[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 22, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 10962]
[FR Doc No: 2023-03620]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Release From Federal Grant Assurance Obligations and
Land Exchange, Tucson International Airport, Tucson, Pima County,
Arizona

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of request to release airport land.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is considering a
proposal and invites public comment on the application for release of
approximately 158-acres more or less of property from federal Grant
Assurance obligations and land exchange at Tucson International
Airport, Tucson, Arizona. Tucson Airport Authority (TAA) is requesting
a total release from federal obligations on approximately 158-acres
more or less of TAA property, and to authorize a land exchange of
approximately 61.4-acres more or less [and cash] between TAA and the
United States Air Force (USAF). The release property is comprised of a
portion of two parcels along the southern boundary of the abandoned
Hughes Access Road, adjacent to the main airport airfield and campus.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 24, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the request may be mailed or delivered to the
FAA at the following address: Mr. Mike N Williams, Manager, Phoenix
Airports District Office, Federal Aviation Administration, 3800 N
Central Ave, Suite 1025, 10th Floor, Phoenix, Arizona, 85012. In
addition, one copy of the comment submitted to the FAA must be mailed
or delivered to Ms. Danette Bewley, A.A.E., President and Chief
Executive Officer, Tucson Airport Authority, 7250 S Tucson Boulevard,
Suite 300, Tucson, AZ 85756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The release property is 158-acres more or
less is a portion of two combined parcels, Parcel 22 and Parcel 34.
Parcel 22 was acquired from the State of Arizona with Airport
Improvement Program (AIP) funding via Patent dated February 24, 2002.
Parcel 34 was acquired from the State of Arizona with Passenger
Facility Charge (PFC) funding via Patent dated June 6, 2002. The 158-
acres more or less portion of subject land identified as Parcel G is
not currently required for aeronautical purposes. TAA is intending to
exchange Parcel G property and cash, with approximately 61.4-acres more
or less of USAF property known as Parcel F.
    The exchange is based on appraisals estimating fair market value of
the affected parcels. TAA will acquire fee simple ownership of 61.4-
acres more or less and easements restricting development on 182.6-acres
more or less from USAF in exchange for USAF acquiring fee simple
ownership of 158.0-acres more or less, use restriction easements on
107-acres more or less, access easement of three acres of TAA land and
$1,640,000 in financial compensation. TAA will also fund the demolition
and replacement of several munitions storage bunkers located on USAF
property. Such use of the land represents a compatible land use that
will not interfere with the airport or its operation, thereby
protecting the interests of civil aviation. The resulting actions would
allow future airport development for TAA and will support the USAF
through providing the required munitions safety separation distances.
    In accordance with the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and
Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21), Public Law 106-181 (Apr. 5,
2000; 114 Stat. 61), this notice must be published in the Federal
Register 30 days before the DOT Secretary may waive any condition
imposed on a federally obligated airport by surplus property conveyance
deeds or grant agreements.

    Issued in El Segundo, California, on February 15, 2023.
Brian Q. Armstrong,
Manager, Safety and Standards Branch, Airports Division, Western-
Pacific Region.
[FR Doc. 2023-03620 Filed 2-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: October 9, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 197)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 59493-59494]
[DOCID:fr09oc08-6]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0357; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-005-AD;
Amendment 39-15687; AD 2008-21-03]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-300, -400, and -500
Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Boeing Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. This AD requires
repetitive inspections for discrepancies of the fuse pins of the
inboard and outboard midspar fittings of the nacelle strut, and
corrective actions if necessary. This AD results from a report of
corrosion damage of the chrome runout on the head side found on all
four midspar fuse pins of the nacelle strut. Additionally, a large
portion of the chrome plate was missing from the corroded area of the
shank. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct discrepancies of
the fuse pins of the inboard and outboard midspar fittings of the
nacelle strut, which could result in reduced structural integrity of
the fuse pins and consequent loss of the strut and separation of the
engine from the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective November 13, 2008.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of November 13,
2008.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-
2207.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the Document Management
Facility, 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: Allen Rauschendorfer, Aerospace
Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
Part 39 to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that would apply to
all Boeing Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. That NPRM
was published in the Federal Register on March 26, 2008 (73 FR 15959).
That NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections for discrepancies
of the fuse pins of the inboard and outboard midspar fittings of the
nacelle strut, and corrective actions if necessary.

Comments

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

Support for the NPRM

    Boeing supports the NPRM.
    Deutsche Lufthansa (DLH) states that during inspections done per
the AMM, for which the left- and right-hand pylons have to be removed,
it observed several instances of corrosion or damaged chrome plating of
the midspar fuse pins; the defective pins were replaced. Therefore, DLH
supports the repetitive inspections of the fuse pins.

Request for Credit for Initial Inspection

    DLH asks that the initial inspection procedure done per Maintenance
Planning Document (MPD) Item 54-322-01, of the applicable airplane
maintenance manual (AMM), be acceptable for compliance with the initial
inspection required by the NPRM. In addition, DLH does not support the
compliance times for the initial inspection. DLH feels that the
inspection of the fuse pins done during its maintenance check per the
AMM provides the same level of safety as the initial inspection done
per the service bulletin referenced in the NPRM.
    We do not agree. The AMM only includes procedures for access and
does not provide inspection procedures; therefore, the service bulletin
provides the inspection procedures. If DLH believes that its inspection
procedures provide an acceptable alternative, under the provisions of
paragraph (g) of this AD, we will consider requests for approval of an
alternative method of compliance if sufficient data are submitted to
substantiate that the alternative inspection would provide an
acceptable level of safety.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD as proposed.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 616 airplanes of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it will take 4 work-hours per product
to comply with the inspection in this AD. The average labor rate is $80
per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of

this AD to the U.S. operators to be $197,120, or $320 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    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), 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.
    You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of
compliance in the AD Docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
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:

2008-21-03 Boeing: Amendment 39-15687. Docket No. FAA-2008-0357;
Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-005-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective November 13,
2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all Boeing Model 737-300, -400, and -500
series airplanes, certificated in any category.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from a report of corrosion damage of the
chrome runout on the head side found on all four midspar fuse pins
of the nacelle strut. Additionally, a large portion of the chrome
plate was missing from the corroded area of the shank. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct damage of the fuse pins of the
inboard and outboard midspar fittings of the nacelle strut, which
could result in reduced structural integrity of the fuse pins and
consequent loss of the strut and separation of the engine from the
airplane.

Compliance

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

Repetitive Inspections/Corrective Actions

    (f) At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance'' of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-54-
1044, dated December 10, 2007; except, where the service bulletin
specifies a compliance time after the date on the service bulletin,
this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time
after the effective date of this AD: Do a detailed inspection for
discrepancies of the fuse pins of the inboard and outboard midspar
fittings of the nacelle strut by doing all the actions, including
all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin. Do all
applicable corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the
inspection at the time specified in paragraph 1.E. of the service
bulletin.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (g)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, ATTN: Allen Rauschendorfer, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe
Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an
Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes
Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized
by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair
method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis
of the airplane.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (h) You must use Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-
54-1044, dated December 10, 2007, 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
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington
98124-2207.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information
incorporated by reference at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or 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 September 29, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E8-23658 Filed 10-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 92 (Friday, May 11, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21909-21912]
[FR Doc No: 2018-09892]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0170; FRL-9977-90-OAR]
RIN 2060-AU02

Extension of Deadline for Action on the Section 126(b) Petition
From New York

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this action, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
determining that 60 days is insufficient time to complete the technical
and other analyses and public notice-and-comment process required for
our review of a petition dated March 12, 2018, submitted by the state
of New York pursuant to section 126(b) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The
petition requests that the EPA make a finding that emissions from the
collection of identified sources in nine states (Illinois, Indiana,
Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West
Virginia) significantly contribute to and interfere with maintenance of
the 2008 and 2015 ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)
in New York State. Under section 307(d)(10) of the CAA, the EPA is
authorized to grant a time extension for responding to a petition if
the EPA determines that the extension is necessary to afford the
public, and the Agency, adequate opportunity to carry out the purposes
of the section 307(d) notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements. By
this action, the EPA is making that determination. The EPA is,
therefore, extending the deadline for acting on the petition from May
13, 2018, to no later than November 9, 2018.

DATES: This final rule is effective on May 11, 2018.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0170. All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Lev Gabrilovich, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Air Quality Policy Division, Mail Code C539-01, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email at
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Legal Standard

    This is a procedural action to extend the deadline for the EPA to
respond to a petition from the state of New York filed pursuant to CAA
section 126(b). The EPA received the petition on March 14, 2018. The
petition requests that the EPA make a finding under section 126(b) of
the CAA that emissions from the collection of identified sources in
nine states (Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia) significantly contribute to
and interfere with maintenance of the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS in New
York in violation of the provisions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the
CAA, also known as the ``good neighbor'' provisions.
    Section 126(b) of the CAA authorizes states to petition the EPA to
find that a major source or group of stationary sources in upwind
states emits or would emit any air pollutant in violation of the
prohibition of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) \1\ by contributing
significantly to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance problems
in downwind states. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA prohibits
emissions of any air pollutant in amounts which will contribute
significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by,
any other state with respect to any NAAQS. Under CAA section 126(c),
any existing sources for which the EPA makes the requested finding must
cease operations within 3 months of the finding, except that the source
may continue to operate if it complies with emission limitations and
compliance schedules (containing increments of progress) that the EPA
may provide to bring about compliance with the applicable requirements
as expeditiously as practical but no later than 3 years from the date
of the finding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The text of CAA section 126 codified in the United States
Code cross references CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) instead of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). The courts have confirmed that this is a
scrivener's error and the correct cross reference is to CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i). See Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA, 249 F.3d 1032,
1040-44 (DC Cir. 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CAA section 126(b) petition from the state of New York requests
that the EPA make a finding that, within each of the identified nine
upwind states, certain sources within the electric generating unit
(EGU) and non-EGU sectors collectively emit air pollutants in violation
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, set at 0.075 parts per million (ppm), and the revised 2015 8-
hour ozone NAAQS, set at 0.070 ppm.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ On October 1, 2015, the EPA strengthened the ground-level
ozone NAAQS, based on extensive scientific evidence about ozone's
effects on public health and welfare. See 80 FR 65291 (October 26,
2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to CAA section 126(b), the EPA must make the finding
requested in the petition or must deny the petition within 60 days of
its receipt and after holding a public hearing. In addition to the
public hearing provisions in CAA section 126(b), the EPA's action under

CAA section 126 is also subject to the procedural requirements of CAA
section 307(d). See CAA section 307(d)(1)(N). One of these requirements
is notice-and-comment rulemaking, under section 307(d)(3)-(6). Section
307(d)(3) of the CAA provides minimum requirements for the contents of
a proposed action subject to 307(d), including summarizing the
methodology used in analyzing data on which the proposed action is
based and the major legal interpretations and policy considerations
underlying the proposal. CAA section 307(d)(6) requires that the final
action be equally detailed and include an explanation of any major
changes from proposal and a response to each significant comment
received.
    With respect to the public hearing, the EPA must provide sufficient
notice to the public. The Federal Register Act identifies 15 days'
notice as the timeframe presumed to be sufficient notice to the public
in advance of a public hearing. See 44 U.S.C. Section 1508. CAA section
307(d)(5) also provides specific direction for the conduct of public
hearings, requiring at (iv), that ``the Administrator shall keep the
record of [the public hearing] open for thirty days after the
completion of the proceeding to provide for an opportunity for
submission of rebuttal and supplementary information.''
    In sum, the statutory requirements governing the EPA's action on a
CAA section 126(b) petition necessitate the following procedural steps:
Conducting technical, legal, and policy review of a submitted petition;
developing an adequate proposal; providing sufficient notice of a
public hearing; holding the public hearing; allowing sufficient time
for notice and comment on both the proposal and public hearing record
and developing responses to comments received and a final action on the
petition.
    Section 307(d)(10) of the CAA provides for a time extension, under
certain circumstances, for a rulemaking subject to section 307(d).
Specifically, CAA section 307(d)(10) provides:

    Each statutory deadline for promulgation of rules to which this
subsection applies which requires promulgation less than six months
after date of proposal may be extended to not more than six months
after date of proposal by the Administrator upon a determination
that such extension is necessary to afford the public, and the
agency, adequate opportunity to carry out the purposes of the
subsection.

    The EPA believes that the plain language of this provision allows
the EPA to extend statutory deadlines for rulemakings enumerated in CAA
section 307(d)(1) that are subject to deadlines with less than 6 months
between a proposed and final action. The phrase ``which requires
promulgation less than six months after date of proposal'' clearly
specifies the type of deadline that may be extended, while the phrase
``may be extended to not more than six months after date of proposal''
limits the duration of an extension invoked under this provision.
Notably, neither of these phrases, nor the provision in its entirety,
impose any predicate steps on the EPA for invoking an extension other
than determining that such an extension is necessary to afford the
public, and the agency, adequate opportunity to carry out the purposes
of CAA section 307(d).
    To the extent the terms of this provision are ambiguous, the EPA
believes its interpretation of these terms is reasonable. The stated
purpose of this provision is to provide both the public and the EPA
adequate opportunity to effectuate the objectives of CAA section 307(d)
regarding rulemaking. Interpreting CAA section 307(d)(10) to require
the EPA to take some substantive predicate rulemaking step in a shorter
timeframe to invoke the 6-month extension would contradict the stated
purpose of the extension, as taking a predicate action within such
shorter timeframe risks undermining the same reasons for invoking the
extension. For example, were the EPA required to issue a proposed
action on a CAA section 126(b) petition within 60 days of receipt to
invoke the 6-month extension, the EPA may risk inadequately meeting the
requirements of CAA section 307(d)(3) governing the minimum contents of
such proposal depending on the technical complexity of the petition and
other factors involved in developing an adequate proposal. Given that
the purpose of an extension under CAA section 307(d)(10) is, in part,
to provide the EPA with adequate opportunity to meet the requirements
of section 307(d), it follows that the extension should be available
for both the EPA's proposed and final action on a section 126(b)
petition.
    Additionally, the EPA notes that CAA section 307(d)(1) does not
speak to when the EPA must determine that an extension is necessary.
The EPA acknowledges that the timeframes set out under CAA sections
126(b) and 307(d)(10) indicate Congress's clear intent that the EPA act
quickly on a section 126 petition. Considering this intent, the EPA
reasonably interprets CAA section 307(d)(10) to require the EPA to make
the necessary determination in invoking a 6-month extension no later
than the end of the original response time provided by section 126(b)
for acting on a petition, which is 60-days from receipt. Such
interpretation ensures that that the overall legal deadline for the
EPA's action on a CAA section 126(b) petition does not exceed the
aggregate eight-month deadline provided under the CAA (i.e., 60 days
provided under section 126(b) plus 6 months provided under section
307(d)(10)). Finally, under the EPA's reasonable reading of CAA section
307(d)(10), this extension may be invoked only once.
    The EPA believes its reading of the extension provision under CAA
section 307(d)(10) is consistent with Congress's dual intent of
ensuring that the EPA acts expeditiously on a CAA section 126(b)
petition and ensuring that the public has adequate opportunity to
participate in the EPA's rulemaking process on such a petition. As
described previously, the extension will allow the EPA to undertake the
appropriate and necessary public participation processes, such as
holding a public hearing on a proposed action on New York's petition.
    Based on either a plain reading of the language, or, in the
alternative, a reasonable reading of the provision in the event of
ambiguity, CAA section 307(d)(10), therefore, may be applied to CAA
section 126(b) rulemakings because the 60-day time limit under CAA
section 126(b) necessarily limits the period for promulgation of a
final rule after proposal to less than 6 months.

II. Final Rule

A. Rule

    In accordance with CAA section 307(d)(10), the EPA is determining
that the 60-day period afforded by CAA section 126(b) for responding to
the petition from the state of New York is not adequate time to allow
the public, and the agency, the opportunity to carry out the purposes
of CAA section 307(d). In making this determination, the EPA has met
the necessary steps to invoke a 6-month extension for acting on New
York's CAA section 126(b) petition. Specifically, the 60-day period is
insufficient time for the EPA to complete the necessary technical
review of the petition, develop an adequate proposal, and allow time
for notice and comment, including an opportunity for public hearing, on
a proposed finding regarding whether emissions from the collection of
identified EGU and non-EGU sources in nine states (Illinois, Indiana,
Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West
Virginia) significantly contribute to and interfere with maintenance of
the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS in New York

State. Moreover, the 60-day period is insufficient for the EPA to
review and develop responses to any public comments on a proposed
finding, or testimony supplied at a public hearing, and to develop and
promulgate a final finding in response to the petition. Particularly,
the timeframes for notice of the public hearing and duration of comment
period after the hearing itself would consume 45 days (presuming 15
days' notice of the hearing, and a 30-day comment period thereafter),
leaving a total of 15 days of the 60-day period to complete the
previously identified steps needed to review the petition, develop a
proposal, review and develop responses to any public comments on a
proposed finding or testimony supplied at a public hearing, and to
develop and promulgate a final finding in response to the petition. An
appropriate schedule for action on the CAA section 126(b) petition must
afford the EPA adequate time to prepare a proposal that clearly
elucidates the issues to facilitate public comment, and must provide
adequate time for the public to comment and for the EPA to review and
develop responses to those comments prior to issuing the final rule.
With this extension, the deadline for the EPA to act on the petition is
revised from May 13, 2018, to November 9, 2018. The EPA does not intend
to grant itself any further extension under this provision if upon
expiration of this extension the EPA has not yet acted on New York's
section 126(b) petition.

B. Notice and Comment Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)

    This document is a final agency action, but may not be subject to
the notice-and-comment requirements of the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(b). The
EPA believes that, because of the limited time provided to the EPA to
make a finding, the deadline for action on the CAA section 126(b)
petition should be extended. Congress may not have intended such a
determination to be subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking. However,
to the extent that this determination otherwise would require notice
and opportunity for public comment, there is good cause within the
meaning of 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) not to apply those requirements here.
Providing for notice and comment would be impracticable because of the
limited time provided for making this determination and would be
contrary to the public interest because it would divert agency
resources from the substantive review of the CAA section 126(b)
petition.

C. Effective Date Under the APA

    This action is effective on May 11, 2018. Under the APA, 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(3), agency rulemaking may take effect before 30 days after the
date of publication in the Federal Register if the agency has good
cause to mandate an earlier effective date. This action--a deadline
extension--must take effect immediately because its purpose is to
extend by 6 months the deadline for action on the petition. As
discussed earlier, the EPA intends to use the 6-month extension period
to develop a proposal on the petition and provide time for public
comment before issuing the final rule. These reasons support an
immediate effective date.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is exempt from review by the Office of Management and
Budget because it simply extends the date for the EPA to act on a
petition.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

    This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action
because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA. This good cause final action simply extends the date for the
EPA to act on a petition and does not impose any new obligations or
enforceable duties on any state, local or tribal governments or the
private sector. It does not contain any recordkeeping or reporting
requirements.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    This action is not subject to the RFA. The RFA applies only to
rules subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements under the
APA, 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other statute. This rule is not subject to
notice-and-comment requirements because the agency has invoked the APA
good cause exemption under 5 U.S.C. 553(b).

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate of $100 million
or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes
no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the
private sector.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects 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.

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. This good cause final action simply extends the
date for the EPA to act on a petition. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does
not apply to this rule.

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental
health risk or safety risk.

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes that this action is not subject to Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) because it does not establish an
environmental health or safety standard. This good cause final action
simply extends the date for the EPA to act on a petition and does not
have any impact on human health or the environment.

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. The CRA allows the issuing agency to make a rule
effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the agency makes
a good cause finding that notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures are
impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest (5 U.S.C.
808(2)). The EPA has made a good cause finding for this rule as
discussed in Section II.B of this document, including the basis for
that finding.

IV. Statutory Authority

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections
110, 126 and 307 of the CAA as amended (42 U.S.C. 7410, 7426 and 7607).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Administrative practices and procedures,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone.

    Dated: May 3, 2018.
E. Scott Pruitt,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2018-09892 Filed 5-8-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P