[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 172 (Friday, September 4, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53509-53510]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21985]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14655-000]

Cat Creek Energy, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

    On December 12, 2014, Cat Creek Energy, LLC (Cat Creek) filed an
application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the
Federal Power Act, proposing to study the feasibility of the Cat Creek
Energy Generation Facility Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project (Cat
Creek project). The project would be located at the US Bureau of
Reclamation's (Reclamation) Anderson Ranch reservoir \1\ on the South
Fork of the Boise River near Mountain Home in Elmore County, Idaho.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On November 24, 2014, Owyhee Hydro, LLC also filed a
preliminary permit to use the Anderson Ranch reservoir as a lower
reservoir for the Anderson Ranch Pumped Storage Hydroelectric
Project (P-14648), and thus may be competing for the same water
resource.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant
the permit holder priority to file a license application during the
permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder
to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands
or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
    On December 19, 2014, the Commission asked Reclamation to confirm
that non-federal development is authorized at the Anderson Ranch site.
On January 30, 2015, Reclamation responded stating that it retains
jurisdiction over hydropower development at the Anderson Ranch dam,
reservoir, and powerhouse, which are part of Reclamation's Boise
Project. On June 8, 2015, the Commission responded and agreed with
Reclamation's jurisdictional decision over hydropower development at
the Boise Project's Anderson Ranch dam, powerhouse, and reservoir.
However, the Commission would retain jurisdiction for hydropower
facilities that would be located outside of Reclamation's development.
Thus, an entity seeking to build a hydropower project that would use
Reclamation's Boise Project facilities would need to obtain a lease of
power privilege from Reclamation, but it also would need to obtain a
license from the Commission for those facilities of the hydropower
project that are not under Reclamation's jurisdiction.
    On August 21, 2015, Cat Creek filed minor revisions to the original
Cat Creek project permit application. The revised Cat Creek project
would use the existing Anderson Ranch reservoir, and would consist of
the following new facilities: (1) A 3.4-mile-long, 80-foot-high earthen
dam; (2) a 38,000-acre-foot impoundment as an upper reservoir; (3) two,
5,600-foot-long, 22-foot-diameter steel penstocks; (4) two, 100-foot-
diameter concrete silos; (5) two, 200-megawatt vertical Francis
turbines/generators; (6) an 8.0-mile-long, 230- kilovolt transmission
line interconnecting with the existing Bonneville Power Administration
Dixie Substation; (7) an approximately 3.6-mile-long access road; and
(8) appurtenant facilities. The estimated annual generation of the Cat
Creek project would be 1,401.6 gigawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact for the Cat Creek project: Nicholas Josten, Cat
Creek Energy, LLC, 1989 South 1875 East, Gooding, ID 83330; phone:
(208) 954-5090.
    FERC Contact: Karen Sughrue; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-14655-000.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14655) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: August 28, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-21985 Filed 9-3-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 192 (Thursday, October 5, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69110-69112]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22070]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-1897; Project Identifier MCAI-2023-00921-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain Airbus SAS Model A320-214, A320-216, A320-251N, A320-271N,
and A321-253NX airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a quality
review of the forward cargo door frame-to-fuselage skin panel assembly
identified several fastener holes that deviated from the manufacturing
requirements. This proposed AD would require repetitive special
detailed inspections of the affected area for discrepancies and,
depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective actions,
as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD,
which is proposed for incorporation by reference (IBR). The FAA is
proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by November
20, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-1897; 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 NPRM, the mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), any comments received, and other information. The
street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For material that is proposed for IBR in this AD, contact
EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221
8999 000; email [email protected]; website easa.europa.eu. You may
find this material on the EASA website ad.easa.europa.eu. It is also
available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1897.
     You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th Street,
Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy Dowling, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2023-1897; Project Identifier
MCAI-2023-00921-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to
Timothy Dowling, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue,
Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected]. Any commentary that the FAA receives which
is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public
docket for this rulemaking.

Background

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2023-0153, dated July 26, 2023 (EASA
AD 2023-0153) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe
condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A320-214, A320-216, A320-251N,
A320-271N, and A321-253NX airplanes. The MCAI states a quality review
of the forward cargo door frame-to-fuselage skin panel assembly
identified several drillings as deviating from manufacturing
requirements, creating oversized fastener holes, which could lead to
cracking. This condition, if not addressed, could lead to reduced
structural integrity of the fuselage.
    The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on
these products. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1897.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2023-0153 specifies procedures for repetitive special
detailed inspections of the affected area for discrepancies and,
depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action.
The special detailed inspection consists of a rototest inspection for
cracking of the forward cargo door frame to fuselage skin panel, and if
no cracking is found, checking the fastener hole diameters. Corrective
actions include installing oversized fasteners if the fastener hole
diameter is less than or equal to the specified nominal diameter,
contacting the manufacturer for repair instructions if the fastener
hole diameter is greater than the specified nominal diameter, and
repairing any cracking by contacting the manufacturer for repair
instructions.
    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 ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it
has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that
the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop
in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in EASA AD 2023-0153 described previously, except for any differences
identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation
authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance
with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been
coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the
FAA proposes to incorporate EASA AD 2023-0153 by reference in the FAA
final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with
EASA AD 2023-0153 in its entirety through that incorporation, except
for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of
this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading
of a particular section in EASA AD 2023-0153 does not mean that
operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD
requirement refers to ``all required actions and compliance times,''
compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section
titled ``Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)'' in EASA AD 2023-
0153. Service information required by EASA AD 2023-0153 for compliance
will be available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1897
after the FAA final rule is published.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 8 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following
costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
42.5 work-hours x $85 per hour = $3,613......................            $100           $3,713          $29,704
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost
estimates for the on-condition repairs specified in this proposed AD.
    The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate.
According to the manufacturer, however, some or all of the costs of
this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the
cost impact on affected operators.

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

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would 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.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 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:

Airbus SAS: Docket No. FAA-2023-1897; Project Identifier MCAI-2023-
00921-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by November 20, 2023.

 (b) Affected ADs

    None.

 (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus SAS Model A320-214, A320-216, A320-
251N, A320-271N, and A321-253NX airplanes, certificated in any
category, as identified in European Union Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) AD 2023-0153, dated July 26, 2023 (EASA AD 2023-0153).

 (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

 (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a quality review of the forward cargo
door frame-to-fuselage skin panel assembly identified several
drillings as deviating from manufacturing requirements, creating
oversized fastener holes. The FAA is issuing this AD to address
oversized fastener holes and cracking. The unsafe condition, if not
detected and corrected, could result in reduced structural integrity
of the fuselage.

 (f) Compliance

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

 (g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD: Comply
with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, EASA AD 2023-0153.

 (h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2023-0153

    (1) Where EASA AD 2023-0153 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) Where paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2023-0153 specifies ``If,
during any SDI as required by paragraph (1) of this AD, any
discrepancy is detected, as defined in the SB, before next flight,
accomplish the applicable corrective action(s) in accordance with
the instructions of the SB,'' this AD requires replacing those words
with ``If, during any SDI as required by paragraph (1) of this AD,
no cracking is found, before next flight, accomplish the applicable
corrective actions in accordance with the instructions of the SB;
and if, during any SDI as required by paragraph (1) of this AD, any
cracking is found, before next flight, repair the cracking using a
method approved by the Manager, International Validation 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) Where paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2023-0153 specifies the
repair be done in accordance with ``approved Airbus repair
instructions,'' for this AD the repair must have been done using a
method approved by the Manager, International Validation Branch,
FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the
approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (4) This AD does not adopt the ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD
2023-0153.

 (i) No Reporting Requirement

    Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2023-0153
specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD
does not include that requirement.

 (j) Additional AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Validation 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 responsible Flight Standards Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the
International Validation Branch, mail it to the address in paragraph
(k) of this AD or email to: [email protected]. If mailing
information, also submit information by email. Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the responsible Flight
Standards 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
Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's EASA DOA. If
approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized
signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by
paragraphs (i) and (j)(2) of this AD, if any service information
contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those
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) Additional Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Timothy Dowling,
Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

 (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 2023-0153,
dated July 26, 2023.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2023-0153, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3,
50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
[email protected]; website easa.europa.eu. You may find this EASA
AD on the EASA website ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th
Street, Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (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 protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on September 28, 2023.
Victor Wicklund,
Deputy Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-22070 Filed 10-4-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 139 (Thursday, July 19, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42470-42476]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17621]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2012-0229; A-1-FRL-9700-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
New Hampshire; Determination of Attainment of the One-Hour Ozone
Standard for the Portsmouth-Dover-Rochester and Manchester Areas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to make four separate and independent
determinations for two areas in New Hampshire. First, with respect to
the

Portsmouth-Dover-Rochester, (Portsmouth) serious one-hour ozone
nonattainment area, EPA is proposing to determine that the area
attained the one-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for
ozone, by the applicable deadline of November 15, 1999. Second, EPA is
proposing to determine that the Portsmouth area attained the one-hour
ozone standard in 1999, and continues to attain the standard. Third,
EPA is proposing to determine that the Manchester marginal one-hour
ozone nonattainment area attained the one-hour NAAQS, by the applicable
deadline of November 15, 1993. Fourth, EPA is proposing to determine,
that the Manchester area has attained the one-hour ozone standard since
1993, and continues to attain the standard.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 20, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R01-OAR-2012- 0229 by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``Docket Identification Number EPA-R01-OAR-2012-0229, ''
Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (mail code: OEP05-2),
Boston, MA 02109-3912.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Anne Arnold,
Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,
5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109-3912. Such deliveries
are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of
operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday
through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-
2012- 0229. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
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 through www.regulations.gov, or
email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The 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 email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your
email 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: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office
Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible,
you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding
legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard P. Burkhart, Air Quality
Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109-
3912, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
    The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in
this preamble:

I. What is EPA proposing?
II. What is the background for these proposed actions?
III. What is EPA's analysis of data for purposes of determining
attainment of the one-hour ozone standard?
    A. How does EPA compute whether an area meets the one-hour ozone
standard?
    B. EPA's Analysis of the One-Hour Ozone Data for the Portsmouth,
NH Serious One-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area
    C. EPA's Analysis of the One-Hour Ozone Data for the Manchester,
NH Marginal One-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area
IV. What is the effect of the proposed determinations?
V. Proposed Determinations
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is EPA proposing?

    EPA is proposing to determine that the Portsmouth, NH serious one-
hour ozone nonattainment area attained the one-hour ozone NAAQS by the
deadline of November 15, 1999. This proposed determination is based
upon complete, quality-assured and certified air quality monitoring
data for the 1997-1999 ozone seasons showing that the area had an
expected ozone exceedance rate below the level of the now revoked one-
hour ozone NAAQS during that period and therefore attained the standard
by its applicable deadline. EPA is also proposing to determine that the
Portsmouth, NH area is currently attaining the standard based on
complete, certified and quality-assured ozone monitoring data since
1999 and continues to attain the standard based on the most recent
three years of complete, quality-assured and certified ozone monitoring
data (2009-2011). If EPA finalizes its determination, that the area is
currently attaining the one-hour standard, in accordance with EPA's
interpretation under the Clean Data Policy, it will relieve the area of
the obligation to submit one-hour ozone contingency measures for
failure to attain.
    In addition, EPA is proposing to determine that the Manchester, NH
marginal one-hour ozone nonattainment area attained the one-hour ozone
NAAQS by the applicable deadline of November 15, 1993. This proposed
determination is based upon complete, certified, quality-assured
ambient air quality monitoring data for the 1991-1993 ozone seasons
showing that the area had an expected ozone exceedance rate below the
level of the now revoked one-hour ozone NAAQS during that period, and
that the area attained the standard by its applicable deadline. EPA is
also proposing to determine that the Manchester, NH area has attained
the one-hour ozone standard since 1993, and continues to attain the
standard based on the most recent three years of

complete, quality-assured and certified ozone monitoring data (2009-
2011).

II. What is the background for these proposed actions?

    EPA designated the Portsmouth, NH serious one-hour ozone
nonattainment area as nonattainment for the one-hour ozone standard
following the enactment of the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990.
Most areas of the country that EPA designated nonattainment for the
one-hour ozone NAAQS were classified by operation of law as marginal,
moderate, serious, severe, or extreme, depending on the severity of the
area's air quality problem. (See CAA sections 107(d)(1)(C) and 181(a).)
The Portsmouth, NH one-hour ozone nonattainment area was classified as
serious. The one-hour ozone attainment deadline for the area was
November 15, 1999. The Portsmouth, NH area has both an approved 15
Percent Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) plan and a Post-96 RFP plan.
(See 63 FR 67405, December 7, 1998; and 67 FR 18493, April 16, 2002.)
The area does not have an approved one-hour attainment demonstration,
or one-hour contingency measures, but if EPA finalizes its proposed
one-hour determinations, there would be no requirement for the
Portsmouth, NH area to submit or implement one-hour ozone contingency
measures for failure to attain the standard or for the Portsmouth, NH
area to submit or implement a one-hour attainment demonstration.
    In addition, EPA designated the Manchester, NH one-hour ozone
nonattainment area as marginal for the one-hour ozone standard. The
one-hour ozone attainment deadline for this area was November 15, 1993.
Marginal areas had very few CAA requirements. For example one-hour
ozone marginal areas did not have to prepare or submit attainment
demonstrations, RFP or contingency measures. Table 1 lists the cities
and towns in the Portsmouth and Manchester, NH one-hour ozone
nonattainment areas. (See also 40 CFR 81.330.)

                  Table 1--List of Cities and Towns for the Portsmouth and Manchester, NH Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Area                         County          Cities and towns included        Classification
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manchester, NH Area...............  Merrimack (all)......  Allenstown, Andover,        Marginal.
                                                            Boscawen, Bow, Bradford,
                                                            Canterbury, Chichester,
                                                            Concord, Danbury,
                                                            Dunbarton, Epsom,
                                                            Franklin, Henniker, Hill,
                                                            Hooksett, Hopkinton,
                                                            Loudon, New London,
                                                            Newbury, Northfield,
                                                            Pembroke, Pittsfield,
                                                            Salisbury, Sutton,
                                                            Warner, Webster, Wilmot.
                                    Hillsborough (part)..  Antrim, Bedford,            Marginal.
                                                            Bennington, Deering,
                                                            Francestown, Goffstown,
                                                            Greenfield, Greenville,
                                                            Hancock, Hillsborough,
                                                            Lyndeborough, Manchester,
                                                            Mason, New Boston, New
                                                            Ipswich, Petersborough,
                                                            Sharon, Temple, Weare,
                                                            Windsor.
                                    Rockingham (part)....  Auburn, Candia, Chester,    Marginal.
                                                            Deerfield, Epping,
                                                            Fremont, Northwood,
                                                            Nottingham, Raymond.
Portsmouth, NH Area...............  Rockingham (part)....  Exeter, Greenland,          Serious.
                                                            Hampton, New Castle,
                                                            Newfields, Newington,
                                                            Newmarket, North Hampton,
                                                            Portsmouth, Rye, Stratham.
                                    Strafford (all)......  Barrington, Dover, Durham,  Serious.
                                                            Farmington, Lee, Madbury,
                                                            Middleton, Milton, New
                                                            Durham, Rochester,
                                                            Rollinsford, Somersworth,
                                                            Strafford.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38856), EPA promulgated for the first time
a new standard for ozone based on an 8-hour average concentration (the
``1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS''). EPA designated and classified most areas
of the country under the eight-hour ozone NAAQS in an April 30, 2004
final rule (69 FR 23858). EPA designated Southern New Hampshire as
nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This area is known as
the Boston-Manchester-Portsmouth (SE), NH area. At the time of eight-
hour designations, the Boston-Manchester-Portsmouth (SE), NH area did
not meet the one-hour ozone standard. The Boston-Manchester-Portsmouth
(SE), NH area is composed of portions of three separate one-hour ozone
nonattainment areas: (1) The Portsmouth, NH serious one-hour ozone
nonattainment area; (2) the Boston-Lawrence-Worcester, MA-NH one-hour
ozone nonattainment area; and (3) the Manchester, NH marginal one-hour
ozone nonattainment area. This proposed action concerns the Portsmouth,
NH serious one-hour ozone nonattainment area, and the Manchester, NH
marginal one-hour ozone nonattainment area. The Boston-Lawrence-
Worcester, MA-NH one-hour ozone nonattainment area, was the subject of
a previous Federal Register notice that determined the Boston-Lawrence-
Worcester, MA-NH one-hour ozone nonattainment area attained the one-
hour NAAQS by its attainment date (see 77 FR 31496, May 29, 2012).
    On April 30, 2004, EPA issued a final rule (69 FR 23951) entitled
``Final Rule To Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard--Phase 1,'' referred to as the Phase 1 Rule. Among other
matters, this rule revoked the one-hour ozone NAAQS in most areas of
the country, effective June 15, 2005. (See 40 CFR 50.9(b); 69 FR at
23996; and 70 FR 44470, August 3, 2005.) The Phase 1 Rule also set
forth how anti-backsliding principles will ensure continued progress
toward attainment of the eight-hour ozone NAAQS by identifying which
one-hour requirements remain applicable in an area after revocation of
the one-hour ozone NAAQS. Although EPA revoked the one-hour ozone
standard (effective June 15, 2005), eight-hour ozone nonattainment
areas remain subject to certain one-hour anti-backsliding requirements
based on their one-hour ozone classification.\1\ The United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit subsequently
determined that EPA should have retained certain additional measures as
one-hour ozone anti-backsliding requirements. These include one-hour
ozone contingency measures under section 172(c)(9), which are to be
implemented in the event an area fails to attain by its one-hour ozone
attainment date. South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA,

472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006) rehearing denied 489 F.3d 1245. EPA has
since added one-hour ozone contingency measures as an applicable
requirement in 40 CFR 51.900(o). (See 77 FR 28424, May 14, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standard--Phase 1, 69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is proposing two separate and independent determinations for
the Portsmouth, NH serious one-hour ozone nonattainment area. First,
EPA is proposing to determine that the area attained the one-hour ozone
standard by its attainment deadline, the end of the 1999 ozone season,
and second, that the area continues to attain that NAAQS. If EPA
finalizes its proposed determinations, there would be no requirement
for the Portsmouth, NH area to submit or implement one-hour ozone
contingency measures for failure to attain that standard.
    In addition, EPA is proposing to determine that the Manchester, NH
marginal one-hour ozone nonattainment area attained the one-hour ozone
standard by its attainment date, the end of the 1993 ozone season, and
that the area continues to attain that NAAQS. Since the Manchester, NH
area is a marginal nonattainment area for the one-hour ozone standard,
the area has no CAA-required contingency measures for failure to attain
the one-hour NAAQS.

III. What is EPA's analysis of data for purposes of determining
attainment of the one-hour ozone standard?

A. How does EPA compute whether an area has attained the one-hour ozone
standard?

    Although the one-hour ozone NAAQS as promulgated in 40 CFR 50.9
includes no discussion of specific data handling conventions, EPA's
publicly articulated position and the approach long since universally
adopted by the air quality management community is that the
interpretation of the one-hour ozone standard requires rounding ambient
air quality data consistent with the stated level of the standard,
which is 0.12 parts per million (ppm). 40 CFR 50.9(a) states that:
``The level of the national one-hour primary and secondary ambient air
quality standards for ozone * * * is 0.12 parts per million. * * * The
standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year
with maximum hourly average concentrations of 0.12 parts per million *
* * is equal to or less than 1, as determined by appendix H to this
part.'' Thus, compliance with the NAAQS is based on comparison of air
quality concentrations with the standard and on the number of days that
standard has been exceeded, adjusted for the number of missing days.
    For comparison with the NAAQS, EPA has communicated the data
handling conventions for the one-hour ozone NAAQS in guidance
documents. As early as 1979, EPA issued guidance stating that the level
of our NAAQS dictates the number of significant figures to be used in
determining whether the standard was exceeded. The stated level of the
standard is taken as defining the number of significant figures to be
used in comparisons with the standard. For example, a standard level of
0.12 ppm means that measurements are to be rounded to two decimal
places (0.005 rounds up), and, therefore, 0.125 ppm is the smallest
concentration value in excess of the level of the standard. (See,
``Guideline for the Interpretation of Ozone Air Quality Standards,''
EPA-450/4-79-003, OAQPS No. 1.2-108, January 1979.) EPA has
consistently applied the rounding convention in this 1979 guideline.
See, 68 FR 19111, April 17, 2003; 68 FR 62043, October 31, 2003; and 69
FR 21719, April 22, 2004. Then, EPA determines attainment status under
the one-hour ozone NAAQS on the basis of the annual average number of
expected exceedances of the NAAQS over a three-year period. (See, 60 FR
3349, January 17, 1995 and ``General Preamble for the Implementation of
Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' at 57 FR 13506,
April 16, 1992 (``General Preamble'').) EPA's determination is based
upon data that have been collected and quality-assured in accordance
with 40 CFR part 58, and recorded in EPA's Air Quality System (AQS)
database. To account for missing data, the procedures found in appendix
H to 40 CFR part 50 are used to adjust the actual number of monitored
exceedances of the standard to yield the annual number of expected
exceedances (``expected exceedance days'') at an air quality monitoring
site. We determine if an area meets the one-hour ozone NAAQS by
calculating, at each monitor, the average expected number of days over
the standard per year (i.e., ``average number of expected exceedance
days'') during the applicable 3-year period. See, the General Preamble,
57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992. The term ``exceedance'' is used throughout
this document to describe a daily maximum ozone measurement that is
equal to or exceeds 0.125 ppm which is the level of the standard after
rounding. An area violates the ozone standard if, over a consecutive 3-
year period, more than 3 days of expected exceedances occur at the same
monitor. For more information please refer to 40 CFR 50.9 ``National
one-hour primary and secondary ambient air quality standards for
ozone'' and ``Interpretation of the one-hour Primary and Secondary
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone'' (40 CFR part 50,
appendix H).

B. EPA's Analysis of the One-Hour Ozone Data for the Portsmouth, NH
Serious One-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area

    Table 2 shows a summary of one-hour ozone data for all the ozone
monitors in the Portsmouth, NH serious one-hour ozone nonattainment
area for the period 1997-2011. In short, if the three-year average
expected exceedance rate, shown in the far right column, is less than
or equal to 1.0, the site meets the one-hour ozone NAAQS. If all sites
in the area are shown to meet the one-hour ozone NAAQS, it can be
determined that the area has attained the one-hour ozone NAAQS.

     Table 2--Average Expected Exceedance Rate for the One-Hour Ozone Standard in the Portsmouth, NH Serious
                                        Nonattainment Area for 1997-2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Actual
                                                                               exceedance days   3-Year average
              AQS No.                      Site name              Years        over 0.124 ppm       expected
                                                                                ozone        exceedance rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
33-015-0012........................  Rye-Harbor State Park         1997-1999                 2               0.7
                                                                   1998-2000                 0               0.0
                                                                   1999-2001                 1               0.3
                                                                   2000-2002                 2               0.7
                                                                   2001-2003                 2               0.7
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Site relocated to Science Center
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------

33-015-0016........................  Rye-Seacoast Science          2003-2005                 0               0.0
                                      Center.                      2004-2006                 0               0.0
                                                                   2005-2007                 0               0.0
                                                                   2006-2008                 0               0.0
                                                                   2007-2009                 0               0.0
                                                                   2008-2010                 0               0.0
                                                                   2009-2011                 0               0.0
33-015-0013........................  Brentwood-South Road.         1998-2000                 0               0.0
                                                                   1999-2001                 0               0.0
                                                                   2000-2002                 0               0.0
                                                                   2001-2003                 0               0.0
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Site Discontinued
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
33-015-0009........................  Portsmouth-Vaughan            1997-1999                 2               0.7
                                      Street.                      1998-2000                 1               0.3
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Site relocated to Port Authority
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
33-015-0015........................  Portsmouth-Port               2001-2003                 2               0.7
                                      Authority.
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Site relocated to Peirce Island
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
33-015-0014........................  Portsmouth-Peirce             2003-2005                 0               0.0
                                      Island.                      2004-2006                 0               0.0
                                                                   2005-2007                 0               0.0
                                                                   2006-2008                 0               0.0
                                                                   2007-2009                 0               0.0
                                                                   2008-2010                 0               0.0
                                                                   2009-2011                 0               0.0
33-017-3002........................  Rochester-Rochester           1997-1999                 1               0.3
                                      Hill Road.                   1998-2000                 0               0.0
                                                                   1999-2001                 0               0.0
                                                                   2000-2002                 1               0.3
                                                                   2001-2003                 1               0.3
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Site Discontinued
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in Table 2, the Portsmouth, NH serious one-hour ozone
nonattainment area attained the one-hour ozone NAAQS at the end of the
1999 ozone season, since the three ozone monitors (Rye-Harbor State
Park, Portsmouth-Vaughan Street, and Rochester-Rochester Hill Road) had
expected exceedance rates below 1.0. Thus EPA is proposing to determine
that, based on the 1997-1999 complete, quality-assured and certified
ozone data in the Air Quality System (AQS) database, the Portsmouth, NH
serious one-hour ozone nonattainment area met the one-hour ozone NAAQS,
by the attainment deadline of November 15, 1999. EPA is also proposing
to determine that the area has remained in attainment of the one-hour
NAAQS ever since.

C. EPA's Analysis of the One-Hour Ozone Data for the Manchester, NH
Marginal One-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area

    Table 3 shows the results of one-hour ozone data for all the ozone
monitors in the Manchester, NH marginal one-hour ozone nonattainment
area for the period 1991-2011. In short, if the three-year average
expected exceedance rate, shown in the far right column, is less than
or equal to 1.0, the site meets the one-hour ozone NAAQS. If all sites
in the area are shown to meet the one-hour ozone NAAQS, it can be
determined that the area has attained the one-hour ozone NAAQS.

  Table 3--Average Expected Exceedance Rate for the One-Hour Ozone Standard in the Manchester, NH Marginal One-
                                   Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area for 1991-2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Actual
                                                                               exceedance days   3-Year expected
              AQS No.                      Site name              Years        over 0.124 ppm    exceedance rate
                                                                                ozone
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
33-011-0016........................  Manchester-Hartnett           1991-1993                 0               0.0
                                      Park.                        1992-1994                 0               0.0
                                                                   1993-1995                 0               0.0
                                                                   1994-1996                 0               0.0
                                                                   1995-1997                 0               0.0
                                                                   1996-1998                 0               0.0

                                                                   1997-1999                 0               0.0
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Site relocated to Commercial Street
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
33-011-0019........................  Manchester-North              1999-2000                 0                 *
                                      Commercial Street.
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Site relocated to Pearl Street
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
33-011-0020........................  Manchester-Pearl              2001-2003                 0               0.0
                                      Street.                      2002-2004                 0               0.0
                                                                   2003-2005                 0               0.0
                                                                   2004-2006                 0               0.0
                                                                   2005-2007                 0               0.0
                                                                   2006-2008                 0               0.0
                                                                   2007-2009                 0               0.0
                                                                   2008-2010                 0               0.0
33-013-0007........................  Concord-Storrs Street         1992-1993                 0                 *
                                                                   1992-1994                 0               0.0
                                                                   1993-1995                 0               0.0
                                                                   1994-1996                 0               0.0
                                                                   1995-1997                 0               0.0
                                                                   1996-1998                 0               0.0
                                                                   1997-1999                 0               0.0
                                                                   1998-2000                 0               0.0
                                                                   1999-2001                 1               0.3
                                                                   2000-2002                 1               0.3
                                                                   2001-2003                 1               0.3
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Site relocated to Hazen Drive
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
33-013-1007........................  Concord-Hazen Drive..         2004-2006                 0               0.0
                                                                   2005-2007                 0               0.0
                                                                   2006-2008                 0               0.0
                                                                   2007-2009                 0               0.0
                                                                   2008-2010                 0               0.0
                                                                   2009-2011                 0               0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Three year average expected exceedance rate cannot be calculated because the site has less than 3 years of
  data. For this area the two sites with an asterisk both have no exceedances for the time period in question.

    As shown in Table 3, the Manchester, NH marginal one-hour ozone
nonattainment area attained the one-hour ozone NAAQS at the end of the
1993 ozone season, since the one monitor (Manchester-Hartnett Park)
with three years of data had an expected exceedance rate below 1.0. The
other site (Concord-Storrs Street) began in 1992 and had no exceedance
in either 1992 or 1993. Thus, EPA is proposing to determine that, based
on the 1991-1993 complete, quality-assured and certified ozone data in
the AQS database, the Manchester, NH marginal one-hour ozone
nonattainment area met the one-hour ozone NAAQS, by its attainment
deadline of November 15, 1993. Based on data from 1993-2011, EPA
proposes to determine that the area has continued in attainment of the
one-hour NAAQS ever since.

IV. What is the effect of the proposed determinations?

    If EPA finalizes its proposed determination that the Portsmouth and
Manchester, NH areas attained the one-hour ozone standard by their
respective deadlines, there are no consequences for failure to attain
that standard. For the Portsmouth, NH area, it would discharge any
obligation with respect to contingency measures triggered by a failure
to attain by the one-hour ozone attainment deadline. In addition, if
EPA finalizes its determination that the Portsmouth, NH one-hour ozone
area continues to attain the standard, under EPA's ``Clean Data
Policy'' interpretation, which was first articulated for the one-hour
standard and then codified for the eight-hour ozone standard (40 CFR
51.918), that determination suspends the Portsmouth, NH area's
obligation to submit attainment-related requirements for the one-hour
ozone standard, including contingency measures. See, for example,
determination of one-hour ozone attainment for Baton Rouge, (75 FR
6570, February 10, 2010).

V. Proposed Determinations

    For the reasons set forth in this notice, EPA is proposing four
separate and independent determinations. First, EPA is proposing to
determine that the Portsmouth, NH serious one-hour ozone nonattainment
area met the applicable deadline of November 15, 1999, for attaining
the one-hour NAAQS for ozone, based on 1997-1999 complete, certified
and quality-assured ozone monitoring data. If EPA finalizes this
determination, it would discharge any obligation with respect to
contingency measures triggered by a failure to attain by the one-hour
ozone attainment deadline. Second, EPA is proposing to determine that
the Portsmouth, NH area is currently attaining the standard based on
complete, certified and quality-assured ozone monitoring data since

1999 and continues to attain the standard based on the most recent
three years of complete, quality assured ozone monitoring data. A final
determination, by EPA, that the area is currently attaining the one-
hour standard would relieve the area of its obligation to submit one-
hour ozone contingency measures. Third, EPA is proposing to determine
that the Manchester, NH marginal nonattainment area met the applicable
deadline of November 15, 1993, for attaining the one-hour NAAQS for
ozone. This proposed determination is based upon complete, certified,
quality-assured ambient air quality monitoring data for the 1991-1993
monitoring period showing that the area had an expected ozone
exceedance rate below the level of the now revoked one-hour ozone NAAQS
during that period and therefore attained the standard by its
applicable deadline. Fourth and last with respect to the Manchester, NH
area, EPA is proposing to determine, that the area has attained the
one-hour ozone standard since 1993, and continues to attain the
standard based on the most recent three years of complete, quality-
assured and certified ozone monitoring data.
    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
notice or on other relevant matters. EPA will consider these comments
before final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal
rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to the EPA New
England Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES section of this Federal
Register.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action proposes to make determinations of attainment based on
monitored air quality data, and/or does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, these
proposed actions:
     Are not ``significant regulatory actions'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are 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.);
     Do 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);
     Do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not economically significant regulatory actions based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not significant regulatory actions subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are 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
     Do 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, these actions do 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: June 28, 2012.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 2012-17621 Filed 7-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 12 (Tuesday, January 20, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2760-2762]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00701]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74042; File No. SR-OCC-2015-01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Concerning the Date of the
Annual Meeting of The Options Clearing Corporation's Stockholders

January 13, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on January 7, 2015, The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change described in I Items I, II and III below, which
Items have been prepared by OCC. OCC filed the proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \3\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(3) \4\

thereunder, so that the proposal was effective upon filing with the
Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the rule change from interested parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    This proposed rule change would provide OCC with flexibility with
respect to setting the date for the annual meeting of OCC's
stockholders.

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, OCC included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these
statements.

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to provide OCC with
administrative flexibility with respect to setting the date of the
annual meeting of OCC's stockholders. As background, a corporation
incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware, such as OCC, must
hold an annual meeting of its stockholders.\5\ Currently, Article II,
Section 1 of OCC's By-Laws provides that the date of the annual meeting
of OCC's stockholders shall be the fourth Tuesday in April of each
year. OCC desires to adopt a less prescriptive definition of when the
annual meeting of stockholders shall occur (consistent with the laws of
the State of Delaware) to, for example, permit the meeting to coincide
with a meeting of its Board of Directors. OCC therefore is proposing to
amend Article II, Section 1 of its By-Laws to provide that the annual
meeting of OCC's stockholders shall be a date no later than April 30th
of each year as determined by OCC's Board of Directors. OCC believes
that by providing it with the administrative flexibility to hold the
annual meeting of its stockholders on a date before April 30th of each
year, OCC will be able to function in a more efficient manner by, for
example, scheduling the annual meeting of stockholders to coincide with
a meeting of OCC's Board of Directors so that, for those directors
first elected at such annual meeting of stockholders, they may
participate at such meeting of the Board of Directors. The proposed
rule change will not affect clearing members, or other users of OCC's
services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 8 Del. C. 1953, Sec.  211.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    OCC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 17A(b)(3)(C) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(the ``Act''),\6\ since the proposed rule change is ministerial in
nature and does not affect the fair representation of its stockholders
in the administration of OCC's affairs, nor does it affect the ability
of OCC's clearing members to participate in the selection of OCC's
Board of Directors, since OCC is not proposing to change the provisions
of Article III, Section 5 of its By-Laws, which provides the means by
which clearing members may participate in the selection of OCC's Board
of Directors. In addition, OCC believes that the proposed rule change
is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \7\ because it is
designed to protect investors and the public interest. By permitting
the annual meeting of OCC's stockholders to be held on an earlier date,
any newly elected directors would be able to participate in the first
meeting of OCC's Board of Directors thereby better ensuring that the
persons sitting on OCC's Board of Directors are most suited to serve
OCC in a given year, which, in turn, provides for better protection of
investors and is in the public interest. The proposed rule change is
not inconsistent with the existing By-Laws or Rules of OCC, including
any By-Laws proposed to be amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(C).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    OCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any
burden on competition.\8\ Changes to the rules of a clearing agency may
have an impact on the participants in a clearing agency and the markets
that the clearing agency serves. This proposed rule change affects OCC
in that it amends the By-Law prescribing the date on which the annual
meeting of OCC's stockholders shall occur. The proposed modifications
would not unfairly inhibit access to OCC's services or disadvantage or
favor any particular user in relationship to another user because they
relate to the administration of OCC and would not impose any burden on
clearing members or other OCC participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the foregoing reasons, OCC believes that the proposed rule
change is in the public interest, would be consistent with the
requirements of the Act applicable to clearing agencies and would not
impose a burden on competition.

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments on the proposed rule change were not and are not
intended to be solicited with respect to the proposed rule change and
none have been received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder. At
any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the
Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-OCC-2015-01 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2015-01. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method of submission. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).

Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of OCC and on OCC's
Web site at http://www.theocc.com/components/docs/legal/rules_and_bylaws/sr_occ_15_01.pdf. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-OCC-2015-01 and should be submitted on or before
February 10, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-00701 Filed 1-16-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 148 (Monday, August 3, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46032-46033]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18956]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-D-1358]

Recommendations for Premarket Notification (510(k)) Submissions
for Nucleic Acid-Based Human Leukocyte Antigen Test Kits Used for
Matching of Donors and Recipients in Transfusion and Transplantation;
Guidance for Industry; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the availability of a document entitled ``Recommendations for Premarket
Notification (510(k)) Submissions for Nucleic Acid-Based Human
Leukocyte Antigen (HLA) Test Kits Used for Matching of Donors and
Recipients in Transfusion and Transplantation; Guidance for Industry.''
The guidance document provides recommendations to submitters and FDA
reviewers in preparing and reviewing premarket notification submissions
(hereafter referred to as ``510(k) submission'' or ``510(k)'') for HLA
in vitro diagnostic (IVD) device test kits. The guidance applies
specifically to nucleic acid-based HLA test kits used for the matching
of donors and recipients in transfusion and transplantation, whether
testing is for a single locus or for multiple loci simultaneously, for
which the premarket submission to FDA will be a 510(k). The guidance
announced in this notice finalizes the draft guidance of the same title
dated November 2013.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances
at any time.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to
the Office of Communication, Outreach, and Development, Center for
Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration,
10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-
0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the office in
processing your requests. The guidance may also be obtained by mail by
calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or<PHONE_NUMBER>. See the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for electronic access to the guidance document.
    Submit electronic comments on the guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Valerie A. Butler, Center for
Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903
New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
240-402-7911.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a document entitled
``Recommendations for Premarket Notification (510(k)) Submissions for
Nucleic Acid-Based Human Leukocyte Antigen Test Kits Used for Matching
of Donors and Recipients in Transfusion and Transplantation; Guidance
for Industry.'' The guidance provides recommendations to submitters and
FDA reviewers in preparing and reviewing 510(k) submissions for IVD
device test kits, specifically for nucleic acid-based HLA test kits
used for the matching of donors and recipients in transfusion and
transplantation, whether testing is for a single locus or for multiple
loci simultaneously. The guidance includes detailed information on the
types of studies FDA recommends for validation of HLA test kits
submitted as 510(k)s. More specifically, the guidance document
addresses the types of studies and other information that FDA
recommends to be used in designing and conducting studies for
validation of nucleic acid-based HLA test kits and preparing a 510(k)
submission.
    In the Federal Register of November 20, 2013 (78 FR 69693), FDA
announced the availability of the draft guidance of the same title
dated November 2013. FDA received several comments on the draft
guidance and those comments were considered as the guidance was
finalized. In addition, editorial changes were made for purposes of
clarity and accuracy. The guidance announced in this notice finalizes
the draft guidance dated November 2013.
    The guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance
practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the
current thinking of FDA on premarket notification (510(k)) submissions
for nucleic acid-based HLA test kits used for matching of donors and
recipients in transfusion and transplantation. It does not establish
any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You
can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the
applicable statutes and regulations.

II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The
collections of information in 21 CFR part 807, subpart E have been
approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of
information in 21 CFR part 809 have been approved under OMB control
number 0910-0485; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 812
have been approved under OMB control numbers 0910-0078 and 0910-0582;
the collections of information in 21 CFR part 820 have been approved
under OMB control number 0910-0073; the collections of information in
21 CFR part 56 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0130;
and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 50 have been approved
under OMB control number 0910-0586.

III. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding
this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the
Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to
send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the

heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division
of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the guidance at
either http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: July 29, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-18956 Filed 7-31-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


From:
Brenna M Harden<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Wed, 21 Sep 2022 13:03:16
To:
"Jones; DonnaLee"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"French; Chuck"<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
Coke Oven Section 114 ICR Enclosure 2 - Stack Test Schedule and Notification

On June 29, 2022, DTE Vantage (DTE) received Section 114 of the Clean Air Act Information Collection Request (ICR) in relation to development of Risk and Technology Review of Coke Oven Facilities related to 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart CCCCC, Pushing Quenching and Battery Stacks. The ICR also included risk and technology review, testing, interior and fenceline monitoring, and other information collection activities related to potential new regulations for coke byproduct recovery plants (CBRP) in relation to 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart L, Coke Oven Batteries. DTE owns and operates EES Coke Battery, L.L.C. (EES Coke) located in River Rouge, MI.

The June 28, 2022 ICR requires a schedule for stack testing (as required by Enclosure 2) to be submitted within 85 days of the submission (September 22, 2022.) And notification to the state of upcoming stack tests (21 days prior to testing.

A hard copy will also be submitted.

Regards,
Brenna Harden
DTE Vantage | EES Coke Battery, L.L.C., Senior Environmental Engineer
PO Box 18309, River Rouge, MI 48218o<PHONE_NUMBER> | m<PHONE_NUMBER>
dtevantage.com

<<EES Submission EPA ICR Enclosure 2 Stack Test Schedule 09212022 signed.pdf>>


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 119 (Thursday, June 22, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28487-28488]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13063]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[CERCLA-04-2017-3756; FRL-9962-93-Region 4]

Stony Hill Road Site; Wake Forest, Wake County, North Carolina;
Notice of Settlement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of settlement.

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

SUMMARY: Under 122(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the United States
Environmental Protection Agency has entered into a settlement with
Donald and Catherine Albright, concerning the Stony Hill Road Site
located in Wake Forest, Wake County, North Carolina. The settlement
addresses recovery of

CERCLA costs for a cleanup action performed by the EPA at the Site.

DATES: The Agency will consider public comments on the settlement until
July 24, 2017 The Agency will consider all comments received and may
modify or withdraw its consent to the proposed settlement if comments
received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the
proposed settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the settlement are available from the Agency by
contacting Ms. Paula V. Painter, Program Analyst, using the contact
information provided in this document. Comments may also be submitted
by referencing the site's name through one of the following methods:
    Internet: https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/about-epa-region-4-southeast#r4-public-notices.
     U.S. Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Superfund
Division, Attn: Paula V. Painter, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta,
Georgia 30303.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula V. Painter at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 8, 2017.
Anita L. Davis,
Chief, Enforcement and Community Engagement Branch, Superfund Division.
[FR Doc. 2017-13063 Filed 6-21-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P