[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 212 (Wednesday, November 2, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67724-67725]
[FR Doc No: 2011-28395]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2698-052]

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC; Notice of Application for Amendment
of License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Amendment of license.
    b. Project No: 2698-052.
    c. Date Filed: August 22, 2011.
    d. Applicant: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: East Fork Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the East Fork Tuckasegee
River and Wolf Creek in Jackson County, North Carolina .
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a--825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Jeffrey G. Lineberger, Duke Energy Carolinas,
LLC, 526 South Church Street, P.O. Box 1006, Charlotte, NC 28202, (704)
382-5942.
    i. FERC Contact: Rebecca Martin,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests: November 28, 2011.
    All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See, 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web
site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. If unable to be
filed electronically, documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an
original and seven copies should be mailed to: Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters,
without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and
contact information at the end of your comments. Please include the
project number (P-2698-052) on any comments or motions filed.
    k. Description of Application: Duke Energy Carolina, LLC is
requesting Commission approval to install and operate a new small
turbine for providing minimum flows to the Tuckasegee River from the
Cedar Cliff Development, as required by article 404 of the project's
license. The licensee also requests to adjust the project's authorized
installed capacity (AIC) to agree with the definition in 18 CFR
11.1(i). The AIC would change from 26,175 KW specified in the license,
to 24,280 KW, which includes a 395KW increase from the minimum flow
unit and adjustments to AIC for all three developments at the project
to account for differences in net head resulting from operations under
the new license for the project.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field (P-2698) to access the document. You
may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-(866)
208-3676 or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call (202) 502-
8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the
address in item (h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1)
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or
``MOTION TO INTERVENE'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the
name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR
4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate
to project works which are the subject of the amendment application.
Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the
applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served
upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular

application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of all other
filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof
of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the
Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and
385.2010.

    Dated: October 27, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-28395 Filed 11-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 162 (Monday, August 22, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52222-52225]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20673]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0515; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-196-AD;
Amendment 39-16776; AD 2011-17-12]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10
(Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702), Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet
Series 705), and Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

    Several cases have been reported of cracks in the joint
extrusions securing the outer bondment to the acoustic panel of the
nacelle transcowl assemblies. Although there is no effect on flight
safety (thrust reverser stowed), thrust reverser deployment under
rejected take-off or emergency landing load conditions could
potentially result in acoustic panel failure and possible runway
debris.
* * * * *
The loss of an acoustic panel during rejected take-off or emergency
landing load conditions could leave debris on the runway. This debris,
if not removed, creates an unsafe condition for other airplanes during
take-off or landing, as those airplanes could impact debris on the
runway and sustain damage. We are issuing this AD to require actions to
correct the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective September 26, 2011.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of September 26,
2011.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to
amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified
products. That supplemental NPRM was published in the Federal Register
on April 6, 2011 (76 FR 18957). That supplemental NPRM proposed to
correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI
states:

    Several cases have been reported of cracks in the joint
extrusions securing the outer bondment to the acoustic panel of the
nacelle transcowl assemblies. Although there is no effect on flight
safety (thrust reverser stowed), thrust reverser deployment under
rejected take-off or emergency landing load conditions could
potentially result in acoustic panel failure and possible runway
debris.
    This [Canadian] directive mandates inspection, repair (if
necessary) and reinforcement of the transcowl assemblies.

The loss of an acoustic panel during rejected take-off or emergency
landing load conditions could leave debris on the runway. This debris,
if not removed, creates an unsafe condition for other airplanes during
take-off or landing, as those airplanes could impact debris on the
runway and sustain damage. The inspection is a detailed visual
inspection of the outboard edge of the transcowl joint extrusion for
evidence of cracking. The repair consists of doing an eddy current or
liquid penetrant inspection for cracking, and depending on the results,
either removing the affected joint extrusion area and replacing with
packers, or contacting Bombardier for repair instructions and

doing the repair. The reinforcement of the transcowl assemblies
includes installing new support channels. You may obtain further
information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We considered the comments received.

Request To Allow for Records Review

    American Eagle Airlines (AEA) requested that we revise the
supplemental NPRM to allow operators to perform a records review in
lieu of the inspection for part number, serial number, and repair
status of each transcowl assembly, as required by paragraph (g) of the
supplemental NPRM. AEA did not provide reasoning for this request.
    We agree to allow operators to perform a records review in lieu of
the inspection for part number, serial number, and repair status of
each transcowl assembly. We have determined that a review of airplane
maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of the inspection, if the
part number, serial number, and repair status of each transcowl
assembly can be conclusively determined from that review. We have
revised paragraph (g) of the final rule accordingly.

Request To Revise Paragraph (g)(1) of the Supplemental NPRM

    AEA requested that we revise paragraph (g)(1) of the supplemental
NPRM to remove the reference to paragraph (h) of the supplemental NPRM.
AEA explained that the transcowls specified in paragraph (g)(1) of the
supplemental NPRM are post-modified transcowls and do not need the
inspections required by paragraph (h) of the supplemental NPRM. AEA
reasoned that paragraph (h) of the supplemental NPRM should not apply
to airplanes that have met the conditions specified in paragraph
(g)(1)(i), (g)(1)(ii), or (g)(1)(iii) of the supplemental NPRM.
    We agree to revise paragraph (g)(1) of the final rule to remove
reference to paragraph (h) of the final rule. We have determined that
only paragraph (k) of the final rule applies to post-modification
transcowls. We have revised paragraph (g)(1) of the final rule
accordingly.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data, including the comment received, and
determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the
AD with the changes described previously. We determined that these
changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or
increase the scope of the AD.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

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

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 361 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 8 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $0 per product.
Where the service information lists required parts costs that are
covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge
for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected
parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based
on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators
to be $245,480, or $680 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take between 4 and 8 work-hours and require parts costing $0, for a
cost between $340 and $680 per product. We have no way of determining
the number of products that may need these actions.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this 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 this AD:
    1. Is not a ''significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ''significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

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 AD:

2011-17-12 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-16776. Docket No. FAA-
2010-0515; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-196-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective
September 26, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs
(c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, certificated in any category.
    (1) Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700,
701, & 702) airplanes, serial numbers 10003 through 10265 inclusive.
    (2) Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705)
and Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, serial
numbers 15001 through 15192 inclusive.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 78: Engine
exhaust.

Reason

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

    Several cases have been reported of cracks in the joint
extrusions securing the outer bondment to the acoustic panel of the
nacelle transcowl assemblies. Although there is no effect on flight
safety (thrust reverser stowed), thrust reverser deployment under
rejected take-off or emergency landing load conditions could
potentially result in acoustic panel failure and possible runway
debris.
* * * * *
The loss of an acoustic panel during rejected take-off or emergency
landing load conditions could leave debris on the runway. This
debris, if not removed, creates an unsafe condition for other
airplanes during take-off or landing, as those airplanes could
impact debris on the runway and sustain damage.

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Inspection, Repair, and Reinforcement

    (g) Within 5,000 flight hours or 24 months after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs first, inspect for the part number
and serial number of each transcowl assembly, and, as applicable,
the repair status of each transcowl assembly. A review of airplane
maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the
part number and serial number of each transcowl assembly, and, as
applicable, the repair status of each transcowl assembly can be
conclusively determined from that review.
    (1) If all transcowl assemblies installed on any airplane meet
one of the conditions listed in paragraph (g)(1)(i), (g)(1)(ii), or
(g)(1)(iii) of this AD, no further action is required by this AD,
except paragraph (k) of this AD must be complied with.
    (i) Having part number (P/N) KCN624-2003-3, -4, -5, -6, -7, or -
8, as listed in Bombardier Service Bulletin 670SH-78-029, Revision
C, dated November 10, 2010.
    (ii) Having P/Ns CN624-2001-XXX or KCN624-2001-X (XXX and X mean
various dash numbers), with serial number (S/N) SB0965 or higher.
    (iii) Having P/Ns CN624-2001-XXX or KCN624-2001-X (XXX and X
mean various dash numbers), and repaired in accordance with one of
the Bombardier repair engineering orders (REOs) listed in paragraph
1.D. of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-78-008, Revision B, dated
December 22, 2010; or paragraph 1.A. of Bombardier Service Bulletin
670SH-78-029, Revision C, dated November 10, 2010.
    (2) If one or more of the transcowl assemblies have P/N CN624-
2001-XXX or KCN624-2001-X (XXX and X mean various dash numbers),
with S/N SB0964 or lower, and have not been repaired in accordance
with one of the Bombardier REOs listed in paragraph 1.D. of
Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-78-008, Revision B, dated December
22, 2010; or paragraph 1.A. of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670SH-78-
029, Revision C, dated November 10, 2010; do the actions specified
in paragraph (i) of this AD.
    (h) As of the effective date of this AD, if any high-energy stop
occurs and the thrust reversers are deployed above 68% N1, or if a
rejected take-off (RTO) occurs and the thrust reversers are deployed
above 68% N1: Perform a detailed inspection for cracks of each
transcowl assembly (left, right, upper, and lower) before further
flight, by doing the actions specified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2),
and (h)(3) of this AD. Doing the requirements of paragraph (i) of
this AD terminates the requirements of paragraph (h) of this AD.
    (1) Open the cowling on the left and right engines.
    (2) Do a detailed inspection for cracks of the joint extrusion
of the upper and lower transcowl assembly on the left and right
engines at the location of the joint piece. If no cracks are found,
close the cowlings on the left and right engines.
    (3) If any crack is found on one or more transcowl assemblies
during the inspection required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD,
before further flight, repair and reinforce the cracked part(s) in
accordance with paragraph (i)(1) of this AD.

    Note 1: Procedure--Part 3 of Task 05-51-27-210-801 of Chapter
05, Part 2, Volume 1, of the Bombardier CRJ Series Regional Jet
Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM), CSP B-001, Revision 34, dated
November 20, 2010, provides guidance for opening and closing the
cowling on the left and right engines.

    (i) For transcowl assemblies identified in paragraph (g)(2) of
this AD: Except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD, within
5,000 flight hours or 24 months after the effective date of this AD,
whichever comes first, do a detailed inspection for cracking on each
transcowl assembly, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-78-008, Revision
B, dated December 22, 2010; or Bombardier Service Bulletin 670SH-78-
029, Revision C, dated November 10, 2010. Accomplishment of the
actions specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD for all
transcowl assemblies identified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD
terminates the requirements of paragraph (h) of this AD.
    (1) If any cracking of the joint extrusion is found, before
further flight, repair and reinforce the joint extrusion on each
transcowl assembly, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-78-008, Revision
B, dated December 22, 2010; or Bombardier Service Bulletin 670SH-78-
029, Revision C, dated November 10, 2010.
    (2) If no cracking is found, before further flight, reinforce
the joint extrusion on each transcowl assembly, in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin
670BA-78-008, Revision B, dated December 22, 2010; or Bombardier
Service Bulletin 670SH-78-029, Revision C, dated November 10, 2010.

Credit for Actions Accomplished in Accordance With Previous Service
Information

    (j) Inspections, repairs, and reinforcement of the joint
extrusion on each transcowl is also acceptable for compliance with
the corresponding requirements of paragraph (i) of this AD if done
before the effective date of this AD in accordance with the service
information listed in table 1 of this AD.

                                       Table 1--Credit Service Information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Document                            Revision                              Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-78-008.  Original....................  September 19, 2008.
Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-78-008.  A...........................  July 10, 2009.
Bombardier Service Bulletin 670SH-78-029.  Original....................  July 3, 2008.
Bombardier Service Bulletin 670SH-78-029.  A...........................  June 30, 2009.
Bombardier Service Bulletin 670SH-78-029.  B...........................  November 25, 2009.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Parts Installation

    (k) As of the effective date of this AD, no replacement or spare
transcowl assembly having P/N CN624-2001-XXX or KCN624-2001-X (XXX
and X mean various dash numbers), with S/N SB0964 or lower, may be
installed on any airplane, except for a transcowl assembly on which
any repair listed in paragraph 1.D. of Bombardier Service Bulletin
670BA-78-008, Revision B, dated December 22, 2010, or paragraph 1.A.
of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670SH-78-029, Revision C, dated
November 10, 2010, has been done; and except for a transcowl that
has been inspected as specified in paragraph (i) of this AD and all
applicable actions specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this
AD, as applicable, have been done.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (l) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York Aircraft Certification Office, ANE-170, 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 NYACO, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational
Safety, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. 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. The AMOC
approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

Related Information

    (m) Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2009-33,
dated July 28, 2009; Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-78-008,
Revision B, dated December 22, 2010; and Bombardier Service Bulletin
670SH-78-029, Revision C, dated November 10, 2010; for related
information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (n) You must use Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-78-008,
Revision B, dated December 22, 2010; and Bombardier Service Bulletin
670SH-78-029, Revision C, dated November 10, 2010; as applicable; to
do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies
otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval,
Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 514-855-
7401; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the 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/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 8, 2011.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-20673 Filed 8-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 247 (Friday, December 23, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 80230]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32847]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2010-1328; Airspace Docket No. 10-AEA-26]

Amendment of Class D and E Airspace; Baltimore, MD

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule, correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action corrects the geographic coordinates in the
airspace description of a final rule published in the Federal Register
of November 28, 2011, amending controlled airspace at Martin State
Airport, Baltimore, MD.

DATES: Effective date: 0901 UTC. February 9, 2012. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On November 28, 2011, the FAA published a final rule in the Federal
Register amending Class D and E airspace at Martin State Airport,
Baltimore, MD, and adjusting the geographic coordinates for the airport
(76 FR 72837). This action further corrects the geographic coordinates
to be in concert with the FAAs aeronautical database.
    The Class D and E airspace designations are published in Paragraphs
5000, 6002 and 6004 of FAA order 7400.9V, dated August 9, 2011, and
effective September 15, 2011, which is incorporated by reference in 14
CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document
will be published subsequently in the Order.

Correction to Final Rule

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the
geographic coordinates listed in the airspace designation for the Class
D and Class E airspace areas at Martin State Airport, Baltimore, MD, as
published in the Federal Register of November 28, 2011, 76 FR 72837, FR
Doc. 2011-30489, are corrected as follows:

AEA MD D Baltimore, Martin State Airport, MD [Corrected]

Martin State Airport, Baltimore, MD
    On page 72837, column 3, line 53, remove (Lat. 39[deg]19'54''
N., long. 76[deg]24'83'' W.) and insert (Lat. 39[deg]19'32'' N.,
long. 76[deg]24'50'' W.)

AEA MD E2 Baltimore, Martin State Airport, MD [Corrected]

Martin State Airport, MD
    On page 72838, column 1, line 14, remove (Lat. 39[deg]19'54''
N., long. 76[deg]24'83'' W.) and insert (Lat. 39[deg]19'32'' N.,
long. 76[deg]24'50'' W.)

AEA MD E4 Baltimore, Martin State Airport, MD [Corrected]

Martin State Airport, MD
    On page 72838, column 1, line 38, remove (Lat. 39[deg]19'54''
N., long. 76[deg]24'83'' W.) and insert (Lat. 39[deg]19'32'' N.,
long. 76[deg]24'50'' W.)

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on December 13, 2011.
Michael Vermuth,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2011-32847 Filed 12-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 174 (Monday, September 9, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55029-55037]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21883]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0333; FRL-9900-83-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation; Texas; Houston:
Reasonable Further Progress Plan, Contingency Measures, and
Transportation Conformity Budgets for the 1997 8-Hour Severe Ozone
Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Texas State
Implementation Plan to the emissions inventory (EI), the reasonable
further progress (RFP) plan and contingency measures, the vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) offset analysis, and transportation conformity motor
vehicle emissions budgets associated with the reasonable further
progress portion of these revisions. The EPA is proposing to approve
these revisions because they satisfy the EI, the RFP, the VMT offset,
and transportation conformity requirements for areas classified as
severe nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air
quality standard and demonstrate further progress in reducing ozone
precursors.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 9, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R06-
OAR-2010-0333, by one of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     U.S. EPA Region 6 ``Contact Us'' Web site: http://epa.gov/region6/r6coment.htm. Please click on ``6PD'' (Multimedia) and select
``Air'' before submitting comments.
     Email: Mr. Guy Donaldson at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
also send a copy by email to the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section below.
     Fax: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), at fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
     Hand or Courier Delivery: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air
Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Such deliveries are
accepted only between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. weekdays
except for legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2010-0333. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through
www.regulations.gov or email, information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means the EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with
any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due
to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the
EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should
avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be
free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the
EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Planning Section
(6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made available by
appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review Room
between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal
holidays. Contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT paragraph below to make an appointment. If possible, please
make the appointment at least two working days in advance of your
visit. There will be a fee of 15 cents per page for making photocopies
of documents. On the day of the visit, please check in at the EPA
Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas.
    The State submittal, which is part of the EPA record, is also
available for public inspection at the State Air Agency listed below
during official business hours by appointment: Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality, Office of Air Quality, 12124 Park 35 Circle,
Austin, Texas 78753.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Sandra Rennie, Air Planning
Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' means EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What action is EPA proposing?
II. What is the background for this action?
III. What is EPA's evaluation of the revisions?
    A. Base Year Emissions Inventory
    B. Adjusted Base Year Inventory and 2008 RFP Target Levels
    C. Projected Inventories and Determination of RFP
    D. Control Measures and Emission Reductions for RFP
    E. Contingency Measures
    F. Vehicle Miles Traveled Offset Analysis
    G. Transportation Conformity Budgets
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA proposing?

    The EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Texas State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB)
ozone nonattainment area submitted by the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality on April 1, 2010,

and an updated revision using the MOVES2010a \1\ mobile model submitted
on May 6, 2013. We are proposing to approve the following SIP elements:
The revised emission inventory (EI); the reasonable further progress
plan (RFP) and contingency measures; the vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
offset analysis; and the associated motor vehicle emission budget
(MVEB) for transportation conformity. The SIP revision satisfies the
EI, RFP, VMT offset, and MVEB requirements for areas classified as
severe nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air
quality standard (NAAQS) and demonstrates reasonable further progress
in reducing ozone precursors. We are proposing to take this action
pursuant to section 110 and part D of the Clean Air Act (Act or CAA)
and EPA's regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ MOVES is an acronym for MOtor Vehicle Emission Simulator.
This new emission modeling system released September 23, 2011,
estimates emissions for mobile sources covering a broad range of
pollutants and allows multiple scale analysis of emissions estimates
from cars, trucks & motorcycles. Use of the MOVES model in SIPs was
required as of March 2, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What is the background for this action?

    In 1997 (62 FR 38856), the EPA revised the health-based NAAQS for
ozone, setting it at 0.08 parts per million (ppm) averaged over an 8-
hour time frame. The EPA set the 8-hour ozone standard based on
scientific evidence demonstrating that ozone causes adverse health
effects at lower ozone concentrations and over a longer period of time
than was understood when the pre-existing 1-hour ozone standard was
set. The EPA determined that the 8-hour standard would be more
protective of human health, especially children and adults who are
active outdoors, and individuals with a pre-existing respiratory
disease, such as asthma.
    On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23858), the EPA finalized its attainment/
nonattainment designations for areas across the country with respect to
the 8-hour ozone standard. These actions became effective on June 15,
2004. Among those areas designated as nonattainment is HGB.
    This designation triggered the CAA's section 110(a)(1) requirement
that states must submit attainment demonstrations for their
nonattainment areas to the EPA by no later than three years after the
promulgation of the NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA's phase I 8-hour ozone
implementation rule (Phase I Rule), published on April 30, 2004 (69 FR
23951), specified that states must submit attainment demonstrations for
their nonattainment areas to the EPA by no later than three years from
the effective date of designation, that is, by June 15, 2007.
    Pursuant to the Phase 1 rule, an area was classified under subpart
2 of the CAA based on its 8-hour design value if that area had a 1-hour
design value at or above 0.121 ppm (the lowest 1-hour design value in
Table 1 of subpart 2). Based on this criterion, the HGB nonattainment
area was classified as a moderate nonattainment area.
    On November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612), and as revised on June 8, 2007
(72 FR 31727), EPA published the final Phase 2 Rule for implementation
of the 8-hour standard (Phase 2 rule). The Phase 2 rule addressed the
RFP control and planning obligations as they apply to areas designated
nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    Among other things, the Phase 1 and Phase 2 rules outline the SIP
requirements and deadlines for various requirements in areas designated
as moderate and above nonattainment. The rule further requires that
modeling and attainment demonstrations, RFP plans, reasonably available
control measures (RACM), projection year emission inventories, MVEB,
and contingency measures were all due by June 15, 2007 (See 40 CFR
51.908(a), (c)).
    Section 182(b)(1) of the CAA and EPA's 1997 8-hour ozone
implementation rule (40 CFR 51.910) require each 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area designated moderate and above to submit an EI and
RFP plan, for review and approval into its SIP, that describe how the
area will achieve actual emissions reductions of VOC and NOX
from a baseline emissions inventory.
    On June 15, 2007, the EPA received a request from Texas Governor
Perry seeking voluntary reclassification of the HGB nonattainment area
from moderate to severe nonattainment under the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard. The EPA reclassified the eight-county HGB area from a
moderate to a severe nonattainment area for the 1997 eight-hour ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) effective on October 31,
2008. (73 FR 56983). Reclassification of the HGB area to severe
required Texas to develop and submit a revised RFP SIP and a VMT offset
analysis.

III. What is EPA's evaluation of the revisions?

    The EPA's analysis and findings are discussed in this proposed
rulemaking. A more detailed discussion is contained in the Technical
Support Document (TSD) for this Proposal, which is available on line at
http://www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0333.
    On April 1, 2010, Texas submitted an updated emission inventory, a
plan demonstrating 18 percent RFP for the period 2002-2008, contingency
measures for RFP, and on-road VOC and NOX MVEBs. In
addition, the RFP demonstrated 9% reductions from 2009 through 2011; 9%
reductions from 2012 through 2014; 9% reductions from 2015 through
2017; 3% reductions in 2018; and 3% reductions in 2019 for contingency
purposes. These accompanied an attainment demonstration which is the
subject of a separate rulemaking. These SIP revisions were subject to
notice and comment by the public, and the State of Texas addressed the
comments received on the proposed SIP revisions. The State revised the
EI and the RFP in a submittal dated May 6, 2013, using EPA's MOVES2010a
mobile model in place of MOBILE6 that was used in the 2010 submittal.

A. Base Year Emissions Inventory

    An emissions inventory is a comprehensive, accurate, current
inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant
pollutant or pollutants in an area and is required by section 172(c)(3)
of the CAA. For ozone nonattainment areas, the emissions inventory
needs to contain VOC and NOX emissions because these
pollutants are precursors to ozone formation. In the Phase 2
implementation rule, the EPA recommended 2002 as the base year
emissions inventory,\2\ and is therefore the starting point for
calculating RFP. Texas submitted the 2002 base year inventories for all
state nonattainment areas on May 13, 2005. The EPA approved the HGB
emission inventory on April 22, 2009 (74 FR 18298). The April 2010 and
May 2013 submittals provide an updated base year inventory using
MOVES2010a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ November 18, 2002 EPA memorandum ``2002 Base Year Emission
Inventory SIP Planning: 8-Hour Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional
Haze Programs, available at http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eidocs/2002baseinven_102502new.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the 2002 Base Year
Emissions Inventory. Table 1 provides the 2002 emissions inventory as
previously submitted in 2005 and approved in 2009 with the updated 2010
inventory revised and adopted by Texas in 2013 for approval into the
SIP.

                        Table 1--Revisions to the 2002 RFP Base Year Emissions Inventory
                                                   [Tons/day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Source type                                  NOX                             VOC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Submittal date                        2005            2010            2005            2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................................          339.48          339.29          297.12          316.62
Area............................................           40.15           89.11          219.51          407.61
On-road Mobile..................................          283.20          371.89          114.30          124.47
Non-road Mobile.................................          167.74          156.98          112.37           84.32
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................          830.57          957.27          743.30          933.02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A summary of the updated 2002 base year inventory submitted May 6,
2013 is shown in Table 2 below.

                             Table 2--RFP 2002 Baseline Emissions Inventory Summary
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Uncontrolled                     Controlled
                   Source type                   ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        NOX             VOC             NOX             VOC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................................          339.29          316.62          339.29          316.62
Area............................................           89.11          407.61           89.11          407.61
On-road Mobile..................................          552.30          205.76          371.89          124.47
Non-road Mobile.................................          166.98          100.15          156.98           84.32
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................         1147.68         1030.14          957.27          933.02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Adjusted Base Year Inventory and 2008 RFP Target Levels

    The process for determining the emissions baseline from which the
RFP reductions are calculated is described in section 182(b)(1) of the
CAA and 40 CFR 51.910. This baseline value is the 2002 adjusted base
year inventory. Sections 182(b)(1)(B) and (D) require the exclusion
from the base year inventory of emissions benefits resulting from the
Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP) regulations promulgated
by January 1, 1990, and the Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) regulations
promulgated June 11, 1990 (55 FR 23666). The FMVCP and RVP emissions
reductions are determined by the State using EPA's highway mobile
source emissions model software, MOVES2010a. The FMVCP and RVP emission
reduction are then removed from the base year inventory by the State,
resulting in an adjusted base year inventory. The emission reductions
needed to satisfy the RFP requirement are then calculated from the
adjusted base year inventory. The reductions are then subtracted from
the adjusted base year inventory to establish the emissions target for
the RFP milestone year (2018).
    For severe areas like the HGB nonattainment area, the CAA Sec.
182(c)(2)(B) specifies a 15 percent reduction in ozone precursor
emissions over an initial six-year period, and an additional three
percent per year for every year thereafter until the attainment year.
In the Phase 2 rule, EPA provided that areas that were also designated
nonattainment and classified as moderate or higher for the 1-hour ozone
standard and that have the same boundaries as an area for which the EPA
fully approved a 15 percent plan for the 1-hour NAAQS, are considered
to have met the requirement of section 182(b)(1) of the CAA for the 8-
hour NAAQS. In this situation, a severe nonattainment area is subject
to RFP under 172(c)(2) of the CAA and shall submit, no later than three
years after designation for the 8-hour NAAQS, a SIP revision that meets
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.910(b)(2). The RFP SIP revision must
provide for a 15 percent emission reduction (of NOX and/or
VOC) accounting for any growth that occurs during the six year period
following the baseline emissions inventory year, i.e., 2002-2008.
    The HGB nonattainment area had the same boundary under the 1-hour
ozone standard as that of the 8-hour ozone standard. The HGB area under
the 1-hour ozone standard was classified as severe. The EPA approved
the HGB 15 percent RFP plan on April 22, 2009 (74 FR 18298). Therefore,
according to the Phase 2 Rule, the RFP plan for the HGB nonattainment
area may use either NOX or VOC emissions reductions (or
both) to achieve the 15 percent emission reduction requirement.
    According to section 182(b)(1)(D) of the CAA, emission reductions
that resulted from the FMVCP and RVP rules promulgated prior to 1990
are not creditable for achieving RFP emission reductions. Therefore,
the 2002 base year inventory is adjusted by subtracting the VOC and
NOX emission reductions that area expected to occur between
2002 and the future milestone years due to FMVCP and RVP rules.
    Texas sets out its calculations for the adjusted base year (ABY)
inventory and milestone target levels in Chapter 2, section 2.5.3 of
the 2010 submittal and Chapter 2, section 2.5 of the 2013 submittal,
according to the following method. See the calculations in Table 3
below.
    Step 1. Estimate the actual anthropogenic base year inventory for
both VOC and NOX in 2002 with all 2002 control programs in
place.
    Step 2. Using the same highway vehicle activity inputs used to
calculate the actual 2002 inventory, run the appropriate motor vehicle
emissions model for 2002 and for 2008 with all post-1990 CAA measures
turned off. Any other local inputs for vehicle inspection and
maintenance (I/M) programs should be set according to the program that
was required to be in place in 1990. Fuel RVP should be set at 9.0 or
7.8 depending on the RVP required in the local area as a result of fuel
RVP regulations promulgated in June 1990.

    Step 3. Calculate the difference between 2002 and 2008 VOC
emissions factors calculated in Step 2 and multiply by 2002 VMT. The
result is the VOC emissions reductions that will occur between 2002 and
2008 without the benefits of any post-1990 CAA measures. These are the
non-creditable VOC reductions that occur over this period. Calculate
the difference between 2002 and 2008 NOX emissions factors
calculated in Step 2 and multiply by 2002 VMT. This result is the
NOX emissions reductions that will occur between 2002 and
2008 without the benefits of any post-1990 CAA measures. These are the
non-creditable NOX reductions that occur over this period.
    Step 4. Subtract the non-creditable VOC reductions calculated in
Step 3 from the actual anthropogenic 2002 VOC inventory estimated in
Step 1. Subtract the non-creditable NOX reductions
calculated in Step 3 from the actual anthropogenic 2002 NOX
inventory estimated in Step 1. These adjusted VOC and NOX
inventories are the basis for calculating the target level of emissions
in 2008.
    Step 5. The target level of VOC and NOX emissions in
2008 needed to meet the 2008 rate of progress ROP requirement is any
combination of VOC and NOX reductions from the adjusted
inventories calculated in Step 4 that total 18 percent.

                    Table 3--HGB NAA 2008 RFP Target Level Calculations With NOX Substitution
                                               [Ozone Season tpd]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Description                                Formula           NOX             VOC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A 2002 Rate-of Progress Base Year Inventory.....................  ..............          957.27          933.02
B 2002 On-road ABY emissions inventory..........................  ..............          552.30          205.76
C FMVCP/RVP Reductions Between 2002 and 2008....................             B-C          -25.99           -0.13
D 2008 On-road ABY emissions inventory..........................  ..............          578.29          205.89
E 2008 ABY emission inventory...................................  ..............          983.26          933.15
F RFP Ratio.....................................................  ..............             17%              1%
G Emissions Reductions Required Between 2002 & 2008.............           E x F          167.15            9.33
 Target Level for 2008..........................................             A-G          816.10          923.82
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Projected Inventories and Determination of RFP

    Texas describes its methods used for developing its 2018 projected
VOC and NOX inventories in Chapter 2 of the 2010 SIP
submittal. EPA reviewed the procedures Texas used to develop its
projected inventories and found them to be reasonable.
    Projected controlled 2018 emissions for the HGB nonattainment area
are summarized in Tables 4 and 5.

                       Table 4--Summary of HGB RFP NOX Emission Reductions in Tons per Day
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Control strategy description         2008            2011            2014            2017            2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mass Emissions Cap and Trade              219.83          227.65          243.87          263.23          269.94
 Program (MECT).................
Tank Landing Loss Rule..........            0.00            0.00            0.00            0.00            0.00
Federal Portable Fuel Container             0.00            0.00            0.00            0.00            0.00
 (PFC) Rule.....................
Federal Motor Vehicle Control             150.64          319.72          409.05          486.84          510.15
 Program (FMVCP)................
Federal Reformulated Gasoline             150.64          189.54          213.44          235.00          241.29
 (RFG)..........................
Inspection and Maintenance (I/M)           17.35           16.62           11.80            8.03            7.10
On-road Texas Low Emission                  6.03            5.08            3.52            2.55            2.36
 Diesel (TxLED).................
Tier I and II Locomotive NOX               11.74           12.75           14.09           15.24           16.04
 standards......................
Small Non-Road Spark Ignition          \1\ -0.30       \1\ -0.39       \1\ -0.47       \1\ -0.56       \1\ -0.58
 (SI) Phase I...................
Heavy-duty Non-Road Engines.....            5.76            7.91            9.64           12.02           12.56
Tier 2 and 3 Non-Road Diesel                8.13           14.01           18.76           23.25           24.29
 Engines........................
Federal Standards for New Small             1.25            1.65            1.85            1.99            2.04
 Non-Road Spark Ignition (SI)
 Engines (Phase II).............
Federal Standards for New Large            12.27           20.30           27.01           31.10           32.13
 Non-road SI and Recreational
 Marine.........................
Non-road TxLED..................            2.87            2.59            2.14            1.73            1.59
Non-road RFG....................            0.00            0.00            0.00            0.00            0.00
Tier 4 Federal Standards for                0.00            0.52            4.67           10.96           12.82
 Diesel Engines.................
Federal Marine Diesel Tier 2....            1.96            3.23            4.72            6.20            6.90
Sum of Control Reductions.......          678.70          821.18          964.09         1097.58         1138.63
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The negative NOX emissions reductions number from Small Non-Road SI Phase I engines is attributed to fleet
  growth in light of more stringent standards.

                       Table 5--Summary of HGB RFP VOC Emission Reductions in Tons per Day
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Control strategy description         2008            2011            2014            2017            2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mass Emissions Cap and Trade                0.00            0.00            0.00            0.00            0.00
 Program (MECT).................
Tank Landing Loss Rule..........            0.00           11.50           11.50           11.50           11.50
Federal Portable Fuel Container             0.00            3.68            9.65           10.10           10.25
 (PFC) Rule.....................
Federal Motor Vehicle Control             109.17          148.83          188.98          222.89          232.44
 Program (FMVCP)................
Reformulated Gasoline (RFG).....           22.03           22.79           17.27           14.12           13.48
Inspection and Maintenance (I/M)            9.56            9.77            7.99            6.86            6.51

On-road Texas Low Emission                  0.00            0.00            0.00            0.00            0.00
 Diesel (TxLED).................
Tier I and II Locomotive NOX                0.27            0.34            0.43            0.53            0.59
 standards......................
Small Non-Road Spark Ignition               1.77            2.50            3.23            3.95            4.19
 (SI) Phase I...................
Heavy-Duty Non- Road Engines....            4.73            6.82            8.54           10.17           10.58
Tier 2 and 3 Non-Road Diesel                0.95            1.68            2.32            2.95            3.10
 Engines........................
Small Non-Road Spark Ignition              16.70           20.81           22.72           24.13           24.57
 (SI) Engines (Phase II)........
Large Non-Road SI and                       4.14            7.96           11.37           14.03           14.76
 Recreational Marine............
Non-road TxLED..................            0.00            0.00            0.00            0.00            0.00
Non-road RFG....................            0.04            0.13            0.22            0.30            0.33
Tier 4 Diesel Engines...........            0.00            0.03            0.26            0.52            0.59
Federal Marine Diesel Tier 2....            0.08            0.12            0.18            0.24            0.26
Sum of Control Reductions.......          169.44          236.96          284.66          322.29          333.15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine if 2018 RFP is met in the HGB nonattainment area, the
total projected controlled emissions must be compared to the target
levels calculated in the previous section of this document. As show
below in Table 6, the total VOC and NOX emission projections
meet the 2018 emission targets. Therefore, the 2018 RFP in the HGB
nonattainment area is demonstrated.

              Table 6--Summary of RFP Demonstration for HGB
                               [Tons/Day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Inventory                      NOX               VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 2018 Target.......................            555.22            907.50
2 2018 Uncontrolled Emissions.......           1636.21           1210.28
3 2008-2017 RFP Emission Reductions.           1097.60            302.46
4 2017-2018 RFP Emission Reductions.             41.03             10.86
5 Controlled RFP Emissions Forecast             497.59            896.95
 (Line 2 minus Line 3 minus Line 4).
6 Amount of Creditable Reductions                24.58              4.67
 Reserved for 2009-2018 Contingency.
7 2018 Projected Emissions after RFP            522.17            901.62
 Reductions (Add Lines 5 and 6).....
8 Excess(+)/Shortfall(-) (Line1                 +33.04             +5.88
 minus Line 7)......................
9 RFP Met? (Line 7 < Line 1)........               Yes               Yes
------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Control Measures and Emission Reductions for RFP

    The control measures upon which Texas relies for credit to
demonstrate RFP requirements for the HGB nonattainment area are
described in Chapter 4 of the 2010 SIP submittal. To demonstrate RFP
for the HGB nonattainment area, Texas used a combination of (1)
stationary point, (2) highway mobile, and (3) non-road mobile source
control measures.
    Stationary point source NOX reductions are from the mass
emissions cap and trade program (MECT). The MECT program is mandatory
for stationary facilities that emit NOX in the HGB ozone
nonattainment area (at sites that have a collective design capacity of
10 tons per year or more) and which are subject to the Texas Commission
on Environmental Quality NOX rules as found at 30 TAC
Chapter 117. Non-road emission reductions are from Federal controls on
non-road engines. Reduction in on-road mobile source emissions are from
the inspection and maintenance (I/M) program, summer reformulated
gasoline, the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP), and the
Texas low emission diesel (TxLED) program.
    The EPA initially approved the MECT rules on November 14, 2001 (66
FR 571252). The most recent revision to these rules was on July 16,
2009 (74 FR 34503). All non-road, summer RFG and the FMVCP are federal
programs. The I/M program was initially approved November 14, 2001 (66
FR 57268), with the most recent revision on September 6, 2006 (71 FR
52670). The TxLED program was initially approved November 14, 2001 (66
FR 57196), with the most recent revision on May 6, 2013 (78 FR 26255).
Emission reductions from these control measures are summarized in
Tables 5 and 6 above.

E. Contingency Measures

    Section 172(c)(9) of the CAA requires a state with a moderate or
above ozone nonattainment area to include sufficient additional
contingency measures in its RFP plan in case the HGB nonattainment area
fails to meet RFP requirements. The same provision of the CAA also
requires that the contingency measures must be fully adopted control
measures or rules. Upon failure to meet and RFP milestone requirement,
the state must be able to implement the contingency measures without
any further rulemaking activities. Upon implementation of these
measures, additional emission reductions of at least 3 percent of the
adjusted 2002 baseline must be achieved. For more information on
contingency measures, see the April 16, 1992 General Preamble (57 FR
13498, at 13512) and the November 29, 2005 Phase 2 8-hour ozone
implementation rule (70 FR 71612).
    To meet the requirements for contingency emission reductions, the
EPA interprets the CAA to allow for the use of early implementation of
control measures as contingency measures. The EPA also interprets the
CAA to allow for the substitution of NOX emission reductions
for VOC emission reductions in the contingency plans (by any
combination of NOX and VOC, as long as the 3 percent
reduction is achieved and 0.50 percent of the total is attributable to
VOCs as prescribed by Texas).
    The RFP contingency requirement may be met by including in the RFP
plan a demonstration of 27 percent VOC and NOX RFP
reductions. The

additional 12 percent above the 15 percent requirement must be
attributed to specific measures. Texas elected to use emission
reductions in excess of those needed for RFP as the contingency
measures for the HGB RFP SIP. Tables 7-47 and 7-48 in the state's
submittal show how this is done. Table 7 below summarizes these
calculations and results for the 2018 attainment year. Contingency
measures for the 2008-2017 milestone years were calculated in a similar
manner.

 Table 7--Contingency Measure Demonstration for the 2018 Attainment Year
                               [Tons/Day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Description                     NOX               VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018 ABY Emission Inventory.........           1003.92            935.59
Percent for contingency calculation               2.50              0.50
 (total of 3%)......................
3% needed for contingency (2018-                 25.10              4.68
 2019)..............................
Control reductions to meet            ................  ................
 contingency requirements...........
Surplus reductions from 2018 RFP                 33.04              5.88
 demonstration......................
Subtract 2018 RFP MVEB safety margin            -11.00             -5.18
 from surplus reductions from 2018
 RFP demonstration..................
State and federal control measures               33.00             10.83
 (see TSD)..........................
Total contingency reductions........             55.04             11.53
Contingency excess (+) or shortfall             +29.95             +6.85
 (-)................................
Contingency met?....................               Yes               Yes
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine if Texas meets the 3 percent contingency measure
requirement for the HGB nonattainment area, the total projected
controlled emissions (including growth, but excluding reductions from
the non-creditable pre-1990 FMVCP) must be compared to the contingency
measure target levels calculated above. Texas has sufficient early
contingency measures in place to meet the contingency measure
requirement for the HGB nonattainment area for purposes of
demonstrating RFP in the attainment year and in the milestone years.

F. Vehicle Miles Traveled Offset Analysis

1. What is a VMT offset analysis?
    Section 182(d)(1)(A) of the Act directs states containing ozone
nonattainment areas classified as severe, pursuant to section 181(a) of
the Act, to adopt specific enforceable transportation control
strategies (TCSs) and transportation control measures (TCMs) to offset
increases in emissions resulting from growth in vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) or numbers of vehicle trips and to obtain reductions in motor
vehicle emissions as necessary (in combination with other emission
reduction requirements) to comply with the Act's RFP milestones
(sections 182(b)(1) and (c)(2)(B)) and attainment demonstration
requirements (section 182(c)(2)(A)). Section 182(d)(1)(A) of the Act
directs states to submit the VMT Offset SIP by November 15, 1992, for
any severe and above ozone nonattainment area. Texas has one severe
1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, the HGB area, with an attainment
deadline of 2018.
    The EPA originally interpreted section 182(d)(1)(A) in the April
16, 1992, General Preamble to Title I of the Act (57 FR 13498, 13521-
13523). In that interpretation, EPA allowed areas to meet the
requirement by using the aggregate motor vehicle emissions from a prior
year as the appropriate baseline against which to measure the change in
emissions to determine whether VMT offsets are required. In other
words, a plan was approvable if it showed decreases in aggregate year-
over-year motor vehicle emissions from a base year through the
applicable attainment year. EPA applied this interpretation in
approving numerous states' VMT offset demonstrations, including our
2001 approval of the HGB area's first VMT offset demonstration.
Although a commenter objected to this interpretation in our 2001
approval, it did not challenge it in court. However, EPA's historical
interpretation of section 182(d)(1)(A), as applied to California's 2003
South Coast 1-Hour Ozone SIP, was finally challenged in the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. In 2011, that court rejected EPA's
interpretation, stating that section 182(d)(1)(A) requires VMT offsets
if there is ``any increase in the level of emissions solely from VMTs
(italics added).'' \3\ The court explained that EPA incorrectly
interpreted the phrase ``growth in emissions'' as meaning a growth in
``aggregate motor vehicle emissions'' versus a growth solely from VMT.
As a result, the court held that EPA should have required the State to
implement TCMs to offset growth in emissions from growth in VMT.
However, the Court acknowledged that ``clean car technology'' advances
could result in there being no increase in emissions even in the face
of VMT growth, which would then allow VMT to increase without
triggering the requirement to adopt offsetting TCMs. In response to the
court's decision, EPA provided new guidance for states with severe or
above areas. The guidance, Implementing Clean Air Act Section
182(d)(1)(A): Transportation Control Measures and Transportation
Control Strategies To Offset Growth in Emissions Due to Growth in
Vehicle Miles Travelled,\4\ recommends that both TCSs and TCMs should
be included in calculations for the purpose of determining the degree
to which any hypothetical growth in emissions due to growth in VMT
should be offset.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 632 F.3d 584, at
596-597 (9th Cir. 2011), reprinted as amended on January 27, 2012.
    \4\ Office of Transportation and Air Quality, EPA-420-B-12-053,
August 2012. This guidance is available at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/policy/general/420b12053.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The approved HGB 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration (November
14, 2001, 66 FR 57160) relies on the EPA approval of a VMT Offset
analysis dated November 14, 2001 (66 FR 57247). On May 6, 2013, the
State submitted an analysis based on the new EPA guidance, which
demonstrates how the HGB area meets the VMT Offset requirement of CAA
182(d)(1)(A). This was done in concert with the revised emission
inventory, the RFP, and the MVEBs for 2018.

2. How is the VMT offset requirement satisfied?

    The August 2012 guidance cited above explains how States may
demonstrate that the VMT offset requirement is satisfied. States are
recommended to estimate emissions for two different years: The
nonattainment area's base year and three different scenarios for the
attainment year. One emission inventory is developed for the

base year and three different inventory scenarios are developed for the
attainment year. For the attainment year the state would present three
emissions estimates, two of which would represent hypothetical
emissions scenarios that would provide the basis to identify the
``growth in emissions'' due solely to growth in VMT, and one that would
represent projected actual motor vehicle emissions after fully
accounting for projected VMT growth and offsetting emissions reductions
obtained by all creditable TCMs and TCSs. See the guidance for specific
details on how states might conduct the calculations. To properly
construct these inventories, a special version of MOVES2010 was
provided to the State, MOVES2010bROP, which was designed by EPA to be
used exclusively for VMT Offset demonstrations. MOVES2010bROP is
identical to the original April 2012 release of MOVES2010b except that
it allows users to set a base year other than 1990 for the purposes of
the VMT offset calculation.
    The base year (2002) on-road VOC emissions should be based on VMT
in that year and it should reflect all enforceable TCSs and TCMs in
place in the base year. This would include the vehicle emissions
standards, State and local control programs such as inspection and
maintenance programs or fuel rules, and any additional implemented TCSs
and TCMs that were already required by or credited in the SIP as of
that base year.
    The first of the attainment year emissions calculations for the
attainment year (2018) would be based on the projected VMT for that
year, and assume that no new TCSs or TCMs beyond those already credited
in the base year inventory have been put in place since the base year.
This calculation demonstrates how emissions would hypothetically change
if no new TCSs or TCMs were implemented, and VMT was allowed to grow at
the projected rate from the base year. This estimate would show the
potential for an increase in emissions due solely to growth in VMT.
This represents a no-action-taken scenario. Emissions in the attainment
year may be lower than those in the base year due to the fleet that was
on the road in the base year gradually being replaced through fleet
turnover, but they would still be higher than they would have been
assuming VMT had held constant.
    The second of the attainment year's emissions calculations for the
attainment year would also assume that no new TCSs or TCMs beyond those
already credited were added or implemented after the base year and
would also assume that there was no growth in VMT between the base year
and attainment year. This estimate would reflect the hypothetical
emissions level that would have occurred had no further TCMs or TCSs
been adopted or implemented and had VMT levels held constant. Like the
first estimate, emissions in the attainment year may be lower than
those in the base year due to the fleet that was on the road in the
base year gradually being replaced through fleet turnover, but in this
case they would not be influenced by any growth in VMT. This emissions
estimate would reflect a ceiling on the emissions that should be
allowed to occur under the statute as interpreted by the Court in the
attainment year because it shows what would happen under a scenario in
which no new TCSs or TCMs are put in place and VMT is ``held constant''
during the period from the area's base year to its attainment year.
This represents a VMT ceiling scenario. This hypothetical status quo is
a necessary step in identifying the target level of emissions from
which states would determine whether further TCMs or TCSs would need to
be adopted and implemented in order to offset ``any increase in
emissions due solely to VMT'' as shown by the first calculation. The
comparison of these first two calculations would thus identify whether
there is a hypothetical growth in emissions from growth in VMT that
would need to be offset.
    Finally, the state would present the emissions that are actually
expected to occur in the area's attainment year, giving credit to all
enforceable post-baseline-year added and credited TCSs and TCMs that
have actually been adopted. This estimate would be based on the VMT
that is expected to occur in the attainment year (i.e., the VMT level
from the first estimate) and all of the TCSs and TCMs that are in
reality expected to be in place and for which the SIP will take credit
in the area's attainment year, including any TCMs and TCSs adopted and
credited since the baseline year. This represents the Attainment Year
scenario (or the ``actual'' scenario). If this emissions estimate is
less than or equal to the emissions ceiling that was established in the
second of the attainment year calculations, the credited TCSs or TCMs
for the attainment year would be sufficient to already offset the
hypothetical growth in emissions represented by comparing the first two
calculations. If, instead, the estimated attainment year emissions are
greater than the ceiling which was established in the second of the
emissions attainment year calculations, the state would need to
implement additional TCSs or TCMs to further offset the growth in
emissions and bring the actual emissions down to at least the ``had VMT
held constant'' ceiling estimated in the second of the attainment year
calculations.
3. What does Texas' demonstration show?
    The May 6, 2013 VMT analysis provides a 2002 base year inventory
based on VMT in that year and includes all enforceable TCSs and TCMs in
place in that base year of 2002. It also provides the three different
scenarios for the attainment year inventories including the No-Action
scenario, the VMT Offset Ceiling scenario, and the 2018 Attainment Year
(actual) scenario, as described above. These were prepared using
MOVES2010bROP, as provided by EPA specifically for the VMT offset
analysis. In addition, for the actual scenario, the State clearly
identified all enforceable post-base year TCMs and TCSs, relied upon in
the attainment demonstration SIP submittal. These include, among other
things, the vehicle inspection and maintenance, federal on-road and
non-road emission control programs, and state and federal clean fuel
programs.\5\ A comparison of the 2018 attainment year inventory with
the VMT Offset Ceiling scenario's results (step 3 in the guidance)
shows that the emissions level calculated in step 4 is less than the
emissions level calculated in step 3. See Table 8 below and Table 7-45
in the May 6, 2013 submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Approval of the VMT Offset Plan requires approval of all the
TCSs and TCMs that Texas relies on in the actual scenario. EPA has
previously approved all such TCSs and TCMs. November 14, 2001, 66 FR
57195, 66 FR 57196, and 66 FR 57 261.

                               Table 8--VMT Offset Inventory Scenarios and Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Fleet turnover
      VMT Offset scenario          Description       VMT Year      Control year        year        VOC Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scenario 1....................  Base Year.......            2002            2002            2002          124.47
Scenario 2....................  No Action.......            2018            2002            2018           87.32
Scenario 3....................  VMT Offset                  2002            2002            2018           58.15
                                 Ceiling.
Scenario 4....................  Attainment Year.            2018            2018            2018           51.84
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this case, any increased emissions due to solely increased VMT
identified in the difference between the levels of the No Action and
VMT Offset Ceiling scenarios have been adequately offset by TCSs and
TCMs used to identify emissions levels in the Attainment Year scenario.
That is, the credited TCSs or TCMs for the attainment year will be
sufficient to offset the hypothetical growth in emissions represented
by comparing the first two calculations. So, the VMT Offset requirement
is met, and no additional offsetting TCSs or TCMs beyond those already
identified are required.
    Therefore, we propose to approve the VMT Offset analysis for the
HGB ozone nonattainment area.

G. Transportation Conformity Budgets

    Transportation conformity is required by CAA section 176(c). The
EPA's conformity rule requires that transportation plans, programs and
projects conform to state air quality implementation plans and
establishes the criteria and procedure for determining whether they do
or not. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will
not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or
delay timely attainment of the NAAQS. The MVEB is the mechanism to
determine if the future transportation plans conform to the SIP. A MVEB
is the maximum amount of emissions allowed in the SIP for on-road motor
vehicles. The MVEB establishes an emissions ceiling for the regional
transportation network. States must establish VOC and NOX
MVEBs for each of the milestone years up to the attainment year and
submit the mobile budgets to the EPA for approval. Upon an adequacy
determination or approval by the EPA, states must conduct
transportation conformity analyses for their Transportation Improvement
Programs and long range transportation plans to ensure highway vehicle
emissions will not exceed relevant MVEBs.
    Texas discusses MVEBs in Chapter 7 of the 2013 submittal and
Chapter 5 in the 2010 submittal. The State worked with the Houston-
Galveston Area Council to establish the budgets for 2008 and beyond.
The mobile emission inventory was calculated using EPA's MOVES2010a
mobile source emissions model.
    Table 9 shows the total projected transportation emissions for
milestone years 2008-2018, as submitted in Tables 7-43 through 7-47 of
the 2013 SIP Submittal.

          Table 9--RFP Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for HGB
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Year                    NOX (Tons/Day)  VOC (Tons/Day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008....................................          261.95          102.50
2011....................................          234.92           93.56
2014....................................          171.63           71.56
2017....................................          130.00           59.76
2018....................................          120.99           57.02
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the budgets to be approvable, they must meet, at a minimum,
EPA's adequacy criteria (See 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)). The Notice of
Adequacy Determination for these RFP MVEBs finding the revised 2010 RFP
MVEBs (also termed transportation conformity budgets) adequate because
they meet all of the criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) was signed by the
Regional Administrator on July 19, 2013. In addition to the budgets
being adequate for transportation conformity purposes, EPA found the
procedures Texas used to develop the MVEBs to be reasonable. In this
action we propose to approve the revised budgets submitted on May 6,
2013.
    We are proposing to find that the MVEBs are fully consistent with
RFP, and proposing to find that the RFP plan is fully approvable, as it
sets the allowable on-road mobile emissions the HGB area can produce
and use to continue to demonstrate RFP. These budgets are approvable
because they conform to the emissions inventory projections provided
for this RFP. Therefore, the 2013 budgets are proposed for approval.

IV. Proposed Action

    The EPA's review of the 2008-2018 emission inventory, the RFP plan,
the RFP contingency measures, the VMT Offset Plan, and the 2008-2018
transportation conformity budgets contained in the April 1, 2010 and
May 6, 2013, submittals for the HGB nonattainment area fully address
the CAA requirements, EPA's regulations, and are consistent with EPA
guidance. Therefore, the EPA is proposing approval of these specific
elements of the HGB 8-hour ozone plan. The EPA is soliciting public
comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will
be considered before taking final action.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly,
this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, these proposed actions:
     Are not ``significant regulatory actions'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     are 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.);
     do 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);
     do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     are not economically significant regulatory actions based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);

     are not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     are not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Ozone,
Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: August 28, 2013.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2013-21883 Filed 9-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P