[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 92 (Monday, May 13, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20772-20774]
[FR Doc No: 2019-09747]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0901; Product Identifier 2018-NM-114-AD; Amendment
39-19624; AD 2019-08-03]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500
series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports that frame web and
frame integral inboard chord cracking is occurring on multiple
airplanes in multiple locations below the passenger floor. This AD
requires repetitive detailed, general visual, and high frequency eddy
current (HFEC) inspections of the section 43 lower lobe frames at
certain stations; an inspection to determine if certain repairs are
installed; and applicable on-condition actions. We are issuing this AD
to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective June 17, 2019.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of June 17,
2019.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data
Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA
90740-5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0901.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0901; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-
5527) is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Garrido, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount
Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 562-627-
5210; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company
Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. The
NPRM published in the Federal Register on October 16, 2018 (83 FR
52171). The NPRM was prompted by reports that frame web and frame
integral inboard chord cracking is occurring on multiple airplanes in
multiple locations below the passenger floor. The NPRM proposed to
require repetitive detailed, general visual, and HFEC inspections of
the section 43 lower lobe frames from station (STA) 380 to STA 520; an
inspection to determine if certain repairs are installed; and
applicable on-condition actions.
    We are issuing this AD to address frame cracking, which could
result in the failure of multiple frames or the combination of a
severed frame and cracks in fuselage chem-milled pockets in this area,
which could lead to uncontrolled decompression of the airplane.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this final rule. The following presents the comments received on the
NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Effect of Winglets on Accomplishment of the Proposed Actions

    Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing the Supplemental
Type Certificate (STC) ST01219SE does not affect the actions specified
in the NPRM.
    We concur with the commenter. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of
the proposed AD as paragraph (c)(1) of this AD and added paragraph
(c)(2) to this AD to state that installation of STC ST01219SE does not
affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD.
Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01219SE is installed, a
``change in product'' alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval
request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR
39.17.

Request for Clarification About Frame Replacement

    Commenter Mark Bowen observed that if a crack or ``non SRM/Boeing
repair'' is found as part of inspections accomplished under Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1361, the only action given in the
proposed AD is to contact Boeing for repair or alternative inspections.
He asked whether frame replacement could be considered an alternative
option to contacting Boeing for a repair or alternative inspections.
    We partially agree with the commenter's request. Frame replacement
that removes the cracked or repaired structure may be an option to
repair or alternative inspections, provided the replacement can be
shown to adequately address the unsafe condition. However, we note that
the commenter did not provide sufficient documentation to show that, in
regard to the unsafe condition identified in this AD, a frame
replacement would adequately address the unsafe condition. In addition,
the commenter did not provide details on a proposed method of
compliance for accomplishing the proposed frame replacement or post-
replacement inspections, nor any evidence of support for the proposal
from the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation
Authorization (ODA). Operators may apply for an alternative method of
compliance in accordance with paragraph (i) of this AD, provided they
can show that frame replacement adequately addresses the unsafe
condition. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Change Exception Language

    Boeing requested that we change paragraph (i)(4) of the proposed AD
to refer to paragraph (h) of the proposed AD instead of (h)(2). We
contacted Boeing to clarify the intent of their comment and they stated
that they wanted to allow using the phrase ``the original issue date of
this service bulletin'' (rather than ``the effective date of this AD'')
for determining compliance with this AD only when used in flag notes
and notes. Boeing clarified that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1361, dated July 17, 2018, uses the phrase ``the original issue date
of this service bulletin'' in several notes and

flag notes. Boeing added that those notes, which are required for
compliance (``RC''), specify conditions under which certain airplanes
do not have to do certain actions following approved repairs. Boeing
noted that if those notes are not excepted in paragraph (h)(1) of this
AD, then operators would have to request an AMOC if the applicable
repairs were approved after the original issue date of the service
bulletin and before the effective date of this AD.
    We agree with the commenter's request to allow using the phrase
``the original issue date of this service bulletin'' for determining
compliance with this AD only when used in flag notes and notes. We have
revised paragraph (h)(1) of this AD to provide an exception to the
phrase ``the original issue date of this service bulletin,'' in a note
or flag note. We have determined it is not necessary to change
paragraph (i)(4) of this AD in this regard.

Request To Correct Wording for Consistency

    Boeing requested that we change paragraph (g)(1) of the proposed AD
to refer to ``applicable on-condition actions'' instead of ``applicable
corrective actions.'' The commenter suggested that ``on-condition
actions'' would be consistent with current standards.
    We agree because this language would be consistent with the
preamble of this AD, as well as current terminology standards. We have
made the requested change in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this final rule with the changes described previously and minor
editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final
rule.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1361, dated July
17, 2018. This service information describes procedures for repetitive
detailed, general visual, and HFEC inspections of the section 43 lower
lobe frames from STA 380 to STA 520; a general visual inspection to
determine if certain repairs are installed; and applicable on-condition
actions. This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 262 airplanes of U.S. registry. We
estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost        Parts cost      Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspections......................  Up to 84 work-hours              $0  Up to $7,140 per     Up to $1,870,680
                                    x $85 per hour =                     inspection cycle.    per inspection
                                    $7,140 per                                                cycle.
                                    inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and
associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2019-08-03 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-19624; Docket No. FAA-
2018-0901; Product Identifier 2018-NM-114-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective June 17, 2019.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    (1) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -
200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any
category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1361, dated July 17, 2018.
    (2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC)
ST01219SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions
required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01219SE
is installed, a ``change in product'' alternative method of
compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with
the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports that frame web and frame
integral inboard chord cracking is occurring on multiple airplanes
in multiple locations below the passenger floor. We are issuing this
AD to address frame cracking, which could result in the failure of
multiple frames or the combination of a severed frame and cracks in
fuselage chem-milled pockets in this area, which could lead to
uncontrolled decompression of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Required Actions

    (1) For airplanes identified as Group 1 in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-53A1361, dated July 17, 2018: Within 120 days after the
effective date of this AD, inspect the airplane and do all
applicable on-condition actions using a method approved in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this
AD.
    (2) For airplanes identified as Groups 2 through 6 in Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1361, dated July 17, 2018: Except as
required by paragraph (h) of this AD, at the applicable times
specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-53A1361, dated July 17, 2018, do all applicable actions
identified as ``RC'' (required for compliance) in, and in accordance
with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-53A1361, dated July 17, 2018.

(h) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    (1) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements
of this AD: Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1361, dated
July 17, 2018, uses the phrase ``the original issue date of this
service bulletin,'' this AD requires using ``the effective date of
this AD,'' except where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1361,
dated July 17, 2018, uses the phrase ``the original issue date of
this service bulletin'' in a note or flag note.
    (2) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1361, dated July
17, 2018, specifies contacting Boeing for repair instructions or
contacting Boeing for alternative inspections: This AD requires
doing the repair, or the alternative inspections and applicable on-
condition actions, using a method approved in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority
to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures
found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your
request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards
District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to
the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (j) of this AD. Information may
be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the
Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be
approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration
deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the
approval must specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) Except as required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD: For
service information that contains steps that are labeled as RC, the
provisions of paragraphs (i)(4)(i) and (i)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step
and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply
with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled ``RC Exempt,'' then the
RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is
required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and
identified figures.
    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted
methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection
program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC
steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done
as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact George Garrido,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch,
3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-
5232; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1361, dated July 17,
2018.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-
5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on May 1, 2019.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-09747 Filed 5-10-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


MRAM DATA BASE Page 1 STUDIES RECEIVED 69 LIKE SITE CHARACTERISTICS: 12 Surface Mines and 8 Deep Mines 8 Groundwater sites ( 5 surface and 3 deep mines)

SITE CHARACTERISTICS: 40 Surface Mines and 15 Deep Mines Mine Characteristics ° Mine name and location ° Mine dimensions and volume ° Placement dates and purpose ° Regulation and time of placement CCB Placement Characteristics ° CCB Type ° CCB Aditives ° CCB Placement Volume ° Placement within Mine ° Permit Acreage ° Placement/ Management Practice Mine Site Characteristics ° Soil ° Bedrock Stratigraphy ° General Topolgy Page 2 November 13, 2001 ASH AND LEACHATE CHARACTERISTICS: 60 Surface Mines and 7 Deep Mines ° CCB Source ° Solid Coal Ash Chemical Characteristics  major constituent indicators  minor constituent indicators ° Leachate Chemical Characteristics  Primary Drinking Water const.  Secondary Drinking Water const.  Other constituents  pH GROUNDWATER CHARACTERISTICS SUMMARY: 5 Surface Mines and 3 Deep Mines ° Wells selected: Up gradient, Placement/ Injection Area, Down gradient 1 or 2 of each type of well ° Sample date averages: pre placement/ injection, 1 Yr, 3 Yr, 5 Yr, 5Yr +

° Primary Drinking Water Constituents ° Secondary Drinking Water Constituents ° Eco Toxicity and Other Constituents ° pH GROUNDWATER DATA DRAFT LIKE SITE CHARACTERISTICS Page 3 November 13, 2001 Mine Name, Location Highvale , Canada Universal, IN Center, ND Big Gorilla, PA Knickerbocker PA " City," IN Wilton, ND Longridge, WV Mine Type Surface Surface Surface Surface Surface Deep Deep Deep Climatic Region Arid Semiarid Semiarid Humid Humid Semiarid Semiarid Humid AMD Unknown Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes CCB Placement Above GW Above GW Above Below GW Below Above GW Above & Below GW Below Below CCB Type Ash Ash Ash & FGD FBC FBC FGD & Ash Ash FBC Concrete Additive No No No No Yes Yes ( lime) No Yes Drainage Control Unknown Cap and Runoff No No No No No No Cap Material Unknown clay  5' uncompacted NA NA NA NA NA NA Liner No No No No No No No No AMD Control Unknown Yes ( NPDES discharge pump at sedimentation pond Natural acid buffering capacity of overburden No No No No No GW Quality Conclusion/ Assessme nt Incconclusive No Change Incconclusive No Change No Change Incconclusive Incconclusive Degraded Preinjection GW data None 5/ 88  1/ 89 5/ 77  6/ 81 8/ 89  7/ 97 8/ 97  8/ 98 1/ 94  7/ 94 None 1/ 98  12/ 98 Current/ Pos t injection GW data 7/ 78  4/ 01 5/ 89  11/ 00 3/ 78  7/ 85 8/ 97  2/ 99 9/ 98  3/ 01 10/ 94  8/ 95 7/ 94  4/ 95 1/ 99  11/ 00 MCL exceedance None Pb As, Ba, Cd, Cr, Pb, Se None Cd Cd None As, Cd, Pb, Se Final PH Assessme nt Neutral to Slightly Basic Slightly Acidic to Neutral Neutral to Slightly Basic Acidic Slightly Acidic to Neutral Slightly Acidic to Neutral Slightly Acidic Acidic


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 55 (Friday, March 20, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16038-16046]
[FR Doc No: 2020-05661]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0577; FRL-10006-77-Region 3]

Air Plan Approval; West Virginia; Redesignation and Maintenance
Plan for the West Virginia Portion of the Steubenville Sulfur Dioxide
Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to redesignate the West Virginia
portion of the Steubenville, Ohio-West Virginia multi-state sulfur
dioxide (SO2) nonattainment area (referred to as the
``Steubenville Nonattainment Area'' or the ``Area'') from nonattainment
to attainment. EPA is also proposing to approve West Virginia's
maintenance plan for its portion of the Steubenville Nonattainment
Area. Emissions of SO2 in the Area have been reduced and
ambient SO2 readings in the nonattainment area are currently
well below the 2010 1-hour SO2 national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 20, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2019-0577 at https://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 https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara Calcinore, Planning &
Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone number is (215) 814-
2043. Ms. Calcinore can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. Background and Redesignation Requirements
II. Relationship Between This Rulemaking and the Attainment Plan
Rulemaking
III. Determination of Attainment
IV. CAA Section 110 and Part D Requirements and Fully Approved SIP
Under CAA section 110(k)
V. Permanent and eNforceable Emission Reductions
VI. Maintenance Plan
VII. Proposed Action
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Redesignation Requirements

    In 2010, EPA established a revised primary hourly annual
SO2 NAAQS of 75 parts per billion (ppb). 75 FR 35520, June
22, 2010; 40 CFR 50.17. EPA designated the Steubenville, Ohio-West
Virginia area as nonattainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS on
August 5, 2013, based upon air quality monitoring data for calendar
years 2009-2011. 78 FR 47191; 40 CFR 81.349, 81.336. The Steubenville
Nonattainment Area is comprised of a portion of Jefferson County, Ohio
and a portion of Brooke County, West Virginia. The Ohio portion of the
nonattainment area includes Cross Creek Township, Steubenville
Township, Warren Township, Wells Township, and Steubenville City in
Jefferson County. 40 CFR 81.336. The West Virginia portion of the
nonattainment area is the Cross Creek Tax District in Brooke County. 40
CFR 81.349.
    Ohio and West Virginia were required to prepare State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions that provided for attainment of the
SO2 NAAQS in the Steubenville Nonattainment Area by the
SO2 attainment date of October 4, 2018. These ``attainment
plans'' or ``attainment demonstrations'' were also required to meet the
requirements of sections 172(c) and 191-192 of the CAA. West Virginia's
attainment plan SIP revision was submitted to EPA through the West
Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) on April 25,
2016, with a supplemental submission from WVDEP on November 27, 2017
and a clarification letter on May 1, 2019. Ohio's attainment plan SIP
revision was submitted to EPA through the Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency (OEPA) on April 1, 2015 with supplemental submissions on October
13, 2015, March 25, 2019, and June 25, 2019. EPA proposed to approve
the attainment plans submitted by Ohio and West Virginia on June 24,
2019. 84 FR 29456. On October 22, 2019, EPA approved the attainment
plans for the Steubenville Nonattainment Area. 84 FR 56385. EPA's
October 22, 2019 approval also revised the West Virginia SIP to include
new emissions limits, operational restrictions, and associated
compliance requirements for Mountain State Carbon (MSC) and revised the
Ohio SIP to include limits on emissions from Mingo Junction Energy
Center (also known as ``R.G. Steel-Wheeling Mingo Junction''), the JSW
Steel USA Ohio facility (JSW Steel), and the American Electric Power
(AEP) Cardinal Power Plant (referred to as ``Cardinal Power Plant'').
    On June 25, 2019, Ohio submitted a request to redesignate the Ohio
portion of the Steubenville Nonattainment Area. EPA redesignated the
Ohio portion of the Steubenville Nonattainment Area to attainment on
November 29, 2019. 84 FR 65683. On August 22, 2019, West Virginia
submitted a request to redesignate the West Virginia portion of the
Steubenville Nonattainment Area.
    Under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E), five criteria must be met before a
nonattainment area may be redesignated to attainment. Although the
Steubenville Nonattainment Area includes portions within two states,
this action only proposes to redesignate the West Virginia portion of
this area. As stated previously, the Ohio portion of the Steubenville
Nonattainment Area was redesignated to attainment on November 29, 2019.
    The five criteria in CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) that must be met, and
EPA's interpretation of whether any of the criteria must be met in both
the Ohio portion and West Virginia portion of the Steubenville
Nonattainment Area or only in West Virginia, are discussed below. These
criteria are:

    1. EPA has determined that the area has attained the relevant
NAAQS. Section 107(d)(3)(E)(i). In this rulemaking, EPA is
evaluating whether the entire two-state Area is attaining the
SO2 NAAQS.
    2. The applicable implementation plan has been fully approved by
EPA under section 110(k) of the CAA. Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In
this rulemaking, EPA is evaluating redesignation for only the West
Virginia portion of the Area on the basis of whether West Virginia's
applicable implementation plan has been fully approved.
    3. EPA has determined that improvement in air quality is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from the
applicable implementation plans, Federal regulations, and other
permanent and enforceable reductions. Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii). In
this rulemaking, EPA is evaluating this criterion for both the Ohio
and West Virginia portions of the Steubenville Nonattainment Area.
    4. EPA has fully approved a maintenance plan, including a
contingency plan, for the area that meets the requirements of
section 175A of the CAA. Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv). In this
rulemaking, EPA is evaluating only whether West Virginia's
maintenance plan provides for its share of actions to assure
maintenance in the two-state Area.
    5. EPA has determined that the state has met all applicable
requirements for the area under section 110 and part D. Section
107(d)(3)(E)(v). In this rulemaking, EPA is evaluating redesignation
for only the West Virginia portion of the Area on the basis of
whether West Virginia has met these applicable requirements.

II. Relationship Between This Rulemaking and the Attainment Plan
Rulemaking

    Some of the criteria for this proposed redesignation are met by
elements of the previously approved Ohio and West Virginia attainment
plans. In particular, part of the evidence that the Area is attaining
the SO2 NAAQS is based on modeling included in the two
states' attainment plans and related supplemental submittals. The
SO2 emission limits that assure the permanence and Federal
enforceability of the air quality improvement in the Area were also
submitted as part of the attainment plans.
    As noted previously, EPA proposed to approve the Ohio and West
Virginia attainment plans on June 24, 2019, at 84 FR 29456, and issued
a final approval on October 22, 2019. 84 FR 56385. This rulemaking is
not reopening any portion of that rulemaking. For example, this
rulemaking does not solicit any additional comments on the modeling in
the two states' attainment plans, on the adequacy of the limits in
those plans

for assuring attainment, or generally on whether those plans warranted
approval. Comments on these topics were germane to the attainment plans
rulemaking and were solicited in that rulemaking. EPA addressed these
topics in the attainment plans rulemaking but received no comments on
these topics in that rulemaking. As stated previously, EPA's proposed
approval of West Virginia's redesignation request is based in part on
the final rulemaking approving the Ohio and West Virginia attainment
plans.

III. Determination of Attainment

    The first requirement for redesignation is to demonstrate that the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS has been attained in the entire
Steubenville Nonattainment Area. As stated in EPA's April 23, 2014
``Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP
Submissions'' (referred to as ``2014 SO2 Guidance''), there
are two components needed to support an attainment determination for
SO2: (1) A review of representative air quality monitoring
data, and (2) a further analysis, generally requiring air quality
modeling, to demonstrate that the entire area is attaining the
applicable NAAQS based on current actual emissions or the fully
implemented control strategy. 2014 SO2 Guidance, p.62. West
Virginia has addressed both components.
    Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR 50.17, the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS is met at an ambient air quality monitoring site
when the three-year average of the annual 99th percentile of one-hour
daily maximum concentrations is less than or equal to 75 ppb, as
determined in accordance with appendix T of 40 CFR part 50, at all
relevant monitoring sites in the subject area. EPA has reviewed the
ambient air monitoring data for the Steubenville Nonattainment Area
included in West Virginia's redesignation request, which consists of
data from three SO2 monitoring sites in Jefferson County,
Ohio and three SO2 monitoring sites in Brooke County, West
Virginia. The data from these monitors have been certified and recorded
in EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) database.
    Table 1 shows the 99th percentile results and three-year average
design values for the Steubenville Nonattainment Area monitors for
2016-2018, which are the most recent three years of complete, quality-
assured data. The 2016-2018 design value \1\ for the Steubenville
Nonattainment Area is 37 ppb, which is well below the 2010
SO2 NAAQS of 75 ppb. This design value, which was measured
at the Weirton-Marland Heights monitor (Site ID 54-009-0011), in Brooke
County, West Virginia, is the highest monitored design value in the
Steubenville Nonattainment Area. Therefore, West Virginia has
demonstrated that the Steubenville Nonattainment Area's SO2
monitors currently show attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
For every 3-year period starting with the 2013-2015 design value
period, all six monitors have had design values below the 2010
SO2 NAAQS of 75 ppb. Preliminary monitoring data for 2019
indicate that the Area is continuing to attain the 2010 SO2
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The ``design value'' is the 3-year average of the annual
99th percentile daily maximum 1-hour values for a monitoring site.
40 CFR part 50, Appendix T.

                 Table 1--Monitoring Data for the Steubenville Nonattainment Area for 2016-2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Year and 99th percentile value  (ppb)       Design value:
                                                 ------------------------------------------------ average  2016-
         Site ID                  Location                                                          2018  (ppb)
                                                       2016            2017            2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
39-081-0017..............  Jefferson County, OH.              27              18              34              26
39-081-0018..............  Jefferson County, OH.              31              34               9              25
39-081-0020..............  Jefferson County, OH.              20              13               8              14
54-009-0005..............  Brooke County, WV....              33              28              48              36
54-009-0007..............  Brooke County, WV....              39              23              24              29
54-009-0011..............  Brooke County, WV....              49              27              35              37
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the monitoring data, West Virginia submitted a
modeling analysis demonstrating that the control strategy for the
Steubenville Nonattainment Area will provide for attainment of the
SO2 NAAQS in the entire Area. West Virginia's August 22,
2019 redesignation request includes dispersion modeling from the
attainment plan for the Steubenville Nonattainment Area that was
approved by EPA on October 22, 2019.\2\ This joint modeling analysis
demonstrated that the Steubenville Nonattainment Area had attained the
2010 SO2 NAAQS based on the allowable emissions from the
four primary sources in the Area: (1) The Cardinal Power Plant, located
in Brilliant, Ohio; (2) JSW Steel (formerly Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel
Plant and referred to by West Virginia as ``Mingo Junction Steel
Works'') in Mingo Junction, Ohio; (3) the Mingo Junction Energy Center
also in Mingo Junction, Ohio; and (4) MSC in Follansbee, West Virginia.
The modeling analysis is discussed in detail in the June 24, 2019 (84
FR 29456) notice of proposed rulemaking for West Virginia's attainment
plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ On March 25, 2019, OEPA submitted revised modeling with a
new limit and revised stack characteristics for Cardinal Power Plant
as a supplement to the attainment plan for the Steubenville
Nonattainment Area. West Virginia concurred with the revised
modeling on May 1, 2019. The March 25, 2019 supplement was approved
with the attainment plan for the Steubenville Nonattainment Area on
October 22, 2019. West Virginia's August 22, 2019 redesignation
request includes the approved dispersion modeling submitted by OEPA
as a supplement to the attainment plan on March 25, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    West Virginia has confirmed that the modeled facilities are
currently in full compliance with their emission limits. Current actual
emissions at these facilities are therefore at or below the allowable
levels used in the modeling analysis included with West Virginia's
redesignation request. Because this modeling shows that compliance with
the emission limits in the States' plans yields attainment in the
entire nonattainment area, and the sources are complying with these
limits, this modeling also supports EPA's proposed conclusion that both
the Ohio portion and West Virginia portion of the two-state Area are
attaining the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

IV. CAA Section 110 and Part D Requirements and Fully Approved SIP
Under CAA Section 110(k)

    In accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) of the CAA, in order to
redesignate the Steubenville Area to attainment, West Virginia must
meet all requirements applicable to the

Steubenville Nonattainment Area under CAA section 110 (general SIP
requirements) and part D of title I of the CAA (SIP requirements for
nonattainment areas). In addition, in accordance with section
107(d)(3)(E)(ii) of the CAA, the West Virginia SIP for the Steubenville
Nonattainment Area must be fully approved under CAA section 110(k).
    The Calcagni memorandum (``Procedures for Processing Requests to
Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992) describes
EPA's interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E) with respect to the timing
of applicable requirements. Under this interpretation, to qualify for
redesignation, states requesting redesignation to attainment must meet
only the relevant CAA requirements that come due prior to the submittal
of a complete redesignation request. See also Shapiro memorandum
(``State Implementation Plan (SIP) requirements for Areas Submitting
Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) On or
After November 15, 1992,'' Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17, 1993) and
60 FR 12459, 12465-12466, (March 7, 1995) (redesignation of Detroit-Ann
Arbor). Applicable requirements of the CAA that come due subsequent to
the area's submittal of a complete redesignation request remain
applicable until a redesignation is approved but are not required as a
prerequisite to redesignation. See CAA section 175A(c). Sierra Club v.
EPA, 375 F .3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also 68 FR 25424, 25427 (May
12, 2003) (redesignation of the St. Louis/East St. Louis area to
attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS).
    EPA has determined that, in accordance with section
107(d)(3)(E)(v), West Virginia has met all SIP requirements under
section 110 of the CAA and part D of title I of the CAA applicable for
purposes of this redesignation. In making these determinations, EPA
ascertained what requirements are applicable to the Area and determined
that the portions of the West Virginia SIP meeting these requirements
are fully approved under section 110(k) of the CAA. We note that SIPs
must be fully approved only with respect to applicable requirements.
EPA's rationale is discussed in more detail in the following sections.

1. West Virginia Has Met all Applicable Requirements of Section 110 and
Part D of the CAA Applicable to the Steubenville Nonattainment Area for
Purposes of Redesignation

a. Section 110 General Requirements for SIPs
    Pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(1), whenever new or revised NAAQS
are promulgated, the CAA requires states to submit a plan (i.e.
``SIP'') for the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of such
NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) of title I of the CAA contains the general
requirements for a SIP, also known as ``infrastructure'' requirements.
The infrastructure requirements of section 110(a)(2) include the
requirements in subsections 110(a)(2)(A) through (M).
    However, not every requirement of section 110(a)(2) is an
applicable requirement for the purposes of redesignating the
Steubenville Nonattainment Area to attainment for the SO2
NAAQS. For example, section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain
certain measures to prevent sources in a state from significantly
contributing to air quality problems in another state. When such issues
have been identified, EPA has required certain states to establish
programs to address transport of air pollutants. See Nitrogen Oxides
(NOX) SIP Call and amendments to the NOX SIP Call
(64 FR 26298, May 14, 1999 and 65 FR 11222, March 2, 2000), and the
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Update (81 FR 74504, October 26,
2016). However, the section 110(a)(2)(D) SIP requirements are not
linked with a particular area's SO2 designation. That is,
any applicable section 110(a)(2)(D) requirement continues to apply to a
state regardless of the attainment designation (or redesignation) of an
area. EPA has concluded that the SIP requirements linked to an area's
SO2 designation are the relevant (applicable) measures when
reviewing a redesignation request for an area, and therefore the
general requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) are not applicable
requirements for the purposes of a SO2 redesignation.
    Similarly, other section 110(a)(2) elements that are neither
connected with attainment plan submissions nor linked with an area's
SO2 designation are not applicable requirements for purposes
of redesignation. An area redesignated from SO2
nonattainment to attainment will remain subject to these statewide
requirements after redesignation to attainment. This approach is
consistent with EPA's existing policy on applicability (i.e., for
redesignations) of conformity and oxygenated fuels requirements, as
well as with CAA section 184 ozone transport requirements. See Reading,
Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174-53176,
October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 2008); Cleveland-Akron-Loraine,
Ohio, final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida,
final rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995). See also the
discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio, redesignation (65 FR
37890, June 19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
redesignation (66 FR 50399, October 19, 2001).
    Nonetheless, EPA has reviewed West Virginia's SIP and concludes
that it meets the general SIP requirements of section 110 of the CAA,
for those requirements that are applicable for purposes of an
SO2 redesignation. EPA approved elements of West Virginia's
July 1, 2013, and June 1, 2015, SO2 infrastructure SIP
submittals on November 17, 2014 (79 FR 62022) and August 11, 2016 (81
FR 53008), respectively.\3\ As explained previously, the general
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2) are statewide requirements that
are not linked to the nonattainment status of the Steubenville
Nonattainment Area and are therefore not ``applicable requirements''
for the purpose of reviewing West Virginia's redesignation request.
Because West Virginia satisfies the general SIP elements and
requirements set forth in CAA section 110(a)(2) applicable to and
necessary for redesignation, EPA concludes that West Virginia has
satisfied the criterion of section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) regarding section
110 of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ West Virginia's SO2 infrastructure SIP submittals
did not address the interstate transport element of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i). As explained previously, the interstate transport
element of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) is not an applicable
requirement for redesignation of the Steubenville Nonattainment
Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Part D Requirements
    In addition to the CAA section 110 requirements, section
107(d)(3)(E)(v) requires that the state meet all the requirements
applicable to the nonattainment area ``under part D of this
subchapter'' in order for the nonattainment area to be redesignated.
Both section 107 and part D are within subchapter 1 of the CAA. Part D,
entitled ``Plan Requirements for Nonattainment Areas,'' consists of six
subparts, of which only subparts 1 and 5 are applicable to
SO2 nonattainment areas. Subpart 1 (sections 171-179B)
contains provisions that can apply to all nonattainment areas for all
criteria

pollutants, while subpart 5 (sections 191-192) contains additional
provisions for SO2, NOX, or lead nonattainment
areas. The requirements applicable to this redesignation are discussed
below.
i. Subpart 1 Requirements
1. Section 172 Requirements
    CAA section 172 requires states with nonattainment areas to submit
plans that provide for timely attainment of the NAAQS. CAA section
172(c) contains general requirements for nonattainment plans. A
thorough discussion of these requirements is found in the General
Preamble for Implementation of Title I. 57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992.
    As noted earlier, West Virginia submitted, and EPA approved, West
Virginia's attainment plan for the Steubenville Nonattainment Area. 84
FR 29456, June 24, 2019; 84 FR 56385, October 22, 2019. In the proposed
approval, EPA evaluated and proposed approval of the following elements
of West Virginia's attainment plan: Emissions inventory (section
172(c)(3)), a determination that the control strategy for the primary
SO2 source within the Steubenville Nonattainment Area
constitutes reasonably available control measures/reasonably available
control technology (RACM/RACT) and an attainment demonstration (section
172(c)(1)), enforceable emissions limitations and control measures
(172(c)(4)), new source review (NSR) (section 172(c)(5)),\4\ reasonable
further progress (RFP) (section 172(c)(2)), contingency measures
(section 172(c)(9)), and compliance with the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2) (section 172(c)(7)). EPA's proposed approval also
found that West Virginia did not need to adopt other measures than
those adopted within the attainment plan to achieve compliance with the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, as potentially required by section
172(c)(6). Thus, EPA found in the final approval of the attainment plan
that West Virginia had complied with all the applicable requirements of
section 172 of the CAA, and this proposed approval of West Virginia's
redesignation request relies upon that finding within EPA's final
approval of West Virginia's attainment plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EPA has a longstanding interpretation that because
nonattainment new source review (NNSR) is replaced by prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) upon redesignation, nonattainment
areas seeking redesignation to attainment need not have a fully
approved part D NNSR program in order to be redesignated. A more
detailed rationale for this view is described in a memorandum from
Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated
October 14, 1994, entitled, ``Part D New Source Review Requirements
for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.'' Nevertheless,
West Virginia has a SIP-approved NSR and PSD program, found at
45CSR13, 45CSR19, and 45CSR14. See 40 CFR 52.2520(c). West
Virginia's PSD program will become effective in the Steubenville
Nonattainment Area upon redesignation to attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because EPA's analysis of these elements of CAA section 172 were
available for public comment in the proposed attainment plan approval,
EPA is not seeking any further public comment in this action on the
section 172 elements approved in the attainment plan approval. Comments
on these elements were germane to the attainment plan approval and
should have been submitted during the public comment period for the
proposed attainment plan approval.
2. Section 173
    Section 173 of the CAA includes requirements for permit programs
that are required in a nonattainment area for new sources by section
172(c)(5). This is known as NNSR. As stated previously, West Virginia
has an NSR permitting program, found at 45CSR13 and 45CSR19. EPA
therefore proposes to conclude that West Virginia has an NSR permitting
program meeting the requirements of section 173 for SO2. In
addition, West Virginia has a SIP-approved PSD program under 45CSR14.
See 40 CFR 52.2520(c).
3. Section 175A
    CAA section 175A requires that states seeking redesignation of an
area to attainment submit a ``maintenance plan'' containing certain
elements. West Virginia included a maintenance plan for the
Steubenville Nonattainment Area with their August 22, 2019
redesignation request, which is discussed in detail in Section VI of
this notice of proposed rulemaking.

4. Section 176 Requirements

    Section 176(c) of the CAA requires states to establish criteria and
procedures to ensure that Federally-supported or funded projects
conform to the air quality planning goals in the applicable SIP. The
requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation plans,
programs, and projects that are developed, funded, or approved under
title 23 of the United States Code and the Federal Transit Act
(transportation conformity) as well as to all other Federally-supported
or funded projects (general conformity). State transportation
conformity SIP revisions must be consistent with Federal conformity
regulations relating to consultation, enforcement, and enforceability
that EPA promulgated pursuant to its authority under the CAA. On April
12, 2007, West Virginia submitted documentation establishing
transportation conformity procedures in its SIP. EPA approved these
procedures on May 2, 2008 (73 FR 24175).
    However, EPA interprets the conformity SIP requirements as not
applicable for purposes of evaluating a redesignation request because,
like other requirements listed above, state conformity rules are still
required after redesignation to attainment and Federal conformity rules
apply where state rules have not been approved. See Wall v. EPA, 265
F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001) (upholding this interpretation); see also 60
FR 62748 (December 7, 1995) (redesignation of Tampa, Florida).
Furthermore, due to the relatively small, and decreasing, amounts of
sulfur in gasoline and on-road diesel fuel, EPA's transportation
conformity rules do not apply to SO2 unless the EPA Regional
Administrator or the director of the state air agency has found that
transportation-related emissions of SO2 as a precursor are a
significant contributor to a SO2 or fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) nonattainment problem, or if the SIP has established
an approved or adequate budget for such emissions as part of the RFP,
attainment, or maintenance strategy. See 40 CFR 93.102(b)(1), (2)(v);
SO2 Nonattainment Area Guidance. Neither of these conditions
have been met; therefore, EPA's transportation conformity rules do not
apply to SO2 for the Steubenville Nonattainment Area.

5. Sections 176A, 177, 178, 179 and 179B

    CAA sections 176A through 179B are not applicable requirements for
the purpose of redesignation for SO2.
ii. Subpart 5 Requirements
    The subpart 5 requirements, which consist of sections 191 and 192
of the CAA, are specific provisions applicable to SO2,
NOX or lead nonattainment areas. Section 191 of the CAA
requires states with areas designated nonattainment for SO2,
NOX or lead after November 15, 1990, to submit within 18
months of the designation an implementation plan meeting the
requirements of part D. West Virginia's part D SIP (attainment plan)
for its portion of the Steubenville Nonattainment Area was due April 4,
2015. As stated previously, West Virginia submitted its part D SIP
(attainment plan) on April 25, 2016, with a supplemental submission on
November 27, 2017 and a clarification letter on May 1, 2019. In its
proposed and final rulemakings on West Virginia's part D SIP
(attainment plan), EPA found that West Virginia satisfied the
applicable requirements under CAA

section 110 and part D for the Steubenville Nonattainment Area. See 84
FR 29456 (June 24, 2019) and 84 FR 56385 (October 22, 2019). West
Virginia has therefore satisfied this subpart 5, section 191
requirement for redesignation.
    Section 192 sets forth attainment dates for nonattainment areas
under section 191. For SO2, section 192(a) requires that
attainment plans provide for attainment of the primary standard as
expeditiously as possible, but no later than five years from the date
of the nonattainment designation. EPA designated the Steubenville Area
as nonattainment on August 5, 2013, with an attainment date of October
4, 2018. As discussed in Section III, the Steubenville Nonattainment
Area has demonstrated attainment with the 2010 SO2 standard
since the 2013-2015 monitoring period and continues to attain the
SO2 NAAQS. Therefore, EPA is proposing to find that the
subpart 5, section 192 requirement has been met.
    Based on the above, EPA is proposing to find that West Virginia has
satisfied the applicable requirements for the redesignation of its
portion of the Steubenville Nonattainment Area under section 110 and
part D of title I of the CAA.

V. Permanent and Enforceable Emission Reductions

    For an area to be redesignated, the state must be able to
reasonably attribute the improvement in air quality to permanent and
enforceable emission reductions. As stated previously, the primary
sources in the Steubenville Nonattainment Area are the Cardinal Power
Plant, located in Brilliant, Ohio; JSW Steel, formerly Wheeling
Pittsburgh Steel Plant and referred to by West Virginia as ``Mingo
Junction Steel Works'', in Mingo Junction, Ohio; the Mingo Junction
Energy Center (also known as ``R.G. Steel-Wheeling Mingo Junction''),
also in Mingo Junction, Ohio; and MSC, in Follansbee, West Virginia.
    These facilities have all significantly reduced SO2
emissions since the area was monitoring violations, and these emission
reductions have been made permanent and enforceable by the limits that
Ohio and West Virginia adopted and submitted in their respective
attainment plan submittals.
    MSC produces metallurgical-grade coke and coke gas byproducts from
coal, which contains sulfur. A byproduct of coke production is coke
oven gas, which contains SO2. The facility burns this gas,
releasing SO2 emissions. As a result of a consent order
dated September 29, 2017 (Consent Order Number CO-SIP-C-2017-9), MSC
has improved its coke oven gas desulfurization equipment to reduce its
SO2 emissions. The emissions reductions, mandated by West
Virginia's emission limits and work practice requirements contained in
the consent order, were approved into the West Virginia SIP through the
attainment plan approval and are therefore permanent and Federally
enforceable. 84 FR 56385 (October 22, 2019); 40 CFR 52.2520(d).
    The Cardinal Power Plant is subject to several permanent and
enforceable control measures including, but not limited to, the Acid
Rain Program and the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS) rule. In
addition, restrictions on SO2 emissions at the Cardinal
Power Plant are approved into the Ohio SIP under Chapter 3745-18 and
include a Federally-enforceable, 30-day rolling average combined
SO2 limit of 4,858.75 pound per hour (lb/hr) for the coal-
fired boiler Units 1, 2, and 3. See 40 CFR 52.1870(c). The Cardinal
Power Plant implemented flue gas desulfurization (FGD) between 2010 and
2012, resulting in a reduction of SO2 emissions from 32,500
tons in 2010 to 9,700 tons in 2018, a reduction that Ohio's limit
requires to be maintained. 84 FR 4942 (September 20, 2019). Therefore,
EPA is proposing to find that the Cardinal Power Plant is subject to
permanent and enforceable control measures.
    Both the Mingo Junction Energy Center and Mingo Junction Steel
Works (JSW Steel) have ceased operations, with JSW Steel resuming
limited operations in 2018. Both Mingo Junction Energy Center and JSW
Steel are subject to permanent and enforceable control measures
identified in the SIP-approved attainment plan that were found to
provide for attainment and maintenance of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in the Steubenville Nonattainment Area. These
measures under Ohio rules OAC 3745-18 are approved into the Ohio SIP.
In the event that these facilities resume full operations, they would
remain subject to the Federally enforceable control measures in the
Ohio SIP that were shown to provide for attainment and maintenance of
the SO2 NAAQS in the SIP-approved attainment plan for the
Steubenville Nonattainment Area. 84 FR 29456 (June 24, 2019); 84 FR
56385 (October 22, 2019).
    At the time of Steubenville's nonattainment designation, the
monitored SO2 design values (2009-2011) in the area were 109
ppb at the Jefferson County monitor (Site ID 39-081-0017) and 174 ppb
at the Brooke County, West Virginia monitor (Site ID 54-009-0011). More
recent monitoring data indicate that ambient SO2 levels have
improved significantly. The highest monitored design value for the
Steubenville Nonattainment Area for 2016-2018 is 37 ppb. This value was
measured at monitor 54-009-0011 in Brooke County, West Virginia. These
monitored values are well below the SO2 NAAQS of 75 ppb.
This air quality improvement is attributable to the substantial
emission reductions noted above, which the Ohio and West Virginia
attainment plans require to be permanent and enforceable. Thus, EPA
proposes to find that the improvement in air quality in the
Steubenville Nonattainment Area can be attributed to permanent and
enforceable emission reductions at facilities in Ohio and West
Virginia, and that CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) has been satisfied by
both Ohio and West Virginia.

VI. Maintenance Plan

    As one of the criteria for redesignation to attainment, section
107(d)(3)(E)(iv) of the CAA requires EPA to determine that the area has
a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant to section 175A of the CAA.
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance plan
for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment.
Section 175A requires that the maintenance plan demonstrate continued
attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least ten years after the
nonattainment area is redesignated to attainment. Eight years after the
redesignation, the state must submit a revised maintenance plan
demonstrating that attainment will continue to be maintained for an
additional ten years following the initial ten-year period. To address
the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must
also contain contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to assure
prompt correction of any future one-hour violations. Specifically, the
maintenance plan should address five requirements: (1) An attainment
emissions inventory; (2) maintenance demonstration; (3) commitment for
continued air quality monitoring; (4) verification of continued
attainment; and (5) a contingency plan. See Calcagni memorandum.
    In conjunction with their request to redesignate the West Virginia
portion of the Steubenville Nonattainment Area, West Virginia
submitted, as a revision to their SIP, a plan to provide for
maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS through 2030 in the Area, which
is 10 years after the expected effective date of the redesignation to
attainment. West Virginia has committed to review the maintenance plan
for the Area eight years after redesignation. EPA is

proposing to find that West Virginia's maintenance plan for the
Steubenville Nonattainment Area includes the necessary components per
the CAA, including CAA section 175A and EPA guidance, and is proposing
to approve the maintenance plan as a revision to the West Virginia SIP.

1. Attainment Inventory

    The Calcagni memorandum indicates that states requesting
redesignation to attainment should develop an attainment emissions
inventory in order to identify the level of emissions in the area which
is sufficient to attain the NAAQS. The attainment inventory should be
consistent with EPA's most recent guidance on emission inventories for
nonattainment areas available at the time and should include the
emissions during the time period associated with monitoring data
showing attainment.
    For the attainment inventory, West Virginia used the year 2011 as
the ``nonattainment year'' since the three-year period 2009-2011 was
the basis of the nonattainment designation. Although the attainment
date for the Steubenville Nonattainment Area was October 4, 2018, West
Virginia selected 2016 as the ``attainment year'' for its emission
inventory because 2016 was one of the years contributing to the 2014-
2016 and 2015-2017 design values demonstrating attainment of the
SO2 NAAQS in the Steubenville Nonattainment Area. The
attainment year inventory is shown in Table 2 as well as the projected
emissions of SO2 in future years (i.e. 2023 and 2030).

2. Maintenance Demonstration

    Pursuant to the 2014 SO2 guidance, an air agency may
demonstrate maintenance of the NAAQS by either showing that future
emissions of SO2 will not exceed the level of the attainment
inventory or by modeling to show that the future mix of sources and
emission rates will not cause a violation of the NAAQS. As discussed
previously, West Virginia and Ohio have submitted, and EPA has
approved, modeling analyses demonstrating attainment and maintenance of
the SO2 NAAQS as part of the attainment plans for the
Steubenville Nonattainment Area. In addition, West Virginia has
demonstrated maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS through 2030 with
emission inventories showing that future emissions of SO2 in
the Steubenville Nonattainment Area will remain at or below attainment
year emission levels. West Virginia projected SO2 emissions
for an interim future year of 2023 and for 2030. The attainment and
maintenance inventories, provided in Table 2, shows the projected
emissions of SO2 in 2011 (nonattainment year), 2016
(attainment year), 2023 (interim year), and 2030 and demonstrates that
future emissions of SO2 will not exceed the levels of the
2016 attainment year inventory for the Steubenville Nonattainment Area
for a minimum of 10 years following redesignation.

      Table 2--Brooke County, West Virginia Emission Inventory Totals for 2011, 2016, 2023, and 2030 (tpy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  2016 (WV)  and
           Location                  Sector            2011          2014 (OH)         2023            2030
                                                                   (attainment)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
West Virginia Portion.........  EGU.............               0               0               0               0
                                Non-EGU.........             730             383             382             381
                                Oil & Gas.......            1.56            6.35            7.69            8.11
                                Area............          143.46          138.34          135.31          134.32
                                Non-Road........            0.02            0.01            0.01            0.01
                                On-Road.........            2.07            2.02            0.79            0.74
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Total........          877.11          529.72          525.80          524.18
Ohio Portion 1................  EGU.............       25,122.42       10,660.65        9,602.02        9,602.02
                                Non-EGU.........          223.44            0.02            0.02            0.02
                                Non-Road........            0.29            0.23            0.14            0.15
                                Other (Area)....           62.13           57.76           56.67           56.35
                                On-Road.........            3.52            3.46            1.38            1.32
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Total........       25,411.80       10,722.12        9,660.23        9,659.86
                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Combined (WV & OH)........  ................       26,288.91       11,251.84       10,186.03       10,184.04
    Total.....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is proposing to find that the maintenance inventory provided in
Table 2 shows maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS in the
Steubenville Nonattainment Area by providing emissions information to
support the demonstration that future emissions of SO2 will
remain below the 2016 emission levels (an inventory year showing
attainment of the SO2 NAAQS).
    According to West Virginia's submittal, the demonstration that
improvement in air quality occurred between the nonattainment and
attainment years is based on permanent and enforceable emission
reductions. The permanent and enforceable SO2 emission
reductions described in Section V of this notice, which includes the
SIP-approved consent order CO-SIP-C-2017-9 for MSC, ensure that
SO2 emissions in the West Virginia portion of the
Steubenville Nonattainment Area will not exceed the maintenance level
emissions shown in Table 2. This is an acceptable method for
demonstrating maintenance. See 2014 SO2 Guidance, p. 67.
West Virginia's maintenance plan notes that West Virginia and Ohio have
comprehensive programs to identify sources of violations of the
SO2 NAAQS as well as EPA-approved compliance and enforcement
programs to address violations. Therefore, EPA proposes to find that
West Virginia's demonstration of maintenance of the SO2
NAAQS in the Steubenville Nonattainment Area is based on permanent and
enforceable control measures.

3. Commitment for Continued Air Quality Monitoring

    In their submittal, West Virginia commits to continue monitoring
SO2 levels at the SO2 monitoring sites in West
Virginia identified in Table 1 of this notice. West Virginia also
commits to consulting with EPA Region III prior to making any changes
to the existing monitoring network and continuing to quality assure the
monitoring data to meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 58 and all
other Federal requirements.

West Virginia also notes that Consent Order Number CO-SIP-C-2017-9 for
MSC and permit for the Cardinal Power Plant establish monitoring,
testing, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements to assure compliance
with SO2 emission limits which have been demonstrated to not
cause a violation of the SO2 NAAQS. Therefore, EPA proposes
to find that West Virginia's maintenance plan includes a commitment for
continued air quality monitoring.

4. Verification of Continued Attainment

    In their submittal, West Virginia commits to maintaining the
aforementioned control measures after redesignation of the Steubenville
Nonattainment Area and that any changes to their rules or emission
limits applicable to maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2
standard in the West Virginia portion of the Steubenville Nonattainment
Area will be submitted to EPA for approval as a SIP revision. West
Virginia states that they have the legal authority and necessary
resources to actively enforce any violations of their rules or permit
provisions and that they intend to continue the enforcement of all
rules related to SO2 emissions in the West Virginia portion
of the Steubenville Nonattainment Area.
    In addition, West Virginia commits to continue to provide updates
to future emissions inventories in accordance with EPA's Air Emissions
Reporting Requirements (AERR) rule and to continue to submit emission
inventories every three years. EPA is proposing to find that West
Virginia's maintenance plan provides for the verification of continued
attainment in the Steubenville Nonattainment Area.

5. Contingency Plan

    Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that maintenance plans include
such contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to assure that the
state will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after
a redesignation of the area to attainment. Pursuant to EPA's 2014
SO2 Guidance, p. 69, in the case that attainment revolves
around compliance of a single source or a small set of sources with
emission limits shown to provide for attainment, EPA interprets
``contingency measures'' to mean that the state agency has a
comprehensive program to identify sources of violations of the
SO2 NAAQS and to undertake an aggressive follow-up for
compliance and enforcement. The Steubenville Nonattainment Area is an
area where attainment is dependent on the compliance of a small set of
sources with emission limits shown to provide for attainment,
specifically MSC in West Virginia and the Cardinal Power Plant in Ohio.
In their submittal, West Virginia verifies that both West Virginia and
Ohio have comprehensive enforcement programs to identify sources of
violations of the SO2 NAAQS and EPA-approved compliance and
enforcement programs to undertake aggressive follow-up for any
violations. Therefore, EPA proposes to find that West Virginia's
maintenance plan satisfies the contingency measures requirement of CAA
175A(d).
    West Virginia's contingency measures identify triggers and
corresponding responses. In the event that the 99th percentile of the
1-hour daily SO2 maximum concentration of 75 ppb occurs in a
single calendar year within the Steubenville Nonattainment Area, a
``warning level response'' will be triggered. The warning level
response will consist of a study to determine whether SO2
values indicate a trend toward higher SO2 values or whether
emissions appear to be increasing, as well as the control measures
necessary to reverse the trend, if needed. The implementation of
necessary controls in response to a warning level response trigger will
occur as expeditiously as possible, but no later than 12 months from
the conclusion of the most recent calendar year. In the event that a 2-
year average of the 99th percentile 1-hour SO2 concentration
of 75 ppb or greater or the violation of the SO2 NAAQS
occurs within the Steubenville Nonattainment Area, an ``action level
response'' will be triggered. If the exceedance is found to not be due
to an exceptional event, malfunction, or noncompliance with a permit
condition or rule requirement, West Virginia Division of Air Quality
(DAQ), in conjunction with the metropolitan planning organization (MPO)
or regional council of governments, will determine additional control
measures needed to assure continued attainment of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS. Selected measures will be those that can be
implemented within 18 months from the close of the calendar year that
prompted the action level response.
    Based on the above, EPA proposes to find that West Virginia's
maintenance plan adequately addresses the five requirements in section
175A that are necessary to maintain the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS in the Steubenville Nonattainment Area.

VII. Proposed Action

    In accordance with West Virginia's August 22, 2019 request, EPA is
proposing to redesignate the West Virginia portion of the Steubenville
Nonattainment Area from nonattainment to attainment of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS. The West Virginia portion of the nonattainment
area includes Cross Creek Tax District in Brooke County. West Virginia
has demonstrated that the Area is attaining the SO2 NAAQS
and that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and
enforceable SO2 emission reductions in the Area. EPA is also
proposing to approve, as a revision to the West Virginia SIP, West
Virginia's maintenance plan. EPA is proposing to find that the
maintenance plan demonstrates maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS
through 2030 in the Steubenville Nonattainment Area and satisfies the
requirements of CAA section 175A.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E)
are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not
impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those
imposed by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of
itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the
applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have
been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions
of the CAA 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 CAA.
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 CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land as
defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151 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 proposing approval of the redesignation of the
Steubenville Nonattainment Area and associated maintenance plan 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, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: March 10, 2020.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2020-05661 Filed 3-19-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Compilation of Responses from the Consultation for the Pesticide Container-Containment Rule ICR Renewal
                               (February 2020)

The questions were sent to the following four industry respondents; the first two are registrants and the last two are distributors/retailers (repackagers):

 Lindsey Barnes, HSE Stewardship & Operations Manager, Syngenta:
 Scott Warner, Bulk Manager, BASF
 David Wieties, Director, Regulatory Compliance & Engineering, Helena Agri-Enterprises
 Rick Yabroff, Corporate EHS Manager, Land O'Lakes

All four responded. The responses are compiled below in the same order.

A. Responses from Lindsey Barnes, Syngenta

(1) Publicly Available Data
 Is the data that the Agency seeks available from any public source, or already collected by another office at EPA or by another agency? If yes, where can you find the data?

 Response: We cannot think of anything available under public sources that is required to be documented under the CCR. Everything for a refill is captured manually/electronically in site's individual systems/files. Everything created by or captured by the Syngenta is in our internal systems.

(2) Frequency of Collection
 Can the Agency require less frequent recordkeeping and still produce the same outcome?

 Response: Our assumption is that this question is directed at frequency of recordkeeping by the registrant and refillers. We don't see a possibility of capturing information less frequently, since we want to make sure we always have the most up-to-date information when requested. This helps ensure we limit the risk of data gaps. This would be true for both registrants and refillers.

(3) Clarity of Instructions
 The ICR is intended to require that respondents keep certain records of data so that the Agency can utilize them.

 (A) Based on the instructions (regulations, PR Notices, fact sheets, etc.), is it clear what you are required to do and what records to keep? If not, what suggestions do you have to clarify the instructions?

 Response: Reeducation in the ag industry is always a positive thing, due to the frequent turnover in retail management. The regulation has been out for a long time. To ensure people don't step into a new role as a location manager and not have the knowledge to comply with these rules, we suggest a training document would be helpful to manage the turnover. The retailers are nervous about misstepping in this space and are hungry for education. It is not that the regulations aren't clear, but more so that they are not in front of the retailers enough. A simple document to help new managers understand what questions to ask the registrants, and that can supplement the SEP videos created by Syngenta.

 (B) There is no required recordkeeping format. Does this make it difficult to comply with the requirements in the container-containment rule?
 Response: Yes and no. It is better that there is no required format because it gives people the flexibility to capture their data how they deem appropriate. However, it would be helpful to have examples/recommendations to help clarify what is required. Since these regulations are open to interpretation, examples would help people get started on the minimum needed. This would be especially helpful for those who are more visual learners.

(4) Electronic Reporting and Record keeping
The Government Paperwork Elimination Act requires agencies make available to the public electronic reporting alternatives to paper-based submissions by 2003, unless there is a strong reason for not doing so.  One such reason is that, at the present time, the Agency is unable to ensure the security of CBI that might be transmitted over the Internet.

 (A) What do you think about electronic alternatives to paper-based records?

 Response: If a registrant or refiller has the resources and means to electronically report, we strongly agree that this is a good option.

 (B) Are you keeping your records electronically?   If yes, in what format?

 Response: Some are electronic, some are not. Our contracts are captured in an internal electronic signature system.

 Our refillers are also a mix as far as capturing electronically or on paper.

(5) Burden and Costs
 (A) Are the labor rates accurate?

 Response: We don't have any information that would indicate that these rates are not accurate.

 (B) The Agency assumes there is no capital cost associated with this activity.  Is that correct?

 Response: Correct.

 (C) Bearing in mind that the burden and cost estimates include only burden hours and costs associated with the paperwork involved with this ICR, e.g., the ICR does not include estimated burden hours and costs for conducting studies, are the estimated burden hours and labor rates accurate? If you provide burden and cost estimates that are substantially different from EPA's, please provide an explanation of how you arrived at your estimates.

 Response: Yes they are.

 (D) Are there other costs that should be accounted for that may have been missed?

 Response: Development and storage of documentation associated with United Nations authorized packaging creates a significant cost burden for pesticide registrants. These costs may be associated with either in-house testing and data maintenance or contracted to third party test labs.

 B. Responses from Scott Warner, BASF

(1) Publicly Available Data
 Is the data that the Agency seeks available from any public source, or already collected by another office at EPA or by another agency? If yes, where can you find the data?

 Response: Not that I am aware of.

(2) Frequency of Collection
 Can the Agency require less frequent recordkeeping and still produce the same outcome?

 Response: Possibly.

(3) Clarity of Instructions
 The ICR is intended to require that respondents keep certain records of data so that the Agency can utilize them.

 (A) Based on the instructions (regulations, PR Notices, fact sheets, etc.), is it clear what you are required to do and what records to keep? If not, what suggestions do you have to clarify the instructions?

 Response: It is clear as a manufacturer is concerned.

 (B) There is no required recordkeeping format. Does this make it difficult to comply with the requirements in the container-containment rule?

 Response: I believe this is good from retailer standpoint as everyone has their owns systems.

(4) Electronic Reporting and Record keeping
The Government Paperwork Elimination Act requires agencies make available to the public electronic reporting alternatives to paper-based submissions by 2003, unless there is a strong reason for not doing so.  One such reason is that, at the present time, the Agency is unable to ensure the security of CBI that might be transmitted over the Internet.

 (A) What do you think about electronic alternatives to paper-based records?

 Response:  Security of information is a concern.

 (B) Are you keeping your records electronically?   If yes, in what format?

 Response: Excel at the plants.

(5) Burden and Costs

Response:  I'm not really involved on this portion but do think some Distributor Partners from the AASA Board may have an opinion.  I will say I have heard no negative feedback from our Bulk Customers.

 (A) Are the labor rates accurate?

 Response: N/A

 (B) The Agency assumes there is no capital cost associated with this activity.  Is that correct?

 Response: N/A

 (C) Bearing in mind that the burden and cost estimates include only burden hours and costs associated with the paperwork involved with this ICR, e.g., the ICR does not include estimated burden hours and costs for conducting studies, are the estimated burden hours and labor rates accurate? If you provide burden and cost estimates that are substantially different from EPA's, please provide an explanation of how you arrived at your estimates.

 Response: N/A

 (D) Are there other costs that should be accounted for that may have been missed?

 Response: N/A

C. Responses from David Wieties, Helena Agri-Enterprises

(1) Publicly Available Data
 Is the data that the Agency seeks available from any public source, or already collected by another office at EPA or by another agency? If yes, where can you find the data?

 Response: No, the required record keeping, inspection reports and training are not required to be submitted to any agency therefore there is no public record (data base) available.

(2) Frequency of Collection
 Can the Agency require less frequent recordkeeping and still produce the same outcome?

 Response: No, the current record keeping requirement is adequate and should not be adjusted one way or the other.

(3) Clarity of Instructions
 The ICR is intended to require that respondents keep certain records of data so that the Agency can utilize them.

 (A) Based on the instructions (regulations, PR Notices, fact sheets, etc.), is it clear what you are required to do and what records to keep? If not, what suggestions do you have to clarify the instructions?

 Response: The rules are very clear as what record must be kept.

 (B) There is no required recordkeeping format. Does this make it difficult to comply with the requirements in the container-containment rule?

 Response: While there is no required format, the rules are clear as to what data must be collected. The fact that the format is left up to the refiller allows us to collect the data in a matter that works for each location.

(4) Electronic Reporting and Record keeping
The Government Paperwork Elimination Act requires agencies make available to the public electronic reporting alternatives to paper-based submissions by 2003, unless there is a strong reason for not doing so.  One such reason is that, at the present time, the Agency is unable to ensure the security of CBI that might be transmitted over the Internet.

Response: Any electronic records maintained would be stored in house and not submitted to an agency.

 (A) What do you think about electronic alternatives to paper-based records?

 Response: We use electronic means to store inspection and training documents in house.  We tried using electronic means for the tracking/record keeping (scanning bar codes) of containers and that doesn't work as well. The areas where containers are refilled are typically exposed to more harsh conditions that aren't compatible with electronics. The electronics seem to have issues (break down) which slows the refilling process and result in manual records being used.

 (B) Are you keeping your records electronically?   If yes, in what format?

 Response: The records stored electronically are in .pdf format or stored within our Oracle data base.

(5) Burden and Costs
 (A) Are the labor rates accurate?

 Response: Yes, the labor rates are accurate.

 (B) The Agency assumes there is no capital cost associated with this activity.  Is that correct?

 Response: There is a small capital invest for tracking supplies.  Approximately $20.00 per location that refills.  300 locations x $20 = $6,000 per year

 (C) Bearing in mind that the burden and cost estimates include only burden hours and costs associated with the paperwork involved with this ICR, e.g., the ICR does not include estimated burden hours and costs for conducting studies, are the estimated burden hours and labor rates accurate? If you provide burden and cost estimates that are substantially different from EPA's, please provide an explanation of how you arrived at your estimates.

 Response:  N/A

 (D) Are there other costs that should be accounted for that may have been missed?

 Response: No.

D. Responses from Rick Yabroff, Land O'Lakes

(1) Publicly Available Data
 Is the data that the Agency seeks available from any public source, or already collected by another office at EPA or by another agency? If yes, where can you find the data?

Response: No

(2) Frequency of Collection
 Can the Agency require less frequent recordkeeping and still produce the same outcome?

Response:  Collecting data every other year instead of every year will likely produce the same data.

(3) Clarity of Instructions
 The ICR is intended to require that respondents keep certain records of data so that the Agency can utilize them.

 (A) Based on the instructions (regulations, PR Notices, fact sheets, etc.), is it clear what you are required to do and what records to keep? If not, what suggestions do you have to clarify the instructions?

Response: The requirements are clear.

 (B) There is no required recordkeeping format. Does this make it difficult to comply with the requirements in the container-containment rule?

Response: No.

(4) Electronic Reporting and Record keeping
The Government Paperwork Elimination Act requires agencies make available to the public electronic reporting alternatives to paper-based submissions by 2003, unless there is a strong reason for not doing so.  One such reason is that, at the present time, the Agency is unable to ensure the security of CBI that might be transmitted over the Internet.

 (A) What do you think about electronic alternatives to paper-based records?

 Response: Electronic recordkeeping tends to be more secure and transmittable to other internal resources.

 (B) Are you keeping your records electronically?   If yes, in what format?

Response: Some of our facilities maintain paper records and others maintain electronic records.

(5) Burden and Costs
 (A) Are the labor rates accurate?

 Response: Yes. The burden hourly rates are reasonable.

 (B) The Agency assumes there is no capital cost associated with this activity.  Is that correct?

 Response: No. Many facilities and companies install bar codes on refillable and non-refillable containers so they can scan the bar codes and collect the required information. These type of electronic scanning and recordkeeping systems are essential at large facilities because of the number of containers which are filled. They are becoming required and are expensive. This summary does not take those systems into consideration.

 (C) Bearing in mind that the burden and cost estimates include only burden hours and costs associated with the paperwork involved with this ICR, e.g., the ICR does not include estimated burden hours and costs for conducting studies, are the estimated burden hours and labor rates accurate? If you provide burden and cost estimates that are substantially different from EPA's, please provide an explanation of how you arrived at your estimates.

 Response: The estimated burden hours are not accurate. The recordkeeping requirements require more time unless it is automated and also monthly management review to ensure the data is being collected correctly. Because of turnover in employees, new employees must be trained several times per year which increases management time.

 (D) Are there other costs that should be accounted for that may have been missed?

 Response: There is a cost associated with maintaining repackaging agreements and cleaning instructions for refillers. Registrants do not always make this information readily available so management time must be spent contacting registrants to receive the required documents. Products change frequently at many facilities and retailers and wholesalers must constantly review and update repackage agreements and cleaning procedures.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 80 (Friday, April 24, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23015-23016]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08769]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER20-1599-000]

Richmond Spider Solar, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Richmond Spider Solar, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is May 11, 2020.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human

Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
eLibrary link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits
in the docket number field to access the document. At this time, the
Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public Reference
Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning
the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the President on
March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free, (886) 208-
3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 20, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-08769 Filed 4-23-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P