[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 237 (Tuesday, December 11, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63607-63611]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26780]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2018-0384; FRL-9987-72-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Revisions to Particulate Matter Rules

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve assorted revisions to Ohio's particulate matter rules that the
state requested EPA approve into the Ohio State Implementation Plan
(SIP) under the Clean Air Act. One set of revisions address sources
subject to a requirement for continuous opacity monitoring for which
such monitoring is unreliable. The revisions add two alternatives; one
alternative requires the source to conduct continuous emission
monitoring, and the other alternative subjects the source to an
alternative monitoring plan assessing compliance with limits specified
for alternative parameters. Other revisions in the rule remove
provisions for facilities that have shut down and make nonsubstantive
revisions to the language of the rules.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 10, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2018-0384 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Summerhays, Environmental
Scientist, Attainment Planning and Maintenance, Air Programs Branch
(AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This supplementary information section is
arranged as follows:

I. History of Submittal
II. Review of Alternatives to Continuous Opacity Monitoring
III. Review of Other Rule Revisions
IV. What action is EPA taking?
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. History of Submittal

    The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio \1\) is subject to
requirements to review each of its regulations every five years, to
assess whether any updates to the regulations are warranted and for
other purposes. Accordingly, Ohio reviewed its regulations in Ohio
Administrative Code (OAC) Chapter 3745-17, entitled ``Particulate
Matter Standards,'' and adopted various revisions amending and updating
these rules. Ohio then requested that EPA approve these revisions into
the SIP, with exceptions discussed below, in a submittal dated June 1,
2018, along with an amended request submitted August 9, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ To avoid confusion, this notice uses the term ``Ohio'' as
shorthand for the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and the term
``EPA'' as shorthand for the United States Environmental Protection
Agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of its review, Ohio concluded that rule revisions were
needed to address facilities subject to requirements for continuous
opacity monitoring for which such monitoring does not provide reliable
determinations of opacity. This concern especially applies to power
plants that have installed wet flue gas desulfurization equipment.
While power plants are generally required under OAC 3745-17-03(C) to
implement continuous opacity monitoring, in accordance with
requirements in Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, appendix
P (40 CFR part 51, appendix P), plants with wet flue gas
desulfurization equipment in some cases have water vapor in the flue
gas that can render continuous opacity measurements unreliable.
    To address this concern, Ohio revised its rules to offer two
alternatives for plants subject to requirements for continuous opacity
monitoring for which such monitoring is unreliable. The first
alternative is to conduct continuous emissions monitoring. The second
alternative is to conduct monitoring of operational parameters that are
identified as suitable for determining compliance with particulate
emission limitations. Further description of these alternatives and the
requirements that Ohio adopted in association with these requirements
are described in the following section.
    Ohio's June 1, 2018 submittal only requested approval of the second
of these alternatives. However, on August 9, 2018, Ohio revised its
request to ask that EPA approve both alternatives. Accordingly, this
rulemaking addresses both alternatives.
    A second set of revisions Ohio made to its rules was to clarify
that appliances for residential wood combustion are not subject to the
limitations in Ohio's particulate matter regulations. A third set of
revisions removed provisions that are no longer necessary because the
affected facility has shut down. A final set of revisions modified the
wording of selected text to reflect new semantic preferences.
    Previous revisions to the rules in OAC Chapter 3745-17 provided a
category of power plants operating continuous opacity monitoring
systems the option to demonstrate compliance with an alternate set of
opacity limits. Ohio requested approval of those revisions on June 4,
2003, but EPA proposed to disapprove those revisions on June 27, 2005,
at 70 FR 36901. Subsequently, on September 5, 2014, Ohio withdrew its
submittal of these revisions. While these provisions remain part of OAC
3745-17-03, Ohio's June 1, 2018 submittal clarifies that the state is
not requesting EPA action on these provisions.

II. Review of Alternatives to Continuous Opacity Monitoring

    As noted above, the existing Ohio SIP includes provisions that, in
accordance with 40 CFR part 51, appendix P, facilities meeting the
criteria of appendix P, notably including most power plants, must
operate continuous opacity monitoring systems. However, the
installation of wet flue gas desulfurization control equipment on power
plants commonly increases the quantity of water vapor within the stack,
which in some cases has rendered the continuous opacity monitoring
unreliable. This problem has led to consideration of alternative
approaches for providing continuous monitoring of whether particulate
matter emission controls are operating properly.

    Limits on opacity complement limits on particulate mass emissions
in assuring that the particulate matter emission controls that are part
of the plan for attaining particulate matter air quality standards are
operating properly. Stack tests provide a more direct measure of the
quantitative efficiency of the control of particulate matter mass, at
least with respect to filterable particulate matter (since most limits
and therefore most stack tests do not measure condensable particulate
matter). On the other hand, opacity observations generally provide a
more convenient and less costly measure of particulate matter control,
which when done by human observers (in accordance with Method 9) are
designed to address condensable as well as filterable particulate
matter. Opacity monitoring can also readily be conducted continuously
using in-stack monitoring equipment. Therefore, EPA promulgated
appendix P to provide for continuous opacity monitoring, most notably
for power plants, to provide more continuous evidence as to whether the
affected sources are controlling their particulate matter emissions
appropriately. The primary criterion of this rulemaking, then, is
whether any alternative monitoring that becomes authorized under this
rule for any facility provides an appropriate continuous assessment of
the effectiveness of particulate matter emission control that is
comparable to the continuous assessment that EPA sought to achieve by
promulgating appendix P.
    The first alternative that Ohio incorporated into OAC 3745-17-03
was continuous monitoring of the mass of particulate emissions. As
specified in OAC 3745-17-03(D), such monitoring is to be conducted in
accordance with EPA's Performance Specification 11, as given in 40 CFR
part 60, appendix B. Facilities seeking to use this alternative in lieu
of continuous opacity monitoring must request permission from Ohio and
from EPA. Facilities authorized to use this alternative must comply
with a limit of 0.03 pounds of particulate matter per million British
Thermal Units (lbs/MMBTU) on a 24-hour average basis (based on an
average of all hourly average emission rates over a calendar day
period) as well as any other limit in OAC Chapter 3745-17 to which the
facility is subject. OAC 3745-17-03(D) authorizes changes in routine
monitoring of pertinent sources but does not relax any limits to which
an affected source is subject. Notably, opacity in excess of the 20
percent limit in the SIP that is observed through Method 9 remains a
violation of the SIP, in a manner that is unaffected by OAC 3745-17-
03(D) or its prospective usage in specific cases. Thus, for example,
cases involving substantial emissions of condensable particulate matter
sufficient to cause violation of the 20 percent opacity limit would
still be grounds for enforcement action, independent of whether any
filterable particulate matter emission measurements have been made.
    Continuous emissions monitoring by its nature provides continuous
information on how well the source is controlling particulate matter
emissions as continuous opacity monitoring. Given the mass and opacity
limits that apply, EPA believes that the two approaches provide
comparable measures of how well the source is controlling particulate
matter emissions. OAC 3745-17-03(D) provides that Ohio and EPA will
review the situation for each facility on a case-by-case basis to
assure that use of continuous emission monitoring in lieu of continuous
opacity monitoring is warranted. For these reasons, EPA believes that
OAC 3745-17-03(D) provides a suitable alternative means for facilities
in appropriate cases to assess the adequacy of particulate matter
emission control in lieu of continuous opacity monitoring.
    The second alternative to continuous opacity monitoring provided in
OAC 3745-17-03 is the continuous monitoring of operational parameters.
For example, in selected cases, EPA accepts baghouse leak detection
systems as a suitable alternative to continuous opacity monitoring.
Under OAC 3745-17-03(E), facilities seeking to conduct parameter
monitoring in lieu of continuous opacity monitoring must submit a
request that includes a proposed monitoring plan. This plan must
specify the parameters to be monitored, the parameters must be
indicative of whether the facility is complying with the applicable
mass and opacity limitations to which the facility is subject, and the
plan must specify the acceptable range of values of the parameters that
are to be required to be met. OAC 3745-17-03(E) states that parameter
values outside the range specified as indicative of compliance shall
constitute a federally enforceable violation of facility control
requirements. Upon approval by Ohio and EPA, the facility is then
subject to this monitoring plan in lieu of being required to conduct
continuous opacity monitoring.
    As with OAC 3745-17-03(D), OAC 3745-17-03(E) does not relax any
limits to which the source is subject. For example, observations using
Method 9 indicating a violation of the 20 percent opacity limit in the
SIP would remain grounds by which a source with excessive particulate
matter emissions (whether filterable particulate matter or condensable
particulate matter or both) could be identified and subject to
enforcement action as violating opacity limits. In a limited number of
cases, the monitoring of the operations of a facility and its control
equipment (e.g., the monitoring of whether any bags in a baghouse are
leaking) can provide a comparable measure of whether particulate matter
emissions are being appropriately controlled as a more direct
measurement of opacity or particulate matter mass. OAC 3745-17-03(E)
authorizes the use of such parameter monitoring in lieu of continuous
opacity monitoring, in the subset of these cases ``where the use of a
[continuous opacity monitoring system] would not provide accurate
determinations of opacity.'' Under these circumstances, EPA believes
that OAC 3745-17-03(E) provides a suitably constrained opportunity for
facilities to conduct parameter monitoring in lieu of opacity
monitoring. OAC 3745-17-03(E) requires the approval of both Ohio and
EPA, and the rule stipulates that the parameter monitoring is to be a
reliable indicator of whether the facility is complying with applicable
limits. That is, EPA views this alternative as being available only in
facility-specific circumstances where continuous opacity monitoring is
unreliable and where parameter monitoring provides reliable, continuous
assessment of control effectiveness comparable to the level of
compliance monitoring that EPA intended by promulgating appendix P. For
this subset of facilities, EPA believes that parameter monitoring can
provide a suitable alternative approach to continuous compliance
monitoring.

III. Review of Other Rule Revisions

    As summarized above, Ohio's revisions to OAC Chapter 3745-17,
besides the addition of alternatives to continuous opacity monitoring
discussed in the previous section, include clarification that OAC
Chapter 3745-17 rules do not regulate residential wood combustion,
removal of provisions that pertain to facilities that have shut down,
and modification of wording for phrases that Ohio wishes to rephrase.
    Chapter 3745-17 includes 11 rules, extending from 3745-17-01 to
3745-17-14 but not including adopted but now rescinded rules numbered
3745-17-02, 3745-17-05, or 3745-17-06.

Ohio revised all 11 of these remaining rules.
    Rule 3745-17-02, entitled ``Air Quality Standards,'' was previously
moved to OAC Chapter 3745-25 for consolidation with air quality
standards for other pollutants. EPA approved the moved rule, in OAC
3745-25-02, in an action published on October 26, 2010, at 75 FR 65572,
but EPA did not approve the rescission of OAC 3745-17-02. Therefore,
EPA is proposing to approve the rescission of OAC 3745-17-02 as part of
this action. OAC 3745-17-05 and 3745-17-06 have already been rescinded
from the SIP.
    The following discussion reviews each rule's revisions
individually.

--3745-17-01, ``Definitions''--The primary revisions to OAC 3745-17-01
are to add definitions of various terms pertaining to residential wood
combustion, including central heater, chip wood fuel, fireplace, pellet
fuel, pellet stove, residential force air furnace, residential hydronic
heater, residential masonry heater, residential wood burning appliance,
and wood heater. These definitions are sensible definitions that
clearly establish appropriate categories of sources for use in other
regulations. The appropriateness of the regulatory provisions in other
rules based on these definitions is reviewed as part of the review of
the other rules. This rule also includes reasonable additions to the
reference material that is used in evaluating compliance with the
provisions of OAC Chapter 3745-17.
--3745-17-03--``Measurement Methods and Procedures''--The primary
revisions in this rule are the addition of the two alternatives to
compliance with requirements for continuous opacity monitoring. These
revisions were reviewed in the prior section of this preamble.

    While Ohio requested approval of most of OAC 3745-17-03, Ohio
expressly excluded two elements of OAC 3745-17-03 from this request.
One of these elements, in OAC 3745-17-03(B)(1)(b), offers an alternate
opacity limit (in brief, authorizing 1.1 percent of nonexempt 6-minute
opacity values to exceed 20 percent opacity) for power plants operating
continuous opacity monitoring systems. The second, associated element
is the phrase in OAC 3745-17-03(B)(1)(a) stating ``Except as provided
in paragraph (B)(1)(b) of this rule''. These are provisions that Ohio
submitted on June 4, 2003, that EPA proposed to disapprove on June 27,
2005, and that Ohio withdrew from consideration on September 5, 2014.
Accordingly, EPA is proposing to act on most of OAC 3745-17-03, notably
including paragraphs 3745-17-03(D) and (E), but EPA is proposing not to
act on subparagraph 3745-17-03(B)(1)(b) and the specified phrase in
3745-17-03(B)(1)(a).
    Revised OAC 3745-17-03 modifies the reference method for measuring
opacity, which previously only identified Method 9 (in 40 CFR 60
appendix A), to include ``USEPA method 9 or continuous opacity
monitoring as specified in paragraph (C) of this rule.'' These two
methods make different measurements, notably insofar as Method 9
involves human observations which consider the effect of condensable
particulate matter (i.e., material that is in gaseous form in the stack
but condenses into solid form after leaving the stack), whereas in-
stack continuous opacity monitoring does not. The in-stack continuous
opacity monitoring will understate opacity (and understate this
indicator or particulate emissions) to the extent that it excludes
condensable particulate matter, but EPA generally considers suitable
continuous opacity monitoring indicating noncompliance to be actionable
basis for concluding that particulate matter emission control is
inadequate. EPA understands the revised rule to provide that
measurements by either method that indicate a violation of opacity
limits shall constitute evidence of noncompliance, regardless of
whether data based on the other method are available or whether data
based on the other method indicate compliance.
    Revised OAC 3745-17-03 also contains a small number of editorial
revisions, for example converting singular/plural constructions to the
plural (e.g., converting ``charge(s)'' to ``charges'') and removing
selected unnecessary text (simplifying ``in accordance with the
requirements of `USEPA Performance Specification 1' '' to ``in
accordance with `USEPA Performance Specification 1' ''). These
editorial revisions yield an equally acceptable regulation.

--3745-17-04--``Compliance Time Schedules''--The primary revisions in
this rule are the removal of provisions that apply to facilities that
have shut down. Ohio also adopted numerous editorial simplifications in
this rule, for example to remove the phrase ``the requirements of''
where this phrase is unnecessary. These revisions do not alter the
substantive requirements of this rule, and so the revised rule is
approvable.
--3745-17-07--``Control of Visible Particulate Emissions from
Stationary Sources''--Ohio added residential wood burning appliances
and pellet stoves as explicitly exempted from the opacity limits in
this rule. This rule had already exempted sources that are not subject
to mass emission limits in specified other rules. Residential wood
burning appliances and pellet stoves are not subject to the mass
emission limits in the specified other rules, and so these sources were
already exempt from the opacity limits of OAC 3745-17-07. Thus, the
addition of an explicit exemption for these sources does not relax the
requirements of the SIP, and instead merely clarifies that these
sources are exempt from the opacity limits of OAC 3745-17-07.

    Ohio also removed source-specific opacity limits for sources that
have shut down, and Ohio made editorial revisions similar to those
discussed above. These revisions are approvable.

--3745-17-08--``Restriction of Emission of Fugitive Dust''--The primary
revisions in this rule are the removal of provisions that applied only
to sources that have now shut down and editorial revisions similar to
those discussed above. Also, for sources that are to apply for a permit
to address nuisances, Ohio revised OAC 3745-17-08 to reflect revised
permitting procedures implemented in other Ohio rules since OAC Chapter
3745-17 was last revised. Finally, Ohio added maps to illustrate the
areas that are subject to long-standing requirements for reasonably
available control measures. These revisions result in an equally
protective set of rules and are approvable.
--3745-17-09--``Restrictions on Particulate Emissions and Odors from
Incinerators''--Ohio reformatted the text of this regulation but made
no substantive changes. These revisions are approvable.
--3745-17-10--``Restrictions on Particulate Emissions from Fuel-burning
Equipment''--Ohio removed provisions that are moot due to shutdown of
an affected facility, and Ohio made editorial revisions similar to
those discussed above. These revisions are approvable.
--3745-17-11--``Restrictions on Particulate Emissions from Industrial
Processes''--Ohio added a handful of clarifications to this rule. OAC
3745-17-11 is Ohio's process weight rule, i.e., a rule that imposes
limits that are a function of the weight of materials that a facility
processes. The rule has special provisions for surface coating
operations; Ohio amended the text to

clarify that only surface coaters that are exempt based on usage of
less than five gallons of coatings per day must keep records on
coatings usage; Ohio also amended this provision to require that such
sources also keep records of coating method. Ohio codified long-
standing policy that the process weight used in determining the limit
under this rule does not include ``liquid and gaseous fuels when they
are used solely as fuels and combustion air.'' Ohio further made
assorted editorial and correcting amendments, such as correcting a
source's address. These revisions result in an equally protective set
of rules and are approvable.
--3745-17-12--``Additional Restrictions on Particulate Emissions from
Specific Air Contaminant Sources in Cuyahoga County''--Most of the
revisions to this rule are to remove provisions that are moot due to
shutdown of the affected source. Ohio also updated the names of
companies in applicable cases. These revisions have no substantive
effect on the requirements of the rule and are approvable.
--3745-17-13--``Additional Restrictions on Particulate Emissions from
Specific Air Contaminant Sources in Jefferson County''--As with OAC
3745-17-12, the revisions to OAC 3745-17-13 remove the provisions that
apply to sources that no longer operate and update the names of
affected companies where appropriate. These revisions have no
substantive effect on the requirements of the rule and are approvable.
--3745-17-14--``Contingency Plan Requirements for Cuyahoga and
Jefferson Counties''--The primary revisions to this rule are to remove
companies that are no longer operating. Ohio also made editorial
revisions similar to those discussed above. These revisions are
approvable.

IV. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve the rules in OAC 3745-17 that Ohio
requested be approved. A full listing of the rules that EPA is
proposing to approve is provided in Table 1. EPA is proposing to
approve the entirety of all of these rules except for OAC 3745-17-03,
for which Ohio's request excluded specified sections. In addition, EPA
is proposing to remove OAC 3745-17-02, which Ohio has rescinded and the
substance of which has been recodified (and approved into the SIP)
within OAC 3745-25-02.

                Table 1--OAC 3745-17 ``Particulate Matter Standards,'' Effective January 20, 2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Portion proposed  for
                Rule No.                                  Rule title                           approval
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3745-17-01..............................  Definitions...............................  Entirety.
3745-17-03..............................  Measurement Methods and Procedures........  All except paragraph
                                                                                (B)(1)(b) and the
                                                                                reference to that
                                                                                paragraph in paragraph
                                                                                (B)(1)(a).
3745-17-04..............................  Compliance Time Schedules.................  Entirety.
3745-17-07..............................  Control of Visible Particulate Emissions    Entirety.
                                           from Stationary Sources.
3745-17-08..............................  Restriction of Emission of Fugitive Dust..  Entirety.
3745-17-09..............................  Restrictions on Particulate Emissions and   Entirety.
                                           Odors from Incinerators.
3745-17-10..............................  Restrictions on Particulate Emissions from  Entirety.
                                           Fuel-burning Equipment.
3745-17-11..............................  Restrictions on Particulate Emissions from  Entirety.
                                           Industrial Processes.
3745-17-12..............................  Additional Restrictions on Particulate      Entirety.
                                           Emissions from Specific Air Contaminant
                                           Sources in Cuyahoga County.
3745-17-13..............................  Additional Restrictions on Particulate      Entirety.
                                           Emissions from Specific Air Contaminant
                                           Sources in Jefferson County.
3745-17-14..............................  Contingency Plan Requirements for Cuyahoga  Entirety.
                                           and Jefferson Counties.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the Ohio particulate matter rules discussed in section IV.
``What Action is EPA Taking?'' of this preamble. EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these documents generally available through
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 5 Office (please contact the
person identified in the ``For Further Information Contact'' section of
this preamble for more information).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act
and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     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 Clean
Air Act; 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: November 27, 2018.
Cathy Stepp,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2018-26780 Filed 12-10-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Family Name Scientific Name Common Name Anarhichadidae Anarrhichthys ocellatus eel, wolf Atherinopsidae Leuresthes tenuis grunion, California Atherinopsis californiensis jacksmelt Atherinops affinis topsmelt Batrachoididae Porichthys notatus midshipman, plainfin Bothidae Paralichthys californicus halibut, California Citharichthys sordidus sanddab, Pacific Citharichthys stigmaeus sanddab, speckled Carangidae Seriola dorsalis yellowtail Chimaeridae Hydrolagus colliei ratfish Clinidae Heterostichus rostratus kelpfish, giant Cottidae Scorpaenichthys marmoratus cabezon Hemilepidotus hemilepidotus Irish lord, red Leptocottus armatus sculpin, staghorn Cynoglossidae Symphurus atricauda tonguefish, California Dasyatididae Urolophus halleri stingray, round Embiotocidae Amphistichus argenteus surfperch, barred Embiotoca jacksoni surfperch, black Amphistichus koelzi surfperch, calico Damalichthys vacca surfperch, pile Amphistichus rhodoterus surfperch, redtail Rhacochilus toxotes surfperch, rubberlip Cymatogaster aggregata surfperch, shiner Embiotoca lateralis surfperch, striped Hyperprosopon argenteum surfperch, walleye Phanerodon furcatus surfperch, white Girellidae Girella nigricans opaleye Gobiidae Lythrypnus dalli goby, bluebanded Lythrypnus zebra goby, zebra Gillichthys mirabilis mudsucker, longjaw Haemulidae Anisotremus davidsoni sargo Xenistius californiensis salema Heterodontidae Heterodontus francisci shark, horn Table 1. Nearshore fishes of California included in the life history survey ( 124 species, 42 families). List is alphabetized first by Family name, then by common name. Family Name Scientific Name Common Name Hexagrammidae Hexagrammos decagrammus greenling, kelp Hexagrammos superciliosus greenling, rock Ophiodon elongatus lingcod Hexanchidae Notorynchus maculatus shark, sevengill Hexanchus griseus shark, sixgill Kyphosidae Hermosilla azurea zebra perch Labridae Oxyjulis californica senorita Semicossyphus pulcher sheephead, California Halichoeres semicinctus wrasse, rock Malacanthidae Caulolatilus princeps whitefish, ocean Mugilidae Mugil cephalus mullet, striped Muraenidae Gymnothorax mordax eel, California moray Myliobatididae Myliobatis californica ray, bat Osmeridae Thaleichthys pacificus eulachon Spirinchus thaleichthys smelt, longfin Spirinchus starksi smelt, night Hypomesus pretiosus smelt, surf Platyrhinidae Platyrhinoidis triseriata thornback Pleuronectidae Platichthys stellatus flounder, starry Parophrys vetulus sole, English Eopsetta jordani sole, petrale Lepidopsetta bilineata sole, rock Psettichthys melanostictus sole, sand Lyopsetta exilis sole, slender Pleuronichthys coenosus turbot, C O Pleuronichthys decurrens turbot, curlfin Hypsopsetta guttulata turbot, diamond Pleuronichthys verticalis turbot, hornyhead Pleuronichthys ritteri turbot, spotted Pomacentridae Chromis punctipinnis blacksmith Hypsypops rubicundus garibaldi Rajidae Raja binoculata skate, big Raja inornata skate, California Raja rhina skate, longnose Raja kincaidii skate, sandpaper Raja stellulata skate, starry Table 1 ( cont'd). Nearshore fishes of California. Family Name Scientific Name Common Name Rhinobatidae Rhinobatos productus guitarfish, shovelnose Sciaenidae Menticirrhus undulatus corbina, California Genyonemus lineatus croaker, white Roncador stearnsii croaker, spotfin Umbrina roncador croaker, yellowfin Seriphus politus queenfish Atractoscion nobilis white sea bass Scorpaenidae Sebastes melanops rockfish, black Sebastes chrysomelas rockfish, black and yellow Sebastes mystinus rockfish, blue Sebastes auriculatus rockfish, brown Sebastes dallii rockfish, calico Sebastes nebulosus rockfish, China Sebastes caurinus rockfish, copper Sebastes rubrivinctus rockfish, flag Sebastes carnatus rockfish, gopher Sebastes rastrelliger rockfish, grass Sebastes chlorostictus rockfish, greenspotted Sebastes elongatus rockfish, greenstriped Sebastes semicinctus rockfish, halfbanded Sebastes atrovirens rockfish, kelp Sebastes serranoides rockfish, olive Sebastes maliger rockfish, quillback Sebastes rosaceus rockfish, rosy Sebastes ovalis rockfish, speckled Sebastes hopkinsi rockfish, squarespot Sebastes constellatus rockfish, starry Sebastes saxicola rockfish, stripetail Sebastes nigrocinctus rockfish, tiger Sebastes serriceps rockfish, treefish Sebastes miniatus rockfish, vermilion Sebastes ruberrimus rockfish, yelloweye Scorpaena guttata scorpionfish, spotted Sebastolobus altivelis thornyhead, longspine Sebastolobus alascanus thornyhead, shortspine Scorpididae Medialuna californiensis halfmoon Scyliorhinidae Cephaloscyllium ventriosum shark, swell Serranidae Paralabrax nebulifer bass, barred sand Stereolepis gigas bass, giant sea Paralabrax clathratus bass, kelp Paralabrax maculatofasciatus bass, spotted sand Sphyraenidae Sphyraena argentea barracuda, California Table 1 ( cont'd). Nearshore fishes of California. Family Name Scientific Name Common Name Squalidae Squalus acanthias shark, spiny dogfish Squatinidae Squatina californica shark, Pacific angel Stichaeidae Cebidichthys violaceus eel, monkeyface Xiphister mucosus prickleback, rock Stromateidae Peprilus simillimus butterfish, Pacific Syngnathidae Syngnathus leptorhynchus pipefish, bay Syngnathus californiensis pipefish, kelp Hippocampus ingens seahorse, Pacific Torpedinidae Torpedo californica ray, Pacific electric Triakidae Mustelus henlei shark, brown smoothhound Mustelus californicus shark, grey smoothhound Triakis semifasciata shark, leopard Galeorhinus zyopterus shark, soupfin Table 1 ( cont'd). Nearshore fishes of California.


[Federal Register: September 18, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 180)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 47873-47875]
[DOCID:fr18se09-2]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0747]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; San Clemente Island Northwest Harbor October and
November Training; Northwest Harbor, San Clemente Island, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone on the navigable
waters of the Northwest Harbor of San Clemente Island in support of the
Naval Underwater Detonation. This safety zone is necessary to ensure
non-authorized personnel and vessels remain safe by keeping clear of
the hazardous area during the training activity. Persons and vessels
are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring
within this safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port
(COTP) or his designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from October 1, 2009 through November 30,
2009.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2009-0747 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2009-0747 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or e-mail Petty Officer Kristen Beer, Waterways
Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, Coast Guard; telephone
619-278-7262, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on
viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because immediate action is necessary to
ensure the safety of commercial and recreational vessels in the
vicinity of any underwater detonation on the dates and times this rule
will be in effect and delay would be contrary to the public interest.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delay in the effective date would
be contrary to the public interest, since immediate action is needed to
ensure the public's safety.

Background and Purpose

    The Navy will be conducting intermittent training involving the
detonation of military grade explosives underwater throughout October
and November 2009. This safety zone is necessary to ensure non-
authorized personnel and vessels remain safe by keeping clear of the
hazardous area during the training activity.

Discussion of Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone that will be enforced
from October 1, 2009 through November 30, 2009. The limits of the
safety zone will be the navigable waters of the Northwest Harbor of San
Clemente Island bounded by the following coordinates: 33[deg]02'06'' N,
118[deg]35'36'' W; 33[deg]02'00'' N, 118[deg]34'36'' W; thence along
San Clemente Island shoreline to 33[deg]02'06'' N, 118[deg]35'36'' W.
This safety zone is necessary to ensure non-authorized personnel and
vessels remain safe by keeping clear of the hazardous area during the
training activities. Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering
into, transiting through, or anchoring within this safety zone unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated
representative.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a
full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This determination is based
on the size and location of the safety zone. Commercial and
recreational vessels will not be allowed to transit through the
designated safety zone during the specified times while training is
being conducted.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and

governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: The owners or operators of commercial and recreational
vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the Northwest
Harbor of San Clemente Island from October 1, 2009 through November 30,
2009.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons.
Although the safety zone will apply to the entire width of the harbor,
commercial and recreational vessels will be allowed to pass through the
zone with the permission of the U.S. Navy or Coast Guard COTP San
Diego. Before the effective periods, the Coast Guard will issue
broadcast notice to mariners (BNM) alerts and publish local notice to
mariners (LNM).

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we
do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually
or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph
(34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule involves the establishment of a
temporary safety zone. An environmental analysis checklist and a
categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5;
Pub. L. 107-295; 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add a new temporary section Sec.  165.T11-232 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T11-232  Safety Zone; San Clemente Island Northwest Harbor
October and November Training; Northwest Harbor, San Clemente Island,
CA.

    (a) Location. The limits of the safety zone will include the
navigable waters of the Northwest Harbor of San Clemente Island bounded
by the following coordinates: 33[deg]02'06'' N, 118[deg]35'36'' W;
33[deg]02'00'' N, 118[deg]34'36'' W; thence along the coast of San
Clemente Island to 33[deg]02'06'' N, 118[deg]35'36'' W.
    (b) Enforcement Period. This section will be enforced from October
1, 2009 through November 30, 2009 during naval training exercises. If
the training is concluded prior to the scheduled termination time, the
COTP will cease enforcement of this safety zone and will announce that
fact via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
    (c) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section:
    (1) Designated representative means any Commissioned, Warrant, or
Petty Officers of the Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, or local,
state, and federal law enforcement vessels who have been authorized to
act on the behalf of the COTP.
    (2) Non-authorized personnel and vessels, means any civilian boats,
fishermen, divers, and swimmers.
    (d) Regulations. (1) Entry into, transit through or anchoring
within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP San
Diego or his designated representative.
    (2) Non-authorized personnel and vessels requesting permission to
transit through the safety zone may request authorization to do so from
the COTP San Diego or his designated representative. They may be
contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16, or at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Naval units involved in the exercise are allowed in the
confines of the established safety zone.
    (4) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of
the Coast Guard COTP or his designated representative.
    (5) Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast Guard or other official
personnel by siren, radio, flashing light, or other
    means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed.
    (6) The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or
local agencies and the U.S. Navy.

    Dated: August 31, 2009.
T.H. Farris,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. E9-22462 Filed 9-17-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 221 (Monday, November 17, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68427-68429]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27054]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12636-002]

Mohawk Hydro Corporation; Notice of Application Tendered for
Filing With the Commission and Soliciting Additional Study Requests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Original Major License
    b. Project No.: 12636-002
    c. Date filed: October 24, 2014
    d. Applicant: Mohawk Hydro Corporation
    e. Name of Project: Middle Mohawk Hydroelectric Project
    f. Location: The project would be located on the Mohawk River, in
Schenectady and Montgomery Counties, New York.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Wendy Jo Carey, Mohawk Hydro Corporation, 5
Washington Square, Albany, NY 12205; or at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Monir Chowdhury,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Cooperating agencies: Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies
with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the
environmental document should follow the instructions for filing such
requests described in item l below. Cooperating agencies should note
the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation
of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See, 94 FERC ]
61,076 (2001).
    k. Pursuant to section 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's
regulations, if any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person believes
that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to
form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the
application on its merit, the resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person
must file a request for a study with the Commission not later than 60
days from the date of filing of the application, and serve a copy of
the request on the applicant.
    l. Deadline for filing additional study requests and requests for
cooperating agency status: December 23, 2014.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency status
using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. 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. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-12636-002.
    m. The application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    n. The proposed project would be located at eight existing lock and
dam facilities (Lock Numbers: E8 through E15) that are owned by the New
York State Canal Corporation. The proposed run-of-river project would
consist of the following eight developments:
    Lock E8 Scotia Development would consist of: (1) An existing 530-
foot-long, 14-foot-high bridge type dam; (2) an existing 336-acre
impoundment at an elevation of 223.44 feet North Atlantic Vertical
Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88); (3) two new identical modular steel
transportable barges, with each barge resting on a foundation
consisting of four steel reinforced concrete pylons and consisting of:
(a) A steel intake structure approximately 130 feet long by 40 feet
wide by 15 feet high and (b) an approximately 130-foot-long by 40-foot-
wide by 10-foot-high steel powerhouse containing nine turbine-generator
units having a capacity of 220 kilowatts (kW) each; (4) a new short
transmission line connecting a new transportable 40-foot-long by 8-
foot-wide by 8-foot-high grid interface unit to an existing 34.5-
kilovolt (kV) or lower voltage grid distribution or sub-transmission
line; and (5) appurtenant facilities. The development would have an
annual generation of 15,473 megawatt-hours (MWh).
    Lock E9 Rotterdam Junction Development would consist of: (1) An
existing 530-foot-long, 15-foot-high bridge type dam; (2) an existing
428-acre impoundment at an elevation of 238.78 feet NAVD 88; (3) two
new identical modular steel transportable barges, with

each barge resting on a foundation consisting of four steel reinforced
concrete pylons and consisting of: (a) A steel intake structure
approximately 130 feet long by 40 feet wide by 15 feet high and (b) an
approximately 130-foot-long by 40-foot-wide by 10-foot-high steel
powerhouse containing nine turbine-generator units having a capacity of
220 kW each; (4) a new short transmission line connecting a new
transportable 40-foot-long by 8-foot-wide by 8-foot-high grid interface
unit to an existing 34.5-kV or lower voltage grid distribution or sub-
transmission line; and (5) appurtenant facilities. The development
would have an annual generation of 16,440 MWh.
    Lock E10 Cranesville Development would consist of: (1) An existing
500-foot-long, 15-foot-high bridge type dam; (2) an existing 414-acre
impoundment at an elevation of 253.37 feet NAVD 88; (3) two new
identical modular steel transportable barges, with each barge resting
on a foundation consisting of four steel reinforced concrete pylons and
consisting of: (a) A steel intake structure approximately 130 feet long
by 40 feet wide by 15 feet high and (b) an approximately 130-foot-long
by 40-foot-wide by 10-foot-high steel powerhouse containing nine
turbine-generator units having a capacity of 220 kilowatts each; (4) a
new short transmission line connecting a new transportable 40-foot-long
by 8-foot-wide by 8-foot-high grid interface unit to an existing 34.5-
kV or lower voltage grid distribution or sub-transmission line; and (5)
appurtenant facilities. The development would have an annual generation
of 16,296 MWh.
    Lock E11 Amsterdam Development would consist of: (1) An existing
588-foot-long, 12-foot-high bridge type dam; (2) an existing 414-acre
impoundment at an elevation of 265.44 feet NAVD 88; (3) two new
identical modular steel transportable barges, with each barge resting
on a foundation consisting of four steel reinforced concrete pylons and
consisting of: (a) A steel intake structure approximately 130 feet long
by 40 feet wide by 15 feet high and (b) an approximately 130-foot-long
by 40-foot-wide by 10-foot-high steel powerhouse containing nine
turbine-generator units having a capacity of 220 kilowatts each; (4) a
new short transmission line connecting a new transportable 40-foot-long
by 8-foot-wide by 8-foot-high grid interface unit to an existing 34.5-
kV or lower voltage grid distribution or sub-transmission line; and (5)
appurtenant facilities. The development would have an annual generation
of 12,461 MWh.
    Lock E12 Tribes Hill Development would consist of: (1) An existing
460-foot-long, 11-foot-high bridge type dam; (2) an existing 737-acre
impoundment at an elevation of 276.52 feet NAVD 88; (3) two new
identical modular steel transportable barges, with each barge resting
on a foundation consisting of four steel reinforced concrete pylons and
consisting of: (a) A steel intake structure approximately 130 feet long
by 40 feet wide by 15 feet high and (b) an approximately 130-foot-long
by 40-foot-wide by 10-foot-high steel powerhouse containing nine
turbine-generator units having a capacity of 220 kilowatts each; (4) a
new short transmission line connecting a new transportable 40-foot-long
by 8-foot-wide by 8-foot-high grid interface unit to an existing 34.5-
kV or lower voltage grid distribution or sub-transmission line; and (5)
appurtenant facilities. The development would have an annual generation
of 11,266 MWh.
    Lock E13 Randall Development would consist of: (1) An existing 370-
foot-long, 8-foot-high bridge type dam; (2) an existing 464-acre
impoundment at an elevation of 284.52 feet NAVD 88; (3) two new
identical modular steel transportable barges, with each barge resting
on a foundation consisting of four steel reinforced concrete pylons and
consisting of: (a) A steel intake structure approximately 130 feet long
by 40 feet wide by 15 feet high and (b) an approximately 130-foot-long
by 40-foot-wide by 10-foot-high steel powerhouse containing nine
turbine-generator units having a capacity of 220 kilowatts each; (4) a
new short transmission line connecting a new transportable 40-foot-long
by 8-foot-wide by 8-foot-high grid interface unit to an existing 34.5-
kV or lower voltage grid distribution or sub-transmission line; and (5)
appurtenant facilities. The development would have an annual generation
of 7,734 MWh.
    Lock E14 Canajoharie Development would consist of: (1) An existing
430-foot-long, 8-foot-high bridge type dam; (2) an existing 219-acre
impoundment at an elevation of 292.38 feet NAVD 88; (3) two new
identical modular steel transportable barges, with each barge resting
on a foundation consisting of four steel reinforced concrete pylons and
consisting of: (a) A steel intake structure approximately 130 feet long
by 40 feet wide by 15 feet high and (b) an approximately 130-foot-long
by 40-foot-wide by 10-foot-high steel powerhouse containing nine
turbine-generator units having a capacity of 220 kilowatts each; (4) a
new short transmission line connecting a new transportable 40-foot-long
by 8-foot-wide by 8-foot-high grid interface unit to an existing 34.5-
kV or lower voltage grid distribution or sub-transmission line; and (5)
appurtenant facilities. The development would have an annual generation
of 7,133 MWh.
    Lock E15 Fort Plain Development would consist of: (1) An existing
430-foot-long, 8-foot-high bridge type dam; (2) an existing 578-acre
impoundment at an elevation of 300.31 feet NAVD 88; (3) two new
identical modular steel transportable barges, with each barge resting
on a foundation consisting of four steel reinforced concrete pylons and
consisting of: (a) A steel intake structure approximately 130 feet long
by 40 feet wide by 15 feet high and (b) an approximately 130-foot-long
by 40-foot-wide by 10-foot-high steel powerhouse containing nine
turbine-generator units having a capacity of 220 kilowatts each; (4) a
new short transmission line connecting a new transportable 40-foot-long
by 8-foot-wide by 8-foot-high grid interface unit to an existing 34.5-
kV or lower voltage grid distribution or sub-transmission line; and (5)
appurtenant facilities. The development would have an annual generation
of 6,879 MWh.
    Each development would be operated during the navigation season
(May through November) only. The proposed transportable barges would be
deployed at the beginning of each navigation season and removed at the
close of the navigation season.
    o. A copy of the application is available for electronic review at
the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item h above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    p. Procedural schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following preliminary Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the
schedule will be made as appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Milestone                              Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue Acceptance or Deficiency        January 2015.
 Letter.

Request Additional Information......  January 2015.
Issue Notice of Acceptance..........   April 2015.
Issue Scoping Document 1 for          May 2015.
 Comments.
Hold Scoping Meeting................  June 2015.
Comments Due on Scoping Document 1..   July 2015.
Issue Scoping Document 2............  August 2015.
Issue Notice of Ready for             August 2015.
 Environmental Analysis.
Commission Issues EA................  February 2016.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: November 7, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-27054 Filed 11-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 115 (Wednesday, June 15, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36121-36122]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12905]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC22-9-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-912); Comment
Request; Extension

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of information collections and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or
FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved
information collection, FERC-912 (PURPA Section 210(m) Notification
Requirements Applicable to Cogeneration and Small Power Production
Facilities) and is submitting the information collection to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any interested person may
file comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those
comments to the Commission as explained below. The Commission published
a 60-day notice in the Federal Register on March 23, 2022. The
Commission received no comments.

DATES: Comments on collections of information are due July 15, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments on FERC Form 912 (IC22-9-000) to OMB
through www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, Attention: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission Desk Officer. Please identify the OMB Control
Number 1902-0237 (PURPA Section 210(m) Notification Requirements
Applicable to Cogeneration and Small Power Production Facilities) in
the subject line. Your comments should be sent within 30 days of
publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
    Please submit copies of your comments (identified by Docket No.
IC22-9-000) to the Commission as noted below. Electronic filing through
http://www.ferc.gov, is preferred.
     Electronic Filing: Documents must be filed in acceptable
native applications and print-to-PDF, but not in scanned or picture
format.
     For those unable to file electronically, comments may be
filed by USPS mail or by hand (Including Courier) delivery.
    [cir] Mail via U.S. Postal Service only, addressed to: Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First
Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    [cir] Hand (including courier) Delivery to: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Instructions: OMB submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Using the search function under the ``Currently Under Review
field,'' select Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; click ``submit''
and select ``comment'' to the right of the subject collection. FERC
submissions must be formatted and filed in accordance with submission
guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov. For user assistance, contact FERC
Online Support by email at [email protected], or by phone at:
(866) 208-3676 (toll-free).
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
[email protected] and telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: FERC-912, PURPA Section 210(m) Notification Requirements
Applicable to Cogeneration and Small Power Production Facilities.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0237.
    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-912 information
collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting
requirements.
    Abstract: On 8/8/2005, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005)
\1\ was signed into law. Section 1253(a) of EPAct 2005 amends Section
210 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) by
adding subsection ``(m),'' that provides, based on a specified showing,
for the termination and subsequent reinstatement of an electric
utility's obligation to purchase from, and sell energy and capacity to,
qualifying facilities (QFs). In 2019, the Commission revised its
regulations in 18 CFR 292.309-292.313 in Docket No. RM19-15-000 to
account for industry changes. These industry changes include: the
decrease in reliance on oil and natural gas, the increase of natural
gas supply due to access of shale reserves, and the decreasing costs of
renewable energy sources. Due to the modifications in the rulemaking,
the Commission revised its information collection requirements. The
Commission now collects the following information on FERC Form 912:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Public Law 109-58, 119 Stat. 594 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Sec.  292.310: an electric utility's application for the
termination of its obligation to purchase energy from a QF,
     Sec.  292.311: an affected entity or person's application
to the Commission for an order reinstating the electric utility's
obligation to purchase energy from a QF,
     Sec.  292.312: an electric utility's application for the
termination of its obligation to sell energy and capacity to QFs, and
     Sec.  292.313: an affected entity or person's application
to the Commission for an order reinstating the electric utility's
obligation to sell energy and capacity to QFs.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 18 CFR 292.311 and 292.313.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Type of Respondents: Electric utilities.
    Estimate of Annual Burden: \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Burden as the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. For further
explanation of what is included in the information collection
burden, refer to Title 5 Code of Federal Regulations 1320.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission estimates the total Public Reporting Burden and cost
for this information collection as follows:

   FERC-912 (IC22-9-000)--Cogeneration and Small Power Production, PURPA Section 210(m) Regulations for Termination or Reinstatement of Obligation To
                                                                    Purchase or Sell
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Number of                        Average burden hours &                                    Cost per
                                  Number of     responses per  Total number  of  average cost per response   Total annual burden hours &    respondent
                                 respondents     respondent        responses               ($) \4\             total annual cost  ($)           ($)
                                          (1)             (2)   (1) x (2) = (3)  (4)......................  (3) x (4) = (5).............     (5) / (1) =
                                                                                (6)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Termination of obligation to               10             1.5                15  12; $1,044...............  180; $15,660................          $1,566
 purchase.
Reinstatement of obligations                0               0                 0  0; 0.....................  0; 0........................               0
 to purchase.
Termination of obligation to                2               1                 2  8; 696...................  16; 1,392...................             696
 sell.
Reinstatement of obligation                 0               0                 0  0; 0.....................  0; 0........................               0
 to sell.
                              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total....................  ..............  ..............  ................  .........................  196 hours; $17,052..........          $2,262
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The estimates for cost per response are derived using the
following formula: Average Burden Hours per Response * $87.00 per
Hour = Average Cost per Response. The hourly cost figure comes from
the FERC average salary ($180,702/year). Commission staff believes
the 2021 FERC average salary to be a representative wage for
industry respondents.

    Dated: June 9, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-12905 Filed 6-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 42 (Tuesday, March 4, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12134-12135]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04625]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 15

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0745]

Action Plan for the Collection, Analysis, and Availability of
Demographic Subgroup Data in Applications for Approval of Food and Drug
Administration-Regulated Medical Products; Notice of Public Hearing;
Request for Comments

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notification of public hearing; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing a public
hearing to obtain input on the issues and challenges associated with
the collection, analysis, and availability of demographic subgroup data
in applications for approval of FDA-regulated human medical products.

DATES: The public hearing will be held on April 1, 2014, from 9 a.m. to
3 p.m. Submit electronic or written requests to make oral presentations
at the hearing by March 21, 2014. Electronic or written comments will
be accepted after the hearing until May 16, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The public hearing will be held at FDA's White Oak Campus,
10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Conference Center, the Great Room
(Rm. 1503A), Silver Spring, MD 20993. Entrance for the public hearing
participants (non-FDA employees) is through Building 1 where routine
security check procedures will be performed. For parking and security
information, please refer to http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WorkingatFDA/BuildingsandFacilities/WhiteOakCampusInformation/ucm241740.htm.
    Submit electronic comments 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. All comments should be identified with the corresponding docket
number for the public meeting as follows: ``Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0745,
Action Plan for the Collection, Analysis, and Availability of
Demographic Subgroup Data in Applications for Approval of FDA-Regulated
Human Medical Products, Public Hearing.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brenda Evelyn, Office of the
Commissioner, Office of Minority Health, Food and Drug Administration,
10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 2303, Silver Spring, MD 20993
240-402-4201, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In section 907 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and
Innovation Act (FDASIA) (Pub. L. 112-144), the U.S. Congress directed
FDA to produce a report that addressed the extent to which clinical
trial participation and the inclusion of safety and effectiveness data
by demographic subgroups, including sex, age, race, and ethnicity, is
included in applications submitted to FDA. Specifically, Congress asked
FDA to consider four key topic areas: (1) A description of existing
tools to ensure submission of demographic information along with how
information about differences in safety and effectiveness of medical
products according to demographic subgroup is made available to health
care providers, researchers, and patients; (2) an analysis of the
extent to which demographic data subset analyses are presented in
applications; (3) an analysis of demographic subgroup representation in
clinical trials submitted to FDA in support of product applications;
and (4) an analysis of the extent to which a summary of product safety
and effectiveness data by demographic subgroup is made available to the
public in product labeling or on FDA's Web site.
    To comply with that request, in August 2013, FDA published a report
``Collection, Analysis, and Availability of Demographic Subgroup Data
for FDA-Approved Medical Products.'' \1\ The report describes the
Agency's evaluation of 72 applications approved during 2011 for new
molecular entity drug products, original biologics, and class III
devices (premarket approval).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ FDA, ``Collection, Analysis, and Availability of Demographic
Subgroup Data for FDA-Approved Medical Products,'' August 2012,
available at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/regulatoryinformation/legislation/federalfooddrugandcosmeticactfdcact/significantamendmentstothefdcact/fdasia/ucm365544.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding collection of data, although there was variation by
product area, the evaluation found FDA's statutory and regulatory
requirements, guidances, policies, and procedures generally informed
sponsors about including tabulations of the demographic data on
clinical trial participants and demographic subset analyses in their
medical product applications.
    Similarly, tools (e.g., application review templates and FDA
standard operating policies and procedures) guide regulatory review
staff in the assessment of marketing applications to ensure that
demographic data and subset analyses are included in the information
FDA uses in its review and approval processes.
    However, the extent to which demographic subset data were analyzed
varied across medical product types (drugs, biologics, and devices).
Applications for drugs and biologics uniformly addressed subset
analyses by sex, race, and age--that is, the applications mentioned
demographic subsets in some way. The report noted that FDA's new drug
application regulations (21 CFR part 314; specifically Sec.  314.50)
call for demographic analysis in all applications in the integrated
summaries of safety and effectiveness. Guidance and standard operating
procedures for drugs and biologics also emphasize the importance of
such analyses. There are no regulations requiring demographic analysis
for device applications. Nonetheless, the majority of the device
applications contained a subset analysis for age and sex, with a lower
percentage of applications containing a subset analysis for race and
ethnicity. Inclusion did not necessarily mean that the data on patient
subgroups was sufficient for meaningful analysis or to detect relevant
subgroup effects.
    The report stated that all biologics, drugs, and the majority of
the medical

device applications reviewed provided the composition of clinical study
participants by age, race, and sex. Participants' sex was the most
consistently reported in the medical product applications. For approved
drugs and biologics, the extent to which patients were represented in
clinical trials by age and sex tended to reflect the disease indication
studied. For devices, patient participation by age and sex varied by
product area. Whites represented a high percentage of clinical trial
study participants for biologic, drug, and medical device applications,
and in many cases, other racial subgroups were underrepresented.
    FDA's internal policies, procedures, and regulations encourage
demographic subgroup information be included in marketing applications.
Moreover, following medical product approval, FDA communicates
available information to the public both on the demographic profile of
the study participants and on the demographic data subset analyses
using a variety of mechanisms: Initially with product labeling and
publicly posted clinical reviews, and later, once a product is on the
market, with consumer updates, safety alerts, labeling changes, and
other mechanisms, as needed.
    As is required by section 907 of FDASIA, in response to the
findings in the report, FDA is developing an action plan to address
improving the completeness and quality of analyses of data on
demographic subgroups in labeling, the inclusion of such data in
labeling, and improving the public availability of information on
demographic subgroups to patients, health care providers, and
researchers.

II. Purpose and Scope of the Public Hearing

    As part of FDA's process in the development of the required action
plan, the Agency has decided to hold a public hearing to obtain
information and viewpoints from key stakeholders and expert members of
the public on the following questions:

A. Demographic Subgroup Representation in Clinical Trials

    1. What approaches might be used to encourage enrollment of
representative proportions of subgroup participants in clinical trials
consistent with disease prevalence in the underlying population being
studied?
    2. What sources could be used to define disease prevalence among
subgroups? Are there priority areas for study in terms of disease/
condition, or in terms of demographic subgroup?
    3. What are best practices and considerations for developing
inclusion and exclusion criteria for clinical trials generally and for
the early stages of research?
    4. What approaches should FDA use to standardize the capture of
race and ethnicity information, including for studies conducted outside
the United States?

B. Analysis of Demographic Subgroup Data

    1. What are the statistical challenges in analyzing clinical trial
data to evaluate subgroup differences?
    2. Given that it is not feasible to power most studies to detect
subpopulation differences, what approaches should be used to analyze
subgroups to explore clinically relevant information?
    3. How might additional clinically relevant information about
subgroups be obtained in the postmarket setting?

C. Communication of Demographic Subgroup Information to the Public

    1. What information regarding demographic subgroups is helpful to
health care professionals to make informed decisions about the use of
medical products? To consumers/patients? To researchers?
    2. What is the best way for FDA to communicate and make accessible
such information to health care professionals? To consumers/patients?
To researchers?

III. Attendance and Registration

    If you wish to attend the hearing or make an oral presentation
during the hearing, you must register by submitting either an
electronic request (see the Web address listed at the end of this
paragraph) or written request (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) by
close of business on March 21, 2014. You must provide your name, title,
business affiliation (if applicable), address, email address, and type
of organization you represent (e.g., industry, consumer organization),
and a brief summary of your presentation, if applicable (including the
discussion topic(s) that will be addressed), to http://www.eventbrite.com/e/fda-public-hearing-fdasia-section-907-tickets-10678512719 by March 21, 2014.
    FDA will notify registered presenters of their scheduled
presentation times. Persons registered to make an oral presentation
should check in before the hearing and are encouraged to arrive early
to ensure the designated order of presentation times. We will try to
accommodate all persons who wish to present; however, the duration of
each speaker's testimony may be limited by time constraints. Questions
about the meeting may also be also submitted to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>prior to the April 1, 2014, meeting date.
    The hearing is free and seating will be on a first-come, first-
served basis. Early registration is recommended because seating is
limited. FDA may limit the numbers of participants from individual
organizations as well as total number of attendees based on space
limitations.
    Registrants will receive confirmation once they have been accepted
to attend the hearing. For those who cannot attend in person,
information regarding viewing a live Web cast of the public hearing
will be located on FDA's Web site.
    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, contact
Brenda Evelyn at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

IV. 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. To ensure
consideration, submit comments by (see DATES). 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.

V. Transcripts

    Please be advised that as soon as a transcript is available, it
will be accessible at http://www.regulations.gov. It may be viewed at
the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). A transcript will
also be available in either hardcopy or on CD-ROM, after submission of
a Freedom of Information request. Written requests are to be sent to
the Division of Freedom of Information (ELEM-1029), Food and Drug
Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., Element Bldg., Rockville, MD 20857.

    Dated: February 26, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-04625 Filed 3-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


Russell, A and J. M. Samet, 2011a. Review of the Policy Assessment for the Review of the Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for NOx and SOx: FINAL. EPA-CASAC-11-005.
Russell and Samet, 2011b Review of EPA Draft Documents on Monitoring and Methods for Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) and Sulfur (SOx) http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabpeople.nsf/WebCommittees/CASAC
U.S. EPA, 1973. "Effects of Sulfur Oxide in the Atmosphere on Vegetation". Revised Chapter 5 of Air Quality Criteria For Sulfur Oxides. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, N.C. EPA-R3-73-030.
U.S. EPA. 1982. Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Sulfur Oxides: Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information. OAQPS Staff Paper. EPA-450/5-82-007. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC.
U.S. EPA, 1984a. The Acidic Deposition Phenomenon and Its Effects: Critical Assessment Review Papers. Volume I Atmospheric Sciences. EPA-600/8-83-016AF. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA, 1984b. The Acidic Deposition Phenomenon and Its Effects: Critical Assessment Review Papers. Volume II Effects Sciences. EPA-600/8-83-016BF. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA, 1985. The Acidic Deposition Phenomenon and Its Effects: Critical Assessment Document. EPA-600/8-85/001. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 1995a. Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Nitrogen Dioxide: Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information. OAQPS Staff Paper. EPA-452/R-95-005. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. September.
U.S. EPA. 1995b. Acid Deposition Standard Feasibility Study Report to Congress. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA-430/R-95-001a.
U.S. EPA 2007. Integrated Review Plan for the Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Nitrogen Dioxide and Sulfur Dioxide. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, EPA-452/R-08-006.
U.S. EPA 2008. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Oxides of Nitrogen and Sulfur Ecological Criteria (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., EPA/600/R-08/082F, 2008.
U.S. EPA 2009. Risk and Exposure Assessment for Review of the Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Oxides of Nitrogen and Oxides of Sulfur-Main Content - Final Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., EPA-452/R-09-008a.
U.S. EPA 2011. Policy Assessment for the Review of the Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Oxides of Nitrogen and Oxides of Sulfur. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., EPA-452/R-11-005a.
Wolff, G. T. 1993. CASAC closure letter for the 1993 Criteria Document for Oxides of Nitrogen addressed to U.S. EPA Administrator Carol M. Browner dated September 30, 1993.
Wolff, G. T. 1995. CASAC closure letter for the 1995 OAQPS Staff Paper addressed to U.S. EPA Administrator Carol M. Browner dated August 22, 1995.

Page 179 of 179  -  Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Oxides of Nitrogen and Sulfur

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 50
	Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides.

________________________________
Dated:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  - Lisa P. Jackson
Administrator


Diflubenzuron (108201)

Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA)

Date: November 17, 2011

What is a Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA)?

Available estimates of pesticide usage data for a particular active
ingredient that is used on agricultural crops in the United States.

Pesticide usage data obtained from various sources.  The data are then
merged, averaged, and rounded so that the presented information is not
proprietary, business confidential, or trade secret.

What does it contain?

Pesticide usage data for a single active ingredient only.

Agricultural use sites (crops) that the pesticide is reported to be used
on.

Available pesticide usage information from U.S. states that produce 80%
or more of a crop, in most cases, or less than 80%, in rare cases,
depending on the scope of the survey and available resources.

Annual percent of crop treated (average & maximum) for each agricultural
crop.

Average annual pounds of the pesticide applied for each agricultural
crop (i.e., for the states surveyed, not for the entire United States).

What assumptions can I make about the reported data?

Average pounds of active ingredient applied - Values are calculated by
merging pesticide usage data sources together; averaging across all
observations, then rounding.  Note:  If the estimated value is less than
500, then that value is labeled <500.  Estimated values between 500 &
<1,000,000 are rounded to 1 significant digit.  Estimated values of
1,000,000 or greater are rounded to 2 significant digits.)

Average percent of crop treated - Values are calculated by merging data
sources together; averaging by year, averaging across all years, &
rounding to the nearest multiple of 5.  Note:  If the estimated value is
less than 2.5, then the value is labeled <2.5.  If the estimated value
is less than 1, then the value is labeled <1.

Maximum percent of crop treated - Value is the single maximum value
reported across all data sources, across all years, & rounded up to the
nearest multiple of 5.  Note:  If the estimated value is less than 2.5,
then the value is labeled <2.5.

What are the data sources used?

USDA-NASS (United States Department of Agriculture’s National
Agricultural Statistics Service) – pesticide usage data from 2003 to
2010.

Private pesticide market research – pesticide usage data from 2003 to
2010.

California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) Pesticide Use
Reporting (PUR) data for 2003 to 2009.

What are the limitations to the data?

Additional registered uses may exist but are not included because the
available surveys do not report usage (e.g., small acreage crops).

Lack of reported usage data for the pesticide on a crop does not imply
zero usage.

Usage data on a particular site may be noted in data sources, but not
quantified.  In these instances, the site would not be reported in the
SLUA.

Non-agricultural use sites (e.g., turf, post-harvest, mosquito control,
etc.) are not reported in the SLUA.  A separate request must be made to
receive these estimates.

Some sites show some use, even though they are not on the label.  This
usage could be due to various factors, including, but not limited to
Section 18 requests, existing stocks of the chemical, data collection
errors, and experimental use permits (EUPs).

November 17, 2011

Screening Level Estimates of Agricultural Uses of Diflubenzuron (108201)

Sorted Alphabetically

	Percent Crop Ttd.

	Crop	Lbs. A.I.	Avg.	Max.

1	Alfalfa	<500	<1	<2.5

2	Almonds	20,000	10	20

3	Apples  +	<500	<1	<2.5

4	Apricots	<500	10	15

5	Artichokes	4,000	50	80

6	Avocados *	<500	N/C	N/C

7	Cherries	<500	<1	<2.5

8	Cotton	1,000	<1	<2.5

9	Grapefruit	4,000	15	40

10	Lemons	<500	<1	<2.5

11	Nectarines *	<500	N/C	N/C

12	Oranges	10,000	5	15

13	Peaches	1,000	5	5

14	Peanuts	10,000	5	10

15	Pears	1,000	5	10

16	Pecans	1,000	<2.5	5

17	Peppers	<500	<1	<2.5

18	Pistachios *	<500	N/C	N/C

19	Pluots *	<500	N/C	N/C

20	Prunes	<500	5	5

21	Rice	1,000	<1	<2.5

22	Soybeans	8,000	<1	<2.5

23	Tangelos	<500	<2.5	5

24	Tangerines	1,000	5	10

25	Walnuts	2,000	<2.5	5

26	Wheat	<500	<1	<2.5

All numbers rounded.

<500	Less than 500 pounds of active ingredient

<2.5	Less than 2.5 percent of crop treated

<1	Less than 1 percent of crop treated

N/C	Only Lbs. A.I. available

*	Based on CA DPR data only (valid because 95% or more of U.S. acres
grown are in California)

+	Crops not known to be listed on active end use product registrations
or as Section 18 emergency

exemptions when this report was run

SLUA data sources include:

USDA-NASS (United States Department of Agriculture's National
Agricultural Statistics Service)

Private Pesticide Market Research

California DPR (Department of Pesticide Regulation)

These results reflect amalgamated data developed by the Agency and are
releasable to the public.