RC
procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as
RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests
identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Kathleen Arrigotti,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2019-0265,
dated October 25, 2019.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For information about EASA AD 2019-0265, contact the EASA,
Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 89990
6017; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet: www.easa.europa.eu. You
may find this EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this material at the FAA, Transport Standards
Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This
material may be found in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2019-0979.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on March 4, 2020.
Gaetano A. Sciortino,
Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-05264 Filed 3-13-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 84 (Tuesday, May 1, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25714-25715]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10464]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC12-94-000.
    Applicants: Fortis Inc., Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation,
CH Energy Group, Inc., FortisUS Inc., Cascade Acquisition Sub Inc.
    Description: Fortis-Central Hudson Section 203 Application for
Merger and Disposition of Jurisdictional Facilities and Request for
Waivers of Filing Requirements.
    Filed Date: 4/23/12.
    Accession Number: 20120423-5228.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/22/12.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER12-165-003.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: G746 Compliance--Errata to be effective 12/21/2011.
    Filed Date: 4/24/12.
    Accession Number: 20120424-5032.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/15/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1459-001.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Attachment L--Credit Policy to be effective 6/6/2012.
    Filed Date: 4/23/12.
    Accession Number: 20120423-5202.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/14/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1592-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: OTP-MPC T-T to be effective 4/24/2012.
    Filed Date: 4/23/12.
    Accession Number: 20120423-5032.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/14/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1593-000.
    Applicants: DATC Midwest Holdings, LLC.
    Description: Application for Acceptance of Transmission Rate
Formula to be effective 6/19/2012.
    Filed Date: 4/20/12.
    Accession Number: 20120420-5236.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1594-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: UAMPS Horse Butte Communications Installation
Agreement to be effective 6/23/2012.
    Filed Date: 4/23/12.
    Accession Number: 20120423-5104.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/14/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1595-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, LLC.
    Description: 1st Quarter 2012 Updates to PJM Operating Agreement
and RAA Membership List to be effective 3/31/2012.
    Filed Date: 4/23/12.
    Accession Number: 20120423-5173.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/14/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1596-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Electric Company.
    Description: Rate Schedule No. 111 EPE Engineering & Procurement
Agreement to be effective 4/24/2012.
    Filed Date: 4/23/12.
    Accession Number: 20120423-5205.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/14/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1597-000.
    Applicants: Ameren Illinois Company.
    Description: Medina Valley IA Notice of Succession to be effective
2/3/2012.
    Filed Date: 4/23/12.
    Accession Number: 20120423-5213.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/14/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1598-000.
    Applicants: Unitil Power Corp.
    Description: Unitil Power Corp submits Statement of all billing
transactions under the Amended Unitil System Agreement for the period
January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011 etc.
    Filed Date: 4/23/12.
    Accession Number: 20120423-0202.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/14/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1599-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Request for One-time Tariff Waiver of Pacific Gas and
Electric Company.
    Filed Date: 4/23/12.
    Accession Number: 20120423-5229.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/14/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1600-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: 2413 Exelon Generation Company Market Participant
Agreement to be effective 4/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 4/24/12.
    Accession Number: 20120424-5064.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/15/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1601-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: WAPA Short Term Firm Point to Point Transmission
Service Agreements to be effective 4/19/2012.
    Filed Date: 4/24/12.
    Accession Number: 20120424-5065.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/15/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1602-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.'s Notice of Cancellation.
    Filed Date: 4/24/12.
    Accession Number: 20120424-5074.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/15/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1603-000.
    Applicants: PGPV, LLC.
    Description: mbr tariff to be effective 4/25/2012.
    Filed Date: 4/24/12.
    Accession Number: 20120424-5104.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/15/12.

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

    Docket Numbers: ES12-13-000.
    Applicants: AEP Texas North Company.
    Description: Supplemental Application of AEP Texas North Company.
    Filed Date: 4/17/12.
    Accession Number: 20120417-5214.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/4/12.

    Docket Numbers: ES12-24-000.
    Applicants: AEP Appalachian Transmission Company, Inc, AEP Indiana
Michigan Transmission Company, Inc., AEP Kentucky Transmission Company,
Inc, AEP Oklahoma Transmission Company, Inc., AEP Southwestern
Transmission Company, Inc., AEP West Virginia Transmission Company,
Inc.
    Description: Supplemental Application of AEP Appalachian
Transmission Company, Inc. et al.
    Filed Date: 4/19/12.
    Accession Number: 20120419-5157.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/2/12.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following foreign
utility company status filings:

    Docket Numbers: FC12-6-000.
    Applicants: Moore Solar, Inc.
    Description: Notification of Self-Certification of Foreign Utility
Company Status of Moore Solar, Inc.
    Filed Date: 4/23/12.
    Accession Number: 20120423-5206.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/14/12.

    Docket Numbers: FC12-7-000.
    Applicants: Sombra Solar, Inc.
    Description: Notification of Self-Certification of Foreign Utility
Company Status of Sombra Solar, Inc.
    Filed Date: 4/23/12.
    Accession Number: 20120423-5208.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/14/12.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 24, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-10464 Filed 4-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 183 (Friday, September 22, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65397-65398]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20516]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2023-N-0917]

In-Home Disposal Systems for Opioid Analgesics; Request for
Information; Reopening of the Comment Period

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; reopening of the comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) is
reopening the comment period for the notice entitled ``In-Home Disposal
Systems for Opioid Analgesics; Request for Information'' published in
the Federal Register of April 4, 2023. FDA is reopening the comment
period to allow interested persons additional time to develop and
submit comments.

DATES: FDA is reopening the comment period on the notice published
April 4, 2023 (88 FR 19959). Either electronic or written comments must
be submitted by November 6, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late,
untimely filed comments will not be considered. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time at the end of November 6, 2023. Comments
received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions)
will be considered timely if they are received on or before that date.

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2023-N-0917 for ``In-Home Disposal Systems for Opioid Analgesics;
Request for Information.'' Received comments, those filed in a timely
manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and, except for
those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at
https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between
9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kimberly Lehrfeld, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6226, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-3137, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of April 4, 2023 (88
FR 19959), FDA published a notice requesting information and comments
that will assist the Agency in assessing whether in-home disposal
products can be expected to meet the public health goal of mitigating
the risk of nonmedical use or overdose if the Agency were to require
drug manufacturers to make in-home disposal products available to
patients under a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy. The Agency
requested information and comments on the issues that were discussed at
the public workshop convened by the National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine's Forum on Drug Discovery, Development, and
Translation entitled ``Defining and Evaluating In-Home Disposal Systems
for Opioid Analgesics'' on June 26 and 27, 2023. Interested persons
were originally given until August 28, 2023, to submit comments on in-
home disposal systems for opioid analgesics.
    FDA is reopening the public docket to allow interested persons
additional time to submit comments. We note that there is a listening
session on October 5, 2023, with federally recognized American Indian
and Alaska Native tribes on the safe disposal of opioid analgesics. The
Agency believes that reopening the comment period for an additional 45
days will allow adequate time for interested persons to submit comments
without significantly delaying Agency decision-making on these
important issues. FDA is reopening the comment period for 45 days,
until November 6, 2023.

    Dated: September 18, 2023.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-20516 Filed 9-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 39 (Monday, February 28, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10817-10825]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4376]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0995; FRL-9271-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
Nevada; PM-10; Determinations Regarding Attainment for the Truckee
Meadows Nonattainment Area and Applicability of Certain Clean Air Act
Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to make two separate and independent
determinations regarding attainment for the Truckee Meadows PM-10
nonattainment area in Washoe County, Nevada (Truckee Meadows area).
First, EPA is proposing to determine that, based on complete and
quality-assured air monitoring data for 1999-2001, the Truckee Meadows
area did not attain the 24-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(``NAAQS'') for

particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a
nominal 10 micrometers (``PM-10'') by the applicable attainment date of
December 31, 2001. Second, EPA is proposing to determine that the
Truckee Meadows area is currently attaining the PM-10 NAAQS, based upon
complete, quality-assured PM-10 air quality monitoring data during the
years 2007-2009. Preliminary data through June 2010 contained in EPA's
Air Quality System (``AQS'') show that no exceedances of the 24-hour
NAAQS have been recorded in the Truckee Meadows area. Because the
Truckee Meadows area is currently attaining the PM-10 NAAQS, EPA is
proposing to determine that the obligation to make submissions to meet
certain Clean Air Act (``CAA'' or ``the Act'') requirements related to
attainment are not applicable for as long as the area continues to
attain the PM-10 NAAQS.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 30, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-
OAR-2010-0995, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    2. E-mail: Karina O'Connor at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax: Karina O'Connor, Planning Office (AIR-2), at fax number
(415) 947-3579.
    4. Mail or deliver: Karina O'Connor, Air Planning Office, (AIR-2),
U.S. EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California
94105-3901. Hand or courier deliveries are accepted only between the
hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays except for legal holidays. Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-
mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous
access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
    Docket: EPA has established a docket for this action under EPA-R09-
OAR-2010-0995. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy
at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While
all documents in the docket are listed at http://www.regulations.gov,
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, multi-volume reports)
and some may not be available in either location (e.g., confidential
business information (CBI)). To inspect the hard copy materials, please
schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karina O'Connor, Planning Office (AIR-
2), U.S. EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California
94105-3901, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms ``we,''
``us,'' and ``our'' refer to EPA. This supplementary information is
organized as follows:

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. The NAAQS for PM-10
    B. Designation, Classification and Air Quality Planning for PM-
10 for Truckee Meadows
    C. Attainment Determinations
II. Proposed Determination of Failure to Attain the Standard by the
Applicable Attainment Date
III. Proposed Determination of Attainment Based on Current Air
Monitoring Data
    A. Proposed Determination of Attainment
    B. Clean Data Policy: Applicability of Clean Air Act Planning
Requirements
IV. EPA's Proposed Actions
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. The NAAQS for PM-10

    Particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than or
equal to 10 micrometers (``PM-10'') is the subject of this proposed
action. The NAAQS are limits for certain ambient air pollutants set by
EPA to protect public health and welfare. PM-10 is among the ambient
air pollutants for which EPA has established a health-based standard.
    On July 1, 1987 (52 FR 24634), EPA revised the particulate matter
(``PM'') NAAQS to replace Total Suspended Particulate (``TSP'') with
PM-10 as the PM indicator. The 24-hour primary PM-10 standard was set
at 150 micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\) with no more than one
expected exceedance per year. The annual primary PM-10 standard was set
at 50 [micro]g/m\3\ as an annual arithmetic mean. The secondary PM-10
standards were identical to the primary standards.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA sets two types of NAAQS: ``primary'' NAAQS requisite to
protect public health with an adequate margin of safety, and
``secondary'' NAAQS requisite to protect public welfare, e.g.,
protection against visibility impairment and damage to animals,
crops, vegetation, and buildings. See CAA 109(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 17, 2006, EPA revised the primary PM-10 standards by
revoking the annual standard of 50 [micro]g/m\3\ but retained the 24-
hour standard of 150 [micro]g/m\3\. EPA also revoked the annual
secondary PM-10 standard. The revised PM-10 NAAQS became effective on
December 18, 2006. See 71 FR 61144 and 40 CFR 50.6. Thus, for PM-10,
the level of both the primary and secondary 24-hour NAAQS \2\ is 150
[micro]g/m\3\. 40 CFR 50.6(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ We generally refer in this action to the primary and
secondary 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS together in the singular (i.e., as
``standard'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Designation, Classification and Air Quality Planning for PM-10 in
Truckee Meadows

    The Truckee Meadows PM-10 nonattainment area \3\ lies in the far
southern part of Washoe County, which is located in the northwestern
portion of Nevada and is bordered by the State of California to the
west and the State of Oregon to the north. Within the State of Nevada,
the counties of Humboldt, Pershing, Storey, Churchill, Lyon, and the
city of Carson City border Washoe County to the east and south. Located
at an average elevation of 4,500 feet above sea level, Truckee Meadows
encompasses a land area of

approximately 200 square miles and is surrounded by mountain ranges,
which can lead to persistent wintertime temperature inversions where a
layer of cold air is trapped in the valley. Warmer air above the
inversion acts as a lid, containing and concentrating air pollutants at
ground level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Truckee Meadows PM-10 nonattainment area, also known as
the ``Reno planning area,'' is geographically identified in 40 CFR
81.329 as ``hydrographic area 87.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Much of Washoe County's urban population lives in the Truckee
Meadows PM-10 nonattainment area. Anthropogenic activities, such as
automobile use and residential wood combustion, are also concentrated
here. In the last quarter of the twentieth century, Truckee Meadows
experienced rapid growth in population, increasing from approximately
150,000 in 1980 to approximately 330,000 in 2009, an increase of 120
percent over that 29-year period. The two major cities in the area are
Reno and Sparks.
    EPA initially designated the Truckee Meadows area as nonattainment
for the TSP NAAQS in 1978. See 43 FR 8962, 9012 (March 3, 1978).
Following EPA's 1987 revisions to the PM NAAQS to replace TSP with PM-
10 as the PM indicator, Truckee Meadows was designated and classified
by operation of law under the CAA Amendments of 1990 as a moderate
nonattainment area for the PM-10 NAAQS. See 56 FR 11101 (March 15,
1991); 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991). Effective February 7, 2001, EPA
determined that the area had failed to attain both the annual and the
24-hour PM-10 NAAQS \4\ by the CAA mandated attainment date for
moderate nonattainment areas of December 31, 1994, and reclassified the
area under CAA 188(b)(2) by operation of law as a serious nonattainment
area for the PM-10 NAAQS. See 66 FR 1268 (January 8, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Because the annual PM-10 NAAQS was revoked effective
December 18, 2006 (71 FR 61144, October 17, 2006), we do not address
the annual standard in this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Air quality planning and monitoring in Truckee Meadows is the
responsibility of the Washoe County District Board of Health
(``District''), which administers air quality programs in Washoe County
through the District Health Department's Air Quality Management
Division (``WCAQMD'').

C. Attainment Determinations

    A determination of whether an area's air quality meets the PM-10
NAAQS is generally based upon the most recent three years of complete,
quality-assured data gathered at established National Air Monitoring
Stations (``NAMS'') or State and Local Air Monitoring Stations
(``SLAMS'') in the nonattainment area and entered into the EPA Air
Quality System (``AQS'') database. Data from air monitors operated by
State/local agencies in compliance with EPA monitoring requirements
must be submitted to the EPA AQS database. Heads of monitoring agencies
annually certify that these data are accurate to the best of their
knowledge. Accordingly, EPA relies primarily on data in its AQS
database when determining the attainment status of areas. See 40 CFR
50.6; 40 CFR part 50, appendix J; 40 CFR part 53; 40 CFR part 58,
appendices A, C, D and E. All data are reviewed to determine the area's
air quality status in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, appendix K.
    The 24-hour PM-10 standard is attained when the expected number of
days per calendar year with a 24-hour concentration in excess of the
standard (referred to herein as ``exceedance'' \5\), as determined in
accordance with 40 CFR part 50, appendix K, is equal to or less than
one.\6\ See 40 CFR 50.6 and 40 CFR part 50, appendix K. Three
consecutive years of complete air quality data are necessary to show
attainment of the 24-hour standard for PM-10. See 40 CFR part 50,
appendix K. A complete year of air quality data, as referred to in 40
CFR part 50, appendix K, includes all four calendar quarters with each
quarter containing data from at least 75 percent of the scheduled
sampling days. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ An exceedance is defined as a daily value that is above the
level of the 24-hour standard (150 [micro]g/m\3\) after rounding to
the nearest 10 [micro]g/m\3\ (i.e., values ending in 5 or greater
are to be rounded up). Thus, a recorded value of 154 [micro]g/m\3\
would not be an exceedance since it would be rounded to 150
[micro]g/m\3\ whereas a recorded value of 155 [micro]g/m\3\ would be
an exceedance since it would be rounded to 160 [micro]g/m\3\. See 40
CFR part 50, appendix K, section 1.0.
    \6\ The comparison with the allowable expected exceedance rate
of one per year is made in terms of a number rounded to the nearest
tenth (fractional values equal to or greater than 0.05 are to be
rounded up; e.g., an exceedance rate of 1.05 would be rounded to
1.1, which is the lowest rate for nonattainment). See 40 CFR part
50, appendix K, section 2.1(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Proposed Determination of Failure To Attain the Standard by the
Applicable Attainment Date

    Sections 179(c)(1) and 188(b)(2) of the Act require for any PM-10
nonattainment area that EPA determine, within 6 months following the
applicable attainment date, whether the area attained the standard by
that date. Under section 188(c)(2) of the Act, the latest applicable
attainment date for a serious PM-10 nonattainment area that was
initially designated as nonattainment by operation of law under the CAA
Amendments of 1990, such as the Truckee Meadows area, was December 31,
2001.
    To determine whether the Truckee Meadows area attained the PM-10
standard by the applicable attainment date, we reviewed AQS monitoring
data from the 1999-2001 period. The AQS database contains three
consecutive years of complete, quality-assured and certified PM-10 data
for the 1999-2001 period from the four monitors then operating in
Truckee Meadows.\7\ We have reviewed the monitoring data for this
period and found that the Truckee Meadows area experienced two
exceedances of the PM-10 standard in 1999 which resulted in an average
expected exceedance rate of more than one during the 1999-2001 period,
thereby violating the PM-10 standard during that period.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The four SLAMS operating in Truckee Meadows during the 1999-
2001 period were the ``Reno3,'' ``South Reno,'' ``Galletti,'' and
``Sparks'' monitoring sites. As noted in the discussion in section
III, below, two additional monitoring sites in Truckee Meadows,
``Toll'' and ``Plumb-Kit,'' became operational as SLAMS in 2002 and
2006, respectively. See 2009 Monitoring Network Plan at 21, 36, and
U.S. EPA Monitor Description Report, Monitor ID: 32-031-0025-81102-
1, dated Nov. 1, 2010.
    \8\ Because the PM-10 sampling schedule in the Truckee Meadows
area was once every six days during the 1999-2001 period, each of
the exceedances measured in 1999 resulted in at least six expected
exceedances for that calendar year. See U.S. EPA AQS Database and 40
CFR part 50, appendix K, section 3.0. Thus, the expected number of
days per year with levels exceeding the standard for the 1999-2001
period (averaged over that three-year period) was more than one,
which is a violation of the PM-10 NAAQS. See 40 CFR 50.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 provides the highest measured PM-10 concentrations and the
number of expected exceedances in Truckee Meadows during the 1999-2001
period.

                        Table 1--Monitored PM-10 Concentrations and Expected Exceedances
                                                   [1999-2001]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Maximum  24-hour      Expected  exceedances    Expected
                                                          ([mu]g/m\3\)           (calendar year)     exceedances
        Monitoring site name and AQS number         ------------------------------------------------   (3-year
                                                      1999    2000    2001    1999    2000    2001     average)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reno3 (32-031-0016)................................     197     109      92       6       0       0        2.0
South Reno (32-031-0020)...........................      90      84     112       0       0       0          0
Galletti (32-031-0022).............................     215     100     113     6.4       0       0        2.1
Sparks (32-031-1005)...............................     114      68      78       0       0       0          0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. EPA AQS database.

    Thus, based on complete, quality-assured and certified monitoring
data from the 1999-2001 period, we propose to determine under sections
179(c)(1) and 188(b)(2) of the Act that the Truckee Meadows serious PM-
10 nonattainment area failed to attain the PM-10 standard by the
applicable attainment date of December 31, 2001.

III. Proposed Determination of Attainment Based on Current Air
Monitoring Data

    The WCAQMD currently operates six SLAMS in the Truckee Meadows PM-
10 nonattainment area. See Washoe County Air Quality Management
Division, ``2009 Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan, Submitted to EPA
Region IX July 1, 2010'' (``2009 Monitoring Network Plan''). The six
PM-10 monitors in Truckee Meadows are located as follows. In the City
of Reno, the ``Reno3'' and ``Galetti'' monitoring sites are located at
the corners of paved parking lots, in downtown Reno and just south of
Interstate 80, respectively; the ``Plumb-Kit'' site is in a graveled
area close to residences, about half a mile west of Interstate 580 and
the Reno-Tahoe International Airport; and the ``Toll'' site is located
along State Route 341, at the corner of the Washoe County School
District parking lot. In South Reno, the ``South Reno'' monitoring site
is located in an unpaved, vegetated area at the northeast corner of the
Nevada Energy campus. Finally, in the City of Sparks, the ``Sparks''
monitoring site is located along a paved parking lot about half a mile
north of Interstate 80. See generally 2009 Monitoring Network Plan. All
of these PM-10 monitor sites are operated on a one-in-six day schedule,
except that at the Reno3 site the sampling frequency was recently
increased to one-in-three days. Id. at 6.
    PM-10 data from these six monitors are quality-assured and reported
by the WCAQMD to the EPA AQS database. Id. at 3. EPA has approved the
WCAQMD's monitoring network as satisfying the network design and data
adequacy requirements of 40 CFR part 58. See letter dated September 29,
2009, from Joseph Lapka, Acting Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office,
EPA Region 9, to Andrew Goodrich, Director, Washoe County District
Health Department, Washoe County AQMD. The WCAQMD annually certifies
that the data it submits to AQS are complete and quality-assured. See,
e.g., letter dated April 23, 2010, from Craig Petersen, Senior Air
Quality Specialist, WCAQMD, to David Lutz, Data Certification Contact,
EPA, ``Re: CY2009 Ambient Air Monitoring Data Certification.''

A. Proposed Determination of Attainment

    The AQS database contains three consecutive years of complete,
quality-assured and certified PM-10 data for the 2007-2009 period, the
most recent three-year period of such data for Truckee Meadows. We have
reviewed the monitoring data for this period and found that no
exceedances of the PM-10 NAAQS were recorded in the Truckee Meadows
area during this time. The expected exceedance rate for this period was
less than one, which means that the area attained the 24-hour PM-10
standard during this time.
    Table 2 provides the highest measured PM-10 concentrations and the
number of expected exceedances in Truckee Meadows during the 2007-2009
period.

                        Table 2--Monitored PM-10 Concentrations and Expected Exceedances
                                                   [2007-2009]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Maximum 24-hour      Expected  exceedances    Expected
                                                          ([mu]g/m\3\)           (calendar year)     exceedances
        Monitoring site name and AQS number         ------------------------------------------------   (3-year
                                                      2007    2008    2009    2007    2008    2009     average)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reno3 (32-031-0016)................................      69      92      78       0       0       0          0
South Reno (32-031-0020)...........................      75     111      59       0       0       0          0
Galletti (32-031-0022).............................     130      87      91       0       0       0          0
Toll (32-031-0025).................................      43      64      46       0       0       0          0
Plumb-Kit (32-031-0030)............................     108      86      93       0       0       0          0
Sparks (32-031-1005)...............................      76     101      67       0       0       0          0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. EPA AQS database.

    Thus, based on complete, quality-assured and certified monitoring
data from the 2007-2009 period, we propose to find that the Truckee
Meadows PM-10 nonattainment area is currently attaining the PM-10
NAAQS. Preliminary data available to date for calendar year 2010 also
indicate that no monitor in the area has measured an exceedance of the
PM-10 standard during 2010. See Table 3.

                 Table 3--Monitored PM-10 Concentrations
                  [Preliminary data through June 2010]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
                                                                24-hour
             Monitoring site name and AQS number                ([mu]g/
                                                                 m\3\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reno3 (32-031-0016)..........................................        142
South Reno (32-031-0020).....................................         52
Galletti (32-031-0022).......................................         87
Toll (32-031-0025)...........................................         33
Plumb-Kit (32-031-0030)......................................         77
Sparks (32-031-1005).........................................         48
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. EPA AQS database. These data have not yet been certified as
  meeting EPA's quality-assurance or data completeness requirements.

    Moreover, historical data show consistent attainment in the Truckee
Meadows area for each three-year period since 2000-2002. According to
these data, Truckee Meadows experienced only one measured exceedance
(not constituting a violation) of the PM-10 standard during the ten
years since 2000, in 2005. No violations have occurred during this time
period. EPA's review of quality-assured AQS data since 2000 thus
confirms that the area attained the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS in 2002 and has
continued in attainment since then.\9\ See Table 4, below and Tables 2
and 3, above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Although the regular PM-10 sampling schedule at the Galletti
monitor is once every six days, the single exceedance measured in
2005 did not constitute a violation because the WCAQMD subsequently
initiated every-day sampling at that monitor consistent with section
3.1 of 40 CFR part 50, Appendix K. See U.S. EPA AQS Database; see
also ``Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the Truckee
Meadows 24-Hour PM10 Non-Attainment Area,'' May 28, 2009, at 4, 5.
Thus, the 2005 exceedance resulted in an average expected number of
exceedances of 0.3 for each three-year period that includes 2005.
For all other three-year periods between 2000 and 2006, the expected
number of exceedances was 0.

                                     Table 4--Monitored PM-10 Concentrations
                                                   [2000-2006]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Maximum 24-hour ([mu]g/m\3\)
           Monitoring site name and AQS number           -------------------------------------------------------
                                                           2000    2001    2002    2003    2004    2005    2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reno3 (32-031-0016).....................................     109      92      85      69      83      79      91
South Reno (32-031-0020)................................      84     112      45      61      54      71      52
Galletti (32-031-0022)..................................     100     113      97     108     126     172     118
Toll (32-031-0025)......................................       *       *      57      37      64      75      47
Plumb-Kit (32-031-0030).................................       *       *       *       *       *       *      91
Sparks (32-031-1005)....................................      68      78      76      85      90      73      76
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. EPA AQS database.
* Data not available in AQS because SLAMS not yet established.

    Thus, the area's monitoring history over the past ten years shows
that the Truckee Meadows area has consistently met the 24-hour PM-10
NAAQS, and the most recent three years of complete, quality-assured
data show that the area continues to attain the PM-10 standard.

B. Clean Data Policy: Applicability of Clean Air Act Planning
Requirements

    The air quality planning requirements for serious PM-10
nonattainment areas, such as Truckee Meadows, are set out in part D,
subparts 1 and 4 of title I of the Act. EPA has issued guidance in a
General Preamble \10\ describing how we will review State
implementation plans (SIPs) and SIP revisions submitted under title I
of the Act, including those containing serious PM-10 nonattainment area
SIP provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ ``General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992), as
supplemented at 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The subpart 1 requirements include, among other things, provisions
for reasonably available control measures (``RACM''), reasonable
further progress (``RFP''), emissions inventories, a permit program for
construction and operation of new or modified major stationary sources
in the nonattainment area (``NSR''), contingency measures, conformity,
and additional SIP revisions providing for attainment where EPA
determines that the area has failed to attain the standard by the
applicable attainment date.
    Subpart 4 requirements in CAA section 189 apply specifically to PM-
10 nonattainment areas. The requirements for serious PM-10
nonattainment areas include: (1) An NSR program defining ``major
source'' or ``major stationary source'' to include any source that
emits or has the potential to emit at least 70 tons per year of PM-10;
(2) an attainment demonstration; (3) provisions for RACM; (4)
provisions for Best Available Control Measures (``BACM''); (5)
quantitative milestones demonstrating RFP toward attainment by the
applicable attainment date; (6) in the case of a serious nonattainment
area that fails to attain by the applicable attainment date, plan
revisions providing for attainment and for annual reductions in PM-10
or PM-10 precursor emissions within the area of not less than five
percent of the amount of such emissions as reported in the most recent
inventory (``189(d) plans''); and (7) provisions to ensure that the
control requirements applicable to major stationary sources of PM-10
also apply to major stationary sources of PM-10 precursors except where
the Administrator has determined that such sources do not contribute
significantly to PM-10 levels which exceed the NAAQS in the area.
    For nonattainment areas where EPA determines that monitored data
show that the NAAQS have already been achieved, EPA's interpretation,
upheld by the Courts, is that the obligation to submit certain
requirements of part D, subparts 1, 2 and 4 of the Act are suspended
for so long as the area continues to attain. These include requirements
for attainment demonstrations, RFP, RACM, and contingency measures,
because these provisions have the purpose of helping achieve attainment
of the NAAQS. Certain other obligations for PM-10 nonattainment areas,
however, are not suspended, such as the NSR and BACM requirements.
    This interpretation of the CAA is known as the Clean Data Policy.
It is the subject of several EPA memoranda and regulations, and
numerous rulemakings

that have been published in the Federal Register over more than fifteen
years. EPA finalized the statutory interpretation set forth in the
policy in its final 8-hour ozone implementation rule, 40 CFR 51.918, as
part of its ``Final Rule to Implement the 8-hour Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standard--Phase 2'' (Phase 2 Final Rule). See discussion in
the preamble to the rule at 70 FR 71612, 71645-46 (November 29, 2005).
The DC Circuit upheld this Clean Data regulation as a valid
interpretation of the CAA. NRDC v. EPA, 571 F. 3d 1245 (DC Cir. 2009).
EPA also finalized its interpretation in an implementation rule for the
NAAQS for particulate matter of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5).
40 CFR 51.1004(c). Thus, EPA has codified the policy when it
established final rules governing implementation of new or revised
NAAQS for the pollutants. 70 FR 71612, 71644-46 (November 29, 2005); 72
FR 20585, 20665 (April 25, 2007) (PM2.5 Implementation
Rule). Otherwise, EPA applies the policy in individual rulemakings
related to specific nonattainment areas. See, e.g., 75 FR 27944 (May
19, 2010) (determination of attainment of the PM-10 standard in Coso
Junction, California); 75 FR 6571 (February 10, 2010) (determination of
attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard in Baton Rouge, Louisiana).
    In its many applications of the Clean Data Policy interpretation to
PM-10, EPA has explained that the legal bases set forth in detail in
our Phase 2 Final rule, our May 10, 1995 memorandum from John S. Seitz,
entitled ``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and
Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' our PM2.5
Implementation Rule, and our December 14, 2004 memorandum from Stephen
D. Page entitled ``Clean Data Policy for the Fine Particle National
Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' are equally pertinent to the
interpretation of provisions of subparts 1 and 4 applicable to PM-10.
See, e.g., 71 FR 6352 (February 8, 2006) (Ajo, Arizona area); 71 FR
13021 (March 14, 2006) (Yuma, Arizona area); 71 FR 40023 (July 14,
2006) (Weirton, West Virginia area); 71 FR 44920 (August 8, 2006)
(Rillito, Arizona area); 71 FR 63642 (October 30, 2006) (San Joaquin
Valley, California area); 72 FR 14422 (March 28, 2007) (Miami, Arizona
area); and 75 FR 27944 (May 19, 2010) (Coso Junction, California area).
EPA's interpretation that the obligation to submit an attainment
demonstration, RACM, RFP contingency measures, and other measures
related to attainment under part D of title I of the CAA, pertains
whether the standard is PM-10, ozone or PM-2.5.
    In our proposed and final rulemakings determining that the San
Joaquin Valley nonattainment area attained the PM-10 standard, EPA set
forth at length our rationale for applying the Clean Data Policy to PM-
10. The Ninth Circuit subsequently upheld this rulemaking, and
specifically EPA's Clean Data Policy in the context of the PM-10
standard. Latino Issues Forum v. EPA, Nos. 06-75831 and 08-71238 (9th
Cir.), Memorandum Opinion, March 2, 2009. In rejecting petitioner's
challenge to the Clean Data Policy for PM-10, the Court stated:

    As the EPA rationally explained, if an area is in compliance
with PM-10 standards, then further progress for the purpose of
ensuring attainment is not necessary.

    EPA noted in its prior PM-10 rulemakings that the reasons for
relieving an area that has attained the relevant standard of certain
obligations under part D, subparts 1 and 2, apply equally to part D,
subpart 4, which contains specific attainment demonstration and RFP
provisions for PM-10 nonattainment areas. In EPA's Phase 2 8-Hour Ozone
Final Rule and ozone and PM-2.5 Clean Data memoranda, EPA established
that it is reasonable to interpret provisions regarding RFP and
attainment demonstrations, along with related requirements, so as not
to require SIP submissions if an area subject to those requirements is
already attaining the NAAQS (i.e. attainment of the NAAQS is
demonstrated with three consecutive years of complete, quality-assured
air quality monitoring data). Every U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that
has considered the Clean Data Policy has upheld EPA rulemakings
applying its interpretation, for both ozone and PM-10. Sierra Club v.
EPA, 99 F.3d 1551 (10th Cir. 1996); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F. 3d 537
(7th Cir. 2004); Our Children's Earth Foundation v. EPA, N. 04-73032
(9th Cir. June 28, 2005) (memorandum opinion), Latino Issues Forum,
supra.
    It has been EPA's longstanding interpretation that the general
provisions of part D, subpart 1 of the Act (sections 171 and 172) do
not require the submission of SIP revisions concerning RFP for areas
already attaining the ozone NAAQS. In the General Preamble, we stated:

    [R]equirements for RFP will not apply in evaluating a request
for redesignation to attainment since, at a minimum, the air quality
data for the area must show that the area has already attained.
Showing that the State will make RFP towards attainment will,
therefore, have no meaning at that point.

57 FR at 13564. EPA's prior determinations of attainment for PM-10,
e.g., for the San Joaquin Valley and Coso Junction areas in California,
make clear that the same reasoning applies to the PM-10 provision of
part D, subpart 4. See 71 FR 40952 and 71 FR 63642 (proposed and final
determination of attainment for San Joaquin Valley); 75 FR 13710 and 75
FR 27944 (proposed and final determination of attainment for Coso
Junction).
    With respect to RFP, section 171(1) states that, for purposes of
part D of title I, RFP ``means such annual incremental reductions in
emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required by this part or
may reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose of
ensuring attainment of the applicable NAAQS by the applicable date.''
Thus, whether dealing with the general RFP requirement of section
172(c)(2), the ozone-specific RFP requirements of sections 182(b) and
(c), or the specific RFP requirements for PM-10 areas of part D,
subpart 4, section 189(c)(1), the stated purpose of RFP is to ensure
attainment by the applicable attainment date. Section 189(c)(1) states
that:

    Plan revisions demonstrating attainment submitted to the
Administrator for approval under this subpart shall contain
quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every 3 years until
the area is redesignated attainment and which demonstrate reasonable
further progress, as defined in section 7501(1) of this title,
toward attainment by the applicable date.

    Although this section states that revisions shall contain
milestones which are to be achieved until the area is redesignated to
attainment, such milestones are designed to show reasonable further
progress ``toward attainment by the applicable attainment date,'' as
defined by section 171. Thus, it is clear that once the area has
attained the standard, no further milestones are necessary or
meaningful. This interpretation is supported by language in section
189(c)(3), which mandates that a State that fails to achieve a
milestone must submit a plan that assures that the State will achieve
the next milestone or attain the NAAQS if there is no next milestone.
Section 189(c)(3) assumes that the requirement to submit and achieve
milestones does not continue after attainment of the NAAQS.
    In the General Preamble, we noted with respect to section 189(c)
that the purpose of the milestone requirement ``is `to provide for
emission reductions adequate to achieve the standards by the applicable
attainment date' (H.R. Rep.

No. 490 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 267 (1990)).'' 57 FR 13539 (April 16,
1992). If an area has in fact attained the standard, the stated purpose
of the RFP requirement will have already been fulfilled.\11\ EPA took
this position with respect to the general RFP requirement of section
172(c)(2) in the April 16, 1992 General Preamble and also in the May
10, 1995 memorandum with respect to the requirements of sections 182(b)
and (c). In our prior applications of the Clean Data Policy to PM-10,
we have extended that interpretation to the specific provisions of part
D, subpart 4. See, e.g., 71 FR 40952 and 71 FR 63642 (proposed and
final determination of attainment for San Joaquin Valley); 75 FR 13710
and 75 FR 27944 (proposed and final determination of attainment for
Coso Junction).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Thus, we believe that it is a distinction without a
difference that section 189(c)(1) speaks of the RFP requirement as
one to be achieved until an area is ``redesignated attainment,'' as
opposed to section 172(c)(2), which is silent on the period to which
the requirement pertains, or the ozone nonattainment area RFP
requirements in sections 182(b)(1) or 182(c)(2), which refer to the
RFP requirements as applying until the ``attainment date,'' since
section 189(c)(1) defines RFP by reference to section 171(1) of the
Act. Reference to section 171(1) clarifies that, as with the general
RFP requirements in section 172(c)(2) and the ozone-specific
requirements of section 182(b)(1) and 182(c)(2), the PM-specific
requirements may only be required ``for the purpose of ensuring
attainment of the applicable national ambient air quality standard
by the applicable date.'' 42 U.S.C. section 7501(1). As discussed in
the text of this rulemaking, EPA interprets the RFP requirements, in
light of the definition of RFP in section 171(1), and incorporated
in section 189(c)(1), to be a requirement that no longer applies
once the standard has been attained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the General Preamble, we stated, in the context of a discussion
of the requirements applicable to the evaluation of requests to
redesignate nonattainment areas to attainment, that the ``requirements
for RFP will not apply in evaluating a request for redesignation to
attainment since, at a minimum, the air quality data for the area must
show that the area has already attained. Showing that the State will
make RFP towards attainment will, therefore, have no meaning at that
point.'' 57 FR 13564. See also our September 4, 1992 memorandum from
John Calcagni, entitled ``Procedures for Processing Requests to
Redesignate Areas to Attainment'' (Calcagni memo), p. 6.
    Similarly, the requirements of section 189(c)(2) with respect to
milestones no longer apply so long as an area has attained the
standard. Section 189(c)(2) provides in relevant part that:

    Not later than 90 days after the date on which a milestone
applicable to the area occurs, each State in which all or part of
such area is located shall submit to the Administrator a
demonstration * * * that the milestone has been met.

    Where the area has attained the standard and there are no further
milestones, there is no further requirement to make a submission
showing that such milestones have been met. As noted above, this is
consistent with the position that EPA took with respect to the general
RFP requirement of section 172(c)(2) in the April 16, 1992 General
Preamble and also in the May 10, 1995 Seitz memorandum with respect to
the requirements of section 182(b) and (c). In the May 10, 1995 Seitz
memorandum, EPA also noted that section 182(g), the milestone
requirement of subpart 2, which is analogous to provisions in section
189(c), is suspended upon a determination that an area has attained.
The memorandum, also citing additional provisions related to attainment
demonstration and RFP requirements, stated:

    Inasmuch as each of these requirements is linked with the
attainment demonstration or RFP requirements of section 182(b)(1) or
182(c)(2), if an area is not subject to the requirement to submit
the underlying attainment demonstration or RFP plan, it need not
submit the related SIP submission either.

1995 Seitz memorandum at 5.
    With respect to the attainment demonstration requirements of
section 189(a)(1)(B), an analogous rationale leads to the same result.
Section 189(a)(1)(B) requires that the plan provide for ``a
demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the [SIP] will
provide for attainment by the applicable attainment date * * *.'' As
with the RFP requirements, if an area is already monitoring attainment
of the standard, EPA believes there is no need for an area to make a
further submission containing additional measures to achieve
attainment. This is also consistent with the interpretation of the
section 172(c) requirements provided by EPA in the General Preamble,
the Page memo, and the section 182(b) and (c) requirements set forth in
the Seitz memo. As EPA stated in the General Preamble, no other
measures to provide for attainment would be needed by areas seeking
redesignation to attainment since ``attainment will have been
reached.'' 57 FR at 13564.
    Other SIP submission requirements are linked with these attainment
demonstration and RFP requirements, and similar reasoning applies to
them. These requirements include the contingency measure requirements
of sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9). We have interpreted the
contingency measure requirements of sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) as
no longer applying when an area has attained the standard because those
``contingency measures are directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by
the applicable date.'' 57 FR at 13564; Seitz memo, pp. 5-6.
    Both sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C) require ``provisions to
assure that reasonably available control measures'' (i.e., RACM) are
implemented in a nonattainment area. The General Preamble, 57 FR at
13560 (April 16, 1992), states that EPA interprets section 172(c)(1) so
that RACM requirements are a ``component'' of an area's attainment
demonstration. Thus, for the same reason the attainment demonstration
no longer applies by its own terms, the requirement for RACM no longer
applies. EPA has consistently interpreted this provision to require
only implementation of potential RACM measures that could contribute to
reasonable further progress or to attainment. General Preamble, 57 FR
at 13498. Thus, where an area is already attaining the standard, no
additional RACM measures are required.\12\ EPA is interpreting section
189(a)(1)(C) consistent with its interpretation of section
172(c)(1).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The EPA's interpretation that the statute only requires
implementation of RACM measures that would advance attainment was
upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
(Sierra Club v. EPA, 314 F.3d 735, 743-745 (5th Cir. 2002), and by
the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit (Sierra Club
v. EPA, 294 F.3d 155, 162-163 (DC Cir. 2002)).
    \13\ EPA does not, however, interpret the BACM requirement in
section 189(b)(1)(B) of the CAA as being suspended upon a
determination of attainment. We note that we have approved several
PM-10 control measures into the Truckee Meadows portion of the
Nevada SIP as satisfying BACM control requirements. See 71 FR 14386
(March 22, 2006), 72 FR 25969 (May 8, 2007), and 72 FR 33397 (June
18, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, in the case of a serious PM-10 nonattainment area that
does not attain the PM-10 standard by the applicable attainment date,
sections 189(d) and section 179(d) require the State to submit
additional SIP revisions providing for attainment of the standard.
Section 189(d), which applies to any serious PM-10 nonattainment area
that fails to attain by the applicable attainment date, requires the
State to submit ``plan revisions which provide for attainment of the
PM-10 air quality standard and, from the date of such submission until
attainment, for an annual reduction in PM-10 or PM-10 precursor
emissions within the area of not less than 5 percent'' of inventoried
PM-10 and PM-10 precursor emissions. Section 179(d), which applies to
any nonattainment area for which EPA has made a determination under
section 179(c) of failure to attain by the applicable attainment date,
requires the State to submit plan revisions meeting

the requirements of CAA sections 110 and 172 and ``such additional
measures as the Administrator may reasonably prescribe'' including
measures that can be feasibly implemented in the area.
    As discussed above in section II of this document, the Truckee
Meadows is a serious nonattainment area that did not attain the PM-10
standard by the applicable attainment date of December 31, 2001. See
CAA 188(c)(2).\14\ However, as discussed in section III.A of this
document, the area did attain the PM-10 standard beginning in 2002, and
has continued in attainment during the decade that followed. As
explained at length in the memoranda and rulemakings cited above, the
obligations to submit SIPs for RFP, attainment demonstrations, and
certain related SIP submissions are suspended once EPA determines an
area has attained the standard, since their purpose, to achieve
attainment, will already have been fulfilled. Section 189(d) requires
submittal of plan revisions ``which provide for attainment of the PM-10
air quality standard'' and annual emission reductions of at least five
percent ``until attainment.'' Similarly, section 179(d) requires
submittal of plan revisions meeting the requirements of section 110 and
section 172, which requires generally that submitted plan provisions
``provide for attainment of the national primary ambient air quality
standards.'' Because these requirements apply to nonattainment areas
that have failed to attain a standard by the applicable attainment date
and are directed at achieving attainment, we believe that the
obligations to submit plans under these requirements are suspended when
EPA determines that the area has attained the standard, for as long as
the area continues to attain. Thus, based on our proposed determination
that the Truckee Meadows area is now attaining the PM-10 NAAQS in
section III.A above, we propose to suspend the requirement for
additional SIP submittals under sections 189(d) and 179(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Truckee Meadows experienced two exceedances of the PM-10
NAAQS in 1999 which resulted in an expected number of days per year
with levels above 150 [micro]g/m\3\ for the 1999-2001 period
(averaged over that three-year period) of more than one, thereby
violating the PM-10 standard during that period. See U.S. EPA AQS
Database; 40 CFR 50.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We emphasize that the suspension of the obligation to submit SIP
revisions concerning these RFP, attainment demonstration, RACM, and
other related requirements exists only for as long as the Truckee
Meadows area continues to monitor attainment of the standard. If EPA
determines, after notice-and-comment rulemaking, that the area has
monitored a violation of the NAAQS, the basis for the requirements
being suspended would no longer exist. In that case, the area would
again be subject to a requirement to submit the pertinent SIP revision
or revisions and would need to address those requirements. Thus, a
final determination that the area need not submit one of the pertinent
SIP submittals amounts to no more than a suspension of the requirements
for so long as the area continues to attain the standard. Only if and
when EPA redesignates the area to attainment would the area be relieved
of these submission obligations. Attainment determinations under the
Clean Data policy do not shield an area from obligations unrelated to
attainment in the area, such as provisions to address pollution
transport.
    As set forth above, based on our proposed determination that the
Truckee Meadows area is currently attaining the PM-10 NAAQS (see
section III.A above), we propose to find that the obligations to submit
planning provisions to meet the requirements for an attainment
demonstration, reasonable further progress plans, reasonably available
control measures, contingency measures, and additional SIP revisions
under sections 189(d) and 179(d) no longer apply for so long as the
area continues to monitor attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS.\15\ If in the
future, EPA determines after notice-and-comment rulemaking that the
area again violates the PM-10 NAAQS, the basis for the attainment
demonstration, RFP, RACM, contingency measure, and additional section
189(d) and 179(d) plan requirements being suspended would no longer
exist. In that event, we would notify the State that we have determined
that the area is no longer attaining the PM-10 standard and provide
notice to the public in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ We note that our application of the Clean Data Policy to
Truckee Meadows is consistent with actions we have taken for other
PM-10 nonattainment areas that we also determined were attaining the
standard. See 71 FR 6352 (February 8, 2006) (Ajo, Arizona area); 71
FR 13021 (March 14, 2006) (Yuma, Arizona area); 71 FR 40023 (July
14, 2006) (Weirton, West Virginia area); 71 FR 44920 (August 8,
2006) (Rillito, Arizona area); 71 FR 63642 (October 30, 2006) (San
Joaquin Valley, California area); 72 FR 14422 (March 28, 2007)
(Miami, Arizona area); and 75 FR 27944 (May 19, 2010) (Coso
Junction, California).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. EPA's Proposed Actions

    Pursuant to CAA sections 188(b)(2) and 179(c)(1) and based on
complete, quality-assured data for the 1999-2001 period meeting the
requirements of 40 CFR part 50, appendix K, we propose to determine
that the Truckee Meadows nonattainment area failed to attain the 24-
hour PM-10 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of December 31,
2001. Failure by a ``serious'' nonattainment area such as Truckee
Meadows to attain the PM-10 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date
triggers a requirement for the State to submit additional plan
revisions providing for attainment under CAA sections 189(d) and
179(d).
    Separately and independently of the determination proposed above,
we also propose to determine, based on the most recent three years of
complete, quality-assured data meeting the requirements of 40 CFR part
50, appendix K, that the Truckee Meadows area is currently attaining
the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS. In conjunction with and based upon our
proposed determination that Truckee Meadows is currently attaining the
standard, EPA proposes to determine that the obligation to submit the
following CAA requirements is not applicable for so long as the area
continues to attain the PM-10 standard: The part D, subpart 4
obligations to provide an attainment demonstration pursuant to section
189(a)(1)(B), the RACM provisions of section 189(a)(1)(C), the RFP
provisions of section 189(c), the requirement for 189(d) plans, the
attainment demonstration, RACM, RFP and contingency measure provisions
of part D, subpart 1 contained in section 172 of the Act, and the
requirement for additional plan revisions in section 179(d) of the Act.
    This proposed action, if finalized, would not constitute a
redesignation to attainment under CAA section 107(d)(3) because we
would not yet have approved a maintenance plan as required under
section 175A of the CAA or determined that the area has met the other
CAA requirements for redesignation. The classification and designation
status in 40 CFR part 81 would remain serious nonattainment for this
area until such time as EPA determines that Nevada meets the CAA
requirements for redesignation of the Truckee Meadows area to
attainment.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action proposes to make two separate determinations regarding
attainment based on air quality, and would, if finalized, result in the
suspension of certain Federal requirements, and/or would not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law or by the
Clean

Air Act. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     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 EPA with the discretionary authority to
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule does not have Tribal implications
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP obligations discussed herein do not apply to Indian
Tribes and thus will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal
governments or preempt Tribal law.

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

    Dated: February 17, 2011.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2011-4376 Filed 2-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P