[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 109 (Monday, June 8, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 32371]
[FR Doc No: 2015-13898]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP15-496-000]

Equitrans, LP; Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization

    Take notice that on May 21, 2015, Equitrans, L.P. (Equitrans), 625
Liberty Avenue, Suite 1700, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222, filed in
the above Docket, a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205
and 157.208 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act
(NGA), and Equitrans' authorization in Docket No. CP96-532-000 for
authorization to operate its existing Jefferson Compressor Station at a
higher horsepower, all as more fully set forth in the application which
is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The
filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed Paul W.
Diehl, Counsel-Midstream, EQT Corporation, 625 Liberty Avenue, Suite
1700, Pittsburgh, PA 15222, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Specifically, Equitrans seeks authorization to operate the newly
constructed natural gas turbine compressor at is fully rated capability
of 16,301 horsepower. No construction will be necessary for Equitrans
to operate the compressor at its fully capability; rather, Equitrans
will need only to modify the software which currently limits the
horsepower at the newly constructed turbine compressor to 12,913
horsepower. There is no new capital or construction cost associated
with the project.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant
notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's
Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of
intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff
may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under
the Natural Gas Act (NGA) (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the
request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day
after the time allowed for protest. If a protest is filed and not
withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest,
the instant request shall be treated as an application for
authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.

    Dated: June 1, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-13898 Filed 6-5-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 76 (Thursday, April 22, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 21246]
[FR Doc No: 2021-08236]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 35

[Docket No. RM20-16-000]

Managing Transmission Line Ratings; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission published a notice of
proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register of January 21, 2021,
seeking comments on reforming both the pro forma Open Access
Transmission Tariff and the Commission's regulations under the Federal
Power Act to improve the accuracy and transparency of transmission line
ratings. As published in the Federal Register, the paragraph number for
paragraph 66 was incorrectly omitted and all paragraphs subsequent to
paragraph 66 were incorrectly numbered. This correction corrects the
paragraph numbers.

DATES: The comments were due March 22, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ryan Stroschein, Office of the General
Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426.<PHONE_NUMBER>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Correction

    In the Federal Register of January 21, 2021 at 86 FR 6420 in FR
Doc. 2020-26107, on page 6430, in the first column, correct the
paragraph that begins ``NRECA states that while it would support a
reasoned approach to implementing transmission line rating changes, it
does not support a Commission mandate to implement either AARs or DLRs
. . . .'' by inserting paragraph number 66 at the beginning of that
paragraph. Further, amend each paragraph number subsequent to corrected
paragraph number 66 in the notice of proposed rulemaking so as to
display them in an accurate numerical order.

     Dated: April 15, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-08236 Filed 4-21-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 229 (Wednesday, November 28, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71009-71010]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28786]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-N-1154]

Framework for Pharmacy Compounding: State and Federal Roles

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
following public meeting entitled ``Framework for Pharmacy Compounding:
State and Federal Roles.'' At this public meeting, FDA and State
representatives will share their perspectives.
    Date and Time: The public meeting will be held on December 19,
2012, from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. Onsite registration will be on a first-
come, first-served basis beginning at 2 p.m.
    Location: The public meeting will be held at the FDA White Oak
Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Building 31 Conference Center, the
Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993.
    Entrance for the public meeting participants (non-FDA employees) is
through Building 1 where routine security check procedures will be
performed. For parking and security information, please refer to http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WorkingatFDA/BuildingsandFacilities/WhiteOakCampusInformation/ucm241740.htm.
    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please
contact Steve Morin, FDA Office of Special Health Issues,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>no later than December 14, 2012.
    Contact Person: Patricia Kuntze, Food and Drug Administration,
10903 New H Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 5322, Silver Spring, MD 20993;
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Streaming Webcast of the Meeting: This public meeting will also be
Webcast. Persons interested in viewing the Webcast should use the
access connection at https://collaboration.fda.gov/pharmacycompounding/. The Webcast will begin on December 19, 2012, at 3
p.m. ET.
    If you have never attended a Connect Pro meeting before, test your
connection at: https://collaboration.fda.gov/common/help/en/support/meeting_test.htm. Get a quick overview at: http://www.adobe.com/go/connectpro_overview. Adobe, the Adobe logo, Acrobat and Acrobat
Connect are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Adobe Systems
Incorporated in the United States and/or other countries.
    If for some reason the test page does not work, that is not a
definite indicating factor that the actual Webcast will not work. The
test link sometimes appears to be broken on some individuals'
computers. (FDA has verified the Web site addresses in this document,
but FDA is not responsible for any subsequent changes to the Web sites
after this document publishes in the Federal Register.)
    This Webcast will be closed captioned.
    Comments: In order to obtain public comment, FDA is also soliciting
either electronic or written comments on the issues discussed in
section II of this document. The deadline for submitting comments is
January 18, 2013.
    Regardless of attendance at the meeting, interested persons may
submit either written comments regarding this document to the Division
of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630
Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852 or electronic comments to
http://www.regulations.gov. It is only necessary to send one set of
comments. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in
the heading of this document. In addition, when submitting comments on
issues as outlined in section II of this document, please identify the
issue you are addressing. Received comments may be seen in the Division
of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Transcripts: Please be advised that as soon as a transcript is
available, it will be accessible at http://www.regulations.gov. It may
be viewed at the Division of Dockets Management (see Comments). A
transcript will also be available in either hardcopy or on CD-ROM,
after submission of a Freedom of Information request. Written requests
are to be sent to the Division of Freedom of Information (ELEM-1029),
Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., Element Bldg.,
Rockville, MD 20857.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The recent outbreak of fungal meningitis associated with drugs
produced and sold by New England Compounding Center has raised serious
questions about the regulation of pharmacy compounding (Refs. 1 and 2).
Historically, regulation of pharmacy compounding has focused on drawing
a line between traditional pharmacy compounding and other
manufacturing. Generally, day-to-day oversight of traditional pharmacy
compounding has been seen as the primary responsibility of the States,
which license pharmacies and regulate the practice of pharmacy, while
other manufacturing falls under the purview of FDA. Going forward, FDA
believes the focus should be shifted from attempting to draw a bright
line between traditional pharmacy compounding and other manufacturing
to clearly defining traditional pharmacy

compounding that should be primarily overseen by the States and higher
risk non-traditional pharmacy compounding that would require compliance
with Federal standards. In addition, there are open questions about
whether, and to what degree States should enforce Federal standards,
what that oversight should look like, and the appropriate level of
communication and coordination required to make the system of State and
Federal oversight seamless and effective.
    FDA recognizes that the States play a critical role in the
oversight of traditional pharmacy compounding, which can include
compounding a customized medication in response to a prescription by a
licensed practitioner based on the identified medical need of a
particular patient for the compounded product. However, a category of
``non-traditional'' compounding has evolved in the last decade that FDA
believes requires additional oversight. The Agency is working with
Congress to consider new authorities regarding ``non-traditional''
compounding pharmacies. In recognition of the States' role, FDA has
also reached out to its State partners by inviting representatives from
all 50 States to an intergovernmental meeting.

II. Questions for Comment

    The intergovernmental meeting will be an opportunity for the State
officials to discuss a variety of issues regarding their views on the
role of the FDA and the States in the oversight of compounding
including:
     Given existing authorities and resources, are the States
currently able to provide the needed oversight of pharmacy compounding
and consumer protection?
     What should the Federal role be in regulating higher risk
pharmacy compounding such as compounding high-volumes of drugs for
interstate distribution? Is there a way to re-balance Federal and State
participation in the regulation of pharmacy compounding that would
better protect the public health? What strategies should be developed
to further strengthen Federal/State communications?
     Do you see a role for the States in enforcing a Federal
standard for ``non-traditional'' compounding? If so, what role? What
factors would affect a decision by your State to take on such
responsibility?
    The public meeting announced in this document will be held after
the intergovernmental meeting described above. FDA is holding this
public meeting to share the results of the intergovernmental meeting
with interested stakeholders. At the public meeting, FDA
representatives and participants from the intergovernmental meeting
will summarize the results of the intergovernmental meeting.

III. References

    The following references have been placed on display in the
Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) and may be seen by
interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
(FDA has verified the Web site addresses, but is not responsible for
any subsequent changes to the Web sites after this document publishes
in the Federal Register.)
    1. The Fungal Meningitis Outbreak: Could It Have Been Prevented?
Statement of Margaret A. Hamburg, M.D., before the House Committee on
Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
(http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Testimony/ucm327664.htm), November 14,
2012.
    2. Pharmacy Compounding: Implications of the 2012 Meningitis
Outbreak: Margaret A. Hamburg, M.D., before the Senate Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Testimony/ucm327667.htm), November 15, 2012.

    Dated: November 21, 2012.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-28786 Filed 11-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register: January 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 20)]
[Notices]
[Page 5535-5536]
[DOCID:fr30ja08-49]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12987-000]

Mississippi 5 Hydro, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for
Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

January 24, 2008.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric applications have been
filed with the Commission and are available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Preliminary Permit.
    b. Project No.: P-12987-000.
    c. Date Filed: August 30, 2007.
    d. Applicant: Mississippi 5 Hydro, LLC.
    e. Name of the Project: Lock and Dam 5 Hydroelectric
Project.
    f. Location: The project would be located on the Mississippi River
in Winona County, Minnesota and Buffalo County, Wisconsin. The Lock and
Dam 5 is owned and maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Brent Smith, Symbiotics, LLC, P. O. Box
535, Rigby, ID 83442, Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Patricia W. Gillis,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to
intervene: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Comments, protests, and
interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of
paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the
Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission
strongly encourages electronic filings. Please include the project
number (P-12987-000) on any comments or motions filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person in the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Project: The proposed project would utilize the
existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Lock and Dam 5 and
would consist of: (1) A proposed powerhouse containing four generating
units with a total installed capacity of 30-megawatts; (2) a
switchyard; (3) a proposed 0.1-mile-long, 69-kV transmission line; and
(4) appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would have an
estimated annual generation of 135-gigawatts and would be sold to a
local utility.
    l. Location of Application: A copy of the application is available
for inspection and reproduction at the Commission in the Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the

``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is

also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h
above.

    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Competing Preliminary Permit--Anyone desiring to file a
competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project
must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to
file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application (see 18 CFR 4.36).
Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to
file the competing preliminary permit application no later than 30 days
after the specified comment date for the particular application. A
competing preliminary permit application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30
and 4.36.
    o. Competing Development Application--Any qualified development
applicant desiring to file a competing development application must
submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the
particular application, either a competing development application or a
notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely
notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested
person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after
the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing
license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30 and 4.36.
    p. Notice of Intent--A notice of intent must specify the exact
name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective
applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to
submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary
permit application or a development application (specify which type of
application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s)
named in this public notice.
    q. Proposed Scope of Studies Under Permit--A preliminary permit, if
issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed
preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the
preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of
preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts.
Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide
whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to
construct and operate the project.
    r. Comments, Protests, or Motions To Intervene--Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001 (a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov

under the ``e-Filing'' link.
    s. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``NOTICE OF INTENT
TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION'', ``COMPETING APPLICATION'',
``PROTEST'', and ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the
Project Number of the particular application to which the filing
refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing the
original and the number of copies provided by the Commission's
regulations to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. An additional copy must be
sent to Director, Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, at the above-mentioned address. A
copy of any notice of intent, competing application or motion to
intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant
specified in the particular application.
    t. Agency Comments--Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-1632 Filed 1-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 79 (Thursday, April 23, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22733-22735]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08613]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0131; FRL-10008-05]

Draft Scopes of the Risk Evaluations To Be Conducted for Seven
Chemical Substances Under the Toxic Substances Control Act; Notice of
Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: As required by the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which
was amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st
Century Act in June 2016, EPA is announcing the availability of the
draft scope documents for the risk evaluations to be conducted for 7 of
20 High-Priority Substances designated in December 2019. The draft
scope document for each chemical substance includes the conditions of
use, hazards, exposures, and the potentially exposed or susceptible
subpopulations the EPA plans to consider in conducting the risk
evaluation for that chemical substance. EPA is also opening a 45-
calendar day comment period on these draft scope documents to allow for
the public to provide additional data or information that could be
useful to the Agency in finalizing the scope of the risk evaluations;
comments may be submitted to this docket and the individual dockets for
each of the chemical substances.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 8, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0131, or the applicable docket ID number
for the individual chemical substances identified in Unit III., by one
of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact:
Ross Geredien, Risk Assessment Division, Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency (Mailcode 7403M), 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 564-1864; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For general
information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South Clinton
Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general and may be of
interest to entities that manufacture (including import) a chemical
substance regulated under TSCA (e.g., entities identified under North
American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes 325 and
324110). The action may also be of interest to chemical processors,
distributors in commerce, and users; non-governmental organizations in
the environmental and public health sectors; state and local government
agencies; and members of the public. Since other entities may also be
interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities and corresponding NAICS codes for entities that may be
interested in or affected by this action.

B. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    This action directly implements TSCA section 6(b)(4)(D), 15 U.S.C.
2605(b)(4)(D).

C. What action is the Agency taking?

    EPA is publishing the draft scopes of the risk evaluations for 7 of
20 chemical substances designated as High-Priority Substances for risk
evaluation under TSCA. Through the risk evaluation process, EPA will
determine whether the chemical substances present an unreasonable risk
of injury to health or the environment under the conditions of use, in
accordance with TSCA section 6(b)(4). EPA announced the availability of
the draft scopes of the risk evaluations for 13 of 20 chemical
substances designated as High-Priority Substances for risk evaluation
under TSCA on April 6, 2020 (Ref. 1).

II. Background

    TSCA section 6(b)(1) requires EPA to prioritize chemical substances
for risk evaluation (15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(1)). Effective December 20,
2019, EPA designated 20 chemical substances as High-Priority Substances
for risk evaluation (Ref. 2), which initiated the risk evaluation
process for those chemical substances (15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(3)(A); 40 CFR
702.17). The purpose of risk evaluation is to determine whether a
chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk to health or the
environment, under the conditions of use, including an unreasonable
risk to a relevant potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation (15
U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(A)). As part of this process, EPA must evaluate both
hazard and exposure, exclude consideration of costs or other non-risk
factors, use scientific information and approaches in a manner that is
consistent with the requirements in TSCA for the best available
science, and ensure decisions are based on the weight-of-scientific-
evidence (15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(F)). This process will culminate in a
determination of whether or not the chemical substance presents an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment under the
conditions of use (40 CFR 702.47).

III. Draft Scopes for 7 of 20 Designated High Priority Chemical
Substances

    The 7 chemical substances for which EPA is publishing the draft
scopes of the risk evaluations are identified in the following Table,
along with the corresponding Chemical Abstract System Registry Number
(CASRN) and docket ID numbers.

                  Table--Draft Scopes for 7 of 20 Designated High Priority Chemical Substances
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Chemical substance                   CASRN                         Docket ID No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP) (1,2-                  85-68-7  EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0501
 Benzenedicarboxylic acid, 1-butyl 2-
 (phenylmethyl) ester).
Dibutyl phthalate (DBP) (1,2-                       84-74-2  EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0503
 Benzenedicarboxylic acid, 1,2-dibutyl
 ester).
Dicyclohexyl phthalate (1,2-                        84-61-7  EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0504
 Benzenedicarboxylic acid, 1,2-dicyclohexyl
 ester).
Di-ethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP) (1,2-               117-81-7  EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0433
 Benzenedicarboxylic acid, 1,2-bis(2-
 ethylhexyl) ester).
Di-isobutyl phthalate (DIBP) (1,2-                  84-69-5  EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0434
 Benzenedicarboxylic acid, 1,2-bis(2-
 methylpropyl) ester).
Formaldehyde...............................         50-00-0  EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0438
Phthalic anhydride (1,3-Isobenzofurandione)         85-44-9  EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0459
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The draft scope of the risk evaluation for each of these 7 chemical
substances includes the conditions of use, hazards, exposures, and the
potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations the EPA plans to
consider. Development of the scope is the first step of a risk
evaluation. The draft scope of each risk evaluation will include the
following components (40 CFR 702.41(c)):
     The conditions of use, as determined by the Administrator,
that the EPA plans to consider in the risk evaluation.
     The potentially exposed populations that EPA plans to
evaluate; the ecological receptors that EPA plans to evaluate; and the
hazards to health and the environment that EPA plans to evaluate.
     A description of the reasonably available information and
the science approaches that the Agency plans to use.
     A conceptual model that will describe the actual or
predicted relationships between the chemical substance, the conditions
of use within the scope of the evaluation and the receptors, either
human or environmental, with consideration of the life cycle of the
chemical substance--from manufacturing, processing, distribution in
commerce, storage, use, to release or disposal--and identification of
human and ecological health hazards EPA plans to evaluate for the
exposure scenarios EPA plans to evaluate.
     An analysis plan, which will identify the approaches and
methods EPA plans to use to assess exposure, hazards, and risk,
including associated uncertainty and variability, as well as a strategy
for using reasonably available information and science approaches.
     A plan for peer review.
    With the publication of the draft scopes, EPA is providing a 45-
calendar day public comment period. Note that, as a result of the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
v. U.S. EPA, 943 F.3d 397, 425 (9th Cir. 2019), EPA will no longer
exclude legacy uses or associated disposal from the definition of
``conditions of use.'' Rather, when these activities are intended,
known, or reasonably foreseen, these activities will be considered uses
and disposal, respectively, within the definition of ``conditions of
use.''
    EPA encourages commenters to provide information they believe might
be missing or may further inform the risk evaluation. EPA will publish
a notice in the Federal Register

announcing the availability of the final scopes within six months of
the initiation of risk evaluations that occurred on December 20, 2019
(Ref. 2).

IV. References

    The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically
referenced in this Federal Register notice. The docket for this action
includes these documents and other information considered by EPA,
including documents that are referenced within the documents that are
included in the docket. For assistance in locating these referenced
documents, please consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

1. EPA. Draft Scopes of the Risk Evaluations to be Conducted for
Thirteen Chemical Substances Under the Toxic Substances Control Act;
Notice of Availability. Federal Register. 85 FRxx, April 9, 2020
(FRL-10007-11).
2. EPA. High-Priority Substance Designations Under the Toxic
Substances Control Act and Initiation of Risk Evaluation on High-
Priority Substances; Availability. Federal Register. 84 FR 71924,
December 30, 2019 (FRL-10003-15).

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

Andrew Wheeler,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020-08613 Filed 4-22-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 194 (Friday, October 5, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50271-50274]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21664]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0550; FRL-9985-00-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
West Virginia; 2018 Amendments to West Virginia's Ambient Air Quality
Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state
implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of West
Virginia. This revision updates the effective date by which the state
incorporates by reference the national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) as well as their monitoring reference and equivalent methods.
EPA is approving this revision to the West Virginia SIP in accordance
with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This final rule is effective on November 5, 2018.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0550. All documents in the docket are listed on
the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through
http://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in
the For Further Information Contact section for additional availability
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Schulingkamp,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or by email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On July 31, 2018 (83 FR36823), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) for the State of West Virginia. In the NPR, EPA
proposed approval of a formal SIP revision submitted on June 8, 2018.
The formal SIP revision pertains to amendments to Legislative Rule,
45CSR8--Ambient Air Quality Standards and consists of a revised
effective date of the incorporation by reference of the NAAQS and the
associated monitoring reference and equivalent methods.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    This SIP revision was submitted by WVDEP in order to update the
State's incorporation by reference of the primary and secondary NAAQS
and the ambient air monitoring reference and equivalent methods, found
in 40 CFR parts 50 and 53, respectively. Currently, 45CSR8 incorporates
by reference 40 CFR parts 50 and 53 as effective on June 1, 2016. Since
that date, EPA retained the standard for lead and made a technical
correction to the particulate standard. See 81 FR 71906 and 82 FR
14325, respectively. EPA also designated one new ambient air monitoring
reference method for measuring concentrations of sulfur dioxide, four
new ambient air monitoring equivalent methods for measuring
concentrations of fine and coarse particulate matter (PM2.5
and PM10, respectively), and two new equivalent methods for
measuring concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in
ambient air. Additional information can be found in the NPR and will
not be restated here.

III. Response to Comments

    EPA received two anonymous comments on the July 31, 2018 NPR.
    Comment: The first commenter asked why this SIP revision was
``required'' by West Virginia and how it is possible for a state to
require a SIP revision. In addition, the commenter alleged that just
because a state changes a date in the state's regulation does not mean
it must change in the SIP. The commenter also asked EPA to clarify the
relevance of the phrase, ``EPA retained the standard for lead and made
a technical correction to the particulate standard,'' and to explain
what incorporation by reference means in the context of this
rulemaking.
    Response: When a state incorporates a rule or standard by
reference, the state is formally adopting the standard or rule into its
own state rules without having to rewrite the entirety of the
referenced rule or standard. States typically incorporate rules by
reference to maintain consistency between state and federal
requirements and for ease of adoption by the state. While nothing in
the CAA or EPA's regulations necessitates West Virginia to incorporate
by reference the NAAQS or to update the date of incorporation by
reference of the NAAQS in the State's SIP, West Virginia has chosen of
its own accord to incorporate by reference the NAAQS into its SIP and
recognizes that it is prudent to ensure the SIP and the state's
regulations match for consistent implementation and enforcement
purposes. In the NPR, EPA inadvertently referred to the State's
voluntary decision to submit the SIP revision incorporating the NAAQS
as a ``requirement'' when the State voluntarily decided to incorporate
the NAAQS and thus chose to submit its latest revised regulation for
SIP approval incorporating EPA's latest revised NAAQS. Thus, EPA agrees
with the commenter that the State is not required to submit this latest
SIP revision; West Virginia is exercising its voluntary decision to
include state regulations incorporating the NAAQS. Because West
Virginia chooses to incorporate by reference the NAAQS, and because
West Virginia incorporates by reference the NAAQS in its state
regulations by referring to federal regulations as published on a
certain date, West Virginia periodically updates its state regulations
to refer to the most up to date NAAQS in current federal regulations.
West Virginia identified several changes in 40 CFR parts 50 and 53
which the State determined necessitated updating the date of
incorporation by reference in its own state regulations; those changes
include the following: In 40 CFR part 50, a technical correction to the
particulate standard, and in 40 CFR part 53, one new ambient air
monitoring reference method for measuring concentrations of sulfur
dioxide (SO2), four new ambient air monitoring equivalent
methods for measuring concentrations of PM2.5 and
PM10, respectively, and two new equivalent methods for
measuring concentrations of NO2 in ambient air.
    The SIP revision submittal in this rulemaking was submitted by West
Virginia because West Virginia's rule, 45CSR8--Ambient Air Quality
Standards, incorporated the NAAQS and the ambient air monitoring
reference and equivalent methods found in 40 CFR parts 50 and 53,
respectively, as of June 1, 2016. Because West Virginia wanted to
ensure the most recent ambient air quality standards and air monitoring
methods are enforceable at the state level, West Virginia routinely
revises 45CSR8 to update the date by which the rule incorporates the
federal standards by reference. In this case, West Virginia revised the
date of incorporation by reference from June 1, 2016 to June 1, 2018.
By revising this date, West Virginia's ambient air quality standards
and air monitoring methods would match the federal NAAQS and air
monitoring methods in 40 CFR parts 50 and 53.
    In October 2016 and March 2017, EPA made revisions to 40 CFR parts
50 and 53. See 81 FR 71906 and 82 FR 14325, respectively. In these two
actions, EPA retained the NAAQS for the lead standard and made a
technical correction to the particulate matter standard. After EPA made
these changes, West Virginia's 45CSR8 no longer referenced the most
current NAAQS and air monitoring methods; therefore, West Virginia
decided to revise its state rule to reference the most recent NAAQS and
air monitoring methods. In this routine update, West Virginia
recognized that its newly revised 45CSR8 would no longer match the
version of the same rule that was contained in its SIP, thus, a SIP
revision was necessary to bring the SIP into conformance with both the
state rule and the federal standards in 40 CFR parts 50 and 53. In
conclusion, West Virginia's decision to incorporate the most current
NAAQS was voluntary and EPA in the proposed rule inadvertently referred
to West Virginia's decision to make this SIP submission as
``required.'' West Virginia decided voluntarily to incorporate the
federal NAAQS and reference methods into its SIP and to submit this
revision to incorporate the most recent version of 40 CFR parts 50 and
53 in its SIP. Therefore, EPA agrees with the commenter that EPA
inadvertently referred to the submittal as ``required;'' however, West
Virginia's SIP meets requirements in CAA section 110 as discussed in
the NPR and commenter has provided no information to challenge the
basis for EPA's approval under CAA section 110.
    Regarding the commenter's concern about EPA's statement that ``EPA
retained the standard for lead and made a technical correction to the
particulate standard,'' EPA explained the basis for this in the NPR. No
changes were made to the NAAQS for lead and thus no evaluation was
needed for West Virginia's altered 45CSR8. EPA explained in the NPR
that the Agency made a technical correction to our particulate matter
NAAQS and the commenter offered no substantive questions or commentary
regarding that change; thus, EPA provides no further substantive reply.
Regarding an

explanation of ``what incorporation by reference means,'' EPA offers
that incorporation by reference means that by this final action
approving the SIP revision, EPA is including in the new version of
45CSR8 (which in turn incorporated the text of 40 CFR parts 50 and 53)
in the federally approved and federally enforceable West Virginia SIP.
    Comment: The second commenter asked why the State of West Virginia
has to update their ambient air quality standards if the federal
standards cover all states, including West Virginia. The commenter
further opined that this rulemaking action is redundant and
unnecessary, and thus, EPA should not approve West Virginia's
submission.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter that EPA should
disapprove West Virginia's submission based on the SIP revision being
``redundant and unnecessary.'' Section 110 of the CAA permits states to
submit regulations the states deem relevant for SIP inclusion and
requires EPA to approve those submissions so long as they conform with
the Act. Apart from mandatory CAA requirements, states are free to
submit SIP revisions which they believe are necessary for inclusion
into the state's SIP. Regarding the comment as to ``why the State must
update their ambient air quality standards,'' EPA's reply is that West
Virginia is not ``required'' to submit this revision, as explained
above. West Virginia on its own accord sought to include 45CSR8 in its
SIP. EPA's decision to approve this SIP revision submittal is based on
our application of section 110 of the CAA to the submittal. As the
submission met the requirements of section 110 for SIP approval, EPA
must approve this voluntary submission for the West Virginia SIP.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving the West Virginia SIP revision updating the date
of incorporation by reference as a revision to the West Virginia SIP.
The SIP revision was submitted on June 8, 2018.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference 45CSR8, as
effective on June 1, 2018. EPA has made, and will continue to make,
these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at
the EPA Region III Office (please contact the person identified in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for
inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into
that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113
of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's
approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to
the SIP compilation.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

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

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by December 4, 2018. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action, updating the effective date of West Virginia's
45CSR8, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: September 24, 2018.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart XX--West Virginia

0
2. In Sec.  52.2520, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising
the entries ``Section 45-8-1'', ``Section 45-8-2'', ``Section 45-8-3'',
and ``Section 45-8-4'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2520  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                EPA-Approved Regulations in the West Virginia SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           State                                 Additional
 State citation [Chapter 16-20       Title/subject       effective     EPA approval date    explanation/citation
           or 45 CSR]                                       date                              at 40 CFR 52.2565
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 [45 CSR] Series 8 Ambient Air Quality Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 45-8-1.................  General..............       6/1/18  10/5/18, [insert       Docket #2018-0550.
                                                                      Federal Register       Filing and
                                                                      citation].             effective dates are
                                                                                revised.
Section 45-8-2.................  Definitions..........       6/1/18  10/5/18, [insert       Docket #2018-0550.
                                                                      Federal Register       Previous Approval 3/
                                                                      citation].             23/18.
Section 45-8-3.................  Adoption of Standards       6/1/18  10/5/18, [insert       Docket #2018-
                                                                      Federal Register       0550.Effective date
                                                                      citation].             is revised.
Section 45-8-4.................  Inconsistency Between       6/1/18  10/5/18, [insert       Docket #2018-0550.
                                  Rules.                              Federal Register       Previous Approval 3/
                                                                      citation].             23/18.

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-21664 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


The Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Industry Applying Aluminum Parts --

Leachable Formaldehyde Data

Facility Name	City	State	Sample Date	Sample ID	Duplicate Indicator Constituent Name	Leachable Actual or Calculated	Analytical Method Leachable Result	Units	Leachable Non-Detect Indicator	Leachable Detection Limit mg/L	Leachable Detection Limit Data Qualifier Description

DaimlerChrysler Jefferson North Assembly Plant	DETROIT	MI

JN-1	N	formaldehyde	actual

0.18	mg/L

	B	(Description not provided)

DaimlerChrysler Jefferson North Assembly Plant	DETROIT	MI

JN-2	N	formaldehyde	actual

0.31	mg/L

	B	(Description not provided)

DaimlerChrysler Jefferson North Assembly Plant	DETROIT	MI

JN-3	N	formaldehyde	actual

0.21	mg/L

	B	(Description not provided)

DaimlerChrysler Jefferson North Assembly Plant	DETROIT	MI

JN-4	N	formaldehyde	actual

0.23	mg/L

	B	(Description not provided)

DaimlerChrysler Jefferson North Assembly Plant	DETROIT	MI

JN-5	N	formaldehyde	actual

0.2	mg/L

	B	(Description not provided)

DaimlerChrysler Jefferson North Assembly Plant	DETROIT	MI

JN-6	N	formaldehyde	actual

0.2	mg/L

	B	(Description not provided)

DaimlerChrysler Jefferson North Assembly Plant	DETROIT	MI

JN-7	N	formaldehyde	actual

0.22	mg/L

	B	(Description not provided)

Ford MI Truck/Wayne Integrated Stamping & Assembly	WAYNE	MI

Drum #1	N	formaldehyde	actual

0.47	mg/L

0.1

Ford MI Truck/Wayne Integrated Stamping & Assembly	WAYNE	MI

Drum #2	N	formaldehyde	actual

0.24	mg/L

0.1

Ford MI Truck/Wayne Integrated Stamping & Assembly	WAYNE	MI

Drum #2 Duplicate	Y	formaldehyde	actual

0.31	mg/L

0.1

Ford MI Truck/Wayne Integrated Stamping & Assembly	WAYNE	MI

Drum #3	N	formaldehyde	actual

0.26	mg/L

0.1

Ford MI Truck/Wayne Integrated Stamping & Assembly	WAYNE	MI

Drum #4	N	formaldehyde	actual

0.23	mg/L

0.1

Ford MI Truck/Wayne Integrated Stamping & Assembly	WAYNE	MI

Drum #5	N	formaldehyde	actual

0.34	mg/L

0.1

Ford MI Truck/Wayne Integrated Stamping & Assembly	WAYNE	MI

Drum #6	N	formaldehyde	actual

0.55	mg/L

0.1

Ford Wixom Assembly Plant	WIXOM	MI

Drum #1	N	formaldehyde	actual

0.27	mg/L

0.1

Ford Wixom Assembly Plant	WIXOM	MI

Drum #2	N	formaldehyde	actual

0.065	mg/L

0.1	J	The associated value is an estimated quantity.

Ford Wixom Assembly Plant	WIXOM	MI

Drum #2 Duplicate	Y	formaldehyde	actual

0.11	mg/L

0.1

Ford Wixom Assembly Plant	WIXOM	MI

Drum #3	N	formaldehyde	actual

0.11	mg/L

0.1

Ford Wixom Assembly Plant	WIXOM	MI

Drum #4	N	formaldehyde	actual

0.078	mg/L

0.1	J	The associated value is an estimated quantity.

Ford Wixom Assembly Plant	WIXOM	MI

Drum #5	N	formaldehyde	actual

0.24	mg/L

0.1

Ford Wixom Assembly Plant	WIXOM	MI

Drum #6	N	formaldehyde	actual

0.21	mg/L

0.1

GM Flint Truck	FLINT	MI

FT-1	N	formaldehyde	actual

0.32	mg/L

GM Flint Truck	FLINT	MI

FT-2	N	formaldehyde	actual

0.4	mg/L

GM Flint Truck	FLINT	MI

FT-3	N	formaldehyde	actual

0.15	mg/L

	B	(Description not provided)

GM Flint Truck	FLINT	MI

FT-4	N	formaldehyde	actual

0.25	mg/L

	B	(Description not provided)

GM Flint Truck	FLINT	MI

FT-5	N	formaldehyde	actual

0.21	mg/L

	B	(Description not provided)

GM Flint Truck	FLINT	MI

FT-6	N	formaldehyde	actual

0.27	mg/L

GM Flint Truck	FLINT	MI

FT-7	N	formaldehyde	actual

0.24	mg/L

	B	(Description not provided)

GM Grand River Plant	LANSING	MI

LGR-1	N	formaldehyde	actual

0.17	mg/L

GM Grand River Plant	LANSING	MI

LGR-2	N	formaldehyde	actual

0.25	mg/L

	J	Estimate

GM Grand River Plant	LANSING	MI

LGR-3	N	formaldehyde	actual

1.2	mg/L

GM Grand River Plant	LANSING	MI

LGR-4	N	formaldehyde	actual

0.32	mg/L

GM Grand River Plant	LANSING	MI

LGR-5	N	formaldehyde	actual

0.17	mg/L

GM Grand River Plant	LANSING	MI

LGR-6	N	formaldehyde	actual

0.66	mg/L

GM Grand River Plant	LANSING	MI

LGR-7	N	formaldehyde	actual

0.26	mg/L

GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H1-1	N	formaldehyde	actual

1.1	mg/L

GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H1-2	N	formaldehyde	actual

2.2	mg/L

GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H1-3	N	formaldehyde	actual

0.89	mg/L

GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H1-4	N	formaldehyde	actual

0.8	mg/L

GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H1-5	N	formaldehyde	actual

1.1	mg/L

GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H1-6	N	formaldehyde	actual

1.6	mg/L

GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H1-7	N	formaldehyde	actual

0.77	mg/L

GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H2-1	N	formaldehyde	actual

2.2	mg/L

GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H2-2	N	formaldehyde	actual

2.2	mg/L

GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H2-3	N	formaldehyde	actual

0.96	mg/L

GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H2-4	N	formaldehyde	actual

2.3	mg/L

GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H2-5	N	formaldehyde	actual

2.8	mg/L

GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H2-6	N	formaldehyde	actual

2.6	mg/L

GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H2-7	N	formaldehyde	actual

3	mg/L

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	12/19/1997	LAN-S01-01	N formaldehyde	actual	AOAC Method 931.08	0.432	mg/L

	J	Estimate

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	12/19/1997	LAN-S01-02	N formaldehyde	actual	AOAC Method 931.08	0.508	mg/L

	J	Estimate

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	12/19/1997	LAN-S01-03	N formaldehyde	actual	AOAC Method 931.08	0.33	mg/L

	J	Estimate

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	1/29/1998	LAN-S02-01	N formaldehyde	actual	AOAC Method 931.08	0.112	mg/L

	J	Estimate

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	1/29/1998	LAN-S02-02	N formaldehyde	actual	AOAC Method 931.08	0.17	mg/L

	J	Estimate

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	1/29/1998	LAN-S02-03	N formaldehyde	actual	AOAC Method 931.08	0.27	mg/L

	J	Estimate

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	11/16/2000	3880.01	N	formaldehyde actual

0.2	mg/L

0.1

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	11/16/2000	3880.02	N	formaldehyde actual

0.3	mg/L

0.1

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	11/16/2000	3880.03	N	formaldehyde actual

0.2	mg/L

0.1

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	11/16/2000	3880.04	N	formaldehyde actual

0.1	mg/L

0.1

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	11/16/2000	3880.05 (Dup of 3880.01)	Y	formaldehyde	actual

0.2	mg/L

0.1

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	11/1/2001	7454.01	N	formaldehyde actual

0.2	mg/L

0.1

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	11/1/2001	7454.02	N	formaldehyde actual

0.1	mg/L

0.1

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	11/1/2001	7454.03	N	formaldehyde actual

0.4	mg/L

0.1

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	11/1/2001	7454.04	N	formaldehyde actual

0.3	mg/L

1

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	10/15/2002	10738.01	N	formaldehyde actual

0.3	mg/L

0.1

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	10/31/2002	10904.01	N	formaldehyde actual

1.4	mg/L

0.1

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	11/25/2002	11180.01	N	formaldehyde actual

1.3	mg/L

0.1

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	12/6/2002	11327.01	N	formaldehyde actual

0.5	mg/L

0.1

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	10/16/2003	S14816.01	N formaldehyde	actual

0.5	mg/L

0.1

GM Lordstown Assembly Plant	LORDSTOWN	OH	12/16/1997	LOR-S01-01	N formaldehyde	actual

0.721	mg/L

	J	Estimate

GM Lordstown Assembly Plant	LORDSTOWN	OH	12/16/1997	LOR-S01-02	N formaldehyde	actual

0.508	mg/L

GM Lordstown Assembly Plant	LORDSTOWN	OH	12/16/1997	LOR-S01-03	N formaldehyde	actual

0.432	mg/L

GM Lordstown Assembly Plant	LORDSTOWN	OH	12/16/1997	LOR-S01-04	N formaldehyde	actual

0.551	mg/L

GM Lordstown Assembly Plant	LORDSTOWN	OH	12/16/1997	LOR-S01-05	N formaldehyde	actual

0.423	mg/L

GM Lordstown Assembly Plant	LORDSTOWN	OH	6/9/1998	LOR-S02-01	N formaldehyde	actual

0.483	mg/L

	J	Estimate

GM Lordstown Assembly Plant	LORDSTOWN	OH	6/9/1998	LOR-S02-02	N formaldehyde	actual

0.54	mg/L

	J	Estimate

GM Lordstown Assembly Plant	LORDSTOWN	OH	7/17/2000	S02971.01	N formaldehyde	actual

0.2	mg/L

0.1

GM Lordstown Assembly Plant	LORDSTOWN	OH	8/1/2000	S02971.02	N formaldehyde	actual

0.1	mg/L

0.1

GM Lordstown Assembly Plant	LORDSTOWN	OH	8/6/2000	S02971.03	N formaldehyde	actual

0.1	mg/L

0.1

GM Oklahoma City	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	12/16/1997	OKL-S01-01	N	formaldehyde actual	Wet chemistry, not HPLC	8.45	mg/L

	J	Estimate

GM Oklahoma City	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	12/16/1997	OKL-S01-02	N	formaldehyde actual	Wet chemistry, not HPLC	7.6	mg/L

	J	Estimate

GM Oklahoma City	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	12/16/1997	OKL-S01-03	N	formaldehyde actual	Wet chemistry, not HPLC	8.85	mg/L

	J	Estimate

GM Oklahoma City	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	12/16/1997	OKL-S01-04	N	formaldehyde actual	Wet chemistry, not HPLC	11.6	mg/L

	J	Estimate

GM Oklahoma City	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	12/16/1997	OKL-S01-05	N	formaldehyde actual	Wet chemistry, not HPLC	8.2	mg/L

	J	Estimate

GM Oklahoma City	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	6/11/1998	OKL-S02-01	N	formaldehyde actual	Wet chemistry, not HPLC	5.32	mg/L

GM Oklahoma City	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	6/11/1998	OKL-S02-02	N	formaldehyde actual	Wet chemistry, not HPLC	4.8	mg/L

GM Oklahoma City	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	6/11/1998	OKL-S02-03	N	formaldehyde actual	Wet chemistry, not HPLC	4.58	mg/L

GM Oklahoma City	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	6/11/1998	OKL-S02-04	N	formaldehyde actual	Wet chemistry, not HPLC	7.72	mg/L

GM Oklahoma City	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	6/11/1998	OKL-S02-05	N	formaldehyde actual	Wet chemistry, not HPLC	16	mg/L

GM Pontiac East Plant	PONTIAC	MI

PE-1	N	formaldehyde	actual

0.31	mg/L

GM Pontiac East Plant	PONTIAC	MI

PE-2	N	formaldehyde	actual

0.44	mg/L

GM Pontiac East Plant	PONTIAC	MI

PE-3	N	formaldehyde	actual

0.51	mg/L

GM Pontiac East Plant	PONTIAC	MI

PE-4	N	formaldehyde	actual

0.2	mg/L

GM Pontiac East Plant	PONTIAC	MI

PE-5	N	formaldehyde	actual

0.6	mg/L

GM Pontiac East Plant	PONTIAC	MI

PE-6	N	formaldehyde	actual

0.2	mg/L

GM Pontiac East Plant	PONTIAC	MI

PE-7	N	formaldehyde	actual

0.62	mg/L

n 	80

	MAXIMUM	3

	MEAN	0.5920125

	MEDIAN	0.31

	Std. Dev.	0.6715611

	90th Percentile	1.42

	50th Percentile	0.31