[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 51 (Monday, March 17, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14774-14775]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05751]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71685; File No. SR-ISE-2014-11]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change To Permit Market Makers To Enter Opening Only Orders in
Appointed Options Classes

March 11, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on February 25, 2014 the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(the ``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission the proposed rule change, as described in Items I
and II below, which items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The ISE proposes to amend Rule 805(a) to permit market makers to
enter Opening Only Orders in the options classes to which they are
appointed. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.ise.com), at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
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. The self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 805(a) to permit market makers
to enter Opening Only Orders in the options classes to which they are
appointed. On October 7, 2010 the Exchange filed an immediately
effective rule change that, among other things, established two new
order types, including the ``Opening Only Order,'' which is a limit
order that can be entered for the opening rotation only.\3\ When the
ISE adopted this new order type, however, it did not add it to the list
of order types in Rule 805(a) that market makers are permitted to trade
in their appointed classes.\4\ Because of this, market makers are not
currently permitted to submit Opening Only Orders in the options
classes to which they are appointed. Prior to the launch of the ISE's
T7 trading system (formerly ``Optimise''), which introduced Opening
Only Orders, market makers could submit immediate-or-cancel (``IOC'')
orders prior to the opening of trading, which provided the same
functionality as ISE's current Opening Only Orders. Specifically, like
Opening Only Orders, the ISE permitted members to submit IOC orders at
any time prior to the opening of trading, which would then execute
during the opening rotation, with any unexecuted portion being
cancelled. Under the T7 trading system, however, IOC orders are only
permitted intraday. The Exchange now proposes to amend its rules so
that market makers are able to use this functionality again by
submitting Opening Only Orders to the ISE. Market makers on other
options exchanges, such as the MIAX Options Exchange (``MIAX''),
similarly have the ability to enter ``opening only'' order types in
their appointed classes.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Exchange Act Release No. 63117 (October 15, 2010), 75 FR
65042 (October 21, 2010) (SR-ISE-2010-101). An ``Opening Only
Order'' is a limit order that can be entered for the opening
rotation only. Any portion of the order that is not executed during
the opening rotation is cancelled.
    \4\ Market makers are currently permitted to submit the
following order types in their appointed options classes: IOC
orders, market orders, fill-or-kill orders, complex orders, and
certain block orders and non-displayed penny orders. See ISE Rule
805(a).
    \5\ See MIAX Rule 605(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\6\ in general, and with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\
in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange
believes that allowing market makers to use Opening Only Orders will
give those members greater flexibility to update prices during the
opening rotation. Specifically, market makers have requested that they
be permitted to use Opening Only Orders so that they may use this order
type to update their prices in single series during the opening process
more efficiently than relying on quoting systems that are designed to
update prices across multiple series. As explained above, ``opening
only'' orders types are available to market makers on other exchanges,
and this functionality was previously available to ISE market makers
prior to the introduction of the T7 trading system as members,
including market makers, were able to submit IOC orders for execution
in the opening rotation. Moreover, because any portion of an Opening
Only Order that is not executed during the opening rotation is
cancelled, this proposed rule change is generally consistent with Rule
805(a), which was intended to prevent market makers from having both
standing limit orders and quotes in the same options class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\8\ the Exchange does
not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on
intermarket or intramarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary,
the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is pro-competitive
as it permits market makers to use functionality already available to
other ISE members, and to market makers on other exchanges, who are
currently able to submit Opening Only Orders or other similar order
types.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).

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

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \11\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\12\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange stated that
the proposal will allow market makers, during the opening process, to
use an order type that more efficiently update their prices. The
Exchange also stated that Opening Only Orders are presently available
to other ISE members and to market makers on competing options
exchanges. The Commission believes that the proposed rule change
presents no novel issues. Moreover, the Commission believes that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the protection of investors and
the public interest, because it allows the market makers to more
efficiently, and thereby more readily, display updated prices to the
public. Therefore, the Commission waives the 30-day operative delay
requirement and designates the proposed rule change to be operative
upon filing.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \13\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

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-ISE-2014-11 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-ISE-2014-11. 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. 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 Room, 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 the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. 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-ISE-2014-11 and should be
submitted on or before April 7, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-05751 Filed 3-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 189 (Monday, October 2, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45861-45863]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21079]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-D-2245]

Classification and Requirements for Laser Illuminated Projectors
(Laser Notice No. 57); Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug
Administration Staff; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the availability of the draft guidance entitled ``Classification and
Requirements for Laser Illuminated Projectors (LIPs) (Laser Notice No.
57); Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration
Staff.'' When finalized, this guidance describes FDA's policy with
respect to certain LIPs that comply with International Electrotechnical
Commission (IEC) standards during laser product classification under
the Electronic Product Radiation Control provisions of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) that apply to electronic
products. When finalized, this document will supersede the
``Immediately in Effect Guidance Document: Classification and
Requirements for Laser Illuminated Projectors (LIPs); Guidance for
Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff,'' issued February 18,
2015. This draft guidance is not final nor is it in effect at this
time.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft
guidance by December 1, 2017 to ensure that the Agency considers your
comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final
version of the guidance.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as
follows:

Electronic Submissions

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

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2014-D-2245 for ``Classification and Requirements for Laser
Illuminated Projectors (LIPs) (Laser Notice No. 57); Draft Guidance for
Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff.'' Received comments
will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as
``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)).
    An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for
download from the internet. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
for information on electronic access to the guidance. Submit written
requests for a single hard copy of the draft guidance document entitled
``Classification and Requirements for Laser Illuminated Projectors
(LIPs) (Laser Notice No. 57); Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and
Drug Administration Staff'' to the Office of the Center Director,
Guidance and Policy Development, Center for Devices and Radiological
Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
66, Rm. 5431, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed
adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Hintz, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 4228, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    When finalized, this guidance describes FDA's policy with respect
to certain laser illuminated projectors that comply with IEC standards
during laser product classification under the Electronic Product
Radiation Control provisions of the FD&C Act (Pub. L. 90-602, amended
by Pub. L. 103-80) that apply to electronic products.
    For purposes of this guidance, the term ``laser illuminated
projector'' (LIP) refers to a type of demonstration laser product
regulated under 21 CFR 1040.10(b)(13) that is designed to project full-
frame digital images. LIPs may be used in locations such as indoor or
outdoor cinema theaters, laser shows, presentations at conventions, as
image/data projectors in an office setting, or in a home.
    Under 21 CFR 1040.10(c), FDA recognizes four major hazard classes
(I to IV) of lasers, including three subclasses (IIa, IIIa, and IIIb).
Under this classification procedure higher laser classes correspond to
more powerful lasers and a higher potential to pose serious danger if
used improperly.
    As demonstration laser products, LIPs and applications for LIPs
cannot exceed Class IIIa emission limits as specified in 21 CFR
1040.11(c) (which is comparable to IEC 60825-1 Ed. 2.0 Class 3R) unless
granted a variance by FDA under 21 CFR 1010.4. Some LIPs and
applications for LIPs will exceed the Class IIIa limits and, therefore,
require a variance to exceed those emission limits.
    This guidance document describes FDA's intent to clarify the
application of certain aspects of the performance standard requirements
in 21 CFR 1040.11(c) for LIPs. Because the radiant emission levels
produced by LIPs can be scientifically characterized by an alternative
IEC standard, IEC 62471-5:2015, FDA does not intend to consider whether
LIP manufacturers that conform to these standards under the situations
outlined in sections III and IV of this guidance also comply with 21
CFR 1040.10(c)(1) and 21 CFR 1040.11(c). For LIP manufacturers who
choose not to conform to these standards under the situations outlined
in sections III and IV of this guidance, such manufacturers should
evaluate these laser products in accordance with FDA's guidance
entitled ``Laser Products--Conformance with IEC 60825-1 and IEC 60601-
2-22 (Laser Notice No. 50); Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff''
(https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm094361.htm) or must continue to comply with 21 CFR
1040.10(c) and 21 CFR 1040.11(c), among other applicable requirements.

II. Significance of Guidance

    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when
finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on classification
and requirements for laser illuminated projectors. 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. This guidance
is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may do
so by downloading an electronic copy from the internet. A search
capability for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance
documents is available at https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/default.htm. Guidance
documents are also available at https://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/default.htm or https://www.regulations.gov. Persons unable to download
an electronic copy of ``Classification and Requirements for Laser
Illuminated Projectors (Laser Notice No. 57); Draft Guidance for
Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff'' may send an email
request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>to receive an electronic copy of
the document. Please use the document number 1400056 to identify the
guidance you are requesting.

IV. 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 parts 1002, 1010, and 1040 are
approved under OMB control number 0910-0025.

    Dated: September 22, 2017.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-21079 Filed 9-29-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 204 (Thursday, October 22, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63995-63996]
[FR Doc No: 2015-26938]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9935-71-Region 8]

Administrative Agreement and Order on Consent for Post Removal
Site Control Activities by Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser: Rocky Flats
Industrial Park Superfund Site, Jefferson County, Colorado

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed agreement; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the requirements of sections 104, 106(a),
107, and 122 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation,
and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (``CERCLA''), 42 U.S.C. 9604,
9606(a), 9607 and 9622, notice is hereby given of the proposed
administrative settlement under section 107 and 122 of CERCLA, between
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') and bona fide
prospective purchaser Columbine Strategies LLC (``Settling Party'').
The proposed Settlement Agreement requires the Settling Party to
conduct work under EPA oversight in exchange for a covenant not to sue
pursuant to sections 106 and 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9606 and
9607(a) for existing contamination at the Site. The Settling Party
consents to and will not contest the authority of the United States to
enter into this Agreement or to implement or enforce its terms.
    The Settling Parties recognize that this Agreement has been
negotiated in good faith and that this Agreement is entered into
without the admission or adjudication of any issue of fact or law.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before November 23, 2015. For
thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the
Agency will receive written comments relating to the agreement. The
Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw
its consent to the agreement if comments received disclose facts or
considerations that indicate that the agreement is inappropriate,
improper, or inadequate.

ADDRESSES: The Agency's response to any comments, the proposed
agreement and additional background information relating to the
agreement are available

for public inspection at the EPA Superfund Record Center, 1595 Wynkoop
Denver, Colorado, by appointment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Moores, Enforcement Attorney,
Legal Enforcement Program, Environmental Protection Agency-Region 8,
Mail Code 8ENF-L, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202, (303)
312-6857. Comments and requests for a copy of the proposed agreement
should be addressed to Sharon Abendschan, Enforcement Specialist,
Environmental Protection Agency--Region 8, Mail Code 8ENF-RC, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202 and should reference the Rocky
Flats Industrial Park Superfund Site, Jefferson County, Colorado.

Suzanne Bohan,
Assistant Regional Administrator, Office of Enforcement, Compliance and
Environmental Justice, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
VIII.
[FR Doc. 2015-26938 Filed 10-21-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 143 (Thursday, July 29, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40783-40784]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16020]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0567; Airspace Docket No. 20-AAL-15]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment to Federal Airways Amber 15 (A-15), V-444, J-502, J-
511, and Extension of Canadian Area Navigation Routes Q-902 and Q-811;
Alaska

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action corrects a final rule published by the FAA in the
Federal Register on July 15, 2021. This action amends Federal airways,
A-15, V-444, J-502, and J-511 in Alaska. It also establishes an
extension of two Canadian Area Navigation Q routes, Q-811, and Q-902.
The modifications are necessary due to the decommissioning of the
Burwash Non-Directional Beacon (NDB) in Yukon Territory, Canada, which
provides navigation guidance for portions of the affected routes. The
Burwash NDB was decommissioned effective March 26, 2020 due to ongoing
maintenance problems and logistic issues.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, October 7, 2021. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and
publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Rules and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Order is also available for inspection
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11E at NARA, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher McMullin, Rules and
Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No.
FAA-2020-0567 in the Federal Register (85 FR 38799; June 29, 2020), a
supplemental NPRM (85 FR 60108; September 24, 2020) and a final rule
(86 FR 37235; July 15, 2021), amending Federal airways V-15, V-444, jet
routes J-502, and J-511, and establishing an extension of two Canadian
Area Navigation Q routes, Q-811, and Q-902. The modifications are
necessary due to the decommissioning of the Burwash Non-Directional
Beacon (NDB) in Yukon Territory, Canada, which provides navigation
guidance for portions of the affected routes. Subsequent to the
publication, it was determined that exclusionary language, ``excluding
the airspace within Canada'' was included in The Rule section, but was
not included in the legal descriptions for Q-902, and Q-811. This rule
corrects that error by including ``excluding the airspace within
Canada'' below the line containing IGSOM, CA in the Q-811 legal
description and below the line containing KOTZEBUE, AK (OTZ) in the Q-
902 legal description. This is an editorial change only and does not
alter the alignment of the route as shown on aeronautical charts, and
does not affect the use of the route by aircraft.
    Canadian Area Navigation Routes are published in paragraph 2007 of
FAA Order 7400.11E dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15,
2020, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Canadian
Area Navigation Routes listed in this document will be subsequently
published in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15,
2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11E lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

Correction to Final Rule

    The description of Canadian Area Navigation Routes Q-811 and Q-902,
as published on page 37237, in the Federal Register (86 FR 37235; July
15, 2021), FR Doc. 2021-14978, is corrected as follows:

Sec.  71.1  [Corrected]

    1. On page 37237, Table Q-811 DILLINGHAM, AK TO IGSOM [NEW]'' is
corrected by adding the following entry to the end of the table:
``Excluding the airspace within Canada.''
    2. On the same page, Table Q-902 SEATTLE, WA TO KOTZEBUE, AK
[NEW]'' is corrected by adding the following entry to the end of the
table: ``Excluding the airspace within Canada.''

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 23, 2021.
George Gonzalez,
Acting Manager, Rules and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2021-16020 Filed 7-28-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: October 15, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 200)]
[Notices]
[Page 61117-61119]
[DOCID:fr15oc08-81]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0653; FRL-8383-4]

Pesticide Emergency Exemptions; Agency Decisions and State and
Federal Agency Crisis Declarations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has granted emergency exemptions under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) for use of
pesticides as listed in this notice. The exemptions were granted during
the period April 1, 2008 through June 30, 2008, to control unforeseen
pest outbreaks.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: See each emergency exemption for the
name of a contact person. The following information applies to all
contact persons: Team Leader, Emergency Response Team, Registration
Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed at the end of the emergency exemption
of interest.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under
docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0653. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically at
http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard copy, at the
OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of
this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number
is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr.

II. Background

    EPA has granted emergency exemptions to the following State and
Federal agencies. The emergency exemptions may take the following form:
Crisis, public health, quarantine, or specific.
    Under FIFRA section 18, EPA can authorize the use of a pesticide
when emergency conditions exist. Authorizations (commonly called
emergency exemptions) are granted to State and Federal agencies and are
of four types:
    1. A ``specific exemption'' authorizes use of a pesticide against
specific pests on a limited acreage in a particular State. Most
emergency exemptions are specific exemptions.
    2. ``Quarantine'' and ``public health'' exemptions are a particular
form of emergency exemption issued for quarantine or public health
purposes. These are rarely requested.
    3. A ``crisis exemption'' is initiated by a State or Federal agency
(and is confirmed by EPA) when there is insufficient time to request
and obtain EPA permission for use of a pesticide in an emergency.
    EPA may deny an emergency exemption: If the State or Federal agency
cannot demonstrate that an emergency exists, if the use poses
unacceptable risks to the environment, or if EPA cannot reach a
conclusion that the proposed pesticide use is likely to result in ``a
reasonable certainty of no harm'' to human health, including exposure
of residues of the pesticide to infants and children.
    If the emergency use of the pesticide on a food or feed commodity
would result in pesticide chemical residues, EPA establishes a time-
limited tolerance meeting the ``reasonable certainty of no harm
standard'' of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
    In this document: EPA identifies the State or Federal agency
granted the exemption, the type of exemption, the pesticide authorized
and the pests, the crop or use for which authorized, number of acres
(if applicable), and the duration of the exemption. EPA also gives the
Federal Register citation for the time-limited tolerance, if any.

III. Emergency Exemptions: U.S. States and Territories

Arkansas

State Plant Board

Crisis: On June 5, 2008, for the use of imazethapyr on rice to control
weeds (red rice). This program ended on July 20, 2008. Contact: Andrew
Ertman.

California

Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Pesticide Regulation

Crisis: On May 15, 2008, for the use difenoconazole on almonds to
control Alternaria leaf spot. This program ended on June 20, 2008.
Contact: Stacey Groce.

Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of lavanduly senecioate on
raisin, wine, and table grapes to control the vine mealybug; April 9,
2008 to September 30, 2008. Contact: Andrew Ertman.
    EPA authorized the use of propiconazole on peaches and nectarines
to control sour rot; April 15, 2008 to September 30, 2008. Contact:
Andrea Conrath.

Quarantine: EPA authorized the use of environ LpH (containing the
active ingredients ortho-benzyl-para-chlorophenol, para-tertiary-
amylphenol, and ortho-phenylphenol) in government laboratories to
disinfect surfaces potentially contaminated with prions; March 26, 2008
to March 26, 2011. Contact: Princess Campbell.

Colorado

Department of Agriculture

Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of acibenzolar on onions to
control iris yellow spot virus; April 2, 2008 to September 1, 2008.
Contact: Andrew Ertman.

    EPA authorized the use of formetanate hydrochloride on dry bulb
onions to control thrips; April 17, 2008 to September 30, 2008.
Contact: Andrew Ertman.

Florida

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

Crisis: On April 18, 2008, for the use of metconazole on sugarcane to
control orange rust (Puccinia kuehnii). This program is expected to end
on June 30, 2011. Contact: Libby Pemberton.
    On April 18, 2008, for the use of pyraclostrobin on sugarcane to
control orange rust (Puccinia kuehnii). This program is expected to end
on June 30, 2011. Contact: Libby Pemberton.

Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of thiophanate-methyl on
vegetable, fruiting, group 8 to control white mold; April 24, 2008 to
December 31, 2008. Contact: Andrea Conrath.

Georgia

Department of Agriculture

Crisis: On May 13, 2008, for the use of difenoconazole on cantaloupe,
cucumber, and watermelon to control gummy stem blight. This program
ended on June 30, 2008. Contact: Stacey Groce.

Idaho

Department of Agriculture

Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of formetanate hydrochloride
on dry bulb onions to control thrips; April 17, 2008 to September 15,
2008. Contact: Andrew Ertman.
    EPA authorized the use of linuron on lentil to control dog fennel
and prickly lettuce; April 17, 2008 to June 10, 2008. Contact: Andrea
Conrath.

Iowa

Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship

Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of sulfentrazone on
strawberry to control broadleaf weeds; April 29, 2008 to June 10, 2008.
Contact: Andrew Ertman.

Kentucky

Department of Agriculture

Crisis: On April 30, 2008, for the use of tebuconazole on wheat to
control Fusarium head blight (FHB). This program ended on May 15, 2008.
Contact: Libby Pemberton.
    On June 6, 2008, for the use of diquat dibromide as a desiccant on
canola. This program ended on June 20, 2008. Contact: Libby Pemberton.

Louisiana

Department of Agriculture and Forestry

Crisis: On June 5, 2008, for the use of imazethapyr on clearfield rice
to control red rice. This program ended on June 19, 2008. Contact:
Andrew Ertman.
    On June 23, 2008, for the use of methoxyfenozide on sorghum to
control southwestern corn borer and sugarcane borer. The program ended
September 15, 2008. Contact: Stacey Groce.
Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of pyraclostrobin on
sugarcane to control brown rust (Puccinia melanocephala); April 29,
2008 to June 30, 2008. Contact: Libby Pemberton.

Michigan

Michigan Department of Agriculture

Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of chlorothalonil on ginseng
to control botrytis and alternaria blight; April 15, 2008 to October
31, 2008. Contact: Stacey Groce.
    EPA authorized the use of mancozeb on ginseng to control alternaria
blight; April 15, 2008 to October 31, 2008. Contact: Stacey Groce.
    EPA authorized the use of zoxamide on ginseng to control
phytophthora blight; April 15, 2008 to October 31, 2008. Contact:
Stacey Groce.
    EPA authorized the use of formetanate hydrochloride on dry bulb
onions to control thrips; April 17, 2008 to August 31, 2008. Contact:
Andrew Ertman.
    EPA authorized the use of anthraquinone on corn, field and sweet
seed to repel sandhill cranes; April 18, 2008 to July 30, 2008.
Contact: Marcel Howard.
    EPA authorized the use of gentamicin on apples to control fire
blight; April 24, 2008 to May 31, 2008. Contact: Andrew Ertman.
    EPA authorized the use of tebuconazole on asparagus to control rust
(Puccinia species (spp.)); May 30, 2008 to November 1, 2008. Contact:
Libby Pemberton.
    EPA authorized the use of sulfentrazone on strawberries to control
broadleaf weeds; June 25, 2008 to December 15, 2008. Contact: Andrew
Ertman.

Mississippi

Department of Agriculture and Commerce

Crisis: On June 5, 2008, for the use of imazethapyr on clearfield rice
to control red rice. This program ended on June 19, 2008. Contact:
Andrew Ertman.

Missouri

Department of Agriculture

Crisis: On June 5, 2008, for the use of imazethapyr on clearfield rice
to control red rice. This program ended on June 19, 2008. Contact:
Andrew Ertman.

New Jersey

Department of Environmental Protection

Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of thiophanate methyl on
tomato to control white mold; April 24, 2008 to October 31, 2008.
Contact: Andrea Conrath.

New York

Department of Environmental Conservation

Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of formetanate hydrochloride
on dry bulb onions to control thrips; April 17, 2008 to September 15,
2008. Contact: Andrew Ertman.

North Dakota

Department of Agriculture

Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of sulfentrazone on flax to
control kochia; April 15, 2008 to June 30, 2008. Contact: Andrew
Ertman.

Ohio

Department of Agriculture

Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of formetanate hydrochloride
on dry bulb onions to control thrips; April 17, 2008 to September 15,
2008. Contact: Andrew Ertman.
    EPA authorized the use of thiophanate methyl on vegetable,
fruiting, group 8 to control white mold; April 24, 2008 to November 18,
2008. Contact: Andrea Conrath.
    EPA authorized the use of sulfentrazone on strawberries to control
broadleaf weeds; June 20, 2008 to December 15, 2008. Contact: Andrew
Ertman.

Oklahoma

Department of Agriculture

Crisis: On June 9, 2008, for the use of diquat dibromide as a desiccant
on canola. This program ended on June 23, 2008. Contact: Libby
Pemberton.

Oregon

Department of Agriculture

Crisis: On June 30, 2008, for the use of diflubenzuron on alfafa grown
for hay, mixed grass/alfalfa hay, and grasses grown for seed to control
grasshoppers and Mormon crickets. This program ended on July 15, 2008.
Contact: Libby Pemberton.

Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of bifenthrin on
orchardgrass to control orchardgrass billbug; April 3, 2008 to November
15, 2008. Contact: Andrea Conrath.
    EPA authorized the use of fipronil on turnip and rutabaga to
control cabbage maggot; April 10, 2008 to September 30, 2008. Contact:
Andrea Conrath.

    EPA authorized the use of formetanate hydrochloride on dry bulb
onions to control thrips; April 17, 2008 to September 15, 2008.
Contact: Andrew Ertman.

South Dakota

Department of Agriculture

Crisis: On April 10, 2008, for the use of anthraquinone on corn, field
and sweet seed to repel ring-necked pheasant. This program ended on
July 1, 2008. Contact: Marcel Howard.

Tennessee

Department of Agriculture

Crisis: On March 1, 2008, for the use of anthraquinone on corn, field
and sweet seed to repel blackbird species and grackle. This program
ended on July 30, 2008. Contact: Marcel Howard.

Texas

Department of Agriculture

Crisis: On June 5, 2008, for the use of imazethapyr on clearfield rice
to control red rice. This program ended on July 20, 2008. Contact:
Andrew Ertman.
    On June 16, 2008, for the use of dinotefuran on rice to control
rice stink bug. This program is expected to end on October 30, 2008.
Contact: Libby Pemberton.
    On June 27, 2008, for the use of fipronil up to ten feet out and
three feet up on outdoor structures to control Caribbean crazy ant.
This program is expected to end on September 1, 2011. Contact: Andrea
Conrath.
Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of hexythiazox on field corn
to control the bank grass mite and two-spotted spider mite; May 15,
2008 to August 31, 2008. Contact: Andrew Ertman.

Washington

Department of Agriculture

Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of formetanate hydrochloride
on dry bulb onions to control thrips; April 17, 2008 to August 30,
2008. Contact: Andrew Ertman.
    EPA authorized the use of linuron on lentils to control dog fennel
and prickly lettuce; April 17, 2008 to June 10, 2008. Contact: Andrea
Conrath.

Wisconsin

Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection

Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of formetanate hydrochloride
on dry bulb onions to control thrips; April 17, 2008 to September 15,
2008. Contact: Andrew Ertman.
    EPA authorized the use of chlorothalonil on ginseng to control
botrytis and alternaria blight; April 22, 2008 to October 31, 2008.
Contact: Stacey Groce.
    EPA authorized the use of mancozeb on ginseng to control alternaria
blight; April 22, 2008 to October 31, 2008. Contact: Stacey Groce.
    EPA authorized the use of zoxamide on ginseng to control
phytophthora blight; April 22, 2008 to October 31, 2008. Contact:
Stacey Groce.

IV. Federal Departments and Agencies

Agriculture Department

Animal and Plant Health Inspector Service

Crisis: On March 3, 2008, for the use of methyl bromide on various
imported raw agricultural commodities to control exotic plant pests.
This program is expected to end on March 3, 2009. Contact: Libby
Pemberton.

Quarantine: EPA authorized the use of E-11-tetradecen-1-yl acetate and
E,E-9,11-tetradecadien-1-yl acetate on all raw agricultural
commodities, and residential areas to control the light brown apple
moth; April 15, 2008, to April 15, 2011. Contact: Andrew Ertman.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: September 30, 2008.
Donald R. Stubbs,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E8-24270 Filed 10-14-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


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

Technical Support Document

Definition of important terms used in this document:

1) Designated “unclassifiable” – an area where Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) could not determine if there was a violation of
the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) or a
contribution to a violation in a nearby area, because there was
insufficient air quality data for both 2006-2008 and 2007-2009 and where
additional monitoring data for 2010 could not result in a different
designation.

2) Designated “attainment” – an area which EPA has determined,
based on the most recent 3 years of certified air quality data from
2006-2008 or 2007-2009, has no violations of the 2008 Lead NAAQS during
36 consecutive valid 3-month site means; and which EPA has further
determined does not contribute to a violation of the 2008 Lead NAAQS in
a nearby area and that additional monitoring data from 2010 could not
result in a different designation.

3) Designated nonattainment area – an area which EPA has determined,
based on a State recommendation and/or on the technical analysis
included in this document, has a violation of the 2008 Lead NAAQS during
the most recent three consecutive years of quality-assured, certified
air quality data.

4) Prior nonattainment area – an area that is currently designated as
nonattainment or maintenance for the 1978 Lead NAAQS (including both
current nonattainment areas and maintenance areas).

5) Recommended nonattainment area – an area a State or Tribe has
recommended to EPA be designated as nonattainment.

6) Violating monitor – an ambient air monitor whose design value
exceeds 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3).  As described in
Appendix R of part 50, a violation can be based on either Pb-Total
Suspended Particulate (TSP) or Pb-Particulate Matter 10 microns or
smaller in size (PM10) data and only three months of data are necessary
to produce a valid violating design value.

7) 1978 Lead NAAQS – 1.5 µg/m3, NAAQS for lead promulgated in 1978.
Based on the lead-total suspended particulate (Pb-TSP) indicator and
averaged over a calendar quarter.

8) 2008 Lead NAAQS -  0.15 µg/m3,  NAAQS for lead promulgated in 2008.
Based on the Pb-TSP indicator and a three-month rolling average.  Data
for the Pb-PM10 (lead-particles smaller than 10 micrometers) indicator
may be used in limited instances, including to show nonattainment.

Pennsylvania

Area Designations For the

2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards

r (μg/m³) to 0.15 μg/m³ measured as total suspended particles (TSP).
 EPA has revised the secondary (welfare-based) standard to be identical
in all respects to the primary standard.

Pursuant to section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act, EPA must designate as
“nonattainment” those areas that violate the NAAQS and those nearby
areas that contribute to violations.  The table below identifies the
counties or portions of counties in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
that EPA is designating “nonattainment” for the 2008 lead national
ambient air quality standard (2008 Lead NAAQS).

Table 1. Nonattainment Areas

Area (listed alphabetically)	Pennsylvania’s  Recommended Nonattainment
Counties	Pennsylvania’s Recommended Nonattainment Townships/Boroughs
EPA’s Designated Nonattainment Counties	EPA’s Designated
Nonattainment Townships/Boroughs

Lower Beaver Valley Area	Beaver County (partial) 	Potter and Vanport
Beaver County (partial)	Potter and Vanport

Lyons Area	Berks County (partial)	Maxatawny, Richmond, and Lyons	Berks
County (partial)	Maxatawny, Richmond, Lyons, and Kutztown

North Reading Area	Berks County (partial)	Muhlenberg, Laureldale, and
Alsace	Berks County (partial)	Muhlenberg, Laureldale, and Alsace

Figure 1. Map of Beaver and Berks Counties in relation to the rest of
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Technical Analysis for Lyons Nonattainment Area

Introduction

This technical analysis for Lyons Nonattainment Area in Berks County
identifies the partial county with a monitor that violates the 2008 Lead
NAAQS and evaluates nearby counties for contributions to lead
concentrations in the area.  EPA has evaluated these counties based on
the weight of evidence of the following factors recommended in previous
EPA guidance:

Air quality in potentially included versus excluded areas;

Emissions and emissions-related data in areas potentially included
versus excluded from the nonattainment area, including population data,
growth rates and patterns and emissions controls;

Meteorology (weather/transport patterns);

Geography/topography (mountain ranges or other air basin boundaries);

Jurisdictional boundaries (e.g., counties, air districts, reservations,
etc.); and

Any other relevant information submitted to or collected by EPA (e.g.,
modeling where done appropriately).

On December 17, 2009, Pennsylvania recommended that parts of Berks
County be designated as nonattainment for the 2008 Lead NAAQS based on
air quality data from 2006-2008.  The Commonwealth’s recommendation
was based on data from Federal Reference Method (FRM) or Federal
Equivalent Method (FEM) monitors located in the state.  As part of
Pennsylvania’s recommendation they used modeling for drawing the
nonattainment area boundaries in Berks County.  EPA’s review of this
modeling can be found in Appendix A of this document.  This modeling
supports Pennsylvania’s recommendation that the Lyons Nonattainment
Area and the North Reading Nonattainment Area in Berks County should be
two separate nonattainment areas.  A conservative approach was used by
Pennsylvania, where it included the whole township or borough that
contained any part of the contours of the modeling results at or above
half the 2008 Lead NAAQS or 0.075 µg/m3.  A map of these contour lines
showing the two separate nonattainment areas can be found in Figure A-2
in Appendix A of this document.

Based on EPA's technical analysis described below, EPA is designating
parts of Berks County in Pennsylvania as nonattainment for the 2008 Lead
NAAQS as the Lyons Nonattainment Area, based upon currently available
information.  This county and the townships/boroughs included in the
nonattainment area are listed above in Table 1.

Detailed Assessment

Air Quality Data

This factor considers the lead design values (in µg/m3) for air quality
monitors in Berks County in the Lyons Area and the surrounding areas
based on data for the 2006-2008 and 2007-2009 periods.  A monitor’s
design value indicates whether that monitor attains a specified air
quality standard.  The 2008 Lead NAAQS are met at a monitoring site when
the identified design value is valid and less than or equal to 0.15
µg/m3.  A design value is only valid if minimum data completeness
criteria are met.  A lead design value that meets the NAAQS is generally
considered valid if it encompasses 36 consecutive valid 3-month site
means (specifically for a 3-year calendar period and the two previous
months).  For this purpose, a 3-month site mean is valid if valid data
were obtained for at least 75 percent of the scheduled monitoring days
in the 3-month period.  A lead design value that does not meet the NAAQS
is considered valid if at least one 3-month mean that meets the same 75
percent requirement is above the NAAQS.  That is, a site does not have
to monitor for three full calendar years in order to have a valid
violating design value; a site could monitor just three months and still
produce a valid (violating) design value.

The 2008 Lead NAAQS design values for Berks County in the Lyons
Nonattainment Area and surrounding area are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Air Quality Data

County	State Recommended Nonattainment?	Monitor Air Quality System ID
Monitor Location	Lead Design Value 2006-2008 (µg/m3)	Lead Design Value
2007-2009 (µg/m3)

Berks County, PA

	Yes (partial)

	420110005

	Lyons Area	0.10	0.07

420110717

	Lyons Area	0.21	0.21

420111717	North Reading Area	0.36	0.36

Monitors in Bold have the highest 2007-2009 design value in the
respective nonattainment area.

Figure 2. Lyons Nonattainment Area with Monitors

The Lyons Nonattainment Area shows a violation of the 2008 Lead NAAQS.
Therefore, some area in this county must be designated nonattainment.
However, the absence of a violating monitor alone is not a sufficient
reason to eliminate nearby areas as candidates for nonattainment status.
 Each area has been evaluated based on the weight of evidence of the
factors and other relevant information.

Figure 2 is a map of the area analyzed showing the locations of air
quality monitors in the nonattainment area.  Currently, in the Lyons
Nonattainment Area, there are two monitors.  Of these two monitors, one
is violating the 2008 Lead NAAQS and the other is not violating, as
shown in Table 2.  The monitor that is within Lyons Borough in Figure 2
is the design monitor and is exceeding the 2008 Lead NAAQS.  The monitor
to the south, located in Richmond Township, is attaining the 2008 Lead
NAAQS, therefore, EPA agrees with Pennsylvania that no other
townships/boroughs to the East of Richmond Township should be included
into the Lyons Nonattainment Area.

Emissions and Emissions-Related Data

Evidence of lead emissions sources surrounding a violating monitor is an
important factor for determining whether a nearby area is contributing
to a monitored violation.  For this factor, EPA evaluated county level
emission data for lead and population data.

Emissions

Emissions data were derived from the 2005 National Emissions Inventory
(NEI), version 2, which was the most up-to-date version of the national
inventory available when these data were compiled for the designations
process in 2009.  See
http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/net/2005inventory.html.  EPA recognizes that
for certain counties, emissions may have changed since 2005.  For
example, certain large sources of emissions in or near this area may
have installed emission controls or otherwise significantly reduced
emissions since 2005.  Some States provided updated information on
emissions and emission controls in their comments to EPA.  Pennsylvania
provided updated emissions information.  This updated data is provided
in Table 3 below.  The data provided by Pennsylvania is the most current
emission information available.  The lead inventory information from
these years allows for a direct comparison between the model results and
the most recently available design values since the emissions are from
roughly the same time periods; 2007 or 2008 for lead emissions and
2007-09 for monitor design values.

Table 3 shows total emissions of lead (given in tons per year) in and
around the Lyons Nonattainment Area for sources emitting (or anticipate
to contribute) greater than 0.1 ton per year of lead according to the
state emission inventory (Environment Facility Application Compliance
Tracking System (eF.A.C.T.S.)) for the years 2007 and 2008.  See
http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/efacts/.  Facilities that are part of the
Lyons Nonattainment Area for the 2008 Lead NAAQS are shown in boldface.
Additional facilities whose annual emissions are less than 0.1 ton per
year of lead and within the Lyons Nonattainment Area are listed in Table
4 below.  The EPA has chosen to accept Pennsylvania’s use of the
inventory, and also accepts Pennsylvania’s use of the highest yearly
emissions in its modeling analysis as a conservative approach.  See
Appendix A of this document for modeling analysis.

Table 3. Facility lead emissions greater than 0.1 tons per year

County	Facility in State Recommended Nonattainment Area?	Facility Name
Facility – Total Air Emissions

2007-eFacts Pennsylvania’s State inventory

(tons per year)	Facility – Total Air Emissions

2008-eFacts Pennsylvania’s State inventory

(tons per year)	Facility Location

Berks County, PA	Yes 	EastPenn Manufacturing Co. Inc/Battery Assembly
2.47	2.49	147 Deka Rd.

	Berks County, PA	Yes 	EastPenn Manufacturing Co. Inc/ Smelter Plant
0.12	0.20	147 Deka Rd.

Berks  County, PA	No	Exide Tech/ Reading Smelter	1.474	1.441	2nd &
Washington Sts.

Berks County, PA	No	Yuasa Battery Inc/ Laureldale	0.14	0.15	2901
Montrose Ave

Berks County, PA	No	RRI Energy Mid Atlantic/Titus Gen. Station	0.12	0.12
296 Poplar Neck Rd

Berks County, PA	No	Lehigh Cement Co. LLC/ Evansville Cement Plant and
Quarry	0.119

537 Evansville Rd.

Berks County, PA	No	Boyertown Foundry Co./ FKA EAFCO

0.127	9th & Rothermal Sts.

Table 4. Facility lead emissions less than 0.1 tons per year

County	Facility in State Recommended Nonattainment Area?	Facility Name
Facility – Total Air Emissions

2007-eFacts Pennsylvania’s State inventory

(tons per year)	Facility – Total Air Emissions

2008-eFacts Pennsylvania’s State inventory

(tons per year)	Facility Location

Berks County, PA	No	EastPenn Manufacturing Co. INC/ Kutztown	0.01	0.01
191 Willow St.

	Berks County, PA	No	Kutztown University of Pennsylvania	0.0092

Hinterliten Rd.

Berks  County, PA	No	McConway & Torley LLC/Kutztown Foundry

0.0051	230 Railroad St.

There are approximately 20,000 airport facilities in the U.S. at which
leaded aviation gasoline is consumed.  To evaluate the potential impact
of emissions at and near these facilities, EPA recommends that states
use the draft 2008 NEI.  Data for airport facilities in Berks County
which use leaded aviation gasoline are included in Table 5.

Table 5. Airport Emissions greater than 0.1 tons per year in Berks
County, PA

County	Airport in State

Recommended Nonattainment Area?	Airport Name	Airport – Total Air
Emissions

Draft 2008 NEI

(tons per year)	Airport Location

Berks County, PA 	No	Kutztown	0.12	CLOSED

November 2008

Berks County, PA	No	Reading  Regional Airport (RDG)	0.24	2501 Bernville
Road

Figure 3. Lyons Nonattainment Area with facility locations identified by
annual emissions in tons per year.

In Pennsylvania’s recommendation, the facilities in Table 4 were not
mentioned.  It is EPA’s determination that Kutztown Borough should be
included as part of the Lyons Nonattainment Area because although small
in size it does have lead emitting facilities.  The locations of the
facilities in Kutztown Borough are shown in Figure 3.  The Borough
currently appears as a hole in the nonattainment area recommended by
Pennsylvania, since it is surrounded by Maxatawny Township.  EPA agrees
with Pennsylvania that Fleetwood Borough should not be included in the
Lyons Nonattainment Area because it does not have any lead emitting
facilities and does not contribute to the nonattainment area.

Population Data

Table 6 shows the 2008 population for Berks County.  This data helps
assess the extent to which the concentration of human activities in the
area and concentration of population-oriented commercial development may
indicate emissions-based activity contributing to elevated ambient lead
levels.  This may include ambient lead contributions from activities
that would disturb lead that has been deposited on the ground or on
other surfaces.  Re-entrainment of historically deposited lead is not
reflected in the emissions inventory.

Table 6. Population Data

County	State Recommended Nonattainment?	2008 Population	2008

Population Density (pop/sq mi)	Population Change 2000-2008	Population %
Change 2000-2008

Berks County, PA	Yes (partial)	403,595	467	29,098	8%

Source of data: U.S. Census Bureau estimates for 2008 (  HYPERLINK
"http://www.census.gov/popest/datasets.html"
http://www.census.gov/popest/datasets.html ) and estimation of the area
of U.S. Counties

Growth rates and patterns

Berks County has an increasing population trend between 2000 and 2008.
EPA has considered the population growth rate for this area and does not
believe that it affects the boundary recommendation.

Emissions Controls

Under this factor, the existing level of control of emission sources is
taken into consideration.  The emissions data used by EPA in this
technical analysis and provided in Table 3 and Table 4 represent
emissions levels taking into account any control strategies implemented
in the Lyons Nonattainment Area before 2007 on stationary sources.

East Penn Manufacturing Company operates a lead/acid storage battery
assembly facility and a secondary lead smelter.  The six battery
assembly plants and lead oxide plant account for most of the lead
emissions reported by the facility.  Each assembly plant consists of
four main operations that result in particulate and lead emissions
controlled by fabric collectors.  Most fabric filters are followed by a
HEPA filter to further reduce the emissions.  The entire facility is
subject to lead Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) in the
Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan (SIP).  It meets the requirements
of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
subpart PPPPPP for the Lead and Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Sources
and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) subpart KK for the Standards
of Performance for Lead-Acid Battery Manufacturing Plants.

Meteorology (weather/transport patterns)

For this factor, EPA considered data from National Weather Service
instruments and other meteorological monitoring sites in the area.  Wind
direction and wind speed data is from 1960-1992 Solar and Meteorological
Surface Observation Network information issued jointly by the U.S.
Department of Commerce:  National Climatic Data Center and the U.S.
Department of Energy:  National Renewable Energy Laboratory.  This data
is summarized in Figure 4 and Table 7, below.  This data may provide
evidence of the potential for lead emissions sources located upwind of a
violating monitor to contribute to ambient lead levels at the violation
location.

Figure 4. Wind directions summarized by season for Berks County, PA

Table 7. Top two prevailing wind directions by season for Berks County,
PA

Season	Wind direction 	Percent of wind at that direction

Winter	West, Northwest	32

Winter	West, Southwest	18

Spring	West, Northwest	24

Spring	West, Southwest	15

Summer	West, Northwest	21

Summer	West, Southwest	20

Autumn	West, Northwest	24

Autumn	West, Southwest	19

As shown in the graph in Figure 4 and Table 7, the prevailing surface
winds were predominantly from the west, northwest and west, southwest
for all four seasons.

Geography/topography (mountain ranges or other air basin boundaries)

The geography/topography analysis evaluates the physical features of the
land that might have an effect on the air shed and, therefore, on the
distribution of lead over the Lyon Nonattainment Area.

The Lyons Nonattainment Area does not have any geographical or
topographical barriers significantly limiting air pollution transport
within its air shed.  Therefore, this factor did not play a significant
role in determining the nonattainment boundary.

Jurisdictional boundaries

Existing jurisdictional boundaries may be helpful in articulating a
boundary for purposes of nonattainment designations, and for purposes of
carrying out the governmental responsibilities of planning for
attainment of the lead NAAQS and implementing control measures.  These
boundaries may include an existing nonattainment or maintenance area
boundary, a county or township boundary, a metropolitan area boundary,
an air management district, or an urban planning boundary established
for coordinating business development or transportation activities.

The recommended Lyons Nonattainment Area is constructed using the
township/borough boundaries within Berks County.

Other Relevant Information

The Commonwealth provided modeling to show that the two areas, the Lyons
Nonattainment Area and the North Reading Nonattainment Area in Berks
County should be separate.  The Commonwealth recommended including in
the nonattainment area those townships and boroughs where the modeling
has shown a value of 0.075 µg/m3 or higher.  Additional review of the
modeling submitted by Pennsylvania can be found in Appendix A of this
technical analysis document.

Conclusion

After considering the factors and information described above, EPA has
determined that it is appropriate to designate portions of Berks County
listed in Table 1 as part of the Lyons Nonattainment Area for the 2008
Lead NAAQS.

EPA is changing Pennsylvania’s recommendation by adding the Borough of
Kutztown to the Lyons Nonattainment Area.  EPA’s nonattainment area
includes Kutztown Borough, Lyons Borough, Maxatawny Township, and
Richmond Township located with in Berks County.  The Kutztown Borough
has been added to Pennsylvania’s recommended Lyons Nonattainment Area.
 EPA determined that Kutztown Borough will be included in the
nonattainment area because it is entirely encompassed by the recommended
nonattainment area and it has 2 facilities that emit lead within its
boundaries and are in close proximity to the violating monitor.

Based on its consideration of all the relevant, available information,
as described above, EPA believes that the boundaries described herein
encompass the entire area that does not meet (or that contributes to
ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet) the 2008 Lead
NAAQS.

Technical Analysis for North Reading Nonattainment Area

Introduction

This technical analysis for North Reading Nonattainment Area in Berks
County identifies the partial county with a monitor that violates the
2008 Lead NAAQS and evaluates nearby counties for contributions to lead
concentrations in the area.  EPA has evaluated these counties based on
the weight of evidence of the following factors recommended in previous
EPA guidance:

Air quality in potentially included versus excluded areas;

Emissions and emissions-related data in areas potentially included
versus excluded from the nonattainment area, including population data,
growth rates and patterns and emissions controls;

Meteorology (weather/transport patterns);

Geography/topography (mountain ranges or other air basin boundaries);

Jurisdictional boundaries (e.g., counties, air districts, reservations,
etc.); and

Any other relevant information submitted to or collected by EPA (e.g.,
modeling where done appropriately).

On December 17, 2009, Pennsylvania recommended that parts of Berks
County be designated as nonattainment for the 2008 Lead NAAQS based on
air quality data from 2006-2008.  The Commonwealth’s recommendation
was based on data from FRM or FEM monitors located in the state.

Based on EPA's technical analysis described below, EPA is designating
parts of Berks County in Pennsylvania as nonattainment for the 2008 Lead
NAAQS as the North Reading Nonattainment Area, based upon currently
available information.  This county and the townships/boroughs included
in the nonattainment area are listed above in Table 1.

Detailed Assessment

Air Quality Data

This factor considers the lead design values (in µg/m3) for air quality
monitors in North Reading Nonattainment Area in the Berks County and the
surrounding area based on data for the 2007 – 2009 period.  A
monitor’s design value indicates whether that monitor attains a
specified air quality standard.  The 2008 Lead NAAQS are met at a
monitoring site when the identified design value is valid and less than
or equal to 0.15 µg/m3.  A design value is only valid if minimum data
completeness criteria are met.  A lead design value that meets the NAAQS
is generally considered valid if it encompasses 36 consecutive valid
3-month site means (specifically for a 3-year calendar period and the
two previous months).  For this purpose, a 3-month site mean is valid if
valid data were obtained for at least 75 percent of the scheduled
monitoring days in the 3-month period.  A lead design value that does
not meet the NAAQS is considered valid if at least one 3-month mean that
meets the same 75 percent requirement is above the NAAQS.  That is, a
site does not have to monitor for three full calendar years in order to
have a valid violating design value; a site could monitor just three
months and still produce a valid (violating) design value.

The 2008 Lead NAAQS design values for Berks County in the North Reading
Area and surrounding area are shown in Table 8.

Table 8. Air Quality Data

County	State Recommended Nonattainment?	Monitor Air Quality System ID
Monitor Location	Lead Design Value 2006-2008 (µg/m3)	Lead Design Value
2007-2009 (µg/m3)

Berks County, PA

	Yes (partial)

	420110005

	Lyons Area	0.10	0.07

420110717

	Lyons Area	0.21	0.21

420111717	North Reading Area	0.36	0.36

Monitors in Bold have the highest 2007-2009 design value in the
respective area.

Figure 5. Area analyzed showing the location of the air quality monitor.

The North Reading Nonattainment Area shows a violation of the 2008 Lead
NAAQS.  Therefore, some area in this county must be designated
nonattainment.  The design value for this nonattainment area is found at
the single monitor in Muhlenberg Township, as shown in Figure 5.
However, the absence of a violating monitor alone is not a sufficient
reason to eliminate nearby areas as candidates for nonattainment status.
 Each area has been evaluated based on the weight of evidence of the
factors and other relevant information.

Emissions and Emissions-Related Data

Evidence of lead emissions sources surrounding a violating monitor is an
important factor for determining whether a nearby area is contributing
to a monitored violation.  For this factor, EPA evaluated county level
emission data for lead and population data.

Emissions

Emissions data were derived from the 2005 NEI, version 2, which is the
most up-to-date version of the national inventory available when these
data were compiled for the designations process in 2009.  See
HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/net/2005inventory.html"
http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/net/2005inventory.html .  EPA recognizes
that for certain counties, emissions may have changed since 2005.  For
example, certain large sources of emissions in or near this area may
have installed emission controls or otherwise significantly reduced
emissions since 2005.  Some States provided updated information on
emissions and emission controls in their comments to EPA.  Pennsylvania
provided updated emissions information, shown in Table 9.  The data
provided by Pennsylvania is the most current emission information
available.  The lead inventory information from these years allows for a
direct comparison between the model results and the most recently
available design values since the emissions are from roughly the same
time periods; 2007 or 2008 for lead emissions and 2007-09 for monitor
design values.

Table 9 shows total emissions of lead (given in tons per year) in and
around the North Reading Area from sources emitting (or anticipate to
contribute) greater than 0.1 ton per year of lead according to the state
emission inventory (eF.A.C.T.S.) for the years 2007 and 2008.  See
http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/efacts/.  Facilities that are part of the
North Reading Nonattainment Area for the 2008 Lead NAAQS are shown in
boldface.  The facilities listed in Table 8 are mapped in Figure 6.
Figure 6 shows the location of Exide Smelter and Yuasa Battery Inc.
within the Nonattainment Area boundary and the smaller facilities that
do not cause or contribute to the North Reading Nonattainment Area.  The
EPA has chosen to accept Pennsylvania’s use of the inventory, and also
accepts Pennsylvania’s use of the highest yearly emissions in its
modeling analysis as a conservative approach.  See Appendix A of this
document for modeling analysis.

Table 9. Facility lead emissions greater than 0.1 tons per year

County	Facility in State Recommended Nonattainment Area?	Facility Name
Facility – Total Air Emissions

2007-eFacts Pennsylvania’s State inventory

(tons per year)	Facility – Total Air Emissions

2008-eFacts Pennsylvania’s State inventory

(tons per year)	Facility Location

Berks County, PA	No	EastPenn Manufacturing Co. Inc/Battery Assembly	2.47
2.49	147 Deka Rd.

	Berks County, PA	No	EastPenn Manufacturing Co. Inc/ Smelter Plant	0.12
0.20	147 Deka Rd.

Berks County, PA	Yes 	Exide Tech/ Reading Smelter	1.474	1.441	2nd &
Washington Sts.

Berks County, PA	Yes 	Yuasa Battery Inc/ Laureldale	0.14	0.15	2901
Montrose Ave

Berks County, PA	No	RRI Energy Mid Atlantic/Titus Gen. Station	0.12	0.12
296 Poplar Neck Rd

Berks County, PA	No	Lehigh Cement Co. LLC/ Evansville Cement Plant and
Quarry	0.119

537 Evansville Rd.

Berks County, PA	No	Boyertown Foundry Co./ FKA EAFCO

0.127	9th & Rothermal Sts.

There are approximately 20,000 airport facilities in the U.S. at which
leaded aviation gasoline is consumed.  To evaluate the potential impact
of emissions at and near these facilities, EPA recommends that states
use the draft 2008 NEI.  Data for airport facilities in Berks County
which use leaded aviation gasoline are included in Table 10.

Table 10. Airport Emissions greater than 0.1 tons per year in Berks
County, PA

County	Airport in State

Recommended Nonattainment Area?	Airport Name	Airport – Total Air
Emissions

Draft 2008 NEI

(tons per year)	Airport Location

Berks County, PA 	No	Kutztown	0.12	CLOSED

November 2008

Berks County, PA	No	Reading  Regional Airport (RDG)	0.24	2501 Bernville
Road

The RDG airport is located 3.75 kilometers from the violating monitor in
the North Reading Nonattainment Area.  The Commonwealth has not provided
analyses (such as air quality modeling) to examine the potential
contribution of lead emissions at RDG to the nonattainment identified by
the monitor in Muhlenberg Township.  EPA's preliminary modeling suggests
emissions from piston-engine aircraft operating out of RDG contribute
less than 1% of lead concentrations measured at the violating monitor.

Figure 6. North Reading Nonattainment Area with facility locations
identified by annual emissions in tons per year.

Population Data

Table 11 shows the 2008 population for each county in the area being
evaluated, as well as the population density for each county in that
area.  These data help assess the extent to which the concentration of
human activities in the area and concentration of population-oriented
commercial development may indicate emissions-based activity
contributing to elevated ambient lead levels.  This may include ambient
lead contributions from activities that would disturb lead that has been
deposited on the ground or on other surfaces.  Re-entrainment of
historically deposited lead is not reflected in the emissions inventory.

Table 11. Population Data

County	State Recommended Nonattainment?	2008 Population	2008

Population Density (pop/sq mi)	Population Change 2000-2008	Population %
Change 2000-2008

Berks County, PA	Yes (partial)	403,595	467	29,098	8%

Source of data: U.S. Census Bureau estimates for 2008 (  HYPERLINK
"http://www.census.gov/popest/datasets.html"
http://www.census.gov/popest/datasets.html ) and estimation of the area
of U.S. Counties

Growth rates and patterns

Berks County has an increasing population trend between 2000 and 2008.
EPA has considered the population growth rate for this area and does not
believe that it affects the boundary recommendation.

Emissions Controls

Under this factor, the existing level of control of emission sources is
taken into consideration.  The emissions data used by EPA in this
technical analysis and provided in Table 9 represent emissions levels
taking into account any control strategies implemented in the North
Reading Nonattainment Area before 2007 on stationary sources.

The Exide Facility operates a secondary lead smelter.  The facility
processes used lead/acid automotive and truck batteries and other lead
bearing scrap into metallic lead in one of the two smelting systems.
Each system has an identical series of control devices.  The area that
reports the highest lead emissions is the raw material storage building,
which is exhausted to fabric collectors to control particulate and lead.
 The entire facility is subject to lead RACT in the Pennsylvania SIP.

Yuasa Battery Inc. is a lead battery manufacturing facility.  It meets
the requirements of the NESHAP subpart PPPPPP for Lead and Acid Battery
Manufacturing Area Sources and the NSPS subpart KK Standards of
Performance for Lead-Acid Battery Manufacturing Plants.

Meteorology (weather/transport patterns)

For this factor, EPA considered data from National Weather Service
instruments and other meteorological monitoring sites in the area.  Wind
direction and wind speed data was taken from 1960-1992 Solar and
Meteorological Surface Observation Network information issued jointly by
the U.S. Department of Commerce:  National Climatic Data Center and the
U.S. Department of Energy: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.  This
data is summarized in Figure 7 and Table 12, below.  This data may
provide evidence of the potential for lead emissions sources located
upwind of a violating monitor to contribute to ambient lead levels at
the violation location.

Figure 7. Wind directions summarized by season for Berks County, PA

Table 12. Top two prevailing wind directions by season for Berks County,
PA

Season	Wind direction 	Percent of wind at that direction

Winter	West, Northwest	32

Winter	West, Southwest	18

Spring	West, Northwest	24

Spring	West, Southwest	15

Summer	West, Northwest	21

Summer	West, Southwest	20

Autumn	West, Northwest	24

Autumn	West, Southwest	19

As shown in the graph in Figure 7 and Table 12, the prevailing surface
winds were predominantly from the west, northwest and west, southwest
for all four seasons.

Geography/topography (mountain ranges or other air basin boundaries)

The geography/topography analysis evaluates the physical features of the
land that might have an effect on the air shed and, therefore, on the
distribution of lead over the North Reading Nonattainment Area.

The North Reading Nonattainment Area does not have any geographical or
topographical barriers significantly limiting air pollution transport
within its air shed.  Therefore, this factor did not play a significant
role in determining the nonattainment boundary.

Jurisdictional boundaries

Existing jurisdictional boundaries may be helpful in articulating a
boundary for purposes of nonattainment designations, and for purposes of
carrying out the governmental responsibilities of planning for
attainment of the lead NAAQS and implementing control measures.  These
boundaries may include an existing nonattainment or maintenance area
boundary, a county or township boundary, a metropolitan area boundary,
an air management district, or an urban planning boundary established
for coordinating business development or transportation activities.

The recommended North Reading Nonattainment Area is constructed using
the township/borough boundaries within Berks County.

Other Relevant Information

The Commonwealth provided modeling to show that the two areas, the Lyons
Nonattainment Area and the North Reading Nonattainment Area, in Berks
County should be separate.  The Commonwealth recommended including in
the nonattainment area those townships and boroughs where the modeling
has shown a value of 0.075 µg/m3 or higher.  Additional review of the
modeling submitted by Pennsylvania can be found in Appendix A of this
technical analysis document.

Conclusion

After considering the factors and information described above, EPA has
determined that it is appropriate to include the portions of Berks
County listed in Table 1 as part of the North Reading Nonattainment Area
for the 2008 Lead NAAQS.

EPA agrees with Pennsylvania’s recommendation for the North Reading
Nonattainment Area which includes Alsace Township, Laureldale Borough,
and Muhlenberg Township.

Based on its consideration of all the relevant, available information,
as described above, EPA believes that the boundaries described herein
encompass the entire area that does not meet (or that contributes to
ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet) the 2008 Pb
NAAQS.

Technical Analysis for Lower Beaver Valley Nonattainment Area

Introduction

This technical analysis for the Lower Beaver Valley Nonattainment Area
in Beaver County identifies the partial county with a monitor that
violates the 2008 Lead NAAQS and evaluates nearby counties for
contributions to lead concentrations in the area.  EPA has evaluated
these counties based on the weight of evidence of the following factors
recommended in previous EPA guidance:

Air quality in potentially included versus excluded areas;

Emissions and emissions-related data in areas potentially included
versus excluded from the nonattainment area, including population data,
growth rates and patterns and emissions controls;

Meteorology (weather/transport patterns);

Geography/topography (mountain ranges or other air basin boundaries);

Jurisdictional boundaries (e.g., counties, air districts, reservations,
etc.); and

Any other relevant information submitted to or collected by EPA (e.g.,
modeling where done appropriately).

On December 17, 2009, Pennsylvania recommended that part of Beaver
County be designated as nonattainment for the 2008 Lead NAAQS based on
air quality data from 2006 - 2008.  Their recommendation was based on
data from FRM or FEM monitors located in the state.

Based on EPA's technical analysis described below, EPA designating parts
of Beaver County in Pennsylvania as nonattainment for the 2008 Lead
NAAQS as the Lower Beaver Valley Nonattainment Area, based upon
currently available information.  This county and the townships/boroughs
included in the nonattainment area are listed above in Table 1.

Detailed Assessment

Air Quality Data

This factor considers the lead design values (in µg/m3) for air quality
monitors in Beaver County and the surrounding area based on data for the
2006-2008 and 2007-2009 periods.  A monitor’s design value indicates
whether that monitor attains a specified air quality standard.  The 2008
Lead NAAQS are met at a monitoring site when the identified design value
is valid and less than or equal to 0.15 µg/m3.  A design value is only
valid if minimum data completeness criteria are met.  A lead design
value that meets the NAAQS is generally considered valid if it
encompasses 36 consecutive valid 3-month site means (specifically for a
3-year calendar period and the two previous months).  For this purpose,
a 3-month site mean is valid if valid data were obtained for at least 75
percent of the scheduled monitoring days in the 3-month period.  A lead
design value that does not meet the NAAQS is considered valid if at
least one 3-month mean that meets the same 75 percent requirement is
above the NAAQS.  That is, a site does not have to monitor for three
full calendar years in order to have a valid violating design value; a
site could monitor just three months and still produce a valid
(violating) design value.

The 2008 Lead NAAQS design values for Beaver County in the Lower Beaver
Valley Area and surrounding area are shown in Figure 8 and Table 13.

Table 13. Air Quality Data

County	State Recommended Nonattainment?	Monitor Air Quality System ID
Monitor Location	Lead Design Value 2006-2008 (µg/m3)	Lead Design Value
2007-2009 (µg/m3)

Beaver County, PA	Yes (partial)	420070505	TAMAQUI DR	0.20	0.17

Figure 8 is a map of the area analyzed showing the location of the air
quality monitor in relation to the Horsehead Facility.

The Lower Beaver Valley Area shows a violation of the 2008 Lead NAAQS.
Therefore, some area in this county must be designated nonattainment.
However, the absence of a violating monitor alone is not a sufficient
reason to eliminate nearby areas as candidates for nonattainment status.
 Each area has been evaluated based on the weight of evidence of the
factors and other relevant information.

Beaver County will be reevaluated using the same technical analysis in
the second round of designations, since new source orientated monitors
were to be placed and operational by January 1, 2010 as a requirement of
the 2008 Lead NAAQS rule (73 FR 67059).  These sites for Beaver County
are shown in Figure 9 and listed in Table 14.

Table 14. Location of Source specific monitors

Site Name	Physical Address	Lattitude	Longitude

Bruce Mansfield	206 Mowry Rd., Monaca, PA  15071	 40.638936°
80.365653°

Horsehead	Beaver Valley Mall, Monaca, PA  15071	 40.676592°	80.316369°

Vanport (original Horsehead monitor)	265 River Ave., Beaver, PA  15009
40.685019°	80.324775°

New Monitors placed January 1, 2010 are in Bold.

Figure 9. Map of current lead monitor locations as of January 1, 2010

Emissions and Emissions-Related Data

Evidence of lead emissions sources surrounding a violating monitor is an
important factor for determining whether a nearby area is contributing
to a monitored violation.  For this factor, EPA evaluated county level
emission data for lead and population data.

Emissions

Emissions data were derived from the 2005 NEI, version 2, which is the
most up-to-date version of the national inventory available when these
data were compiled for the designations process in 2009.  See
http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/net/2005inventory.html.  EPA recognizes that
for certain counties, emissions may have changed since 2005.  For
example, certain large sources of emissions in or near this area may
have installed emission controls or otherwise significantly reduced
emissions since 2005.  Some States provided updated information on
emissions and emission controls in their comments to EPA.  Pennsylvania
provided updated emissions information, provided in Table 15.  The data
provided by Pennsylvania is the most current emission information
available.  The lead inventory information from these years allows for a
direct comparison between the model results and the most recently
available design values since the emissions are from roughly the same
time periods; 2007 or 2008 for lead emissions and 2007-09 for monitor
design values.

Table 15 shows total emissions of lead (given in tons per year) for
violating and potentially contributing townships/boroughs in and around
the Lower Beaver Valley Area and sources emitting (or anticipate to
contribute) greater than 0.1 ton per year of lead according to the state
emission inventory (eF.A.C.T.S.) for the years 2007 and 2008.  See
http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/efacts/.  Facilities that are part of the
Lower Beaver Valley Nonattainment Area for the 2008 Lead NAAQS are shown
in boldface.  The EPA has chosen to accept Pennsylvania’s use of the
inventory, and also accepts Pennsylvania’s use of the highest yearly
emissions in its modeling analysis as a conservative approach.  See
Appendix A of this document for modeling analysis.  Figure 10 below
shows the distance between the First Energy Generation Corp/ Bruce
Mansfield Plant and the Lower Beaver Valley Nonattainment Area.  During
the second round of designations in 2011, Beaver County will be
reevaluated with new data provided by the monitors placed in January
2010 to determine if the area should be expanded.

Table 15. Facility lead emissions greater than 0.1 tons per year

County	Facility in State

Recommended Nonattainment	Facility Name	Facility – Total Air Emissions

2007-eFacts Pennsylvania’s State inventory

(tons per year)	Facility – Total Air Emissions

2008-eFacts Pennsylvania’s State inventory

(tons per year)	Facility Location

Beaver County, PA	Yes (partial)	Horsehead Corp./Monaca Smelter	5.64	5.38
300 Frankfort Rd.

	Beaver County, PA	Yes (partial)	First Energy Gen. Corp/ Bruce Mansfield
Plant	1.20	0.70	State Route 168 South

Beaver County, PA 	Yes (partial)	Jewel Acquisition/ Midland Factory	0.30
0.10	12th St. & Midland Ave.

Figure 10. Lower Beaver Valley Nonattainment Area with facility
locations identified by annual emissions in tons per year.

Population Data

Table 16 shows the 2008 population for Beaver County being evaluated, as
well as the population density for each county in that area.  These data
help assess the extent to which the concentration of human activities in
the area and concentration of population-oriented commercial development
may indicate emissions-based activity contributing to elevated ambient
lead levels.  This may include ambient lead contributions from
activities that would disturb lead that has been deposited on the ground
or on other surfaces.  Re-entrainment of historically deposited lead is
not reflected in the emissions inventory.

Table 16. Population Data

County	State Recommended Nonattainment?	2008 Population	2008

Population Density (pop/sq mi)	Population Change 2000-2008	Population %
Change 2000-2008

Beaver County, PA	Yes (partial)	172,476	389	-8,639	-5%

Source of data: U.S. Census Bureau estimates for 2008 (  HYPERLINK
"http://www.census.gov/popest/datasets.html"
http://www.census.gov/popest/datasets.html ) and estimation of the area
of U.S. Counties

Growth rates and patterns

Beaver County has a declining population trend between 2000 and 2008.
EPA has considered the population growth rate for this area and does not
believe that it affects the boundary recommendation.

Emissions Controls

Under this factor, the existing level of control of emission sources is
taken into consideration.  The emissions data used by EPA in this
technical analysis and provided in Table 15 represent emissions levels
taking into account any control strategies implemented in the Lower
Beaver Valley Nonattainment Area before 2007 on stationary sources.

Horsehead Corporation is a zinc processing facility which produces high
purity zinc oxide and high grade zinc metal using a two step
distillation process.  There are two sources responsible for the
majority of the lead emissions from the facility:  the sintering line
and the electrothermic furnace line.  Raw materials consisting of crude
zinc oxide and other secondary materials are fed to a sintering machine.
 Under high temperatures, air is drawn through the materials, resulting
in fused chunks that become feedstock for the electrothermic furnaces.
Various impurities (such as lead) are volatilized during the processing.
 Emissions from this process are controlled by a baghouse.  According to
the company, 95 % of the lead emissions from the furnaces are emitted
through baghouses, and only 5% escapes as fugitive emissions.

Meteorology (weather/transport patterns)

For this factor, EPA considered data from National Weather Service
instruments and other meteorological monitoring sites in the area.  Wind
direction and wind speed data 1960-1992 Solar and Meteorological Surface
Observation Network information issued jointly by the U.S. Department of
Commerce:  National Climatic Data Center and the U.S. Department of
Energy: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.  This data is summarized
in Figure 11, and Table 17, below.  This data may provide evidence of
the potential for lead emissions sources located upwind of a violating
monitor to contribute to ambient lead levels at the violation location.

Figure 11. Wind directions summarized by season for Beaver County, PA

Table 17. Top two prevailing wind directions by season for Beaver
County, PA

Season	Wind direction 	Percent of wind at that direction

Winter	West, Southwest	25

Winter	West, Northwest	22

Spring	West, Northwest	20

Spring	West, Southwest	16

Summer	West, Southwest	20

Summer	South, Southwest	18

Autumn	West, Southwest	19

Autumn	West, Northwest	18

As shown in the graph in Figure 11 and Table 17, the prevailing surface
winds are often from the west, southwest and west, northwest in most
seasons.

Geography/topography (mountain ranges or other air basin boundaries)

The geography/topography analysis evaluates the physical features of the
land that might have an effect on the air shed and, therefore, on the
distribution of lead over the Lower Beaver Valley Nonattainment Area.

The Lower Beaver Valley Nonattainment Area does not have any
geographical or topographical barriers significantly limiting air
pollution transport within its air shed.  Therefore, this factor did not
play a significant role in determining the nonattainment boundary.

Jurisdictional boundaries

Existing jurisdictional boundaries may be helpful in articulating a
boundary for purposes of nonattainment designations, and for purposes of
carrying out the governmental responsibilities of planning for
attainment of the lead NAAQS and implementing control measures.  These
existing boundaries may include an existing nonattainment or maintenance
area boundary, a county or township boundary, a metropolitan area
boundary, an air management district, or an urban planning boundary
established for coordinating business development or transportation
activities.

The recommended Lower Beaver Valley Nonattainment Area is constructed
using the township boundaries within Beaver County.

Conclusion

After considering the factors described above, EPA has determined that
it is appropriate to include the portion of Beaver County, PA listed in
Table 1 in the Lower Beaver Valley Nonattainment Area for the 2008 Lead
NAAQS.

The air quality monitor in Beaver County shows a violation of the 2008
Lead NAAQS, based on 2007-2009 air quality data.  EPA agrees with
Pennsylvania’s recommendation to include Potter and Vanport Townships
in the Lower Beaver Valley Nonattainment Area, since the contributing
source and violating monitor are located within those townships.

h

Æ

Ç

7

>

x

y

¢

£

©

ª

Ñ

×

Ý

á

ö

÷

ø

h

>

?

\

`

g

m

n

Å

Æ

Ç

È

Ê

Ï

Ð

â

ä

å

ç

ò

ÿ

h

h

hå8

h<-

@

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

㜂$␸䠀$摧ຌw"̀Ȥ옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

옍)

옍)

옍)

\

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

"̀Ȥ옍)

옍)

h

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

옍)

hŒ

ñÿ´	ƒ

ñÿ´	ƒ

ñÿ´	ƒ

ñÿ´	ƒ

"̀Ȥ옍)

 h

 h

h

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

@

옍)

옍)

옍)

 h

h

h

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

옍)

ant, available information, as described above, EPA believes that the
boundaries described herein encompass the entire area that does not meet
(or that contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does
not meet) the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

 PAGE

 PAGE   6