[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 106 (Thursday, June 2, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31898-31900]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13668]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0798-201133; FRL-9314-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and
Designations of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Georgia: Rome;
Determination of Attainment by Applicable Attainment Date for the 1997
Annual Fine Particulate Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to determine pursuant to the Clean Air Act
(CAA), that the Rome, Georgia fine particulate (PM2.5)
nonattainment area (hereafter referred to as ``the Rome Area'' or ``the
Area'') attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS) by the applicable attainment date of April 5,
2010. The determination of attainment was previously made by EPA on
April 5, 2011, based on quality-assured and certified monitoring data
for the 2007-2009 monitoring period, that Rome, Georgia had attained
the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The Rome Area is comprised of
Floyd County, Georgia in its entirety. EPA is now proposing to find
that the Rome Area attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by
its applicable attainment date. EPA is proposing this action because it
is consistent with the CAA and its implementing regulations.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 5, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2010-0798, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0798, Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. Lynorae Benjamin, Chief,
Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours
of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2010-0798. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara Waterson or Joel Huey of the
Regulatory Development Section, in the Air Planning Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Sara Waterson may be reached by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Joel Huey may be reached
by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What action is EPA taking?
II. What is the background for this action?
III. What is the air quality in the Rome area for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS for the 2007-2009 monitoring period?
IV. What is the effect of this action?
V. What is the proposed action?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA taking?

    Based on EPA's review of the quality-assured and certified
monitoring data for 2007-2009, and in accordance with section 179(c)(1)
of the CAA and EPA's regulations, EPA proposes to determine that the
Rome Area has attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date of April 5, 2010.
    On April 5, 2011, EPA published a final rulemaking making a
determination of attainment to suspend the requirements for the Rome
Area to submit an attainment demonstration and associated reasonably
available control measures (RACM), a reasonable further progress (RFP)
plan, contingency measures, and other planning State Implementation
Plan (SIP) revisions related to attainment of the standard shall be
suspended so long as the Area continues to attain the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. See 76 FR 18650. Today's proposed action merely
makes a determination that the Rome Area has attained the 1997 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS by its applicable attainment date. This action
is not a re-proposal of the attainment determination to suspend the
requirements for the Rome Area to submit an attainment demonstration
and associated RACM, a RFP plan, contingency measures, and other
planning SIP revisions related to attainment of the standard. More
information regarding the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard and
EPA's determination of attainment for the Rome Area is available in 76
FR 18650 (April 5, 2011).

II. What is the background for this action?

    As a nonattainment area for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS,
the Rome Area had an applicable attainment date of April 5, 2010 (based
on 2007-2009 monitoring data). Pursuant to section 179(c) of the CAA,
EPA is required to make a determination on whether the area attained
the standard by its applicable attainment date. Specifically, section
179(c)(1) of the CAA reads as follows: ``As expeditiously as
practicable after the applicable attainment date for any nonattainment
area, but not later than 6 months after such date, the Administrator
shall determine, based on the area's air quality as of the attainment
date, whether the area attained the standard by that date.''

III. What is the air quality in the Rome area for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS for the 2007-2009 monitoring period?

    Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR 50.7, the 1997 annual primary and
secondary PM2.5 standards are met when the annual arithmetic
mean concentration, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR part 50,
Appendix N, is less than or equal to 15.0 [micro]g/m\3\ at all relevant
monitoring sites in the subject area.
    EPA reviewed the ambient air monitoring data for the Rome Area in
accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N. All data
considered have been quality-assured, certified, and recorded in EPA's
Air Quality System database. This review addresses air quality data
collected in the 3-year period 2007-2009, which is the period EPA must
consider for areas that had an applicable attainment date of April 5,
2010.

                             Table 1--Annual Average Concentrations in the Rome Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Annual average
                                                         County                  Site No.        concentration
                                                                                ([mu]g/m\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without data substitution..................  Floyd........................        13-115-0003               13.3
With data substitution.....................  Floyd........................        13-115-0003               14.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in the above table, during the 2007-2009 design period,
the Rome Area met the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS both with and
without data substitution. The official annual design value for the
Rome Area for the 2007-2009 period is 13.3 [mu]g/m\3\. More detailed
information on the monitoring data for the Rome Area during the 2007-
2009 design period is provided in EPA's April 5, 2011, final rulemaking
to approve the clean data determination for the Rome Area for the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS. See 76 FR 18650.

IV. What is the effect of this action?

    This action is only a proposed determination that the Rome Area has
attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by its applicable
attainment date of April 5, 2010, consistent with CAA section
179(c)(1). Finalizing this proposed action would not constitute a
redesignation of the Rome Area to attainment of 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS under section 107(d)(3) of the CAA. Further,
finalizing this proposed action does not involve approving a
maintenance plan for the Rome Area as required under section 175A of
the CAA, nor would it find that the Rome Area has met all other
requirements for redesignation. Even if EPA finalizes today's proposed
action, the designation status of the Rome Area would remain
nonattainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS until such
time as EPA determines that the Area meets the CAA requirements for
redesignation to attainment and takes action to redesignate the
Area.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Per section 176(c) of the CAA, transportation conformity
requirements apply in areas that are designated nonattainment and
those areas that are redesignated from nonattainment to attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. What is the proposed action?

    EPA is proposing to determine, based on quality-assured and
certified monitoring data for the 2007-2009 monitoring period, that the
Rome Area has attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date of April 5, 2010. This proposed

action is being taken pursuant to section 179(c)(1) of the CAA, and is
consistent with the CAA and its implementing regulations.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action proposes to make a determination of attainment based on
air quality, and would not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed determination that the Rome Area
attained the 1997 annual average PM2.5 NAAQS does not have
Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIPs are not approved to apply in Indian
country located in the states, and EPA notes that it will not impose
substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: May 23, 2011.
Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2011-13668 Filed 6-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Subject: EPA/SIA Phone call
Date: October 24, 2012, 12-1 PM
Re: Questions regarding the EPA proposal, Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program: Proposed Amendments and Confidentiality Determinations for Subpart I
Background:  This phone call between EPA and the Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) was held at SIA's request following SIA's initial review of the EPA proposal, Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program: Proposed Amendments and Confidentiality Determinations for Subpart I, [77 FR 63538, October 16, 2012].  SIA provided the questions below to EPA via e-mail on October 8, 2012 (following the pre-publication version of the proposal being posted on the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) website on August 31, 2012) and also verbally reviewed the questions on the phone call.  EPA provided responses to SIA's questions verbally on the phone call and is documenting these responses for docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028 below.  This memorandum also contains additional response information not provided during the phone call.
Attendees:
EPA  -  Alexis McKittrick, Anhar Karimjee, Deborah Ottinger, Jennifer Bohman, Kirsten Cappel
SIA - David Isaacs
SIA Consultants - John Holmes, Robert Crawford, Kevin Fay
Fairchild Semiconductor - Dave Lancaster
IBM - Dave Speed, Jay Dietrich
Intel - Tim Higgs, Melissa Gresham
Texas Instruments - Tina Gilliland, Jack Chang
Samsung - Mike Sherer (consultant)
ISMI - Laurie Beau
Eastern Research Group  -  Brian Palmer, Philip Crawford
SIA Question 1: We are wondering how the revised Tier 2a factors that appear in Tables I-11 and I-12 [of the proposed rule amendments] were derived, as we are unable to duplicate them for C2F6 or NF3, when using the SIA gas use distributions and the updated default factors for each process and subprocess.
EPA Response 1:  From page 22 of 25 in the memorandum available in the docket titled Technical Support for the Stack Testing Option for Estimating Fluorinated Greenhouse F-GHG Emissions from Electronics Manufacturing Facilities under Subpart I: "The EPA is proposing that semiconductor manufacturers rely on new (since the 2006 IPCC Guidelines) Tier 2a EFs [emission factors], which are based on emissions data supporting the default etch EF method (see Technical Support for Modifications to the Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimation Method Option for Semiconductor Facilities under Subpart I)."
The referenced memo (Technical Support for Modifications...), discusses default EF revisions, along with what models were considered and used, but focuses on the more complex EF development (i.e. Tier 2c).  Tier 2a EFs are not specifically mentioned, largely because the method for developing revised default Tier 2a EFs is similar to that used for the other, more complex default EF categories.  To develop the Tier 2a EFs, EPA generally calculated the simple arithmetic average across all the EF measurements available for each gas and wafer size across all process types. SIA indicated via phone that they were using an average weighted by gas distribution, which could explain some of the discrepancy.
 For NF3 specifically, there are two other factors that may explain any differences between SIA's results and EPA's results.  First, EPA combined data for the NF3 remote clean process type with the data for the other NF3 process types.  This is different from the approach that was taken in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (the source for the original Tier 2a factors), which presented separate default EFs for NF3 remote clean and for the other NF3 process types.  Second, in combining the NF3 remote clean process type with the other NF3 process types, EPA inadvertently used only one value for the NF3 remote clean process type for each wafer size.  Specifically, EPA used the average EF value for that wafer size.  As a result, the NF3 remote clean process type was under-weighted in the combined default NF3 EFs.
For C2F6, it is unclear why SIA is having difficulty replicating EPA's proposed EF.  The data point counts for both EPA and SIA appear to match.  EPA and SIA were unable to determine via phone where the inconsistency lies, but SIA indicated that the difference was small enough to not warrant further discussion prior to the comment period closing for this proposal.  SIA did clarify that this discrepancy exists for the C2F6 200mm EF, but not for the corresponding 300mm EF.
To assist with resolving these discrepancies, SIA requested a spreadsheet detailing the NF3 and C2F6 Tier 2a EF calculations. The spreadsheet posted concurrently with this memorandum, titled "Tier 2a NF3 and C2F6 Emission Factor Calculations", shows the EF calculations and their results for the NF3 and C2F6 default EFs (1) as presented in the proposed rule, (2) when NF3 remote clean is treated as a separate process type (consistent with the original Tier 2a defaults in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines), and (3) when NF3 remote clean is combined with the other NF3 process types using all of the NF3 remote clean data (except the outliers).  For scenarios (2) and (3), both simple and weighted averages are presented, resulting in a total of five sets of Tier 2a default EF values.  For convenience, the spreadsheet also shows the four outlier data points that were removed from the NF3 EF calculation.  (Note that these four outliers were also identified in the 2010 Technical Support Document on page 36 in Appendix B.)
SIA Question 2: We do not understand the basis of EPA's assessment of the SIA case for the size of apportioning errors that appears on pp. 10-13 and in Table 2 (p. 14) of the document titled: Technical Support for Modifications to the Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimation Method Option for Semiconductor Facilities under Subpart I. In this part of the document it says that "a range of apportioning uncertainties estimated by SIA, varying between 56 and approximately 240 percent (SIA, 2011c and SIA, 2012a)". How were the SIA input values translated into gas apportioning errors and used in the Monte Carlo analysis?
EPA Response 2: The detailed analysis that was done and the inputs that were used in the EPA analysis shown in the docketed memo titled Technical Support for Modifications to the Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimation Method Option for Semiconductor Facilities under Subpart I reflect information from SIA submitted on gas apportioning uncertainties (Report to EPA on Etch Factor Proposal for Fab GHG Emissions Reporting, dated February 28, 2012).  The values were adjusted according to the method described on pages 24 and 25 of the referenced report.  SIA also asked during this call whether uncertainties related to chamber cleaning were included in EPA's analysis.  EPA confirms that these uncertainties were included.
SIA Question 3: SIA members are collecting additional emissions factors data and DRE [destruction or removal efficiency] data that can be used to update the default values for each. As in the past, SIA intends to provide both the test results and an update of the default values when they are integrated into the current data base. The notice includes a template for data submittal. SIA had developed and has been using its own template. Two points in that regard. First, we are not gathering all of the data in the EPA template. We can give EPA a list of those not being collected and our reasoning. Second, will it be acceptable to submit the data in our template or would you need us to put the data into your template?
EPA Response 3: From page 63552 of the October 16, 2012 Federal Register notice: "Commenters are encouraged to submit available data with their comments using the `Electronics Manufacturing Data Request Sheet' (see Docket ID No. EPA - HQ - OAR - 2011-0028). Commenters can fill out the `Electronics Manufacturing Data Request Sheet' and submit the data to Docket ID No. EPA - HQ - OAR - 2011 - 0028 for consideration by the EPA on whether to update the proposed default emission factors for semiconductor manufacturing. If the EPA does update the proposed default emission factors using such new data, if approved by the EPA, for the final rule, it will do so using the same methodologies as described in the `Technical Support for Modifications to the Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimation Method Option for Semiconductor Facilities under Subpart I,' Docket ID No. EPA - HQ - OAR - 2011 - 0028). The EPA will use the same criteria for accepting new data that were used in accepting data as specified in that document."  A similar statement is also provided in the proposal preamble that references the DRE support material (77 FR 63564).
As stated above, commenters are encouraged to submit data using the referenced EPA data request sheet.  SIA indicated via phone that several pieces of data may be missing from DRE data they plan to submit with their comments, including the DRE relative standard deviation, the dilution factor, and whether or not the EPA DRE Protocol benchmark is met.  EPA notes that, if the EPA DRE Protocol is followed, commenters submitting data should have enough information to complete all of the fields in EPA's data sheet template, including those related to dilution factor and standard deviations. EPA stresses that, as stated above, data submitted must supply EPA with enough information to assure data quality and to use the same methodologies that are described by the technical support documents for this proposal. All data are subject to EPA review and may not be incorporated in the calculations for subpart I default EFs and default DREs if sufficient information is not provided. Regardless of the template that is ultimately used, SIA is encouraged to submit its own analysis of the data provided, as long as such additional information does not in any way limit the amount of raw data submitted to EPA.
SIA Question 4: We see that EPA has added the results of 11 DRE tests to the record. Please provide SIA with the data records (test identifications and DRE results) for the extra 11 etch/CF4 tests from 2010 testing that have been rolled into the default DRE analysis.
EPA Response 4: The original November 2010 technical support document (TSD) presented 11 DRE measurement results for etch/CF4. These appear to be the 11 DRE tests to which SIA is referring. Please see Table 3-3 on page 21 of the November 2010 TSD.  Note that these results are referenced on page 3 of 14 of the docketed memorandum titled, Technical Support for Accounting for Destruction or Removal Efficiency for Electronics Manufacturing Facilities under Subpart I: "Table 1 presents a summary and analysis of the available etch DRE data SIA submitted to the EPA and DRE data available through the EPA DRE measurement studies (SIA, 2012a and November 2010 TSD)".
As referenced in Table 3-3, the original November 2010 TSD used data from Table IV (8 data points), Table VIII (2 data points), and Table IX (1 data point) of Developing a Reliable Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas (F-GHG) Destruction or Removal Efficiency (DRE) Measurement Method for Electronics Manufacturing: A Cooperative Evaluation with IBM (EPA 430-R-10-004), Office of Air and Radiation Office of Atmospheric Programs, Climate Change Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/highgwp/semiconductor-pfc/documents/ibm_report.pdf.
SIA Question 5: In the preamble at page 155 of the prepublication pdf [p. 63569 of the October 16 FRN], EPA references statistical methods to validate reported data elements. SIA members would like to know more - what methods and how would they be applied?
EPA Response 5: This is a reference to EPA's verification process for GHG data submitted via the electronic Greenhouse Gas Reporting Tool (e-GGRT) system.  EPA has a multi-step data verification process. First, the EPA data entry tool used by facilities conducts data checks during the data entry phase. This occurs even before the data are submitted to EPA. Second, once the data have been submitted, EPA conducts a number of automated data checks that include ensuring that reports are internally consistent, checking the data against expected ranges for similar facilities and industries, and statistical analysis. Based on the results of the automated checks, EPA conducts a staff review of the reported data. EPA then follows up with facilities to understand any inconsistencies or unexpected results, and if necessary, to resolve any mistakes that may have occurred.  This process occurs for all data submitted through the e-GGRT system (not for subpart I only).
SIA Question 6: The stack test method, as we read it, requires certification of abatement devices and a maintenance plan or the stack method cannot be used. Is the way we are reading it the way it is intended?
EPA Response 6: SIA's reading of this proposed requirement is correct. If a reporter were using the proposed stack testing method, they would be required to follow the quality assurance (QA) procedures in proposed 40 CFR 98.94(f) for abatement systems. These include certification and documentation that the abatement systems are properly installed, operated, and maintained according to manufacturers' specifications; and preparation of a site maintenance plan for abatement systems that is maintained in the facility's records. (See p. 63584 of the October 16 FRN for the amendatory text for 40 CFR 98.94(f).)  As noted on pages 63562 and 63564 of the preamble to the proposed rule, these procedures are intended to ensure that DRE measurements are representative of abatement system performance throughout the year, and vice versa. SIA requested clarification during the call regarding why this requirement is being proposed for the stack testing method.  Although stack tests do not separately measure DREs, they do reflect abatement system performance during the test.  EPA's proposal to apply the QA procedures in 40 CFR 98.94(f) to fabs using the stack testing method would ensure that abatement systems are maintained at the same level throughout the year, thus further ensuring that the measurements during the stack test are representative of annual emissions.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 140 (Tuesday, July 22, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42519-42520]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17086]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-N-0001]

Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drug Products Advisory Committee;
Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory
Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on September 12, 2014, from
8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Location: The Marriott Inn and Conference Center, University of
Maryland University College (UMUC), Potomac Ballroom, 3501 University
Blvd. East, Hyattsville, MD 20783. The conference center's telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information regarding special accommodations
due to a disability, visitor parking, and transportation may be
accessed at:

http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm; under the heading
``Resources for You,'' click on ``Public Meetings at the FDA White Oak
Campus.'' Please note that visitors to the White Oak Campus must enter
through Building 1.
    Contact Person: Karen Abraham-Burrell, Center for Drug Evaluation
and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave.,
White Oak Bldg. 31, Rm. 2147, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-
9001, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA Advisory
Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the
Washington, DC area). A notice in the Federal Register about last
minute modifications that impact a previously announced advisory
committee meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide
timely notice. Therefore, you should always check the Agency's Web site
at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to
the appropriate advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory
committee information line to learn about possible modifications before
coming to the meeting.
    Agenda: The committee will discuss biologics license application
(BLA) 125511, proposed trade name NATPARA (established name:
Recombinant Human Parathyroid Hormone (rDNA) or (rhPTH[1-84]),
submitted by NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc., for the proposed indication of
replacement for endogenous parathyroid hormone (1-84) for the long-term
treatment of hypoparathyroidism.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting
link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
August 27, 2014. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled
between approximately between 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. Those individuals
interested in making formal oral presentations should notify the
contact person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of
the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses
of proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time
requested to make their presentation on or before August 19, 2014. Time
allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of
registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably
accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may
conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open
public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested
persons regarding their request to speak by August 20, 2014.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Karen Abraham-
Burrell at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: July 16, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-17086 Filed 7-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 67 (Monday, April 8, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13938-13939]
[FR Doc No: 2019-06773]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2019-0039]

Information Collection Request to Office of Management and
Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0061

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request
(ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval for
reinstatement, without change, of the following collection of
information: 1625-0061, Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel Safety
Regulations; without change. Our ICR describes the information we seek
to collect from the public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the
Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before June 7, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2019-0039] to the Coast Guard using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public
participation and request for comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from:
Commandant (CG-612), Attn: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S. Coast
Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE, STOP 7710, Washington, DC
20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,

or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions on these documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collection. There is one
ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information
subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. In response to
your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not to seek an
extension of approval for the Collection. We will consider all comments
and material received during the comment period.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of
the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2019-0039], and
must be received by June 7, 2019.

Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and
can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally,
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will
be notified when comments are posted.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).

Information Collection Request

    Title: Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel Safety Regulations.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0061.
    Summary: This information collection is intended to improve safety
on board vessels in the commercial fishing industry. The requirements
apply to those vessels and to seamen on them.
    Need: Under the authority of 46 U.S.C. 6104, the U.S. Coast Guard
has promulgated regulations in 46 CFR part 28 to reduce the
unacceptably high level of fatalities and accidents in the commercial
fishing industry. The rules allowing the collection also provide means
of verifying compliance and enhancing safe operation of fishing
vessels.
    Forms: None.
    Respondents: Owners, agents, individuals-in-charge of commercial
fishing vessels, and insurance underwriters.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has decreased from 6,617
hours to 4,832 hours a year due to a decrease in the estimated annual
number of response.

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: April 2, 2019.
James D. Roppel,
Chief, Office of Information Management, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2019-06773 Filed 4-5-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


Director

Occupational Safety and Environmental Programs

Office of Chief Administrative Officer

Management Directorate

Department of Homeland Security

Washington, DC

Department of State

Stewart Tuttle

U.S.-Mexico Border Affairs Coordinator

Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs

U.S. Department of State

Washington, DC

Environmental Protection Agency

Larry Starfield

Deputy Regional Administrator

EPA Region 6

Dallas, TX

International Boundary and Water Commission

Edward Drusina

Commissioner

United States Section

International Boundary and Water Commission

El Paso, TX

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Stan Gimont

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Washington, DC

Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service

Robert M. Apodaca

Assistant Chief – West

USDA/NRCS

Albuquerque, NM

Department of Commerce – National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration

Donna Wieting

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Silver Spring, MD

Department of Energy

Christopher Lawrence

Department of Energy

Washington, DC

Acting Designated Federal Officer

Mark Joyce

Acting Designated Federal Officer

Good Neighbor Environmental Board

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach

Washington, DC

EPA Participants

Lisa Almodovar

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of International and Tribal Affairs

Washington, DC

Geraldine Brown

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach

Washington, DC

Michelle DePass

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Assistant Administrator

Office of International and Tribal Affairs

Washington, DC

Jerry Ellis

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Water

Washington, DC

Ann-Marie Gantner

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach

Washington, DC

Cynthia Jones-Jackson

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Acting Director

Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach

Washington, DC

Debbie Lake-Hinkle

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach

Washington, DC

Bill Luthans

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 6

Dallas, TX

Stephanie McCoy

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach

Washington, DC

Toni Rousey

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach

Washington, DC

Sue Stendebach

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air and Radiation

Washington, DC

Other Participants

Jon Andrew

U.S. Department of the Interior

Washington, DC

William Bresnick

Department of Homeland Security

Washington, DC

Anthony J. Como

Department of Energy

Todd Foley

American Council on Renewable Energy

Russ Frisbie

International Boundary and Water Commission

Patricia Harrington

Department of Homeland Security

Washington, DC

Victoria Finkle

Inside EPA

Edward Hoyt

Nexant

Washington, DC

Lesley Hunter

American Council on Renewable Energy

Alison Krepp

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Silver Spring, MD

John McCardle

Environment and Energy News

Diana Papoulias

U.S. Geological Survey

Rachel Poynter

U.S. Department of State

Washington, DC

David Reese

Department of Homeland Security

Washington, DC

Rick Rosen

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Silver Spring, MD

Georgina Scarlata

U.S. Department of State

Washington, DC

Sally Spener

International Boundary and Water Commission

El Paso, TX

Nancy Sutley

Chair

White House Council on Environmental Quality

Washington, DC

Contractor Support

Mary Spock, M.S.

Writer/Editor

The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc.

Gaithersburg, MD

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Good Neighbor Environmental Board

March 24-25, 2011

Mandarin Oriental

1330 Maryland Avenue, S.W.

Washington, DC 20024

AGENDA

Thursday, March 24, 2011

8:30 am	Registration

9:00-9:30	Welcome and Introductions

Diane Austin, Acting Chair

Cynthia Jones-Jackson, Acting Director, OFACMO Mark Joyce, GNEB Acting
Designated Federal Officer Board Member Introductions

9:30-10:30	Opening Remarks and General Discussion

   Nancy Sutley, Chair

White House Council on Environmental Quality

10:30-10:45	Break

10:45-11:45	Air Quality and Climate Change Along the U.S.-Mexico

Border

   Sue Stendebach, Senior Advisor on International Air

Quality

U.S. EPA Office of Air and Radiation

   Richard Rosen, Senior Advisor for Climate Research

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

   Diana Papoulias

Research Biologist

U.S. Geological Survey

11:45-12:00 pm	Public Comments

12:00-1:30	Lunch

1:30-2:30	Renewable Energy Resources in the U.S.-Mexico Border

Region

   Edward Drusina, Commissioner

United States Section

International Boundary and Water Commission

   Edward Hoyt

Principal Clean Energy Specialist

Nexant Inc.

   DOE Speaker TBD

2:30-3:30	The Economic Potential of Renewable Energy Development in the
Border Region

   Cecilia Aguillon, Director

Market Development and Government Relations

  Stephen Niemeyer

Border Affairs Manager and Colonias Coordinator

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

   Todd Foley, Senior Vice President on Policy and

Government Relations

American Council on Renewable Energy

3:45-3:45	Break

3:45-4:45	Update on Border 2012 Program and Commission for

Environmental Cooperation Activities

   Michelle DePass, Assistant Administrator

U.S. EPA Office of International and Tribal Affairs

4:45- 6:00	Discussion of 14th Report

6:00	Adjourn for the Day

Friday, March 25, 2011

8:00 am	Registration

8:30	Discussion of Options for June, September, and December

Meetings

9:00	Discussion of 14th Report continued

10:30	Break

10:45	Discussion of 14th Report continued

1:30 pm	Public Comments

2:00	Adjourn

  PAGE  30 		March 24-25, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB)
Meeting Summary

March 24-25, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting
Summary	  PAGE  29

  PAGE  38 		March 11–12, 2010, Good Neighbor Environmental Board
(GNEB) Meeting Summary

March 24-25, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting
Summary	  PAGE  39


7/ 11/ 05 8 HR O3 NAAQS IMPLEMENTATION RULE   PHASE 2 RESPONSES TO FHWA COMMENTS COMMENT 1. The CMAQ sections ( pages 39 40 and 362 365) should be significantly Scaled back for several reasons: First, the CMAQ program is administered by U. S. DOT with EPA in a consultative role. Consequently, this discussion appears to be out of place. The section should only address the comments received. The document should clearly state that since CMAQ is a DOT program, readers should consult with U. S. DOT . Second, many specifics of the CMAQ program including the funding formula are still under active discussions as Congress continues the debate over reauthorization. Until final decisions are made on the CMAQ program in reauthorization, it is premature to include detailed information/ speculation of the CMAQ program in this rulemaking. Third, some of the discussions on these pages seem to be new interpretation and therefore not consistent with the previous stated Administration position. For example, on page 39, it states, " Hence, under the transportation statute CMAQ funds cannot be apportioned to the States on the basis of the designations for the 8 hour ozone standard that are not also classified under subpart 2." This seems to imply that the formula will account for 8 hour areas classified under subpart 2. This is not consistent with the Administration's position that the 8 hour standard is not part of the existing apportionment formula and will not be factored in without a legislated change to the formula.

Also, on page 359, it states, " The formula does not account for 8 hour ozone nonattainment areas not classified under subpart 2 or particulate matter nonattainment areas." Also, " Hence, under the transportation statute CMAQ funds cannot be apportioned to the States on the basis of the designations for the 8 hour ozone standard that are not also classified under subpart 2." And on page 360, it states, " How a State's individual apportionment of CMAQ funds changes depends on how a State's nonattainment and maintenance area population changes because of designation and classification under the 8 hour ozone standard and revocation of the 1 hour ozone standard." Again, as stated in the previous paragraph, this is not consistent with the Administration's position that the 8 hour standard would not count at all in the CMAQ formula without legislation.

RESPONSE 1: We have revised the sections related to the CMAQ discussion per the FHWA comments. Attachment A shows a redline/ strikeout version of the changes from the 2/ 6/ 05 version.

COMMENT 2. On page 197, shouldn't row 6 be January 1, 2020  December 31, 2022?

RESPONSE 2: Yes. This has been corrected in our working version. Thanks!

COMMENT 3. On page 258, the document states, " The EPA will be looking to bring a group of stakeholders together to see if the group can come up with and support one or more ways that we can use existing programs and authorities to create positive incentives and tools for communities to reduce sprawl." EPA should work closely with DOT in the establishment of any group.

RESPONSE: This comment has been forwarded to Larry Weinstock of EPA's Office of Policy Analysis and Review, who drafted the original CADC language.

[ FHWA response: We believe that issues related to community development, land use and " sprawl" will have transportation and air quality implications. Therefore, EPA should work closely with DOT to address these issues.]

COMMENT 4. On page 264, the document states, " We will facilitate the development of workshops and training opportunities to assist MPO and air quality staff who are working on PM2.5 inventories." EPA should work closely with DOT in the development of any workshops and training. The sentence should be modified to read " We will work closely with US DOT to facilitate the development of workshops and training opportunities to assist MPO and air quality staff who are working on PM2.5 inventories."

COMMENT 5. On page 269, in response to a comment about requiring states must use MOBILE to calculate inventories, EPA stated " We cannot use the word " must" in guidance unless the guidance refers to a requirement mandated by the statute or our regulations. In this case, neither the statute nor our regulations specifically requires the use of the latest approved version of MOBILE ( currently MOBILE6.2). in SIPs. " We are not sure we totally agree with EPA on this point. The conformity rule ( 40CFR93.110) states that " The conformity determiantion must be based on the latest emissions estimation model available." So EPA should at least note this requirement for conformity purposes.

RESPONSES TO 4 AND 5: The responses have been redrafted and are attached ( Attachment B) ATTACHMENT A 7/ 11/ 05 CMAQ EXCERPT FROM 8 HR O3 NAAQS IMPLEMENTATION RULE, PHASE 2 Summary of Section VII: Other Considerations A. How will EPA's implementation of the 8 hour ozone NAAQS affect funding under the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement ( CMAQ) Program? Eligibility for, and the apportionment of CMAQ funds is defined by statute in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century ( TEA 21). The program is administered by the U. S. Department of Transportation with EPA in a consultative role. How CMAQ funding may be affected for specific areas will be determined by U. S. DOT. See DOT guidance issued December 13, 2004. ( http:// www. fhwa. dot. gov/ environment/ cmaqpgs/ revoke1hrozone mem. htm) The Administration proposed changes to include the new NAAQS areas in the formula in its surface transportation reauthorization proposal.

[ FHWA Comment: Since issues concerning CMAQ funding formula are still being discussed in the reauthorization of TEA 21, details related to what may happen to the CMAQ program is at this point, speculation. We recommend all the detailed discussions related to CMAQ funding formula and eligibility be deleted.] * * * * *

VII. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS A. How will EPA's implementation of the 8 hour ozone NAAQS affect funding under the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement ( CMAQ) Program? 1. Background In the proposal, we noted that the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century ( TEA 21) establishes eligibility for the use of CMAQ program funds in certain nonattainment and maintenance areas, designated under section 107( d) of the CAA ( 42 U. S. C. 7407( d)), provided the area is, or was, also classified in accordance with CAA subpart 2, sections 181, 186, and 188. All areas designated nonattainment after December 31, 1997 are also eligible, but without regard to classification. The amount of CMAQ funds available to States for use in nonattainment and maintenance areas is also set at levels authorized by TEA 21. The funds are apportioned to States through the statutory formula contained in section 104( b) of title 23. The formula is based primarily on the classifications of ozone and CO nonattainment and maintenance areas as specified in the Clean Air Act, and the population in such areas. 2. Current position The impact of the implementation of the 8 hour standard takes place in two primary stages. First, the newly designated 8 hour nonattainment areas became eligible for the use of CMAQ funds at the time of designation. It is also important to note that under the 8 hour standard there is a net increase in eligible nonattainment areas and covered populations, but the overall funds authorized annually for the CMAQ program at the national level is fixed. The second impact occurred when the 1 hour ozone standard was revoked for most areas on June 15, 2005. On December 13, 2004 DOT issued guidance to address the use of CMAQ funds in areas where the 1 hour ozone standard was revoked. A copy of the guidance is available at http:// www. fhwa. dot. gov/ environment/ cmaqpgs/ revoke1hrozonem em. htm [ FHWA comment: DOT issued guidance on December 13, 2004 on CMAQ and revocation of the 1 hour ozone standard. EPA should reference DOT's guidance instead if they want to address this issue.]

The amount of CMAQ funds apportioned to each State, and thus available to nonattainment and maintenance areas, will also change under the current apportionment formula. How a State's individual apportionment of CMAQ funds changes due to designations under the 8 hour ozone standard and revocation of the 1 hour ozone standard are determined by DOT. 3. Comments and responses Comments: The EPA received several comments expressing concern that implementation of the 8 hour ozone standard may negatively impact an area's eligibility for CMAQ Program funds and/ or the amount of CMAQ funding the State would receive. The comments indicated that projects and programs to reduce air pollution in their area was supported thru CMAQ funding. Some commenters stated that their area was attaining the 8 hour ozone standard, and thus would become ineligible for CMAQ funding when the 1 hour ozone standard is revoked. Other commenters expressed concern that any increases to the number of nonattainment areas or changes to classifications of nonattainment areas could reduce the amount of CMAQ funds available to the area. Response: The EPA is aware that eligibility for use of CMAQ funds is dependent on designation as a nonattainment or maintenance area, and apportionment of CMAQ funds is calculated yearly and varies according to changing nonattainment and maintenance area population, and the severity of air pollution. Eligibility for, and the apportionment of CMAQ funds is defined by statute in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century ( TEA 21). The program is administered by the U. S. Department of Transportation with EPA in a consultative role. The EPA is only taking action to implement the 8 hour ozone standard and has no authority to make changes to the eligibility criteria or apportionment formula contained in TEA 21. Reauthorization of TEA 21 is being discussed in Congress, and adjustments to the eligibility criteria and apportionment formula may be possible. We understand the importance of CMAQ funding to States and nonattainment areas. Recognizing the importance of this issue, the Administration's surface transportation reauthorization proposal had provisions to include the new NAAQS areas in the CMAQ apportionment formula. We are prepared to work with the U. S. Department of Transportation ( DOT) and Congress to minimize the unintended impact of the 8 hour ozone NAAQS, on those funds. ATTACHMENT B Comment: One commenter urged EPA to improve the quality of PM2.5 rates in MOBILE6.2 so that areas will have a more reliable tool for creating a 2002 base year inventory and SIP planning. The commenter was concerned about developing PM2.5 emissions inventories because PM2.5 emissions factors in MOBILE6.2 are based largely on the old Part # 5 emission model and are not as sophisticated as the rates for CO, NOx, and VOC. The commenter also expressed concern about the lack of knowledge and techniques available for performing on road mobile source fine particulate emissions inventories. Metropolitan Planning Organizations ( MPOs) and air quality agency staff need to have a more reliable tool and acceptable methods for creating base year PM2.5 inventories and for SIP planning. Response: This comment is not directly relevant to the 8 hour ozone implementation rule. However, in the interest of providing clarification on the issues raised by the commenter, we provide the following background information. Particulate emission factors in MOBILE6.2 are based on the best technical information available at the time the model was developed and we believe that it is the best available tool for estimating on road emission factors for PM2.5. We are currently collecting additional PM data which will be incorporated in future versions of the EPA mobile source emission factor model. We continue to work to improve models and inventory methods for all pollutants. We have released technical guidance on the use of MOBILE6.2 and on methods for developing annual inventories in SIPs and conformity analyses to help MPOs and air quality agency staff perform on road mobile source fine particulate analyses.

* * * * *

Comment: One commenter supported the use of MOBILE6 in the 8 hour emissions inventory analyses and believed that EPA should change the guidance with respect to the use of MOBILE6 from " should be used" to " must be used." The commenter cautioned that MOBILE6 still significantly overpredicts emissions from passenger cars and light duty trucks for many reasons including the following: 1) the model does not adequately account for the benefits of onboard diagnostic regulation in non IM areas; and 2) the model does not reflect the decline in trips per day versus vehicle age. Response: EPA's January 18,2002 SIP and conformity policy guidance document (" Policy Guidance on the Use of MOBILE6 for SIP Development and Transportation Conformity", memo from John Seitz and Margo Oge to EPA Regional Air Division Directors) states, " In general, EPA believes that MOBILE6 should be used as expeditiously as possible. The Clean Air Act requires that SIP inventories and control measures be based on the most current information and applicable models that are available when a SIP is developed." EPA's February 14, 2004 SIP and conformity policy guidance document (" Policy Guidance on the Use of MOBILE6.2 and the December 2003 AP 42 Method for Re Entrained Road Dustfor SIP Development and Transportation Conformity", memo from Margo Oge and Steve Page to EPA Regional Air Division Directors) updates this by stating that " All states other than California should use MOBILE6.2 for future VOC, NOx, and CO SIP and conformity analyses in order to take full advantage of the improvements incorporated in this version." MOBILE6.2 is the most current applicable model and is based on the best information available at the time of its development and release. Therefore, EPA has indicated that it should be used. We do not believe that more on board diagnostic benefits in non I/ M areas was justified based on available data at the time of the release of MOBILE6.2. Likewise, we did not have sufficient data to develop alternative assumptions about the relationship between trips per day and vehicle age. We are working to continually improve emission factor models and inventory methods for on road vehicles and will review these issues during the development of the next emission factor model.


[Federal Register: November 13, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 218)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 63834-63836]
[DOCID:fr13no07-17]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-0185; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-246-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional
Jet Series 100 & 440) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    Bombardier Aerospace has completed a system safety review of the
CL-600-2B19 aircraft fuel system * * *.
    The assessment showed that if the fuel boost pump reducer
coupling is anodized, insufficient electrical bonding between the
boost pump canister and the pressure pick-up line could occur.
Insufficient electrical bonding between the boost pump canister and
the pressure pick-up line, if not corrected, could result in arcing
and potential ignition source inside the fuel tank during lightning
strikes and consequent fuel tank explosion. * * *

    The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address
the unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 13,
2007.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov.
 Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
; or in person at the Docket Operations office

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rocco Viselli, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New
York 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2007-0185;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-246-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov
, including any personal information you provide. We

will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2007-18, dated September 4, 2007 (referred to after this as ``the
MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The
MCAI states:

    Bombardier Aerospace has completed a system safety review of the
CL-600-2B19 aircraft fuel system against new fuel tank safety
standards introduced in Chapter 525 of the Airworthiness Manual
through Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA) 2002-043. The identified
non-compliances were assessed using Transport Canada Policy Letter
No. 525-001 to determine if mandatory corrective action is required.
    The assessment showed that if the fuel boost pump reducer
coupling is anodized, insufficient electrical bonding between the
boost pump canister and the pressure pick-up line could occur.
Insufficient electrical bonding between the boost pump canister and
the pressure pick-up line, if not corrected, could result in arcing
and potential ignition source inside the fuel tank during lightning
strikes and consequent fuel tank explosion. To correct the unsafe
condition, this directive mandates a detailed visual inspection of
the fuel boost pump for the presence of anodized reducer couplings.
All anodized couplings found are to be replaced with couplings
having ion vapor deposition (IVD) coating.

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.
    The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel
tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the
adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes
subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for
fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a
regulation titled ``Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review,
Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements''
(66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards
for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule
included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (``SFAR 88,''
Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83).
    Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (i.e.,
type certificate (TC) and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders
to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition
sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design
holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for
subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to
perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance
procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety
standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to
adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary
to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews.
    In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four
criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel
tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of
operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable
conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address
the failure types under evaluation: Single failures, single failures in

combination with a latent condition(s), and in-service failure
experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included
consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for
further action.
    We have determined that the actions identified in this AD are
necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel
tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result
in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

Relevant Service Information

    Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 601R-28-057, dated December
4, 2003. The actions described in this service information are intended
to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 509 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 11 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per
work-hour. Required parts would cost about $508 per product. Where the
service information lists required parts costs that are covered under
warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs.
As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some
parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these
figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to
be $706,492, or $1,388 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly Canadair): Docket No. FAA-2007-0185;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-246-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by December 13, 2007.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional
Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes, certified in any category, serial
numbers 7003 through 7067 and 7069 through 7797.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28: Fuel.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    Bombardier Aerospace has completed a system safety review of the
CL-600-2B19 aircraft fuel system against new fuel tank safety
standards introduced in Chapter 525 of the Airworthiness Manual
through Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA) 2002-043. The identified
non-compliances were assessed using Transport Canada Policy Letter
No. 525-001 to determine if mandatory corrective action is required.
    The assessment showed that if the fuel boost pump reducer
coupling is anodized, insufficient electrical bonding between the
boost pump canister and the pressure pick-up line could occur.
Insufficient electrical bonding between the boost pump canister and
the pressure pick-up line, if not corrected, could result in arcing
and potential ignition source inside the fuel tank during lightning
strikes and consequent fuel tank explosion. To correct the unsafe
condition, this directive mandates a detailed visual inspection of
the fuel boost pump for the presence of anodized reducer couplings.
All anodized couplings found are to be replaced with couplings
having ion vapor deposition (IVD) coating.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) Within 5,000 flight hours after the effective date of this
AD, carry out a detailed inspection for the presence of an anodized

(blue color) fuel boost pump reducer coupling according to the
Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-28-
057, dated December 4, 2003.
    (2) If the results of the inspection required by paragraph
(f)(1) of this AD reveal that none of the fuel boost pump reducer
couplings are anodized, no further action is required.
    (3) If the results of the inspection required by paragraph
(f)(1) of this AD reveal the presence of any anodized fuel boost
pump reducer coupling, prior to further flight, replace the anodized
coupling with a coupling having ion vapor deposition coating
according to the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service
Bulletin 601R-28-057, dated December 4, 2003.

FAA AD Differences

    Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No Differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Rocco Viselli, Aerospace
Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York
Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, New York 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (516) 794-
5531. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the
AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in
the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI,
your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2007-18,
dated September 4, 2007, and Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-28-
057, dated December 4, 2003, for related information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 5, 2007.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E7-22146 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 140 (Friday, July 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 42721]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17674]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER12-2226-000]

 Limon Wind, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding,
of Limon Wind, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with
an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability is August 6, 2012.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also 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 email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 16, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-17674 Filed 7-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P