[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 16 (Friday, January 24, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4244-4245]
[FR Doc No: 2020-00996]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0790; Airspace Docket No. 19-ASW-10]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Tahlequah, OK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface at Tahlequah Municipal Airport
in Tahlequah, OK. The FAA is proposing this action as the result of an
airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the Tahlequah non-
directional radio beacon (NDB). The geographic coordinates for the
airport in the associated airspace would be updated to coincide with
the FAA's aeronautical database. Airspace redesign is necessary for the
safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at
this airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 9, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, telephone
(202) 366-9826, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2019-0790; Airspace Docket No. 19-ASW-10, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the
proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in
the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except federal holidays.
    FAA Order 7400.11D, 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
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11D at NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Shelby, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would amend Class E airspace at Tahlequah Municipal Airport, in
support of standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations
at the airport.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2019-0790;
Airspace Docket No. 19-ASW-10.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace-amendments/">https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace-amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic
Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective
September 15, 2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11D lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by amending Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius
(increased from 6.4 miles) of the Tahlequah Municipal Airport,
Tahlequah, OK. This action would enhance safety and the management of
IFR operations at the airport. Also, the geographic coordinates would
be adjusted to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA

Order 7400.11D, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019,
which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11D,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and
effective September 15, 2019, is amended as follows:
* * * * *

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ASW OK E5 Tahlequah, OK [Amended]

Tahlequah Municipal Airport, OK
    (Lat. 35[deg]55'49'' N long. 95[deg]00'16'' W.)
Tahlequah City Hospital Heliport, OK, Point in Space Coordinates
    (Lat. 35[deg]55'14'' N long. 94[deg]57'47'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of the Tahlequah Municipal Airport and that
airspace within a 6-mile radius of the Point in Space serving
Tahlequah City Hospital Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on January 15, 2020.
Wayne Eckenrode,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2020-00996 Filed 1-23-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 41 (Wednesday, March 2, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11488-11489]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4594]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0318]

Determination That MEGACE (Megestrol Acetate) Tablets and Nine
Other Drug Products Were Not Withdrawn From Sale for Reasons of Safety
or Effectiveness

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined that the
10 drug products listed in this document were not withdrawn from sale
for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination means that
FDA will not begin procedures to withdraw approval of abbreviated new
drug applications (ANDAs) that refer to these drug products, and it
will allow FDA to continue to approve ANDAs that refer to the products
as long as they meet relevant legal and regulatory requirements.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Olivia Pritzlaff, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 6308, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-3601.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1984, Congress enacted the Drug Price
Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417)
(the 1984 amendments), which authorized the approval of duplicate
versions of drug products approved under an ANDA procedure. ANDA
applicants must, with certain exceptions, show that the drug for which
they are seeking approval contains the same active ingredient in the
same strength and dosage form as the ``listed drug,'' which is a
version of the drug that was previously approved. ANDA applicants do
not have to repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary
to gain approval of a new drug application (NDA). The only clinical
data required in an ANDA are data to show that the drug that is the
subject of the ANDA is bioequivalent to the listed drug.
    The 1984 amendments include what is now section 505(j)(7) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C.
355(j)(7)), which requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs.
FDA publishes this list as part of the ``Approved Drug Products With
Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,'' which is generally known as the
``Orange Book.'' Under FDA regulations, a drug is withdrawn from the
list if the Agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or
ANDA for reasons of safety or effectiveness, or if FDA determines that
the listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or
effectiveness (21 CFR 314.162).
    Under Sec.  314.161(a) (21 CFR 314.161(a)), the Agency must
determine whether a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of
safety or effectiveness: (1) Before an ANDA that refers to that listed
drug may be approved; (2) whenever a listed drug is voluntarily
withdrawn from sale and ANDAs that refer to the listed drug have been
approved; and (3) when a person petitions for such a determination
under 21 CFR 10.25(a) and 10.30. Section 314.161(d) provides that if
FDA determines that a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons
of safety or effectiveness, the Agency will initiate proceedings that
could result in the withdrawal of approval of the ANDAs that refer to
the listed drug.
    FDA has become aware that the drug products listed in the table in
this document are no longer being marketed. (As requested by the
applicants, FDA withdrew approval of NDA 18-101 for SYMMETREL
(amantadine hydrochloride (HCl)) Tablets and ANDA 84-935 for DEXEDRINE
(dextroamphetamine sulfate) Tablets in the Federal Register of July 21,
2010 (75 FR 42455).)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Application No.                 Drug              Applicant
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NDA 16-979....................  MEGACE (megestrol    Bristol Myers
                                 acetate) Tablets,    Squibb, P.O. Box
                                 20 milligrams (mg)   4000, Princeton,
                                 and 40 mg.           NJ 08543-4000.
NDA 17-911....................  CLINORIL (sulindac)  Merck Research
                                 Tablet, 150 mg.      Laboratories,
                                                      Sumneytown Pike,
                                                      West Point, PA
                                                      19486.
NDA 18-101....................  SYMMETREL            Endo
                                 (amantadine HCl)     Pharmaceuticals,
                                 Tablet, 100 mg.      Inc., 100 Endo
                                                      Blvd., Chadds
                                                      Ford, PA 19317.
NDA 18-482....................  PROCARDIA            Pfizer Inc., 235
                                 (nifedipine)         East 42nd St., New
                                 Capsule, 20 mg.      York, NY 10017-
                                                      5755.
NDA 18-768....................  VEPESID (etoposide)  Bristol Myers
                                 Injection, 20 mg/    Squibb.
                                 milliliter (mL).
NDA 20-262....................  TAXOL (paclitaxel)   Do.
                                 Injection, 6 mg/mL.
NDA 20-450....................  CEREBYX              Parke Davis, 2800
                                 (fosphenytoin        Plymouth Rd., Ann
                                 sodium) Injection,   Arbor, MI 48106-
                                 Equivalent to (EQ)   1047.
                                 50 mg phenytoin
                                 sodium/mL.
NDA 50-527....................  DURICEF (cefadroxil/ Warner Chilcott,
                                 cefadroxil           Inc., 100
                                 hemihydrate) Oral    Enterprise Dr.,
                                 Suspension, EQ 250   Suite 280,
                                 mg base/5mL and EQ   Rockaway, NJ
                                 500 mg base/5 mL.    07866.
ANDA 84-051...................  DEXTROSTAT           Shire Development,
                                 (dextroamphetamine   Inc., 725
                                 sulfate) Tablets,    Chesterbrook
                                 5 mg and 10 mg.      Blvd., Wayne, PA
                                                      19087.

ANDA 84-935...................  DEXEDRINE            GlaxoSmithKline, 5
                                 (dextroamphetamine   Moore Dr., P.O.
                                 sulfate) Tablet, 5   Box 13398,
                                 mg.                  Research Triangle
                                                      Park, NC 27709-
                                                      3398.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FDA has reviewed its records and, under Sec.  314.161, has
determined that the drug products listed in this document were not
withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
Accordingly, the Agency will continue to list the drug products listed
in this document in the ``Discontinued Drug Product List'' section of
the Orange Book. The ``Discontinued Drug Product List'' identifies,
among other items, drug products that have been discontinued from
marketing for reasons other than safety or effectiveness.
    Approved ANDAs that refer to the NDAs listed in this document are
unaffected by the discontinued marketing of the products subject to
those NDAs. Additional ANDAs that refer to these products may also be
approved by the Agency if they comply with relevant legal and
regulatory requirements. If FDA determines the labeling for these drug
products should be revised to meet current standards, the Agency will
advise ANDA applicants to submit such labeling.

    Dated: February 24, 2011.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-4594 Filed 3-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


DEFERRAL OF EFFECTIVE DATE OF NONATTAINMENT DESIGNATION FOR 8 HOUR OZONE NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS FOR EARLY ACTION COMPACTS ( EAC)

Proposed Rule published June 8, 2005 ( 70 FR 33409)

Docket # OAR 2003 0090 Public Comment Summary  August 15, 2005 1 Docket No.

OAR 2003 0090 Comment Date Organization City, State Commenter Name Text of Comment Support for the EAC Program and Extension of the Effective Deferral Date 0383 July 6, 2005 The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Austin, TX Glenn Shankle, Executive Director The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality ( TCEQ) supports the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's ( EPA) proposed action to extend deferred effective dates for the 8 hour ozone national ambient air quality standards ( NAAQS) in certain Early Action Compact ( EAC) areas. Texas and the San Antonio EAC area have worked hard to meet their obligations and are pleased to see the EPA recognize that accomplishment. ( p. 1)

As a developer of the EAC protocol, Texas hopes that the EPA will continue to develop programs like the EAC process that allow local areas to pursue proactive, flexible solutions to air quality issues that meet the needs of local communities. ( p. 1)

0385 July 8, 2005 Commonwealth of Virginia,

Department of Environmental Quality Richmond, VA John M. Daniel, Jr., Air Division Director The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality ( VADEQ) fully supports the early action compact process and this specific action by EPA. The two EAC areas in Virginia, Roanoke and the Northern Shenandoah Valley, have continued to meet all applicable requirements of the EAC program and have made substantial progress in implementing proactive programs designed to improve air quality in these areas. In fact, both these areas are now in compliance with the 8 hour ozone standard. ( p. 1)

0386 July 7, 2005 North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Raleigh, NC B. Keith Overcash, P. E.,

Division of Air Quality The North Carolina Division of Air Quality ( NCDAQ) supports the decision to extend the effective deferral date to December 31, 2006. As a state agency, NCDAQ has worked with both local governments, local air agencies and private industry to ensure the success of the Early Action Compact ( EAC) program but more importantly, improve the air quality in North Carolina as expeditiously as possible. ( p. 1)

An example of this collaboration is the support of Duke Power in this effort. In compliance with the DEFERRAL OF EFFECTIVE DATE OF NONATTAINMENT DESIGNATION FOR 8 HOUR OZONE NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS FOR EARLY ACTION COMPACTS ( EAC)

Proposed Rule published June 8, 2005 ( 70 FR 33409)

Docket # OAR 2003 0090 Public Comment Summary  August 15, 2005 Docket No.

OAR 2003 0090 Comment Date Organization City, State Commenter Name Text of Comment 2 Clean Smokestacks Act, which requires coal fired power plants to reduce NOx emissions by 78% by 2009 and SO2 emissions by 49% by 2009 and 74% by 2013, Duke Power has agreed to accelerate the installation of Selective Non Catalytic Reduction emissions control technology at the Marshall Steam Station in Catawba County by the 2007 ozone season, which will allow the Triad EAC area to attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards sooner. ( p. 1)

Other examples of ongoing efforts to aid in the improvement of air quality are the Open Burning Ban Rule & Outreach, On Board Diagnostics ( OBD) Inspection and Maintenance ( I/ M) Program, NC Ozone Forecasting and Air Awareness in the EAC Areas. On June 1, 2004, the NC Environmental Management Commission approved a rule to ban open burning in NC during ozone season on code orange and above days for areas that forecast ozone levels. The majority of the EAC areas, as well as surrounding counties, are covered by the no open burning rule. Additionally, an Open Burning Outreach Taskforce has been established to educate the public on the adverse effects of open burning on air quality. ( p. 1)

The vehicle I/ M program tests vehicles using their OBD system that indicates whether equipment to reduce NOx and other pollutants are operating properly. Beginning July 1, 2005, five additional EAC counties will be subject to the I/ M program. By 2006, 48 counties across the state will be subject to I/ M and many of these counties are in EAC areas and their surrounding counties. ( pp. 1 2)

In an effort to inform and educate North Carolina citizens about air quality, NCDAQ has a comprehensive Air Awareness Outreach Program and forecasts ozone concentration levels in various areas across the state. NCDAQ forecasts ozone concentrations in six areas including the Fayetteville,

Mountain and Hickory EAC areas. The Forsyth County Environmental Affairs Division, a local air agency, forecasts in the Triad EAC area. The ozone forecasts are issued daily from May 1 through DEFERRAL OF EFFECTIVE DATE OF NONATTAINMENT DESIGNATION FOR 8 HOUR OZONE NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS FOR EARLY ACTION COMPACTS ( EAC)

Proposed Rule published June 8, 2005 ( 70 FR 33409)

Docket # OAR 2003 0090 Public Comment Summary  August 15, 2005 Docket No.

OAR 2003 0090 Comment Date Organization City, State Commenter Name Text of Comment 3 September 30. During high ozone concentration days, citizens are encouraged to modify their outdoor activities to protect their health and to take measures to reduce activities that contribute to ozone forming emissions. The Air Awareness Program in the EAC areas is a conduit for public education and outreach. The main focus of the program is on educational outreach to understand and respond to the ozone forecast and to utilize the media for public service announcements so that a broader audience can be reached. ( p. 2)

As shown in the table below [ see docket number 0386, p. 2 for Design Value table], the design values in these areas have decreased because of the effectiveness of the various rules, programs and initiatives that have been implemented. All of the monitors in the EAC areas except two are currently attaining the 8 hour ozone standard. Those remaining two monitors show values just over the standard, with 2002

2004 design values of 0.086 and 0.087 ppm. ( p. 2)

All of the efforts in the EAC areas are benefitting the citizens of North Carolina by improving air quality sooner. Therefore, by extending the deferral of the effective date to December 31, 2005, the EAC areas will be allowed to continue their efforts toward successfully achieving attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. ( p. 2)

NCDAQ is committed to continuing the efforts of the EAC programs and ensuring attainment and maintenance of the 8 hour ozone standard. We applaud the Environmental Protection Agency's support of the EAC program and encourage continued support of the EAC efforts. ( p. 2)

Comments on Sufficiency of South Carolina's EAC SIP 0381 Southern Environmental Law Center These comments relate to EPA's proposed deferral of the effective date of nonattainment designation for South Carolina's two nonattainment/ EAC areas  the Appalachian area ( Greenville Spartanburg DEFERRAL OF EFFECTIVE DATE OF NONATTAINMENT DESIGNATION FOR 8 HOUR OZONE NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS FOR EARLY ACTION COMPACTS ( EAC)

Proposed Rule published June 8, 2005 ( 70 FR 33409)

Docket # OAR 2003 0090 Public Comment Summary  August 15, 2005 Docket No.

OAR 2003 0090 Comment Date Organization City, State Commenter Name Text of Comment 4 June 28, 2005 Chapel Hill, NC J. David Farren, Senior Attorney Marily Nixon, Senior Attorney Anderson counties) and the Central Midlands area ( parts of Richland and Lexington counties). South Carolina submitted an Early Action Compact State Implementation Plan ( the " EAC SIP") on December 29, 2004, and submitted a proposed amendment to the EAC SIP on April 20, 2005. The EAC SIP relies heavily on statewide measures, rather than enforceable local measures, to project attainment with the 8

hour ozone maintenance and growth tracking measure, discussed below. The State of South Carolina is currently taking public comment on the proposed amendment, and SELC has submitted written comments to the State docket. Additionally, we are submitting these comments to you because they bear on EPA's proposed finding that the South Carolina nonattainment/ EAC areas are making satisfactory progress toward meeting the EAC milestones. We believe that South Carolina needs to do more to show satisfactory progress and thereby qualify for deferral of the effective date of the nonattainment designation for its nonattainment/ EAC areas until December 31, 2006. ( pp. 1 2)

SELC has commented repeatedly to EPA and the State of South Carolina on the sufficiency of South Carolina's EAC SIP, each time renewing our call for the inclusion of meaningful air quality protection measures. One of the measures SELC recommended that South Carolina include in its SIP is a maintenance and growth tracking provision comparable to the 20 year maintenance requirements in the CAA § 175A. The State of North Carolina has such a provision in its EAC SIP, and we pointed to the North Carolina provision as a model for South Carolina. South Carolina did include a maintenance and growth tracking provision in its December 29, 2004 EAC SIP; however, South Carolina's version of the maintenance and growth provision deleted all language containing a commitment to take action to improve air quality. ( p. 2)

The proposed amendment adds back in some of the " commitment" type language  referred to by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (" DHEC") as the " action triggers." DEFERRAL OF EFFECTIVE DATE OF NONATTAINMENT DESIGNATION FOR 8 HOUR OZONE NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS FOR EARLY ACTION COMPACTS ( EAC)

Proposed Rule published June 8, 2005 ( 70 FR 33409)

Docket # OAR 2003 0090 Public Comment Summary  August 15, 2005 Docket No.

OAR 2003 0090 Comment Date Organization City, State Commenter Name Text of Comment 5 Again, however, important aspects of the North Carolina language have been deleted or revised,

rendering the maintenance and growth tracking provision essentially nugatory. For example, the " action trigger" is not tripped until the 3 year design value for 8 hour ozone exceeds 0.084 ppm, which is the applicable NAAQS. In comparison, the North Carolina action trigger is a one year design value of 0.080 ppm. The point of including the " action trigger"  indeed, the point of including a maintenance and growth tracking provision at all  is to provide an early warning to the State of high ozone levels that, while substantially below the NAAQS could, if unaddressed, eventually result in failure to maintain the NAAQS. Instead, the South Carolina provision requires no action at all until the area violates the NAAQS. Under the Clean Air Act, when an area violates the NAAQS the proper procedure is for EPA to designate the area nonattainment for that pollutant and for the area to implement strict controls,

including nonattainment New Source Review and transportation conformity, to bring the area into attainment with the NAAQS. By delaying any action at all until the area violates the NAAQS, the South Carolina provision provides nothing of substance for air quality protection in the State. ( p. 2)

The South Carolina provision includes several other revision to the North Carolina language that undercut the effectiveness of the provision. For example, South Carolina's growth review is not triggered until 2008. Also, the State commits only to " analyze the data" and implement additional controls " as necessary"  both phrases obviate any real commitment to act, and the commitment to adopt any new control measures " as part of the SIP" has been deleted from the North Carolina language.

Further, in the case of mobile source controls, there is no commitment to implement controls on mobile sources to address unexpectedly high emissions or growth. ( p. 2)

As we have stated before, the EAC program is not authorized by the Clean Air Act. However, EAC proponents claim that the program will lead to cleaner air faster than the statutory nonattainment DEFERRAL OF EFFECTIVE DATE OF NONATTAINMENT DESIGNATION FOR 8 HOUR OZONE NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS FOR EARLY ACTION COMPACTS ( EAC)

Proposed Rule published June 8, 2005 ( 70 FR 33409)

Docket # OAR 2003 0090 Public Comment Summary  August 15, 2005 Docket No.

OAR 2003 0090 Comment Date Organization City, State Commenter Name Text of Comment 6 process. In response, over the past two years SELC has attempted to work cooperatively and positively with EPA, the State of South Carolina, and local EAC groups to improve South Carolina's EAC program. We have met with representatives of DHEC and EPA and have offered to meet with the EAC groups, we have filed a series of letters containing recommendations for strengthening the State's EAC program  we have even identified specific provisions and suggested specific language to include in the EACs to make them as robust as possible. Many of our suggestions have not been incorporated into South Carolina's EAC SIP or  like the 20 year maintenance provision  have been watered down so that they are largely ineffective. ( Several of our previous letters addressing improvements to South Carolina's EACs are attached to this letter as Attachment A and are incorporated herein by reference.)

[ see docket number 0381, pp. 5 58 for Attachment A] Additionally, we note that the State has resisted including in its EAC SIP certain of the statewide measures and the full suite of local measures. Even in the final version of the EAC SIP, it is unclear whether the local control measures are actually included as enforceable measures in the EAC SIP. DHEC notes that it is " including" the local measures, and attaches them to the EAC SIP, but does not expressly state that they are part of the enforceable SIP. ( pp.

2 3)

We still believe that South Carolina's EAC program needs strengthening, as laid out in our previous correspondence with EPA and the State. The maintenance and growth provision in South Carolina's EAC SIP should be revised to be substantially similar to North Carolina's EAC SIP. We are troubled that in response to our recommendation to include the maintenance and growth tracking language, the State first chose to delete the " action triggers" and now, while purporting to add the " action triggers"

back in, proposes to weaken them so substantially as to render them ineffective. The " action triggers"

are critical to South Carolina's efforts to control emissions  particularly those from mobile sources, for which the State included no specific, enforceable measures in its EAC SIP, but also for stationary DEFERRAL OF EFFECTIVE DATE OF NONATTAINMENT DESIGNATION FOR 8 HOUR OZONE NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS FOR EARLY ACTION COMPACTS ( EAC)

Proposed Rule published June 8, 2005 ( 70 FR 33409)

Docket # OAR 2003 0090 Public Comment Summary  August 15, 2005 Docket No.

OAR 2003 0090 Comment Date Organization City, State Commenter Name Text of Comment 7 sources. ( p. 3)

We urge EPA to require South Carolina to make further improvements to its EAC SIP, including revising its maintenance and growth tracking provision as described above, as a condition of deferral of the nonattainment designation for the 8 hour ozone NAAQS for South Carolina's two nonattainment/ EAC areas. ( p. 3)

Comments on EPA's Legal Authority 0382 July 5, 2005 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Air Resources Albany, NY John T. Higgins, P. E.,

Assistant Director The Department is opposed to the proposed revision to 40 CFR Part 81 because it does not believe that EPA has legal authority to ( 1) defer effective dates of designations; ( 2) enter into Early Action Compacts with areas; and ( 3) allow areas to be relieved of obligations under Title I, Part D of the Clean Air Act while they are violating the 8 hour ozone standard or are designated nonattainment for that standard. The Department notified EPA of its objection to the EAC process in its January 15, 2004 letter ( enclosed) [ see docket number 0382, pp. 3 5 for January 15, 2004 letter) to the EPA Docket Administrator. According to Title I, Part D of the CAA, if an area meets the technical criteria for nonattainment status, then it must be subject to the requirements prescribed within the CAA. Early Action Compacts do not meet the requirements prescribed within the CAA for nonattainment areas. ( p.

1)

0384 July 6, 2005 The Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management ( NESCAUM)

Boston, MA Arthur N. Marin, Executive Director While the NESCAUM states support EPA's efforts to afford nonattainment areas flexibility in achieving the 8 hour ozone standard, we believe that the specific mechanism that EPA has developed to provide such flexibility, i. e., the Early Action Compact framework, conflicts with existing obligations under the Act. We do not believe EPA has the authority to: ( 1) defer effective dates of designations; ( 2) enter into Early Action Compacts with areas; or ( 3) allow areas to be relieved of obligations under Title I, Part D of the Clean Air Act while they are violating the 8 ozone standard or are designated nonattainment of that standard. We believe that Congress was clear in prescribing requirements for states to ensure DEFERRAL OF EFFECTIVE DATE OF NONATTAINMENT DESIGNATION FOR 8 HOUR OZONE NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS FOR EARLY ACTION COMPACTS ( EAC)

Proposed Rule published June 8, 2005 ( 70 FR 33409)

Docket # OAR 2003 0090 Public Comment Summary  August 15, 2005 Docket No.

OAR 2003 0090 Comment Date Organization City, State Commenter Name Text of Comment 8 progress toward attaining and maintaining the ozone standard, and that EPA's memoranda describing the Early Action Compact approach do not meet those requirements and are, in fact, inconsistent with them. ( pp. 1 2)

0387 July 8, 2005 American Lung Association Janice Nolen, Director Clean Air Task Force, Ann B.

Weeks, Litigation Director Environmental Defense, Janea Scott, Staff Attorney Natural Resources Defense Council, John Walke, Clean Air Director Sierra Club, Nat Mund, Senior Washington Rep.

U. S. Public Interest Research Group, Emily Figdor, Clean Air Advocate Previously filed comments demonstrate that the extension of effective dates until September 30, 2005, is unlawful. See, e. g., Letter to Air and Radiation Docket from Joseph Bergen of ALA ( January 15, 2004),

Doc # OAR 2003 0090 0106, attached hereto as Ex. A. [ see docket number 0387, pp. 3 8 for previously filed comments] For those same reasons, the further extensions described in EPA's June 8, 2005 notice are likewise unlawful. ( p. 1)

As grounds for the extensions, EPA's June 8 notice cites measures undertaken to control ozone pollution. 70 Fed. Reg. 33410. While the undersigned strongly support efforts to control ozone pollution, such efforts can be expeditiously achieved without jettisoning the statutory requirements for attaining and maintaining the NAAQS. ( p. 2)

Comments on " Significant Regulatory Action"

0382 July 5, 2005 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Air Resources Albany, NY In addition, the Department does not concur with EPA's assessment that the proposed rule does not constitute a " significant regulatory action" ( see 70 FR 33412), as the Department believes that condition 4 of that finding has been met ( raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.) ( p. 1) DEFERRAL OF EFFECTIVE DATE OF NONATTAINMENT DESIGNATION FOR 8 HOUR OZONE NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS FOR EARLY ACTION COMPACTS ( EAC)

Proposed Rule published June 8, 2005 ( 70 FR 33409)

Docket # OAR 2003 0090 Public Comment Summary  August 15, 2005 Docket No.

OAR 2003 0090 Comment Date Organization City, State Commenter Name Text of Comment 9 John T. Higgins, P. E.,

Assistant Director


[Federal Register: July 18, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 137)]
[Notices]
[Page 39388]
[DOCID:fr18jy07-33]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-340-002]

Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Compliance
Filing

July 9, 2007.
    Take notice that on July 3, 2007, Columbia Gas Transmission
Corporation (Columbia) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas
Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, Substitute Sixth Revised Sheet No.
390, with effective date of January 1, 2008.
    Columbia states that it is submitting this substitute revised
tariff sheet to correct a typo that was discovered in its June 26, 2007
Compliance Filing in the above-referenced proceeding.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Sec.  154.210 of the
Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest must
serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-13851 Filed 7-17-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P