[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 88 (Friday, May 7, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25124-25127]
[FR Doc No: 2010-10902]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0437; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-130-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Model 737-200, -300,
-400, and -500 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Model 737-200, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. This
proposed AD would require repetitive inspections for cracking of
certain fuselage frames and stub beams, and corrective actions if
necessary. This proposed AD also provides for an optional repair, which
would terminate the repetitive inspections. For airplanes on which a
certain repair is done, this proposed AD would also require repetitive
inspections for cracking of certain fuselage frames and stub beams, and
corrective actions if necessary. This proposed AD results from reports
of the detection of fatigue cracks at certain frame sections, in
addition to stub beam cracking, caused by high flight cycle stresses
from both pressurization and maneuver loads. We are proposing this AD
to detect and correct fatigue cracking of certain fuselage frames and
stub beams and possible severed frames, which could result in reduced
structural integrity of the frames. This reduced structural integrity
can increase loading in the fuselage skin, which will accelerate skin
crack growth and could result in rapid decompression of the fuselage.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 21, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m.

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-
544-5000, extension 1, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
917-6447; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2010-0437;
Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-130-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We have received reports of fatigue cracks at certain frame
sections, in addition to stub beam cracking. The fatigue cracking is
caused by high flight cycle stresses from both pressurization and
maneuver loads. Reduced structural integrity of the frames can increase
loading in the fuselage skin, which will accelerate skin crack growth
and could result in rapid decompression of the fuselage.

Relevant Service Information

    We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1254,
Revision 1, dated July 9, 2009. The service bulletin describes
procedures for, among other actions, repetitive detailed inspections
for cracks in the body station (BS) 616 and BS 639 frame webs, inner
chord, and outer chord, and the stub beam, and corrective actions if
necessary. The corrective actions include repair of any cracking before
further flight. The procedures also recommend contacting Boeing for
repair instructions for certain cracking and repairing before further
flight.
    As an option to the detailed inspection, the service bulletin
describes procedures for a high frequency eddy current (HFEC)
inspection for cracks in the same areas, and repair of any crack found.
The service bulletin also describes procedures for doing a detailed
inspection of the inner chord along the length of the repair and around
the fastener heads if a repair or preventative modification exists on
the inner chord below the floor that prevents the accomplishment of the
detailed or HFEC inspection in that area.
    For airplanes on which a certain repair is done, the service
bulletin describes procedures for repetitive detailed or HFEC
inspections for cracking of the replacement frame section (frame webs,
inner chord, and outer chord), and contacting Boeing for repair
instructions if any crack is found, and repairing before further
flight.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in
the service information described previously, except as discussed under
``Differences Between the Proposed AD and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-53A1254, Revision 1, dated July 9, 2009.''

Differences Between the Proposed AD and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-53A1254, Revision 1, Dated July 9, 2009

    Although the service bulletin specifies economic inspections and
repairs of BS 597 and BS 601 frames, this proposed AD would not require
those inspections and repairs.
    Although the service bulletin does not address accomplishing the
inspections for airplanes on which fewer than 15,000 total flight
cycles have been accumulated, this proposed AD would require the
inspections on those airplanes.
    The service bulletin specifies to contact the manufacturer for
instructions on repairing cracks, but this proposed AD would require
repairing cracks in one of the following ways:
     Using a method that we approve; or
     Using data that meet the certification basis of the
airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial
Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that we have
authorized to make those findings.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 635 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The following table provides the estimated costs for
U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD.

                                                                     Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of U.S.-
              Action                  Work hours     Average labor     Cost per product       registered                     Fleet cost
                                                     rate per hour                            airplanes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BS 616 and BS 639 inspection/                  15              $85   $1,275, per                      635   $809,625 per inspection cycle.
 lower frame and stub beam.                                           inspection cycle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We 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. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of
compliance in the AD Docket.

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

    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]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2010-0437; Directorate Identifier
2009-NM-130-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by June 21, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-200, -300, -
400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category; as
identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1254, Revision 1,
dated July 9, 2009.

Subject

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

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD results from the detection of fatigue cracks at
certain frame sections, in addition to stub beam cracking, caused by
high flight cycle stresses from both pressurization and maneuver
loads. The Federal Aviation Administration is issuing this AD to
detect and correct fatigue cracking of certain fuselage frames and
stub beams and possible severed frames, which could result in
reduced structural integrity of the frames. This reduced structural
integrity can increase loading in the fuselage skin, which will
accelerate skin crack growth and could result in rapid decompression
of the fuselage.

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Repetitive Inspections and Corrective Actions

    (g) At the applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(1),
(g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD: Do a detailed or high frequency eddy
current (HFEC) inspection for cracking of body station (BS) 616 and
BS 639 frame webs, inner chord, and outer chord, and the stub beams;
and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions;
by accomplishing all the actions specified in Part 1 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1254, Revision 1, dated July 9, 2009, except as specified in
paragraphs (i) and (j) of this AD. Do all applicable related
investigative and corrective actions before further flight.
Thereafter, repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 4,500
flight cycles since accomplishing the detailed inspection or at
intervals not to exceed 9,000 flight cycles since accomplishing the
HFEC inspection, as applicable.
    (1) For airplanes on which no inspection of the BS 616 and BS
639 frames specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1254,
dated February 17, 2005, has been done as of the effective date of
this AD, and that have accumulated fewer than 55,000 total flight
cycles as of the effective date of this AD: Inspect within 3,000
flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, or before the
accumulation of 56,500 total flight cycles, whichever occurs first.
    (2) For airplanes on which no inspection of the BS 616 and BS
639 frames specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1254,
dated February 17, 2005, has been done as of the effective date of
this AD, and that have accumulated 55,000 or more total flight
cycles as of the effective date of this AD: Inspect within 1,500
flight cycles after the effective date of this AD.
    (3) For airplanes on which a detailed or HFEC inspection of the
BS 616 and BS 639 frames, specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-53A1254, dated February 17, 2005, has been done as of the
effective date of this AD: Inspect at the later of the times
specified in paragraphs (g)(3)(i) and (g)(3)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) Within 3,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this
AD.
    (ii) Within 4,500 flight cycles after the previous inspection
done in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1254,
dated February 17, 2005.

Post-Repair Repetitive Inspections and Corrective Actions

    (h) For airplanes on which the repair specified in Part 4 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1254, Revision 1, dated July 9, 2009, has been done: At the
applicable time specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this
AD, do a detailed or HFEC inspection for cracking of the replacement
frame section (frame webs, inner chord, and outer chord); and do all
applicable related investigative and corrective actions; by
accomplishing all the actions specified in Part 1 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1254, Revision 1, dated July 9, 2009, except as specified in
paragraphs (i) and (j) of this AD. Do all applicable related
investigative and corrective actions before further flight.
Thereafter, repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 4,500
flight cycles since accomplishing the detailed inspection or at
intervals not to exceed 9,000 flight cycles since accomplishing the
HFEC inspection, as applicable.
    (1) For airplanes on which a partial frame splice repair at BS
616 or BS 639 has been done, and the inner chord and web have been
cold-worked: Inspect within 44,000 flight cycles after the repair
has been done.
    (2) For airplanes on which a partial frame splice repair at BS
616 or BS 639 has been done, and the inner chord and web have not
been cold-worked: Inspect within 29,000 flight cycles after that
repair has been done.

Alternative Inspection of Repaired or Modified Area

    (i) For airplanes on which a repair or preventative modification
exists on the inner chord below the floor which prevents the
accomplishment of the detailed or HFEC inspection in that area as
required by paragraph (g) of this AD: In lieu of inspecting that
area, do a detailed inspection of the

inner chord along the length of the repair and around the fastener
heads in accordance with Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions
of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1254, Revision 1, dated July
9, 2009.

Exceptions to Service Information

    (j) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1254, Revision 1,
dated July 9, 2009, specifies to contact Boeing for repair
instructions and repair: Before further flight, repair the cracking
using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified
in paragraph (m) of this AD.
    (k) Although Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1254, Revision
1, dated July 9, 2009, specifies to submit information to the
manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.

Terminating Action

    (l) Doing the repair specified in Part 4 of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-53A1254, Revision 1, dated July 9, 2009, terminates the
repetitive inspection requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD for
the repaired frame only.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (m)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to
ATTN: Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S,
FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (425)
917-6590. Or, e-mail information to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.
The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an
Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes
Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been
authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For
a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the
certification basis of the airplane.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 28, 2010.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-10902 Filed 5-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 79 (Thursday, April 23, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22732-22733]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08636]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CD20-4-000]

Campbell's Ferry Ranch, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Determination
of a Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility and Soliciting Comments and
Motions To Intervene

    On April 15, 2020, Campbell's Ferry Ranch, LLC, filed a notice of
intent to construct a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, pursuant
to section 30 of the Federal Power Act (FPA). The proposed Campbell's
Ferry Micro-Hydro Unit would have an installed capacity of 1.1
kilowatts (kW), and would be located along an existing irrigation
pipeline on the applicant's property near Dixie, Idaho County, Idaho.
    Applicant Contact: Douglas Tims, HC83 Box 8023, Cascade, ID 83611,
Phone No.<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    FERC Contact: Christopher Chaney, Phone No.<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility Description: The proposed
project would consist of: (1) A 1.1-kW turbine-generator; (2) an
approximately 10-foot by 10-foot powerhouse; and (3) appurtenant
facilities. The proposed project would have an estimated annual
generation of up to 1.5 megawatt-hours.
    A qualifying conduit hydropower facility is one that is determined
or deemed to meet all the criteria shown in the table below.

                          Table 1--Criteria for Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Satisfies (Y/
              Statutory provision                                   Description                          N)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FPA 30(a)(3)(A)................................  The conduit the facility uses is a tunnel, canal,            Y
                                                  pipeline, aqueduct, flume, ditch, or similar
                                                  manmade water conveyance that is operated for
                                                  the distribution of water for agricultural,
                                                  municipal, or industrial consumption and not
                                                  primarily for the generation of electricity.
FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(i).............................  The facility is constructed, operated, or                    Y
                                                  maintained for the generation of electric power
                                                  and uses for such generation only the
                                                  hydroelectric potential of a non-federally owned
                                                  conduit.
FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(ii)............................  The facility has an installed capacity that does             Y
                                                  not exceed 40 megawatts.
FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(iii)...........................  On or before August 9, 2013, the facility is not             Y
                                                  licensed, or exempted from the licensing
                                                  requirements of Part I of the FPA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Preliminary Determination: The proposed Campbell's Ferry Micro-
Hydro Unit will not alter the primary purpose of the conduit, which is
to transport water for irrigation and fire suppression. Therefore,
based upon the above criteria, Commission staff preliminarily
determines that the proposal satisfies the requirements for a
qualifying conduit hydropower facility, which is not required to be
licensed or exempted from licensing.
    Comments and Motions to Intervene: Deadline for filing comments
contesting whether the facility meets the qualifying criteria is 30
days from the issuance date of this notice.
    Deadline for filing motions to intervene is 30 days from the
issuance date of this notice.
    Anyone may submit comments or a motion to intervene in accordance
with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR
385.210 and 385.214. Any motions to intervene must be received on or
before the specified deadline date for the particular proceeding.
    Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: All filings must (1)
bear in all capital letters the ``COMMENTS CONTESTING QUALIFICATION FOR
A CONDUIT HYDROPOWER FACILITY'' or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE,'' as
applicable; (2) state in the heading the name of the applicant and the
project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3)
state the name, address, and telephone number of the person filing; and
(4) otherwise comply with the requirements of sections 385.2001 through
385.2005 of the Commission's regulations.\1\ All comments contesting
Commission staff's preliminary determination that the facility meets
the qualifying criteria must set forth their evidentiary basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 385.2001-2005 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
motions to intervene and comments 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. A copy of all other filings in
reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service
on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in
this proceeding, in

accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
    Locations of Notice of Intent: The Commission provides all
interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of
this document via the internet through the Commission's website at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number
(i.e., CD20-4) in the docket number field to access the document. You
may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. Copies of the notice of
intent can be obtained directly from the applicant. At this time, the
Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public Reference
Room due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning
the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the President on
March 13, 2020. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 16, 2020.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-08636 Filed 4-22-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


From: Tong, Stanley<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Friday, April 05, 2019 9:59 AM
 To: Herzig, Joe<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: LEVIN, NANCY<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: Q: Pharmaceutical CTG and SD 67.15

 Joe,
 Thanks for providing this information. I will talk with Nancy Levin next week, but I think this is all I need. Stan

 Stanley Tong
 US EPA Region IX - Air Division, Rules Office (AIR 4) 75 Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105<EMAIL_ADDRESS>415 947 4122 (w)

From: Herzig, Joe<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Friday, April 05, 2019 9:50 AM
To: Tong, Stanley<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: Q: Pharmaceutical CTG and SD 67.15 Stanley,
  < 5 (permit condition)
 Beckman Coulter Inc
 < 5 (permit condition)
 Beckman Coulter Inc

Genentech Inc.
< 3.7 (Eng. Eval)
Illumina
< 2.9 (various)
J&D Laboratories Inc
< 10.3 (permit
condition)
Select Supplements Inc
< 2.8 (Eng. Eval)
SenDx Medical Inc
< 2.7 (permit
condition)

Beckman Coulter Inc. manufactures medical diagnostic solutions. These are typically aqueous solutions and emissions are likely much less than 2 tons per year.

Genentech Inc. manufactures pharmaceuticals however the vast majority of the emissions are attributed to their facility wipe cleaning using IPA in wipes and with spray bottles to maintain a sterile working environment.

Illumina manufactures oligonucleotides (not used as medications) and the emissions are from the carrier solvent evaporation. J&D Laboratories Inc. does mixing and encapsulation of softgel vitamins.
Select Supplements Inc. does mixing and encapsulation of softgel vitamins.

SenDx Medical Inc. manufactures medical devices, and various calibration and membrane solutions.

Let me know if you need any more information. Regards,
 Joseph N. Herzig
 Air Pollution Control Engineer
 San Diego County Air Pollution Control District<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
From: Tong, Stanley<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2019 1:34 PM
 To: Herzig, Joe<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject: FW: Q: Pharmaceutical CTG and SD 67.15 Joe,
 EPA's CTG applies to synthesized pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities where VOC emissions from vents (from reactors, distillation operations, crystallizers, centrifuges, and vacuum dryers) emit 15 lb/day (~2.7 tpy) or more.

 For the 6 facilities below listed as <2.7 tpy or higher, please give me a short description (1-2 sentence is fine) of what they do/make?
 This will help me determine if the Pharmaceutical CTG applies. Thanks.

 Stan

 Stanley Tong
 US EPA Region IX - Air Division, Rules Office (AIR 4) 75 Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105<EMAIL_ADDRESS>415 947 4122 (w)

From: Cormier, Nick<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 5:15 PM
To: Tong, Stanley<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: Herzig, Joe<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: Q: Pharmaceutical CTG and SD 67.15

Hi Stan,

Just to update you on this request; I think we'll need EPA to give us some additional clarification from you on what you define as "chemical synthesis" in regards to pharmaceuticals. We reviewed the facilities in the list I provided yesterday, most of which are involved in the biotech industry. It's not as clear cut to lump some of these facilities into one bucket or another, unfortunately. Some may be subject to our pharmaceuticals rule, but some might only be subject to it because it was the "best fit" at the time  -  whether or not their operations qualify as "chemical synthesis" is a bit of quandary to us. We'll do the best we can with the information we know.

In my absence, please contact Joe Herzig from our Rule Development division (cc'd) next week when you return to clarify what you're looking for. Joe previously worked with some of these facilities and has some knowledge of the technical processes involved for some of them.

Below are some of the emission totals I was able to procure from records at my disposal. I've asked our inventory staff for the exact numbers, but they weren't able to get me that by this afternoon. As you can see, with the possible exception of one facility emitting around 10 tpy, most appear to be fairly small emitters of VOC, if it's of any help.

DBA
EQUIP_LOCATION_ADDRESS
ZIP_CODE
VOC (tons/year)
(source found)
Beckman Coulter Inc
2470 Faraday Av Carlsbad, CA
92010
< 5 (permit
condition)
Campbell Membrane Technology
1168 N Johnson Ave El Cajon, CA
92020
< 1.2 (source test)
Carlsbad Technology, Inc.
5923 Balfour Court Carlsbad, CA
92008
< 0.6 (Eng. Eval)
Genentech Inc.
1 Antibody Way Oceanside, CA
92056
< 3.7 (Eng. Eval)
Illumina
5200 Illumina Way San Diego, CA
92122
< 2.9 (various)
IONIS PHARMACEUTICALS
2282 FARADAY AV CARLSBAD, CA
92008
< 1.9 (permit
condition)
J&D Laboratories Inc
2710 Progress St Vista, CA
92081
< 10.3 (permit
condition)
Pacira Pharmaceuticals
10450 Science Center Drive San Diego, CA
92121
< 1 (Eng. Eval)
Select Supplements Inc
5800 Newton Dr Carlsbad, CA
92008
< 2.8 (Eng. Eval)
SenDx Medical Inc
1945 Palomar Oaks Way Carlsbad, CA
92011
< 2.7 (permit
condition)
Versum Materials US, LLC
1969 Palomar Oaks Way Carlsbad, CA
92011
< 1.9 (permit
condition)

Regards,
Nick Cormier
 Air Quality Specialist
 County of San Diego Air Pollution Control District 10124 Old Grove Rd.
 San Diego, CA 92131 Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
 Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

From: Tong, Stanley<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2019 10:58 AM
To: Cormier, Nick<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: Q: Pharmaceutical CTG and SD 67.15

Thanks  -  I'm looking at the Pharmaceutical CTG  -  trying to see if any companies actually manufacture, by chemical synthesis "synthesized Pharmaceutical" products.

CTG does not cover fermentation/extraction of organic chemicals from vegetative materials or animal tissues, and formulation and packaging of the product.

I think the first cut is if any facilities actually does chemical synthesis  -  then of those that do, what are their emissions.

From: Cormier, Nick<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2019 10:17 AM

To: Tong, Stanley<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: Q: Pharmaceutical CTG and SD 67.15 Hi Stan,
Saw your voicemail  -  I'm on a conference call until Noon but I think I understand what you're looking for.

Below is the preliminary list of facilities that are involved in pharmaceutical manufacturing in the County, as well as addresses. I'm waiting on our folks to track down the emission totals for each. Just judging by the names, my guess is none are considered major sources of VOC or NOx. I also need to research each site to see what they do; I'm not sure I can get that complete info by tomorrow, as I'm not familiar with any of them. My guess is most are involved in the biotech field, but how they make their respective products is something I need more info on.

DBA
EQUIP_LOCATION_ADDRESS
ZIP_CODE
Beckman Coulter Inc
2470 Faraday Av Carlsbad, CA
92010
Campbell Membrane Technology
1168 N Johnson Ave El Cajon, CA
92020
Carlsbad Technology, Inc.
5923 Balfour Court Carlsbad, CA
92008
Genentech Inc.
1 Antibody Way Oceanside, CA
92056
Illumina
5200 Illumina Way San Diego, CA
92122
IONIS PHARMACEUTICALS
2282 FARADAY AV CARLSBAD, CA
92008
J&D Laboratories Inc
2710 Progress St Vista, CA
92081
Pacira Pharmaceuticals
10450 Science Center Drive San Diego, CA
92121
Select Supplements Inc
5800 Newton Dr Carlsbad, CA
92008
SenDx Medical Inc
1945 Palomar Oaks Way Carlsbad, CA
92011
Versum Materials US, LLC
1969 Palomar Oaks Way Carlsbad, CA
92011

Regards,
Nick Cormier
 Air Quality Specialist
 County of San Diego Air Pollution Control District 10124 Old Grove Rd.
 San Diego, CA 92131 Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
 Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

 From: Cormier, Nick
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2019 9:38 AM
To: 'Tong, Stanley'<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Ortega, Angela<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject: RE: Q: Pharmaceutical CTG and SD 67.15 Hi Stan,
 I'm tracking down this information. I'm aiming to get it to you by tomorrow COB.

 Regards,
 Nick Cormier
 Air Quality Specialist
 County of San Diego Air Pollution Control District 10124 Old Grove Rd.
 San Diego, CA 92131 Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
 Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

From: Tong, Stanley<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 11:15 AM
To: Cormier, Nick<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Ortega, Angela<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: Q: Pharmaceutical CTG and SD 67.15 Nick or Angie

What facility(s) (name/address/emissions)? are subject to Rule 67.15 Pharmaceutical and Cosmetic manufacturing? Do they make pharmaceuticals OR do they make cosmetics?
If pharmaceutical  -  can you give me something that describes what they do? e.g.,  -  make pharmaceutical products and intermediates by chemical synthesis?
Or do they produce/recover materials using fermentation, extraction of organic chemicals from vegetative materials or animal tissues?

Stan

 Stanley Tong
 US EPA Region IX - Air Division, Rules Office (AIR 4) 75 Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105<EMAIL_ADDRESS>415 947 4122 (w)


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 78 (Thursday, April 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22731-22732]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09471]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC15-124-000.
    Applicants: FR Kingfisher Holdings LLC, FR Kingfisher Holdings II
LLC, MidAmerican Wind Tax Equity Holdings, LLC.
    Description: Joint Application for Authorization under Section 203
of the Federal Power Act and Request for Confidential Treatment of FR
Kingfisher Holdings LLC, et al. under EC15-124.
    Filed Date: 4/16/15.
    Accession Number: 20150416-5250.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/7/15.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1942-012; ER10-2042-018; ER10-1941-007; ER11-
3840-005; ER10-1938-013; ER13-1407-004; ER14-2931-002; ER10-1934-012;
ER10-1893-012; ER10-1888-007; ER10-1885-007; ER10-1884-007; ER10-1883-
007; ER10-1878-007; ER10-1876-007; ER10-1875-007; ER10-1873-007; ER12-
1987-005; ER10-1947-007; ER10-1864-006; ER10-1862-012; ER12-2261-005;
ER10-1865-007.
    Applicants: Calpine Construction Finance Company, L.P., Calpine
Energy Services, L.P., Calpine Gilroy Cogen, L.P., Calpine Greenleaf,
Inc., Calpine Power America--CA, LLC, CCFC Sutter Energy, LLC, CES
Marketing IX, LLC, Calpine Fore River Energy Center, LLC, CES Marketing
X, LLC, Creed Energy Center, LLC, Delta Energy Center, LLC, Geysers
Power Company, LLC, Gilroy Energy Center, LLC, Goose Haven Energy
Center, LLC, Los Esteros Critical Energy Facility, LLC, Los Medanos
Energy Center, LLC, Metcalf Energy Center, LLC, O.L.S. Energy-Agnews,

Inc., Otay Mesa Energy Center, LLC, Pastoria Energy Facility, L.L.C.,
Power Contract Financing, L.L.C., Russell City Energy Company, LLC,
South Point Energy Center, LLC, Calpine Construction Finance Company,
LP
    Description: Notification of Change in Status of the Calpine
Southwest MBR Sellers.
    Filed Date: 4/15/15.
    Accession Number: 20150415-5335.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/6/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1065-000.
    Applicants: Balko Wind, LLC.
    Description: Second Supplement to February 18, 2015 Balko Wind, LLC
tariff filing.
    Filed Date: 4/17/15.
    Accession Number: 20150417-5087.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/24/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1509-001.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): Do Not Exceed Real-Time
Dispatch to be effective 4/10/2016.
    Filed Date: 4/16/15.
    Accession Number: 20150416-5214.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/7/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1520-000.
    Applicants: Catalina Solar 2, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing per 35.1: Catalina Solar 2
Concurrence to Shared Transmission Facilities Agreement to be effective
5/31/2015.
    Filed Date: 4/16/15.
    Accession Number: 20150416-5234.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/7/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1521-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Amended
LGIA for RE Astoria, Service Agreement No. 157 to be effective 6/16/
2014.
    Filed Date: 4/16/15.
    Accession Number: 20150416-5238.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/7/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1522-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):
Amendment to Kings River GIA and GSFA, TO Service Agreement No. 57 to
be effective 4/15/2015.
    Filed Date: 4/16/15.
    Accession Number: 20150416-5239.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/7/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1523-000.
    Applicants: San Diego Gas & Electric Company.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Certificate of Concurrence
in LGIA to be effective 10/21/2014.
    Filed Date: 4/17/15.
    Accession Number: 20150417-5143.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/8/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1524-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): OATT
Formula Rate--Schedule 10 Loss Factor to be effective 6/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 4/17/15.
    Accession Number: 20150417-5193.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/8/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1525-000.
    Applicants: The Connecticut Light and Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):
Amendment to CL&P and CMEEC WDS Agreement ? Electric Rate Schedule FERC
No. WD-1 to be effective 6/16/2015.
    Filed Date: 4/17/15.
    Accession Number: 20150417-5206.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/8/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1526-000.
    Applicants: SIG Energy, LLLP.
    Description: Notice of cancellation of MBR tariff of SIG Energy,
LLLP.
    Filed Date: 4/17/15.
    Accession Number: 20150417-5218.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/8/15.

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

    Docket Numbers: ES15-16-000.
    Applicants: DTE Electric Company.
    Description: Application of DTE Electric Company For Authorization
to Issue Securities.
    Filed Date: 4/16/15.
    Accession Number: 20150416-5252.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/7/15.

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

    Dated: April 17, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-09471 Filed 4-22-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 13, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 30)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 8251-8255]
[DOCID:fr13fe08-27]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 80

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0002; FRL-8529-1]

Approval of Louisiana's Petition To Relax the Summer Gasoline
Volatility Standard for the Grant Parish Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve the State of Louisiana's request
to relax the federal Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) standard applicable to
gasoline introduced into commerce in the Grant Parish 8-hour ozone
attainment area (Grant Parish) during the summer high ozone season--
June 1 to September 15 of each year. Grant Parish is a designated
attainment area under the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (``NAAQS'') and is a redesignated attainment area under the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS. This action amends our regulations to change the
summertime RVP standard for Grant Parish from 7.8 pounds per square
inch (psi) to 9.0 psi. EPA has determined that this change to our
federal RVP regulations is consistent with the applicable provisions of
the Clean Air Act. Louisiana's request is supported by evidence that
Grant Parish can implement the 9.0 psi RVP standard and maintain the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS and that relaxation of the applicable RVP standard to
9.0 psi will provide economic benefits.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 14, 2008. Request
for a public hearing must be received by February 28, 2008. If we
receive a request for a public hearing, we will publish information
related to the timing and location of the hearing and the timing of a
new deadline for public comments.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2007-0002, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line

instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax: Air and Radiation Docket--(202) 566-9744.
     Mail: Air Docket, Environmental Protection Agency,
Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460,
Attention: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0002. In addition, please mail
a copy of your comments on the information collection provisions to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St. NW., Washington,
DC 20503.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2007-0002. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site

is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov
 index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Docket, EPA/

DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC.
The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the
Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Hillson, Office of Transportation
and Air Quality, Transportation and Regional Programs Division,
Mailcode AASMCG, Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood
Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of
today's Federal Register, we are making these revisions as a direct
final rule without prior proposal because we view these revisions as
noncontroversial and anticipate no adverse comment.
    We have explained our reasons for these revisions in the preamble
to the direct final rule. For further information, please see the
information provided in the preamble to the direct final rule. If we
receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this
proposed rule. If we receive adverse comment on the rule, or on one or
more distinct actions in the rule, we will withdraw the direct final
rule, or the portions of the rule receiving adverse comment. We will
address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on this
proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this
action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.
    The contents of this preamble are listed in the following outline:

I. General Information
II. Summary of Rule
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
IV. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    This action will affect you if you produce, import, distribute, or
sell gasoline fuel for use in Grant Parish, Louisiana. The following
table gives some examples of entities that may have to follow the
regulations. But because these are only examples, you should carefully
examine the regulations in 40 CFR part 80. If you have questions, call
the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             NAICS codes
        Examples of potentially  regulated entities              \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petroleum Refineries.......................................       324110
Gasoline Marketers and Distributors........................       424710
                                                                  424720
Gasoline Retail Stations...................................       447110
Gasoline Transporters......................................       484220
                                                                 484230
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

1. Submitting CBI
    Do not submit confidential business information to EPA through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of

the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk
or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM
as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
    When submitting comments, remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.

     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Summary of Rule

    This proposed rule would relax the applicable RVP (Reid Vapor
Pressure) standard of 7.8 psi (pounds per square inch) to 9.0 psi in
Grant Parish, Louisiana, during the summer high ozone season--June 1 to
September 15 of each year. The State of Louisiana petitioned us for
this relaxation in May 2005 and raised several valid points to justify
this action. First, Grant Parish is classified as rural, is not
adjacent to any urban area, and has a population of roughly 18,700 as
of the 2000 Census. Second, air quality reflects a general decrease in
emissions of ozone-forming pollutants since redesignation to attainment
under the 1-hour standard in 1995 (data has fluctuated from year-to-
year, but averaging annual emissions over three-year increments
evidences the downward trend). Additionally, there is an economic
advantage to relaxing the applicable RVP standard. Grant Parish is
isolated from other (former) nonattainment areas which are required to
use 7.8 psi gasoline. This isolation increases transportation costs
which translate to roughly 2 cents per gallon increase in price to the
consumer.
    Finally, the Grant Parish 8-hour ozone attainment area has
submitted an 8-hour maintenance demonstrating that the use of 9.0 psi
gasoline will not interfere with attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS. EPA
Region 6 approved this maintenance plan in November 2007. Grant Parish
was formerly a 1-hour ozone nonattainment area and was redesignated to
attainment in 1995, but at that time did not request relaxation of the
applicable RVP standard. In 2004, Grant Parish was designated as
attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard and, under the Phase 1 Ozone
Implementation Rule, Grant Parish was required to submit an 8-hour
maintenance plan under Clean Air Act section 110(a)(1). In Louisiana's
2006 8-hour maintenance demonstration, the state supported their
petition by modeling 9.0 psi gasoline and demonstrated that Grant
Parish will be able to maintain attainment of the 8-hour standard for
10 years, thereby meeting the requirements to have the applicable
gasoline volatility standard relaxed.
    For additional discussion of the proposed rule changes, see the
direct final rule EPA has published in the ``Rules and Regulations''
section of today's Federal Register. This proposal incorporates by
reference all the reasoning, explanation, and regulatory text from the
direct final rule.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to OMB review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., and therefore is not subject to these requirements.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In
determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant
economic impact of the rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule
relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect
on all of the small entities subject to the rule.
    This action will relax the federal RVP standard for gasoline sold
in Grant Parish, Louisiana, during the ozone control season (June 1 to
September 15), from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi, and is therefore expected not
to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The rule does not impose any requirements or create impacts
on small entities beyond those, if any, already required by or
resulting from the CAA Section 211(h) Volatility Control program. We
continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule
on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such
impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying affected small governments, enabling officials of
affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector in any one year. Today's rule merely relaxes the Federal RVP
standard for gasoline in the Grant Parish area, and thus avoids
imposing the costs that the existing Federal regulations would
otherwise impose. Today's rule, therefore, is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
    EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. As discussed above, the rule relaxes an existing standard
and affects only the gasoline industry.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects 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.''
    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects 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,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does
not apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
With Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This rule
would relax the applicable RVP standard in Grant Parish, LA, during the
ozone control season (June 1 to September 15) from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi.
It applies only to Grant Parish, LA. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does
not apply to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, Apr. 23, 1997) applies to
any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not
economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental
health or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. As previously discussed, the Grant
Parish area has continued to meet the 1-hour ozone standard since 1995
and has met the 8-hour ozone standard since initial designations were
issued in 2004. The maintenance plan approved on November 6, 2007 shows
maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the entire maintenance time
period of 2002 through 2014 with the 9.0 psi RVP standard.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C.
272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA
did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the applicable 8-hour ozone NAAQS which establish the level of
protection provided to human health or the environment. This rule will
relax the applicable volatility standard of gasoline during the summer
possibly resulting in slightly higher mobile source emissions. However,
the State of Louisiana has demonstrated in a maintenance plan Approval
of Louisiana's Petition To Relax the Summer Gasoline Volatility
Standard for the Grant Parish Area page 18 of 18--Proposal that this
action will not interfere with attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and
therefore disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects

on minority or low-income populations are not an anticipated result.

IV. Legal Authority

    Authority for this action is in sections 211(h) and 301(a) of the
Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7545(h) and 7601(a).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Fuel additives, Gasoline, Incorporation by
reference, Motor vehicle and motor vehicle engines, Motor vehicle
pollution, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: February 7, 2008.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E8-2705 Filed 2-12-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 188 (Monday, September 28, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60869-60871]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21324]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2020-0116]

Hours of Service of Drivers: Pronto.ai, Inc., Application for
Exemption

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition; denial of exemption.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to deny Pronto.ai, Inc.'s
(``Pronto'') application for an exemption from the 11-hour driving
limit and the prohibition against driving after the 14th hour after
coming on duty. Under the exemption, drivers of commercial motor
vehicles (CMVs) equipped with the Copilot by Pronto advanced driver
assistance systems (ADAS), the SmartDrive[supreg] Video Safety Program,
and operating under certain other safeguards, would be allowed to drive
up to 13 hours during a work shift within 15 consecutive hours after
coming on duty following 10 consecutive hours off duty. FMCSA has
analyzed the exemption application and the public comments and
determined that the applicant has not demonstrated that the requested
exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to,
or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent the exemption.

DATES: This decision is applicable September 28, 2020.

ADDRESSES:
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to www.regulations.gov at any time or visit Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The on-line Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Richard Clemente, FMCSA Driver and
Carrier Operations Division: Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email:
[email protected]dot.gov. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material
to the docket, contact Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to www.regulations.gov and insert
the docket number, ``FMCSA-2020-0116'' in the ``Keyword'' box and click
``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open Docket Folder'' button and choose
the document to review. If you do not have access to the internet, you
may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility
in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure
someone is there to help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or (202) 366-
9826 before visiting Docket Operations.

II. Legal Basis

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant
exemptions from certain Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the
public an opportunity to inspect the information relevant to the
application, including any safety analyses that have been conducted.
The Agency must provide an opportunity for public comment on the
request.
    The Agency reviews the safety analyses and public comments
submitted and determines whether granting the exemption would likely
achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level
that would be achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The
Agency's decision must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(b)) with the reasons for denying or granting the application
and, if granted, the name of the person or class of persons receiving
the exemption, and the regulatory provision from which the exemption is
granted. The notice must specify the effective period (up to 5 years)
and explain its terms and conditions. The exemption may be renewed (49
CFR 381.300(b)).

III. Request for Exemption

    The hours-of-service (HOS) regulations for interstate drivers of
property-carrying commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) allow a period of 14
consecutive hours (49 CFR 395.3(a)(2)) in which to drive up to 11 hours
(49 CFR 395.3(a)(3)) after being off duty for 10 or more consecutive
hours. The 14-consecutive-hour ``driving window'' begins when the
driver starts any kind of work. Once the driver reaches the end of this
14-consecutive hour period, the driver cannot drive again until he/she
has been off duty for another 10 consecutive hours, or, in the case of
drivers using sleeper berths, the equivalent of at least 10 consecutive
hours off duty.
    Pronto requests an exemption from the 11-hour limit and the 14-hour
``driving window'' on behalf of its customers operating CMVs equipped
with the Copilot by Pronto advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS),
the SmartDrive[supreg] Video Safety Program, and operating with certain
other safeguards discussed in the application. The exemption would
allow drivers operating these CMVs to drive up to 13 hours within 15
hours after the beginning of the work shift, following 10 consecutive
hours off duty. According to Pronto, its distinctive combination of
advanced safety technologies would help reduce physical and mental
driver stress, thereby allowing a modest increase in certain HOS
parameters. Pronto believes that the same technologies would provide
additional levels of safety by reducing the risk of the driver becoming
drowsy or distracted and assist the driver in maintaining safe and
proper control of the CMV.

IV. Pronto's Discussion of the Equivalent Level of Safety

    Pronto stated that drivers and carriers operating under the
exemption would achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater
than, the level of safety that would be obtained by complying with the
current regulation, as a result of safety improvements from: (1)
Mandatory use of the most sophisticated ADAS system on the market,
coupled with SmartDrive's best-in-class video-based safety program and
intelligence platform; (2) a significant increase in a driver's
physical comfort, resulting in less physical fatigue during a shift;
(3) an active management approach to the technology roll-out with
carriers and drivers, achieved through Pronto's compulsory, full-day
driver training program and the ability of SmartDrive's platform to
enable rapid identification of drivers needing additional training; (4)
Pronto's unique ``Safe Landing'' feature that identifies highly
inattentive or non-responsive drivers, and attempts to safely and
gradually bring the truck to a complete stop; and (5) SmartDrive's
fatigue-monitoring and alerting system, SmartSense, which provides
real-time in-cab alerts to the driver and triggers a video for
immediate verification and intervention by the carrier.

V. Public Comments

    On April 20, 2020, the Agency published a notice requesting public
comment on Pronto's exemption application (85 FR 21915). The Agency
received more than 300 comments, primarily from individuals, but also
from prominent industry trade groups. A total of 294 commenters opposed
the exemption request. Opponents included the Advocates for Highway and
Auto Safety; California Highway Patrol; Commercial Vehicle Safety
Alliance; Insurance Institute for Highway Safety; Institute for Safe
Trucking/Road Safe America; International Brotherhood of Teamsters;
Owner-Operator Independent Driver's Association; Transportation Trades
Department American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial
Organizations (AFL-CIO); Transport Workers Union of America AFL-CIO;
Truckload Carriers Association; and the United States Transportation
Alliance.
    Commenters that opposed the exemption believe the lack of safety
metrics for ADAS poses a risk to the public. The commenters also noted
the lack of a Federal framework to ensure that any transition to
automated driving system technologies is done in a measured, secure,
and responsible manner to protect people traveling on our roadways.
    Opponents of Pronto's request also emphasized that the application
would result in a needless threat to public safety by increasing the
driving hours and extending the workday of CMV operators, and that the
applicant failed to provide the required analysis and supporting
information required by statute. Lastly, the opposing commenters
believed that granting the exemption would give Pronto an unfair
competitive advantage to carriers that utilize its product.
    Six commenters supported the exemption request, including
Scopelitis Transportation Consulting. Supporters believe the exemption
would be in line with the recent HOS changes proposed on August 22,
2019 (84 FR 44190) and adopted on June 1, 2020 (85 FR 33396). Another
point emphasized by a supporting commenter was that the

Agency could impose a list of conditions, if the exemption were
granted, in addition to the conditions listed in Pronto's own
application.

VI. FMCSA Decision

    The FMCSA's HOS regulations set driving time limits for the work
shift and prohibit driving after the 14th hour after coming on duty,
following 10 consecutive hours off duty. The requirements are intended
to reduce the risk of individuals experiencing fatigue during the work
shift. FMCSA is not aware of data or information that would enable the
Agency to determine whether the advanced technology described by Pronto
reduces the workload for CMV drivers to such an extent that additional
driving time during the work shift should be allowed, or that
individuals should be allowed to operate an extended work shift.
Neither Pronto nor commenters supporting the exemption application
provided data or information that would help to explain why this
exemption would not reduce safety.
    Based on the numerous research studies concerning fatigue and hours
of service that the Agency has reviewed in recent years, we do not
believe there is a basis for allowing individuals to drive up to 13
hours during a work shift, or operate after the 14th hour after coming
on duty (except during adverse driving conditions). The premise that
the use of advanced technology should reduce the workload on drivers
appears reasonable on the surface but the absence of data or
information to quantify the impact on driver fatigue and alertness
leaves the Agency with no choice but to deny the application.
    In summary, after reviewing the application for an exemption and
all the comments submitted to the public docket, FMCSA cannot ensure
that the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent
to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by the current
regulations.
    For these reasons, FMCSA denies the request for exemption.

James W. Deck,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020-21324 Filed 9-25-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P