M 1 APPENDIX M IMPACT OF TRANSPORT SAN ANTONIO EAC REGION ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION MARCH 2004 M 2 Appendix M Table of Contents Transport into the San Antonio Region: Introduction             M 3 Analysis of Meteorological Data: Regional Haze/ Smoke Events        M 3 Air Parcels Paths: HYSPLIT model             .      . M 7 Analysis of Local Ozone Levels and Selected Regional Precursor Sources   M 9 Modeling: Removing Anthropogenic pollution from the Emission Inventory  . M 12 Graphical Display of Data             .          . M 19 Ozone Source Apportionment Technology ( OSAT) Analysis        .. M 23 Conclusion             .             .   . M 34 Addendum: the State of Texas             .         M 35 References             .             .   . M 36 M 3 Transport into the San Antonio Region: Introduction Wind allows for transport of air pollution over great distances. Through this pollution transport, even areas that do not generate significant air pollution can be affected by air from other areas of high pollution production. Evidence for transport and its effects on the local San Antonio area are based on two sources: archived meteorological and special event data ( which may be local, state, national or international in scope, and is limited in time only by the availability of data archives) and local photochemical modeling analysis ( and so is restricted to the time and domain of the specific modeling episode).

An analysis of regional and national patterns helps provide an understanding of events which may affect local ozone levels. Such patterns include meteorological patterns, reoccurring regional or distant events, and/ or pollution patterns due to placement and impact of regional pollutant generators. Historical meteorological data in the San Antonio area, information on transport, wind speed and direction, air movement identified through HYSPLIT back trajectories, and other important meteorological variables affecting ozone concentrations in the San Antonio region are discussed in detail in Appendix A. Some of these materials will be used in the current appendix in order to characterize the relationship between pollution transport into the San Antonio region and high ozone readings locally.

The other source of analysis for this topic rests with the 1999 CAMx photochemical model used for the attainment demonstration in this document set. While this data set is more limited in spatial extent and time period, hence with restraints in generalizability, it provides a far richer context because of the analytical tools available within the CAMx modeling tool chest.

Analysis of Meteorological Data: Regional Haze/ Smoke Events Significant regional haze/ smoke events may affect the ozone levels in San Antonio from time to time. In instances such as these, fine particulate matter ( PM 2.5) is transported into the area. Transported PM 2.5 may impact local ozone readings, even if PM concentrations are well below the NAAQS for fine particulate matter. The Naval Research Laboratory's NAAPS ( Navy Aerosol Analysis and Prediction System) has archived model results for several pollutants ( figures 1, 3, & 4), displaying smoke, dust, PM 2.5, and sulfate patterns across North America, aiding in pattern recognition. ( NAAPS, 2003)

San Antonio experienced high levels of ozone at the same time that heavy smoke was present during the May 1998 Mexico/ Central America smoke event. This case has been well documented as a transport incident and will be discussed for the sake of comparison to a haze event in September 2002, during which high levels of ozone were generated locally also. During both events, San Antonio experienced high levels of PM 2.5 and had several ozone exceedances. During yet another smoke episode in May 2002, lighter PM and smoke were accompanied by moderate ozone readings.

In May 1998, a large mass of smoke from agriculture fires in Mexico and Central America traveled across the state of Texas and as far north as the Dakotas. EPA received requests from nine states to exclude certain days of ozone data during this episode from compliance calculations. EPA reviewed the various requests in consultation with experts outside of the EPA, including those from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The EPA did concur with most of the requests from those nine states. ( Seitz, 2000) M 4 Every year the potential exists for San Antonio to experience similar air quality events due to agricultural burning. In May of 2002, smoke traveled from agricultural fires into Texas. Figure M 1 shows the concentration of smoke during the May 2002 event. On May 9, Continuous Air Monitoring Station ( CAMS) 678 in eastern San Antonio recorded levels of PM 2.5 at 34.62 µ g/ m ³ and an ozone 8 hour maximum of 46 ppb, neither of which are considered high values.

Figure M 1: Surface Smoke Concentration Levels for May 9 & 10, 2002 Source: The Naval Research Laboratory's NAAPS, Navy Aerosol Analysis and Prediction System.

The September 2002 haze event was caused by sulfates transported from the Midwest ( Ohio & Mississippi Valleys). ( TCEQ, 2003) The San Antonio region experienced elevated peak 8 hr average ozone levels of 111, 97, and 92 ppb on September 12th, 13th, and 14th respectively. In addition, the regional background levels of ozone were also elevated during these days. The TCEQ described the area's lowest peak eight hour measurement of 75 ppb as a " conservative estimate of the regional ozone background levels," based on the September 12, 2002, CAMS 503 ( Bulverde, Texas) readings. ( TCEQ, 2003b) The highest ozone reading on September 12 was 111 ppb in San Antonio, measured at CAMS 23, and was the highest eight hour ozone average for the region in 2002. According to TCEQ, the " difference of 36 ppb between the measured eight hour area maximum of 111 ppb and the estimated regional background level of 75 ppb was likely caused by local air pollution sources in the San Antonio area. The estimated 36 ppb local contribution was 32 percent of the 111 ppb area eight hour peak." ( TCEQ, 2003) Figure M 3 and Figure M 4, which follow, show the ground level sulfate concentrations for this event. M 5 Figure M 2: Hourly PM 2.5 and 8 hr Average Ozone for San Antonio, 2002 Ozone Season Figure M 2 displays a comparison between PM 2.5 and ozone readings for the 2002 ozone season. The May Mexico/ Central America smoke and September Ohio Valley haze periods are marked for reference. The highest eight hour average ozone reading for 2002 was recorded at CAMS 23 on September 12, coincident with high PM 2.5 and sulfate readings. The second, third and fourth highest 2002 readings at CAMS 23 occurred between June 17 24, when PM 2.5 readings were markedly lower.

Figure M 3. Ground Level Sulfate Concentrations on September 11 & 12, 2002 Source: The Naval Research Laboratory's NAAPS, Navy Aerosol Analysis and Prediction System. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 4/ 1/ 02 4/ 9/ 02 4/ 17/ 02 4/ 25/ 02 5/ 3/ 02 5/ 11/ 02 5/ 19/ 02 5/ 27/ 02 6 / 4/ 02 6/ 12/ 02 6/ 20/ 02 6/ 28/ 02 7/ 6/ 02 7/ 14/ 02 7/ 22/ 02 7/ 30/ 02 8/ 7/ 02 8/ 15/ 02 8/ 23/ 02 8/ 31/ 02 9/ 8/ 02 9/ 16/ 02 9/ 24/ 02 10/ 2/ 02 10/ 10/ 02 10/ 18/ 02 10/ 26/ 02 Ozone Season Days for 2002 Ozone ( ppb)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 PM 2.5 ug/ m3 8 hr Ozone Maximums PM 2.5 Hourly Maximums May Mex./ Cen. Amer. Fires September Haze Event M 6 Figure M 4. Ground Level Sulfate Concentrations on September 13 & 14, 2002 Source: The Naval Research Laboratory's NAAPS, Navy Aerosol Analysis and Prediction System.

The transport of sulfates from the Ohio Valley to Texas can be traced by following the weather patterns at that time. In the Northern Hemisphere, winds move in a clockwise rotation around high pressure areas; thus, the position of the high effects wind direction. The arrows show the approximate direction of the winds with respect to the high pressure cell in Figure M 5. ( TCEQ, 2003c) The presence of this cell moving across the country from west to east, driven by the jet stream, is the most likely cause of the pollutant migration. Figure M 6, displays a progression of high ground level ozone mass from the Midwest down into Texas during the same episode. ( EPA, 2003)

F igure M 5. High Pressure Cell on Sept. 7, 2002 and Same Cell on Sept. 12, 2002 H H M 7 Figure M 6. Regional Ozone Concentrations from Sep. 7 to Sep. 14, 2002 Air Parcels Paths: HYSPLIT model The HYSPLIT1 model provided an approximate path of the air coming into San Antonio for the September 2002 haze event as shown in figures M 7 through M 9. Each back trajectory2 path was computed for a 144 hour ( 6 day) period.

1 The HYSPLIT model runs described here are based on historical meteorological data sets archived by the National Centers for Environmental Prediction within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The HYSPLIT model allows the user to access this archived data as model input specific to place and time. 2 Given a geographic destination for an air parcel, back trajectories show the path followed by the parcel before reaching the destination M 8 Figure M 7. Back Trajectories: Sept. 12, 2002 Figure M 8. Back Trajectories: Sept. 13, 2002 Figure M 9. Back Trajectories: Sept. 14, 2002 In conclusion, the ozone levels recorded in San Antonio during mid September 2002 coincided with high PM levels. There is strong evidence that both the ozone and PM measured across the local area were part of a wide pattern of transport across the entire eastern half of the United States. The May 1998 Mexican smoke event was considered M 9 an exceptional event such that the EPA excused local area ozone levels from consideration for regulatory purposes, and by definition was due to transport. There is strong coincidence of HYSPLIT wind patterns, appearance of shifting elevated ozone concentrations archived by EPA, sulfate concentrations archived by NAAPS, and wind patterns documented by TCEQ during the September 2002 event. Evidence of transport during the September 2002 event, including an analysis concluding that background levels in San Antonio reached as high as 75 ppb, has been presented here.

Analysis of Local Ozone Levels and Selected Regional Precursor Sources The HYSPLIT model was also used to estimate air parcel paths typical to ozone exceedance days in the San Antonio region3 over a 1997 2002 period. By running back trajectories for the forty two exceedance days in the San Antonio region that occurred from 1997 to 2003, AACOG staff identified wind patterns for exceedance days.

Figure M 104 shows the pattern of air parcels positions on their path to the San Antonio International Airport. A total of 33 hours for each exceedance day have been backtracked in order to cover the regional air quality modeling area. Figure M 10 shows that, on high ozone days, it is rare that air arriving in San Antonio will have traveled west, northwest, south or the southwest over the six year period investigated.

Figure M 10. 1997 2002 Pattern of Air Parcels Paths Arriving in San Antonio 3 The HYSPLIT model is used in development of the Conceptual Model; see Appendix A. 4 Because the HYSPLIT model outputs both graphical and ASCII text latitude/ longitude/ altitude coordinate sets by hour, the output is both display ready and suitable for further analysis, as performed to typify wind patterns associated with high ozone days. M 10 As mentioned, the HYSPLIT model back trajectory output provides hourly latitude / longitude / altitude locations of air parcels. These individual data points are plotted in figure M 10. Figure M 11 provides the percentage of air parcels allocated within each region on the map. The total for each octant is located just outside the 250 mile circle.

Figure M 11. Back Trajectories; Percentages by Direction The image shows that within 50 miles of the destination of the air parcels in the back trajectories, the San Antonio International Airport ( SAIA), 8.5 % of the air parcels swept through the northeast, 18.5% of the air parcels came from the east, and 14.2 % came from the southeast direction. It is worth noting that the entire San Antonio Early Action Compact region, i. e., Bexar, Comal, Guadalupe and Wilson Counties, lies within the 50 mile radius shown.

Between 50 and 100 miles of SAIA, 0.8% of the air parcel came from the west. On the east of SAIA, outside the 250 mile boundary, the figure in bold indicates that altogether, 26.3% of all air parcels came from the east of SAIA within the eastern octant, where the Houston/ Galveston area is located.

Use of back trajectories to identify wind patterns coincident with high local ozone levels is typically a technique used by modelers to select new modeling episodes, as discussed in Appendix A. These calculations show the frequency with which air parcels pass through a given region before coming into San Antonio on a high ozone day. This, in M 11 turn, is important in discussing the influence of ozone precursor sources along the back trajectories on ozone levels in the San Antonio region.

Major Point Sources along Back Trajectories on days of High Ozone Figure M 12 shows the location of major point sources in Texas, identified by distance and direction from San Antonio in the same manner as the back trajectory air patterns. Given the predominant wind patterns for air arriving in San Antonio on high ozone days and the location of important point sources, it is clear that air typically passes over many of these point sources prior to arriving in San Antonio, where high ozone levels are then recorded. In conclusion, there is a strong correlation between the location of point sources in Texas and air pathways associated with historical high ozone readings in San Antonio. This correlation is supported by further analysis using the photochemical model, as now follows.

Figure M 12. NOx Point Sources in the Eastern Half of Texas by their distance, magnitude and direction from San Antonio. 1998; TCEQ. M 12 Modeling: Removing Anthropogenic pollution from the Emission Inventory The evidence for transport can be further demonstrated by conducting a series of modeling runs in which all of the anthropogenic emissions from the adjacent metropolitan areas are removed from the CAMx emission inventory for the modeled episode. Sensitivity runs were employed to determine the impact of transport on ozone concentrations in the San Antonio region during the 1999 episode. These runs required the application of a masking program to the model to " zero out" the anthropogenic VOC, NOx, and CO emissions for three urban Texas areas: Austin, Corpus Christi, and Houston. Transported emissions from each of these areas can impact ozone concentrations in the San Antonio area.

PAVE Graphics After removing anthropogenic emissions generated by Austin, Corpus Christi, and Houston from the 1999 base case model, the modeling output was processed through a graphics software program ( PAVE) to provide visual depictions of the resulting impact on regional ozone concentrations. The following series of figures compare, day by day for September 15 20, 1999, the changes in ozone predicted by the precursor reductions in each of these three urban areas.

Different colors in the plots distinguish variations in the amount of ozone. The red and orange areas indicate higher levels of increased ozone levels while blue and green areas indicate levels of ozone reductions from the transport of air mass. The predicted increases in ozone concentrations ( red and yellow shading) within some areas of the 4 km subdomain are noteworthy. This is particularly evident in the zero out Corpus Christi runs, although the zero out Austin runs for September 15 17th also depict relatively small areas of yellow shading.

In general, according to these graphics, removing Houston anthropogenic emissions impacted ozone concentrations in all SAER counties and east Texas. When Houston's emissions are removed, a blue plume usually appears which indicates an area of maximum reduced ozone levels stretching a considerable distance downwind of Houston. Removing Austin anthropogenic emissions typically impacted ozone concentrations in the northern SAER region. Removing emissions from Corpus Christi is least likely to impact the four SAER counties. M 13 Figure M 13. Results of " zero out" model runs for Wednesday, September 15, 1999.

As shown, removing Austin and Houston anthropogenic precursor emissions reduced modeled ozone concentrations in each SAER county ( or a portion of a county) on September 15th. However, removing Corpus Christi anthropogenic emissions had no projected impact on SAER ozone concentrations on the same day. The red and orange areas near and in the Corpus Christi metropolitan area indicate increased ozone levels due to the reduced scavenging. The blue and green areas indicate ozone reductions from the transport of air mass.

Zero out Austin Anthropogenic Emissions Zero out Corpus Christi Anthropogenic Emissions Zero out Houston Anthropogenic Emissions M 14 Figure M 14. Results of " zero out" model runs for Wednesday, September 16, 1999.

Zero out Austin Anthropogenic Emissions Zero out Corpus Christi Anthropogenic Emissions Zero out Houston Anthropogenic Emissions M 15 Figure M 15. Results of " zero out" model runs for Wednesday, September 17, 1999.

Zero out Austin Anthropogenic Emissions Zero out Corpus Christi Anthropogenic Emissions Zero out Houston Anthropogenic Emissions M 16 Figure M 16. Results of " zero out" model runs for Wednesday, September 18, 1999.

As noted earlier, when emissions are removed and a blue plume appears, the plume indicates an area of reduced ozone. Here, in Corpus Christi's case, the plume stretches a considerable distance downwind of this area. The downwind plume is very evident on September 18, 1999, with less evidence of NOx scavenging than on most other days for this region.

The plot for Houston clearly shows the effect of the reduction for two days, given by the two large distinct blue lobes.

Zero out Austin Anthropogenic Emissions Zero out Corpus Christi Anthropogenic Emissions Zero out Houston Anthropogenic Emissions M 17 Figure M 17. Results of " zero out" model runs for Wednesday, September 19, 1999.

Zero out Austin Anthropogenic Emissions Zero out Corpus Christi Anthropogenic Emissions Zero out Houston Anthropogenic Emissions M 18 Figure M 18. Results of " zero out" model runs for Monday, September 20, 1999.

Zero out Austin Anthropogenic Emissions Zero out Corpus Christi Anthropogenic Emissions Zero out Houston Anthropogenic Emissions M 19 Graphical Display of Data The preceding graphical representations of the change in ozone due to reductions in anthropogenic regional emissions are based on photochemical modeling output data. Predicted effects of these reductions at various CAMS in the San Antonio region were analyzed numerically as well. The following graphs specifically show these impacts on the design value. The calculation of design value, which is an off model procedure, was based on instructions received from the EPA and TCEQ. The procedure averages the ozone levels for each day of the episode run with reduces precursor levels and compares this average with the design value for the episode. In this way, the impact on the design value of any precursor reduction scenario can be estimated. As figure M 19 indicates, removing the Houston/ Galveston area anthropogenic emissions lowers the CAMS 58 design value by about 2.60 parts per billion. This impact is considerably greater than the impacts which are estimated by removing Austin and Corpus Christi area anthropogenic emissions. In figure M 20 removing the Houston/ Galveston area emissions shows a reduction of 2.72 ppb at CAMS 23, which is also considerably higher than readings due to removing Austin and Corpus Christi area anthropogenic emissions. Figures M 19 and M 20 reflect averages over the 5 day modeling period of the peak 8 hour ozone averages predicted by the model.

Figure M 19. Design Value Reduction due to the Removal of Houston, Austin, and Corpus Christi Anthropogenic Emissions, CAMS 58, Sept. 1999 2.61 parts per billion 0.57 parts per billion 0.40 parts per billion 0.0% 0.3% 0.6% 0.9% 1.2% 1.5% 1.8% 2.1% 2.4% 2.7% 3.0%

Percent Reduction in Ozone Houston Removed Corpus Christi Removed Austin Removed M 20 Figure M 20. Design Value Reduction due to the Removal of Houston, Austin, and Corpus Christi Anthropogenic Emissions, CAMS 23, Sept. 1999 2.72 parts per billion 0.64 parts per billion 0.27 parts per billion 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5%

Percent Reduction in Ozone Houston Removed Corpus Removed Austin Removed Figure M 21. Design Value Reduction due to the Removal of Bexar County and San Antonio Region Anthropogenic Emissions, CAMS 23, Sept. 1999 and 2007 18.76 parts per billion 21.44 parts per billion 21.41 parts per billion 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0%

Percent Reduction in Ozone Bexar County Removed 2007 San Antonio Removed ( 4 County Area) 2007 San Antonio Removed ( 4 County Area) 1999 M 21 Further analysis of the emission inventory for the Sept. 1999 episode revealed that removal of local ( i. e., Bexar, Comal, Guadalupe and Wilson Counties) anthropogenic emissions cause an average reduction of about 25% of the peak ozone predicted around CAMS 23 during this episode. Figure M 21 shows the results of this additional analysis. The figure indicates that the proportion of emissions attributed to and originating in the local San Antonio region is predicted to increase from 1999 to 2007. Hence, the region's contribution to the design value for the Sept. 1999 episode was around 24.09% of the total design value, or 21.44 parts per billion of ozone; the estimated 2007 contribution is around 25.36%, or 21.41 ppb.

In addition, the analysis further indicates that, due to the implementation of air quality control strategies in the Houston/ Galveston area by the year 2007, the amount of pollution transport from this area will noticeably decrease. However, this region still remains the largest emissions contributor to San Antonio as compared to the other contributing regions in Texas. This can be seen in Figure M 22. Contributions from other regions affecting the air quality in San Antonio region are also shown for comparison purposes.

Figure M 22. Design Value Reduction due to the Removal of Emissions from Various Contributing Areas at CAMS 23, Sept. 2007 0.14 parts per billion 0.64 parts per billion 0.09 parts per billion 0.24 parts per billion 2.25 parts per billion 0.55 parts per billion 0.0% 0.3% 0.6% 0.9% 1.2% 1.5% 1.8% 2.1% 2.4% 2.7% 3.0%

Percent Reduction in Ozone Houston Removed Corpus Christi Removed Austin Removed Wilson County Removed Guadalupe County Removed Comal County Removed Comparing the results of zero out runs for Austin, Corpus Christi, Houston and San Antonio, it is predicted that removing the SAER anthropogenic emissions has, by far, the greatest impact on local ozone concentrations. Therefore, it is clear the San Antonio region contributes to its own air quality problem. The 1999 base simulation predicts that without the SAER anthropogenic precursor emissions, ozone concentrations within the San Antonio region would be reduced by as much as ~ 24%. Although this provides an indication of the significance of SAER generated anthropogenic emissions, it also indicates that approximately three quarters of the ground level ozone in the SAER is a M 22 product of natural and transported emission sources   emissions over which the SAER has no control.

Removing Houston's anthropogenic emissions had the greatest impact on San Antonio area ozone levels. Without the reductions credited to the Houston area for 2007 ( attributed to reductions achieved through the Houston SIP), for example, the San Antonio region would likely fail to show attainment as it currently does.

Tables M 1 through M 3 provide the projected reduction in ozone concentrations ( percent difference between Base Case F and the sensitivity run) within the 7x7 grids surrounding three San Antonio monitors after removing anthropogenic emissions for Austin, Corpus Christi, or Houston. For comparison purposes, anthropogenic VOC, NOx, and CO emissions generated in the 4 county San Antonio region were also removed from the model during one of the sensitivity runs. Results of removing or zeroing out precursor emissions are provided for both the base year and attainment year simulations.

The highest predicted ozone concentrations, in parts per billion, for each day of the September 13   20 episode were averaged for the areas near the three monitors listed in the columns labeled " Predicted Average O3" in the tables below. These modeled results indicate that, under the meteorological conditions experienced during the September 1999 episode, removing the anthropogenic emissions from Houston had the greatest impact on SAER ozone concentrations when compared to other sources of transport.

The most significant reductions in predicted ozone concentrations were associated with removing anthropogenic precursor emissions generated in the 4 county San Antonio region. While transport contributes to ground level ozone buildup in Central Texas, a significant portion of the ozone problem is created locally. This is particularly evident in figure M 21 which illustrates the importance of local precursor production on local ozone concentrations.

T able M 1. CAMS 23 Sensitivity Run Year Design Value % Reduction Base Case F 1999 89.00  Zero Austin 1999 88.73 0.31% Zero Corpus Christi 1999 88.36 0.72% Zero Houston 1999 86.28 3.06% Zero San Antonio ( 4 county area) 1999 1999 67.56 24.09%

Base Case F 2007 84.42  Zero Austin 2007 84.11 0.29% Zero Corpus Christi 2007 83.81 0.65% Zero Houston 2007 82.11 2.67% Zero San Antonio ( 4 county area) 2007 2007 63.13 25.35% M 23 Table M 2. CAMS 58 Sensitivity Run Year Design Value % Reduction Base Case F 1999 87.00  Zero Austin 1999 86.60 0.46% Zero Corpus Christi 1999 86.43 0.66% Zero Houston 1999 84.39 3.00% Zero San Antonio ( 4 county area) 1999 1999 67.47 22.44%

Base Case F 2007 82.04  Zero Austin 2007 81.68 0.46% Zero Corpus Christi 2007 86.43 0.66% Zero Houston 2007 84.39 3.00% Zero San Antonio ( 4 county area) 2007 2007 67.47 22.44%

Table M 3. CAMS 678 Sensitivity Run Year Design Value % Reduction Base Case F 1999 77.00  Zero Austin 1999 76.84 0.21 Zero Corpus Christi 1999 76.23 1.00 Zero Houston 1999 73.97 3.93 Zero San Antonio ( 4 county area) 1999 1999 66.18 14.06 Base Case F 2007 74.61  Zero Austin 2007 74.27 0.33 Zero Corpus Christi 2007 73.97 0.77 Zero Houston 2007 72.31 2.95 Zero San Antonio ( 4 county area) 2007 2007 62.51 16.33 Ozone Source Apportionment Technology ( OSAT) Analysis Finally, the photochemical model can help demonstrate the relationship between sources of ozone precursor in the emissions inventory, their rates of precursor production, and the contribution these sources make to the total ambient ozone contribution within a given grid cell of the model. The specific limitations of this Ozone Source Apportionment Technology ( OSAT) include: 1. the limits to regional source identification, which regions are distinguished by a userdesigned surface area restricted to modeling grid cells as surface area units; 2. the limits to categorization of precursors, which is by the four major emission groups of Area/ Non Road, Mobile, Elevated Point, and Biogenic; 3. the limits to determination of sources or areas beyond the grid in space and time, which the model sees as Boundary Conditions and Initial Conditions, respectively, and; 4. the increased time required for pre processing, the model OSAT runs themselves, and data post processing and analysis. M 24 Nevertheless, the OSAT tech does allow a clearer determination of the sources of ambient ozone in the model. And, even given the limits listed above, the number of variables does allow for an analysis containing extensive detail and variability. This additional tool is explained as follows.

The OSAT module in the CAMx photochemical model allows for the identification of sources in specific areas and for the subsequent tracking of their impacts on different areas. This module was used to show the impact of other regions on air quality in San Antonio area for the model run referred to as " run18. sos". The Anthropogenic Precursor Culpability Assessment ( APCA) option within this module was used to identify ozone formation attributed to the anthropogenic NOx sources and less ozone formation attributed to biogenic sources.

The outputs from OSAT analysis, presented in the following pages, identify contributors to the peak levels of ozone recorded at CAMS 23, during the 1999 episode, by source regions, by source categories or emission groups, and by type of precursor ( e. g., NOx).

As mentioned, the regions by which sources are identified and distinguished are limited in number. The modeler designs them; the regions are mapped according to the modeling grid domain, using grid cells as the smallest units to build the final rectangular source region or subdomain. The names of the regions for this run ( Gulf of Mexico, etc.) are listed above.

The precursors are categorized as one of the four major emission groups: Area/ Non Road, Mobile, Elevated Point, or Biogenic sources. The numbers in each list above identify the Names and Precursor type in the following charts.

In reading the charts and graphs on the following pages, notice that the pie charts are labeled with a one or two digit number corresponding with the Source Area ID number ( or IC or BC for Initial or Boundary Conditions). This is followed by a comma, which is followed by a three digit number corresponding to the Source Category ID number. The percentage contribution accompanies this number pair.

The tables accompanying each graph lists, in descending order by percentage contribution, the twelve greatest contributions to ozone at the " receptor," or grid cell in the model. The grid cell chosen here contains the CAMS 23 monitor, so the " receptor" designated carries that name. Notice also that each rows of the table identifies both a Source Area and an Emissions Group; the same row will have a percentage in the far right hand column. This percentage correlates the contribution to ozone at the receptor due to precursor production from that area and that source type. For example, the September 15, 1999 table lists that Austin's Mobile source NOx made up 3.6% of the ozone and Austin's Mobile source VOC contributed 0.1% of the ozone predicted by the model at the receptor cell, i. e., at CAMS 23. M 25 OSAT/ APCA Regions Plot Date: March 12, 2004

Compilation Date. March 3, 2004 NORTH Source Regions used in The CAMx APCA Application Source Categories used in the CAMx APCA Application ID Name ID Category 1 Gulf of Mexico 001 Biogenic 2 South Texas 002 Elevated Point 3 Corpus Christi 003 Mobile 5 San Antonio 004 Area/ Non Road 6 Victoria 7 Houston 8 Louisiana 9 Other States 10 Beaumont 11 Austin 12 North Texas 13 Central Texas 14 East Texas 15 Dallas IC Initial Conditions BC Boundary Conditions M 26 Contributions By Type Contributions By Source Area Receptor = San Antonio CAMS 23 Time = 13 To 14 Date = 9/ 15/ 1999 Scenario = CAMx v3.10 run18. sos. apca Sep 13 20 1999 Total Ozone = 70 ppb Detailed Ozone Apportionment Percent Ozone from NOx VOC Total Initial Conditions IC 22.3% Boundary Conditions BC 25.6% San Antonio 5 Elevated Point 002 5.5% 0.0% 5.5% Other States 9 Area/ Non Road 004 3.3% 0.5% 3.8% Austin 11 Mobile 003 3.6% 0.1% 3.7% Louisiana 8 Area/ Non Road 004 3.4% 0.1% 3.5% North Texas 12 Mobile 003 2.7% 0.1% 2.8% Austin 11 Area/ Non Road 004 2.6% 0.1% 2.7% Other States 9 Elevated Point 002 2.7% 0.0% 2.7% Houston 7 Elevated Point 002 2.6% 0.0% 2.7% Other States 9 Mobile 003 1.9% 0.2% 2.2% Central Texas 13 002 2.1% 0.0% 2.1% All Others 20.3%

Total 100% Source Area Emission Group 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Ozone ( ppb) NOx limited VOC limited Boundary Initial IC 22%

5, 002 5% 9, 004 4% 11, 003 4% 8, 004 4% 12, 003 3% 11, 004 3% 9, 002 3% 7, 002 3% 9, 003 2% 13, 002 2% All Others, 20%

BC 25% M 27 Contributions By Type Contributions By Source Area Receptor = San Antonio CAMS 23 Time = 12 To 13 Date = 9/ 16/ 1999 Scenario = CAMx v3.10 run18. sos. apca Sep 13 20 1999 Total Ozone = 73 ppb Detailed Ozone Apportionment Percent Ozone from NOx VOC Total Initial Conditions IC 1.2% Boundary Conditions BC 47.9% Other States 9 Elevated Point 002 6.7% 0.0% 6.7% Other States 9 Area/ Non Road 004 4.9% 0.9% 5.8% Louisiana 8 Area/ Non Road 004 4.8% 0.1% 4.9% Houston 7 Elevated Point 002 3.8% 0.0% 3.8% Other States 9 Mobile 003 3.0% 0.4% 3.4% San Antonio 5 Elevated Point 002 3.2% 0.0% 3.2% Austin 11 Mobile 003 3.1% 0.0% 3.2% Austin 11 Area/ Non Road 004 2.6% 0.1% 2.6% Louisiana 8 Elevated Point 002 2.3% 0.0% 2.3% Louisiana 8 Mobile 003 1.9% 0.0% 1.9% All Others 13.1%

Total 100% Source Emission Area Group 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Ozone ( ppb) NOx lim ited VOC lim ited Boundary Initial IC 1%

9, 002 7% 9, 004 6% 8, 004 5% 7, 002 4% 9, 003 3% 5, 002 3% 11, 003 3% 11, 004 3% 8, 002 2% 8, 003 2% All Others, 13%

BC 48% M 28 Contributions By Type Contributions By Source Area Receptor = San Antonio CAMS 23 Time = 12 to 13 Date = 9/ 17/ 1999 Scenario = CAMx v3.10 run18. sos. apca Sep 13 20 1999 Total Ozone = 70 ppb Detailed Ozone Apportionment Percent Ozone from NOx VOC Total Initial Conditions IC 2.4% Boundary Conditions BC 48.9% Other States 9 Elevated Point 002 5.7% 0.0% 5.8% Louisiana 8 Area/ Non Road 004 5.2% 0.2% 5.4% Other States 9 Area/ Non Road 004 4.0% 1.3% 5.3% Other States 9 Mobile 003 2.9% 0.6% 3.5% San Antonio 5 Elevated Point 002 3.4% 0.0% 3.4% Louisiana 8 Elevated Point 002 2.7% 0.0% 2.7% Austin 11 Mobile 003 2.0% 0.1% 2.1% Austin 11 Area/ Non Road 004 1.9% 0.2% 2.1% Louisiana 8 Mobile 003 1.8% 0.1% 1.9% Other States 9 Biogenics 001 0.8% 0.8% 1.6% All Others 14.8%

Total 100% Source Emission Area Group 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Ozone ( ppb) NOx limited VOC limited Boundary Initial IC 2%

9, 002 6% 8, 004 5% 9, 004 5% 9, 003 3% 5, 002 3% 8, 002 3% 11, 003 2% 11, 004 2% 8, 003 2% 9, 001 2% All Others, 15%

BC 50% M 29 Contributions By Type Contributions By Source Area Receptor = San Antonio CAMS 23 Time = 13 To 14 Date = 9/ 18/ 1999 Scenario = CAMx v3.10 run18. sos. apca Sep 13 20 1999 Total Ozone = 72 ppb Detailed Ozone Apportionment Percent Ozone from NOx VOC Total Initial Conditions IC 1.8% Boundary Conditions BC 44.1% San Antonio 5 Elevated Point 002 6.9% 0.0% 7.0% Other States 9 Area/ Non Road 004 3.7% 0.9% 4.7% Other States 9 Elevated Point 002 3.3% 0.0% 3.3% Other States 9 Mobile 003 2.9% 0.4% 3.3% Houston 7 Elevated Point 002 3.0% 0.1% 3.1% Houston 7 Area/ Non Road 004 1.7% 0.7% 2.4% Houston 7 Mobile 003 2.0% 0.3% 2.4% North Texas 12 Mobile 003 1.9% 0.2% 2.1% Austin 11 Area/ Non Road 004 1.6% 0.1% 1.7% Louisiana 8 Area/ Non Road 004 1.5% 0.1% 1.7% All Others 22.4%

Total 100% Source Emission Area Group 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Ozone ( ppb) NOx limited VOC limited Boundary Initial IC 2%

5, 002 7% 9, 004 5% 9, 002 3% 9, 003 3% 7, 002 3% 7, 004 2% 7, 003 2% 12, 003 2% 11, 004 2% 8, 004 2% All Others, 22%

BC 45% M 30 Contributions By Type Contributions By Source Area Receptor = San Antonio CAMS 23 Time = 13 To 14 Date = 9/ 19/ 1999 Scenario = CAMx v3.10 run18. sos. apca Sep 13 20 1999 Total Ozone = 84 ppb Detailed Ozone Apportionment Percent Ozone from NOx VOC Total Initial Conditions IC 0.7% Boundary Conditions BC 42.4% Houston 7 Elevated Point 002 7.0% 0.2% 7.2% San Antonio 5 Elevated Point 002 5.7% 0.1% 5.8% Houston 7 Area/ Non Road 004 3.2% 1.1% 4.2% Other States 9 Area/ Non Road 004 2.8% 0.8% 3.6% Louisiana 8 Area/ Non Road 004 2.8% 0.3% 3.0% Houston 7 Mobile 003 2.5% 0.3% 2.8% Other States 9 Elevated Point 002 2.6% 0.0% 2.7% Victoria 6 Area/ Non Road 004 1.8% 0.6% 2.4% Other States 9 Mobile 003 1.8% 0.3% 2.1% San Antonio 5 Area/ Non Road 004 1.3% 0.6% 1.9% All Others 21.1%

Total 100% Source Emission Area Group 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Ozone ( ppb) NOx limited VOC limited Boundary Initial IC 1%

7, 002 7% 5, 002 6% 7, 004 4% 9, 004 4% 8, 004 3% 7, 003 3% 9, 002 3% 6, 004 2% 9, 003 2% 5, 004 2% All Others, 21%

BC 42% M 31 Contributions By Type Contributions By Source Area Receptor = San Antonio CAMS 23 Time = 14 To 15 Date = 9/ 20/ 1999 Scenario = CAMx v3.10 run18. sos. apca Sep 13 20 1999 Total Ozone = 87 ppb Detailed Ozone Apportionment Percent Ozone from NOx VOC Total Initial Conditions IC 0.3% Boundary Conditions BC 43.4% San Antonio 5 Elevated Point 002 7.9% 0.1% 8.1% San Antonio 4, 5 Mobile 003 4.6% 2.5% 7.1% Victoria 6 Area/ Non Road 004 1.8% 3.2% 5.1% North Texas 12 Mobile 003 3.1% 1.7% 4.7% San Antonio 4, 5 Area/ Non Road 004 1.5% 2.2% 3.7% North Texas 12 Area/ Non Road 004 1.3% 1.6% 2.9% Other States 9 Area/ Non Road 004 1.7% 0.7% 2.4% Houston 7 Elevated Point 002 2.2% 0.1% 2.3% Houston 7 Area/ Non Road 004 1.1% 0.6% 1.7% Other States 9 Elevated Point 002 1.6% 0.0% 1.6% All Others 16.6% Total 100% Source Emission Area Group 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Ozone ( ppb) NOx limited VOC limited Boundary Initial IC 0%

5, 002 8% 6, 004 5% 12, 003 5% 4, 003 4% 5, 003 3% 12, 004 3% 9, 004 2% 7, 002 2% 4, 004 2% 5, 004 2% All Others, 20%

BC 44% M 32 Note that the contributions due to the Initial Conditions drop quickly from 22% to approximately zero percent by the end of the run. This is anticipated, given the nature and definition of Initial Conditions. The Boundary Conditions quickly assume a greater importance than the 25% contribution on the first modeling day, September 15, 1999.

Note that the greatest contribution by total percentage from San Antonio sources listed for any one day is 19%, on September 20. All San Antonio anthropogenic sources appear as contributors listed in the top twelve only on September 20. Also, Elevated Point sources from San Antonio are consistently among the top twelve sources for every day of the episode. The hourly time periods for each daily analysis were chosen for their high hourly ozone values.

Both the consistent importance of the Boundary Conditions as a contribution source, as well as the low value of contribution from the San Antonio anthropogenic emissions ( never greater than 20%) in this run analysis, tend to correlate with the other evidence supporting transport as an important component of readings in the local area.

To further prove this point, a ribbon graph was produced again by employing OSAT module to depict hourly ozone concentrations, contributed by San Antonio's neighboring areas, during the Sept. 1999 episode in parts per billion ( ppb). For generating this graph, the CAMS 23 was specified in the coordinate of the CAMx grid as a " Point" format for the receptor definition. Concentrations at the point are determined by bi linear interpolation of the surrounding four coarse grid surface cells as described in the ENVIRON CAMx User Guide version 3.00 pages 5 17.

In the following graph, which looks like a saw edge due to the diurnal variation of ozone during the episode, the colored strips identify the amount of ozone generated from each source category included in the study area. The San Antonio source category ( magenta), for the exception of eighth day, appears to have contributed a small portion of the total ozone concentrations during this episode.

The first three strips at the bottom of the graph represent the impacts of initial condition ( light blue), boundary condition ( yellow), and biogenic sources. As the graph reveals, contributions from sources such as other state ( dark blue) and Houston ( red) at times exceed 18 ppb.

Maximum contribution levels for selected areas during various days of the episode are: Other States source category 18.24 ppb on the fourth day. Houston/ Beaumont and Port Arthur source category 19.22 ppb on the fourth day. San Antonio source category 16.78 ppb on the eighth day. M 33 CAMx OSAT Analysis, 1999 CAMS 23 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0:

00 8:

00 16:

00 0:

00 8:

00 16:

00 0:

00 8:

00 16:

00 0:

00 8:

00 16:

00 0:

00 8:

00 16:

00 0:

00 8:

00 16:

00 0:

00 8:

00 16:

00 0:

00 8:

00 16:

00 Sept. 13 20, 1999, Hour Ozone Concentration (

ppb) Initial Conditions Boundary Conditions Biogenics Sources Houston/ BPA Sources Victoria/ Corpus Sources Other Texas Counties Sources Other States Sources Austin Sources San Antonio Sources M 34 Conclusion The effects of transport on local ozone levels have been verified across parts of the United States, notably during the May 1998 smoke episode and the September 2002 haze event. The May 1998 smoke episode verification caused EPA to exclude certain days of ozone data from compliance calculations in nine states due to these May 1998 fires. Historically, as air arrives in San Antonio during a day of local high ozone levels, the air typically flows from the east across a variety of point sources throughout the state of Texas.

An analysis of the 1999 photochemical model has been used also to demonstrate evidence of transport. It is important to keep in mind that the results from the model analysis do pertain to a single episode, and so illustrate a result specific to that particular episode. On the other hand, the September 13 20, 1999 period was chosen specifically because the wind patterns were typical of ozone episodes for the region, as documented in Appendix A. Reducing anthropogenic emissions from selected Texas cities in the 1999 photochemical model also shows the influence of transport from individual sources.

Finally, the local 2007 design value of 84.35 ppb is lowered only 21.97 ppb by removing all anthropogenic emissions in the four county Early Action Compact region of San Antonio. This indicates that the maximum ozone reductions possible through enactment of local strategies in the San Antonio EAC region is limited; any locally enacted strategies must in fact fall short of this reduction level. Moreover, this limited depth of ozone reductions through local actions indicates the degree to which successful air quality efforts can best be achieved through state and federal efforts coupled with local actions. Success of the San Antonio Clean Air Plan relies upon the support of our local planning effort by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and the US Environmental Protection Agency. However, it also strongly relies on the success of TCEQ and EPA to fully enact both the State Implementation Plan revisions currently proposed by the state of Texas, notably for Houston, but on continued support for and enactment of further state and federal air quality rules. M 35 Addendum: the State of Texas The State of Texas is also very active in consideration of transport issues.

The Sonoma Technology study ( MacDonald et al., 1999) was supported by TCEQ and reported that, on average, 40% of San Antonio's peak ozone was locally generated. Furthermore, the study concluded that background ozone was around 70 ppb, with local sources adding approximately 45 ppb. Sonoma analysts also studied the impact of transport from two high ozone aircraft flight days where long range trajectories were available. They surmised that high ozone episodes were associated with local stagnation and/ or recirculation during night and morning hours. During one case ( August 28, 1998 flight), it was determined that material was transported from the south with background ozone at 69 ppb. During the second case ( October 9, 1998 flight), material was transported from the northeast with background ozone at 78 ppb.

Other actions by the State are equally proactive. R. B. " Ralph" Marquez, TCEQ Commissioner, spoke before the US House of Representatives' Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality on July 22, 2003. He gave the subcommittee two examples of transport as he recognized them. From his remarks: The first example is one of interstate transport which demonstrates a September 2002 haze episode in which haze formed in the Midwestern U. S. and moved across the eastern U. S. and into the southern states and Texas over several days. Our analysis of satellite imagery and monitor readings of ozone and particulate matter shows the impact of pollutant transport on Texas communities during the September episode. For example, 8 hour ozone values in Houston climbed from 41 ppb on September 9 to144 ppb on September 13, 2002. On those same days, particulate matter climbed from 7 micrograms/ cubic meter to 56 micrograms/ cubic meter. Similar increases for these pollutants occurred in other major metropolitan areas, Dallas Fort Worth, San Antonio, and Beaumont Port Arthur. The second case is an example of intrastate transport on a day ( September 1, 2000) when the Beaumont Port Arthur ( BPA) area exceeds the one hour ozone standard at least partially due to transport from the Houston area. In fact, when we reviewed all of the 1 hour ozone exceedances between 1998 and 2002, we found that approximately one half of the exceedances occurred on days when there was a contribution from Houston. In addition, the highest monitored readings in BPA occurred on days when there was a contribution from Houston. ` Bump Up' ( 2003)

The Air Improvement Resources ( AIR) Committee continues to support these findings and the dedication to find solutions to transport issues. On March 3, 2004, the AIR Executive and Advisory Committees approved the following text, which was subsequently sent in a letter to TCEQ Chairman Kathleen Hartnett White: Dear Chairman White, As you are certainly aware, transport of ozone and ozone precursors into the San Antonio region can be a significant component of our area's high ozone and high PM2.5 levels. The effects of smoke from Mexico on our local air pollution in 1998 were well documented by the US Environmental Protection Agency. Former TCEQ Chairman Huston reported to us that evidence of haze as distant as the Ohio River Valley has coincided with widespread high pollution and visibility reductions here in mid September 2002. In a letter to AIR Committee Chairman Jay Millikin dated April 4, 2003, Chairman Huston wrote, " In every ozone exceedance recorded to date in the San Antonio area, we have measured high background levels coming into the area." While he also cautioned that " each urban area of the state, including San M 36 Antonio, contributes significantly to its own pollution," this fact in and of itself does not diminish the effect of transport. The Air Improvement Resources Committee requests the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to develop an action plan to deal with transport issues. We hope that action by the state of Texas, in coordination and collaboration with other states in this country and with our neighbors in Mexico, as well as any other sources of pollution that come to us from beyond our borders, can help us meet our air pollution challenge effectively. We remain committed to improving local air quality through our Early Action Compact, other local endeavors undertaken by local citizens and agencies, and our continuing cooperation with the state provided by legislated aid.

The letter was signed by Chairman Jay Millikin, who is also a Commissioner of Comal County, Texas, and Vice Chairman Nelson Wolff, who is also County Judge of Bexar County, Texas.

References MacDonald, Clinton P., Blumenthal, Donald L., Roberts, Paul T., and Crews, Jesse M. ( November 30, 1999). Analysis of Air Quality Data Collected by the Baylor University Aircraft ( presentation). Petaluma, CA: Sonoma Technology, Inc. Available online as ftp:// ftp. crwr. utexas. edu/ pub/ Baylor_ aq/ PRES. pdf The Naval Research Laboratory's NAAPS, Navy Aerosol Analysis and Prediction system. Accessed on April 2, 2003. Available on line: http:// www. nrlmry. navy. mil/ aerosol/ globaer/ ops_ 01/ noramer/ 200205/ 2002050918_ globa er_ ops_ noramer. gif EPA's John S. Seitz before the US Senate Subcommittee On Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property And Nuclear Safety, November 13, 2000: http:// www. senate. gov/~ epw/ 107th/ sei_ 1113. htm Texas Commission on Environmental Quality ( TCEQ), April 2003. " Air Pollution Events." Available on line: http:// www. tnrcc. state. tx. us/ updated/ air/ monops/ airpollevents/ 2002/ event2002 09 12sat. html.

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality ( TCEQ), April 2003. " Air Pollution Events San Antonio High Ozone September 12, 2002." Available on line: http:// www. tnrcc. state. tx. us/ updated/ air/ monops/ airpollevents/ 2002/ event2002 09 12sat. html.

Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA), March 2003. " AIRNow." Available on line: http:// www. epa. gov/ airnow/ ozone. html.

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality ( TCEQ). Technical Analysis Division, " Continental Transport of Air Pollution into Texas: Sep. 11 14, 2002," PowerPoint presentation made during the March 7, 2003 meeting of the Dallas Fort Worth Photochemical Modeling Technical Committee. Available online: http:// www. tnrcc. state. tx. us/ air/ aqp/ sipmod/ dfwaq_ techcom. html. Presentation: M 37 ftp:// ftp. tnrcc. state. tx. us/ pub/ OEPAA/ TAD/ Modeling/ DFWAQSE/ Sci_ Tech_ Committees/ P MTC/ 20030307/ Regional_ Haze_ 2002Sep BrianFoster. pdf ` Bump Up' Policy Under Title I of the Clean Air Act: Hearings before Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, of the House Committee of Energy and Commerce, 108th * Cong., 1d Sess. ( 2003) ( testimony of TCEQ Commissioner R. B. " Ralph" Marquez). Testimony available online: http:// energycommerce. house. gov/ 108/ Hearings/ 07222003hearing1025/ Marquez1615. ht m


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 238 (Wednesday, December 15, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71284-71285]
[FR Doc No: 2021-27122]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2010-0046]

QPS Evaluation Services, Inc.: Request for Renewal of Recognition

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, OSHA announces the application of QPS
Evaluation Services, Inc. (QPS) requesting renewal of recognition as a
Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL).

DATES: Submit comments, information, and documents in response to this
notice, or requests for an extension of time to make a submission, on
or before December 30, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments by any of the following methods:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at: https://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit a copy of your comments and
attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2019-0008,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. OSHA's TTY number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Please note: While OSHA's docket office is continuing to accept and
process submissions by regular mail, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the
Docket Office is closed to the public and not able to receive
submissions to the record by express delivery, hand delivery and
messenger service.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and the
OSHA docket number (OSHA-2010-0046). OSHA places comments and other
materials, including any personal information, in the public docket
without revision, and these materials will be available online at
http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, the agency cautions commenters
about submitting statements they do not want made available to the
public, or submitting comments that contain personal information
(either about themselves or others) such as Social Security Numbers,
birth dates, and medical data.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the above address. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index;
however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download through the website. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection at the
OSHA Docket Office. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for assistance in
locating docket submissions.
    Extension of comment period: Submit requests for an extension of
the comment period on or before December 30, 2021 to the Office of
Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, Directorate of
Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW, Room N-3653, Washington, DC 20210, or by fax to (202) 693-
1644.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information regarding this notice is
available from the following sources:
    Press inquiries: Contact Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office
of Communications, U.S. Department of Labor, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email: [email protected].
    General and technical information: Contact Mr. Kevin Robinson,
Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities,
Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, phone:
(202) 693-2110 or email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets
the requirements in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment
that the organization can perform independent safety testing and
certification of the specific products covered within its scope of
recognition and is not a delegation or grant of government authority.
As a result of recognition, employers may use products properly
approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require testing and
certification. OSHA maintains an informational web page for each NRTL
that details its scope of recognition available at http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.
    OSHA processes applications by a NRTL for renewal of recognition
following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. OSHA conducts
renewals in accordance with the procedures in 29 CFR 1910.7, Appendix
A, paragraph II.C. In accordance with these procedures, NRTLs submit a
renewal request to OSHA, not less than nine months or no more than one
year, before the expiration date of its current recognition. The
submission includes a request for renewal and any additional
information the NRTL wishes to submit to demonstrate its continued
compliance with the terms of its recognition and 29 CFR 1910.7. If OSHA
has not conducted an on-site assessment of the NRTL's headquarters and
key sites within the past 18 to 24 months, it will schedule the
necessary on-site assessments prior to the expiration date of the
NRTL's recognition. Upon review of the submitted material and, as
necessary, the successful completion of the on-site assessment, OSHA
announces its preliminary decision to grant or deny renewal in the
Federal Register and solicit comments from the public. OSHA then
publishes a final Federal Register notice responding to any comments
and renewing the NRTL's recognition for a period of five years, or
denying the renewal of recognition.
    QPS initially received OSHA recognition as a NRTL on March 2, 2011
(76 FR 11518). QPS's most recent renewal was granted on April 25, 2016,
for a five-year period ending on April 25, 2021 (81 FR 24133). QPS
submitted its request for renewal in July, 2019 (OSHA-2010-0046-0016).
While OSHA should have rejected the renewal request because it was
submitted more than one year before the expiration of QPS's current
recognition (see above discussion), OSHA failed to do so and instead
accepted the request. Because OSHA accepted the request rather than
rejecting it, OSHA is processing the renewal request even though it was
filed outside the time period permitted by 29 CFR 1910.7 Appendix A.
    The renewal application was amended on August 25, 2021 (OSHA-2010-
0046-0017) to indicate that a change in company ownership had occurred
after QPS submitted the original renewal application. Through
communications with QPS, OSHA confirmed that QPS's acquisition by
another company was the only material change that occurred after QPS
submitted its initial renewal application.
    QPS retains its recognition pending OSHA's final decision in this
renewal process. The current address of the QPS facility recognized by
OSHA and included as part of the renewal request is: QPS Evaluation
Services, Inc., 81

Kelfield Street, Unit 8, Toronto, Ontario M9W 5A3 Canada.

II. Notice of Preliminary Findings

    OSHA is providing notice that QPS is applying for renewal of its
recognition as a NRTL. This renewal covers QPS's existing NRTL scope of
recognition. OSHA evaluated QPS's application for renewal and
preliminarily determined that QPS can continue to meet the requirements
prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7 for recognition. OSHA has determined that
it does not need to conduct an on-site review of QPS's facility, based
on its evaluations of QPS's application and all other available
information. This information includes OSHA's most recent audit of
QPS's NRTL recognized site during this recognition period, and the
satisfactory resolution of non-conformances with the requirements of 29
CFR 1910.7.
    OSHA welcomes public comment as to whether QPS meets the
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for renewal of their recognition as a
NRTL. Comments should consist of pertinent written documents and
exhibits. Commenters needing more time to comment must submit a request
in writing, stating the reasons for the request. OSHA must receive the
written request for an extension by the due date for comments. OSHA
will limit any extension to 30 days unless the requester justifies a
longer period. OSHA may deny a request for an extension if it is not
adequately justified. To obtain or review copies of the publicly
available information in QPS's application and other pertinent
documents (including exhibits), as well as all submitted comments,
contact the Docket Office, Room N-3653, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor; these materials also are
available online at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. OSHA-
2010-0046.
    OSHA staff will review all comments to the docket submitted in a
timely manner and, after addressing the issues raised by these comments
(if any), will make a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary on
whether to grant QPS's application for renewal. The Assistant Secretary
will make the final decision on granting the application and, in making
this decision, may undertake other proceedings prescribed in Appendix A
to 29 CFR 1910.7.
    OSHA will publish a public notice of this final decision in the
Federal Register.

III. Authority and Signature

    Douglas L. Parker, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210,
authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the agency is
issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of
Labor's Order No. 8-2020 (85 FR 58393, September 18, 2020), and 29 CFR
1910.7.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on December 8, 2021.
Douglas L. Parker,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2021-27122 Filed 12-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 135 (Thursday, July 14, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 45409]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16637]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Parts 14 and 20

[Docket No. FDA-2015-N-2103]

Removal of Review and Reclassification Procedures for Biological
Products Licensed Prior to July 1, 1972; Technical Amendment

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule; technical amendment.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is amending
the Agency's regulations by removing certain regulations that include
obsolete references. FDA is taking this action to improve the accuracy
of the regulations.

DATES: This rule is effective July 14, 2016.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of February 12, 2016
(81 FR 7445), FDA published a final rule entitled ``Removal of Review
and Reclassification Procedures for Biological Products Licensed Prior
to July 1, 1972'' (February 2016 final rule). In the February 2016
final rule, FDA, in part, removed Sec.  601.25 (21 CFR 601.25), which
prescribed procedures for FDA's review of biological products licensed
before July 1, 1972.
    Under Sec.  14.1(a)(2) (21 CFR 14.1(a)(2)), specific provisions are
provided for a matter that is subject to a hearing before an advisory
committee. Under Sec.  20.100(c) (21 CFR 20.100(c)), in addition to the
provisions of 21 CFR part 20, rules on the availability of specific
categories of FDA records are established by regulations under Chapter
I of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Sections
14.1(a)(2)(v) and 20.100(c)(22) include a reference to Sec.  601.25. In
the February 2016 final rule, FDA inadvertently did not remove these
sections (Sec. Sec.  14.1(a)(2)(v) and 20.100(c)(22)) that referenced
Sec.  601.25. Accordingly, FDA is removing and reserving Sec. Sec.
14.1(a)(2)(v) and 20.100(c)(22).
    Publication of this document constitutes final action under the
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553). FDA has determined that
notice and public comment is unnecessary because the amendments to the
regulations are nonsubstantive.

List of Subjects

21 CFR Part 14

    Administrative practice and procedure, Advisory committees, Color
additives, Drugs, Radiation protection.

21 CFR Part 20

    Confidential business information, Courts, Freedom of information,
Government employees.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the
Public Health Service Act, and under authority delegated to the
Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR parts 14 and 20 are amended as
follows:

PART 14--PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE A PUBLIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE

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

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. App. 2; 15 U.S.C. 1451-1461, 21 U.S.C. 41-
50, 141-149, 321-394, 467f, 679, 821, 1034; 28 U.S.C. 2112; 42
U.S.C. 201, 262, 263b, 264; Pub. L. 107-109; Pub. L. 108-155; Pub.
L. 113-54.

Sec.  14.1  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  14.1, remove and reserve paragraph (a)(2)(v).

PART 20--PUBLIC INFORMATION

0
3. The authority citation for part 20 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552; 18 U.S.C. 1905; 19 U.S.C. 2531-2582; 21
U.S.C. 321-393, 1401-1403; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242, 242a, 2421, 242n,
243, 262, 263, 263b-263n, 264, 265, 300u-300u-5, 300aa-1.

Sec.  20.100  [Amended]

0
4. In Sec.  20.100, remove and reserve paragraph (c)(22).

    Dated: July 8, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-16637 Filed 7-13-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:There is so much information out that shows and proves this should be reconsidered; I believe an extension on the comment period is appropriate; please extend the comment period to at least Oct. 31 2014 to allow all the information to be examined and help guide the proper form of regulation. Thank you, Terry B. Stringham Roosevelt, Utah


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 68 (Wednesday, April 9, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19621-19622]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07896]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-D-0310]

Draft Guidance for Industry on Immunogenicity-Related
Considerations for the Approval of Low Molecular Weight Heparin for New
Drug Applications and Abbreviated New Drug Applications; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled
``Immunogenicity-Related Considerations for the Approval of Low
Molecular Weight Heparin for NDAs and ANDAs.'' This guidance discusses
how applicants for low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) products should
provide information on impurities and the potential impact on
immunogenicity.

DATES: Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this
draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the
guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft
guidance by June 9, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the draft
guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send
one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing
your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the draft guidance document.
    Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniela Verthelyi, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research (HFD-122), Food and Drug Administration, 9000
Rockville Pike, N29A, Rm. 3B19, Bethesda, MD 20892,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry
entitled ``Immunogenicity-Related Considerations for the Approval of
Low Molecular Weight Heparin for NDAs and ANDAs.'' This draft guidance
provides recommendations to applicants for new drug applications (NDAs)
and abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) regarding impurities and
their potential effect on immunogenicity for LMWH. The draft guidance
also includes recommendations on meeting the requirement for active
ingredient sameness for ANDAs. A demonstration of active ingredient
sameness helps to address immunogenicity in the context of ANDAs.
    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 Agency's current thinking on
immunogenicity-related considerations for low molecular weight heparin
for NDAs and ANDAs. It does not create or confer any rights for or on
any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An
alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the
requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

II. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to a previously approved collection of
information that is 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 collection of information in 21 CFR part 314 has been
approved under OMB control number 0910-0001.

III. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding
this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the
Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to
send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments
may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

IV. Electronic Access

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

    Dated: April 3, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-07896 Filed 4-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 102 (Friday, May 29, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25726-25727]
[FR Doc No: E9-12438]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP09-447-002]

Monroe Gas Storage Company, LLC; Notice of Supplement to Tariff
Compliance Filing

May 21, 2009.
    Take notice that on May 18, 2009, Monroe Gas Storage Company, LLC
(Monroe) filed a supplement to its tariff compliance filing submitted
on May 4, 2009 in accordance with the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission's Order Accepting and Suspending Tariff Sheets Subject to
Refund and Further Review issued on April 14, 2009. In this filing,
Monroe submitted substitute tariff sheets that supplement the
electronic media of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1,
previously submitted on May 4, 2009 in Docket No. RP09-447-000.
    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 on or before the date as indicated below. 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 on-line 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>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 29, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-12438 Filed 5-28-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

I have quit smoking cigarettes by switching to the "vaporizer" technology, commonly known as the "e-cigarette." My health and well-being have improved dramatically. I believe that, given the hazards of cigarette smoke, this technology may well save my life. I have been a smoker for 40 years, and have never been able to quit before trying this approach. It is very important to me that regulations concerning "e-cigarettes" be approached very carefully and judiciously.

 I am afraid that there is a rush to judgment occurring, driven by powerful entities with billions of dollars at stake. The "e-cigarette" is a disruptive technology which threatens their very existence. Unfortunately, their existence and incredible financial success is based on selling a product that kills Americans like myself. Their wealth and influence, and tax revenues provided by sale of tobacco products, have kept their product on the market, despite the fact that cigarette smoking is one of the most (if not the most) preventable causes of disease and death in our country.

Does the vaping technoloy get people off cigarettes? Yes, it does. But you don't have to take my word for it. Ask the tobacco companies who are buying e-cigarette companies or starting e-cigarette divisions. Smokers are quitting smoking tobacco with this vaping technology, and doing so in rapidly growing numbers.

I believe the e-cigarette and vapor technology represents an opportunity to alter the face of American public health in an incredibly dramatic fashion. My concerns are much more personal in nature. I have quit smoking cigarettes and it is like a miracle to me. I cannot describe what it is like for a 40 year smoker to be tobacco and smoke free. It is simply mind-blowing. I have already cut down on the nicotine level, as well. I am fearful that this technology will be demonized and/or regulated out of existence. Should studies be done? Sure. Should regulations exist? Sure. Should the cost and difficulty be such that all the innovators and small businesses are unable to participate? No. Why would we want this technology to end up controlled by those deep pocketed entities who have demonstrated for years that they are willing to kill Americans to fill those deep pockets? The same entities that would rather see this technology disappear or struggle, rather than succeed?

Please take the time to study this very carefully. Please use your authority to extend the comment period. Please be willing to hear from others like me who have abandoned tobacco cigarettes through this new technology. Thank you so much for considering my request. I am perfectly happy to share my personal experience with you and answer any questions about my experience with smoking cigarettes and switching to the new vaping technology.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 56 (Tuesday, March 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15591-15592]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06628]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CD15-20-000]

Nevada Irrigation District; Notice of Preliminary Determination
of a Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility and Soliciting Comments and
Motions To Intervene

    On March 4, 2015, the Nevada Irrigation District filed a notice of
intent to construct a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, pursuant
to section 30 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), as amended by section 4
of the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013 (HREA). The
proposed Loma Rica Hydroelectric Station In-Conduit Hydroelectric
Project would have an installed capacity of 1,440 kilowatts (kW) and
would be located on the existing Banner-Cascade Pipeline System, which
transports water for agricultural and municipal consumption. The
project would be located near the Town of Grass Valley in Nevada
County, California.
    Applicant Contact: Gary King, Engineering Manager, Nevada
Irrigation District, 1036 West Main Street, Grass Valley, CA 95945-
5424, Phone No.<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Robert Bell, Phone No.<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility Description: The proposed
project would consist of: (1) A proposed 105-foot-long, 36-inch-
diameter pipe that connects to a proposed 30-foot-long, 24-inch-
diameter pipe that delivers water to the powerhouse; (2) a

proposed 1,000-square-foot powerhouse that contains one turbine-
generator unit with a total installed capacity of 1,440 kW; (3) an
existing flow-split structure that distributes water to either the Loma
Rica Water Treatment Plant or the Elizabeth George Water Treatment
Plant; (4) a proposed 50-foot-long, 60-inch-diameter bypass pipe to the
existing Loma Rica Flow Control Facility for use when the proposed
project is not in operation; and (5) appurtenant facilities. The
proposed project would have an estimated annual generating capacity of
3,980 megawatt-hours.
    A qualifying conduit hydropower facility is one that is determined
or deemed to meet all of the criteria shown in the table below.

                          Table 1--Criteria for Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Satisfies (Y/
              Statutory Provision                                   Description                          N)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FPA 30(a)(3)(A), as amended by HREA............  The conduit the facility uses is a tunnel, canal,            Y
                                                  pipeline, aqueduct, flume, ditch, or similar
                                                  manmade water conveyance that is operated for
                                                  the distribution of water for agricultural,
                                                  municipal, or industrial consumption and not
                                                  primarily for the generation of electricity.
FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(i), as amended by HREA.........  The facility is constructed, operated, or                    Y
                                                  maintained for the generation of electric power
                                                  and uses for such generation only the
                                                  hydroelectric potential of a non-federally owned
                                                  conduit.
FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(ii), as amended by HREA........  The facility has an installed capacity that does             Y
                                                  not exceed 5 megawatts.
FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(iii), as amended by HREA.......  On or before August 9, 2013, the facility is not             Y
                                                  licensed, or exempted from the licensing
                                                  requirements of Part I of the FPA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Preliminary Determination: Based upon the above criteria,
Commission staff preliminarily determines that the proposal satisfies
the requirements for a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, which is
not required to be licensed or exempted from licensing.
    Comments and Motions to Intervene: Deadline for filing comments
contesting whether the facility meets the qualifying criteria is 45
days from the issuance date of this notice.
    Deadline for filing motions to intervene is 30 days from the
issuance date of this notice.
    Anyone may submit comments or a motion to intervene in accordance
with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR
385.210 and 385.214. Any motions to intervene must be received on or
before the specified deadline date for the particular proceeding.
    Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: All filings must (1)
bear in all capital letters the ``COMMENTS CONTESTING QUALIFICATION FOR
A CONDUIT HYDROPOWER FACILITY'' or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE,'' as
applicable; (2) state in the heading the name of the applicant and the
project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3)
state the name, address, and telephone number of the person filing; and
(4) otherwise comply with the requirements of sections 385.2001 through
385.2005 of the Commission's regulations.\1\ All comments contesting
Commission staff's preliminary determination that the facility meets
the qualifying criteria must set forth their evidentiary basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 385.2001-2005 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
motions to intervene and comments using the Commission's eFiling system
at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit
brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration,
using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the
end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or
(202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper
copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. A copy of all other filings in
reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service
on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in
this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
    Locations of Notice of Intent: Copies of the notice of intent can
be obtained directly from the applicant or such copies can be viewed
and reproduced at the Commission in its Public Reference Room, Room 2A,
888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filing may also be
viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number (e.g., CD15-20-000) in
the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call
toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 17, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-06628 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P