[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 59 (Friday, March 27, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16325-16327]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06805]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-0673; Directorate Identifier 2014-SW-034-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters (Previously
Eurocopter France)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B, AS350BA, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3,
AS350C, AS350D, AS350D1, AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N,
AS355NP, EC130B4, and EC130T2 helicopters. This proposed AD would
require inspecting the swashplate assembly rotating star to determine
whether a ferrule was installed. If a ferrule exists, this proposed AD
would require inspecting the rotating star for a crack and removing any
cracked rotating star. This proposed AD is prompted by a report that
reconditioning the rotating swashplate per a certain repair procedure
could result in the rotating star cracking. The proposed actions are
intended to detect a crack in the rotating star and prevent failure of
the rotating star and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 26, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations Office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the European
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, the economic evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Operations Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Airbus Helicopters, Inc., 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at
http://www.airbushelicopters.com/techpub. You may review the referenced
service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas
76137. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
0673.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Grant, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Safety Management Group, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth,
Texas 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to
the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might
result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To
ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters
should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed
electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
    We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as
a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we
will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay.
We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

Discussion

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, issued EASA AD No. 2014-0132R1, dated June 2, 2014, to
correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Helicopters (previously
Eurocopter France) Model AS 350 B, BA, BB, B1, B2, B3, D, AS 355 E, F,
F1, F2, N, NP, EC 130 B4, and T2 helicopters if equipped with a
swashplate assembly with a rotating star, part number (P/N) 350A371003-
04, P/N 350A371003-05, P/N 350A371003-06, P/N 350A371003-07, or P/N
350A371003-08. EASA advises that during a repair of a helicopter, it
was discovered that rotating swashplates reconditioned in accordance
with a certain repair procedure could experience a high stress level.
This condition, if not corrected, could affect the service life of the
part. To address this unsafe condition, EASA AD No. 2014-0132R1
requires repetitive inspections and replacement of the rotating star.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
France and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
our bilateral agreement with France, EASA, its technical
representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in
its AD. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known
relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition is likely
to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No.
EC130 62A010 for Model EC130B4 and EC130T2 helicopters; ASB No. AS355
62.00.33 for Model AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, and
AS355NP helicopters; and ASB No. AS350 62.00.34 for Model AS350B,
AS350BA, AS350BB, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, AS350D, and military
version AS350L1 helicopters; all Revision 0 and all dated April 28,
2014.
    The ASBs report that a certain repair sheet instruction, which
requires reconditioning the rotating swashplate by machining and adding
a steel ferrule to accommodate a swashplate bearing, potentially
affects the service life limit specified in the airworthiness
limitations section. The ASBs provide procedures for inspecting the
swashplate assembly's rotating star for a ferrule and if a ferrule
exists, inspecting

for a crack. The ASBs call for replacing the rotating star before
further flight if a crack exists, and before December 31, 2014, if a
ferrule is present and there are no cracks. If there is no ferrule, the
ASBs require no additional action. This service information is
reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it
through their normal course of business or by the means identified in
the ADDRESSES section of this NPRM.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require, within 165 hours time-in-service
(TIS), visually inspecting the swashplate assembly to determine whether
a ferrule is installed with the rotating star. If no ferrule exists, no
further action would be needed. If a ferrule is installed, the proposed
AD would require, before further flight, dye-penetrant inspecting the
rotating star for a crack. The proposed AD would also require removing
the rotating star and all attachment hardware before further flight if
the rotating star has a crack, or within 160 hours TIS if the rotating
star has a ferrule installed but does not have a crack.
    This proposed AD would also prohibit installing a rotating star
with a ferrule.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD requires reporting inspection findings to Airbus
Helicopters. This proposed AD would make no such requirement. The EASA
AD does not apply to Airbus Model AS350C and AS350D1 helicopters,
whereas this proposed AD would apply to those models. The EASA AD
applies to Model AS350BB helicopters, and this proposed AD would not
because that model is not type certificated in the United States. The
EASA AD would require replacing the rotating star, unless already
accomplished, by December 31, 2014, while we would require replacing
the rotating star within 160 hours TIS, unless already accomplished.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 1,132 helicopters of
U.S. Registry and that labor costs would average $85 a work hour. Based
on these estimates, we would expect the following costs:
     Visually inspecting the swashplate assembly would require
0.25 work-hour for a labor cost of about $21 per inspection. No parts
would be needed for a total cost of about $21 per inspection per
helicopter, or about $23,772 for the U.S. fleet.
     Dye-penetrant inspecting the rotating star would require 1
work-hour for a labor cost of about $85 per helicopter. No parts would
be needed for a total cost of $85 per inspection helicopter and $96,220
for the U.S. fleet.
     Replacing the rotating star, ferrule, and associated parts
would require 16 work hours and parts would cost $8,354, for a total
cost of $9,714 per helicopter.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Airbus Helicopters: Docket No. FAA-2015-0673; Directorate Identifier
2014-SW-034-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B, AS350BA,
AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3,AS350C, AS350D, AS350D1, AS355E, AS355F,
AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, AS355NP, EC130B4, and EC130T2 helicopters
with a swashplate assembly with rotating star, part number (P/N)
350A371003-04, 350A371003-05, 350A371003-06, 350A371003-07, or
350A371003-08, certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a crack in a rotating
star in a main rotor blade (M/R) swashplate assembly. This condition
could result in loss of the M/R pitch control and subsequent loss of
helicopter control.

(c) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by May 26, 2015.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

    (1) Within 165 hours time-in-service (TIS), visually inspect the
swashplate assembly to determine whether a ferrule is installed on
the rotating star. If the ferrule is not visible, use a magnetic
retriever positioned in Area (X) as shown in the pictures under
paragraph 3.B.2.b., Accomplishment Instructions, of Airbus
Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. EC130 62A010, ASB No.
AS350 62.00.34, or ASB No. AS355 62.00.33, all Revision 0, and all
dated April 28, 2014, whichever is applicable to your helicopter, to
determine whether the ferrule is installed. The magnetic retriever
will be magnetized if a ferrule is installed.
    (2) If a ferrule is not installed, no further action is needed.

    (3) If a ferrule is installed on the rotating star, before
further flight, dye-penetrant inspect the rotating star for a crack
in areas ``Z'' depicted in Figure 1 of Airbus Helicopters ASB No.
EC130 62A010, ASB No. AS350 62.00.34, or ASB No. AS355 62.00.33, all
Revision 0, and all dated April 28, 2014, as applicable to your
model helicopter.
    (i) If the rotating star has a crack, before further flight,
remove from service the rotating star; ferrule; and the screws,
washers and nuts used to attach the pitch change rods, compass, and
the rotating star deflector.
    (ii) If the rotating star does not have a crack, within 160
hours TIS, remove from service the rotating star; ferrule; and the
screws, washers and nuts used to attach the pitch change rods,
compass, and the rotating star deflector.
    (4) Do not install a rotating star P/N 350A371003-04,
350A371003-05, 350A371003-06, 350A371003-07, or 350A371003-08 with a
ferrule.

(f) Special Flight Permit

    Special flight permits are prohibited.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Send your proposal to: Robert Grant, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Safety Management Group, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort
Worth, Texas 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(h) Additional Information

    The subject of this AD is addressed in the European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2014-0132R1, dated June 2, 2014. You may
view the EASA AD on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov in
the AD Docket.

(i) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6200, Main Rotor
System.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on March 18, 2015.
Lance T. Gant,
Acting Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-06805 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 20, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3082-3085]
[FR Doc No: 2016-00997]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 206

[Docket ID FEMA-2016-0003]
RIN 1660-AA84

Establishing a Deductible for FEMA's Public Assistance Program

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is considering
the establishment of a disaster deductible, requiring a predetermined
level of financial or other commitment from a Recipient (Grantee),
generally the State, Tribal, or Territorial government, before FEMA
will provide assistance under the Public Assistance Program when
authorized by a Presidential major disaster declaration. FEMA believes
the deductible model would incentivize Recipients to make meaningful
improvements in disaster planning, fiscal capacity for disaster
response and recovery, and risk mitigation, while contributing to more
effective stewardship of taxpayer dollars. For example, Recipients
could potentially receive credit toward their deductible requirement
through proactive pre-event actions such as adopting enhanced building
codes, establishing and maintaining a disaster relief fund or self-
insurance plan, or adoption of other measures that reduce the
Recipient's risk from disaster events. The deductible model would
increase stakeholder investment and participation in disaster recovery
and building for future risk, thereby strengthening our nation's
resilience to disaster events and reducing the cost of disasters long
term. FEMA seeks comment on all aspects of the deductible concept.

DATES: Comments must be received by March 21, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be identified by docket ID FEMA-2016-0003 and
may be submitted by one of the following methods:
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
    Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Regulatory Affairs Division, Office of
Chief Counsel, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 8NE, 500 C Street
SW., Washington, DC 20472-3100.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jotham Allen, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, 202-646-
1957.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and docket ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or
material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will
include

any personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this
information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy Act
notice, which can be viewed by clicking on the ``Privacy Notice'' link
in the footer of www.regulations.gov.
    You may submit your comments and material by the methods specified
in the ADDRESSES section of this Notice. Please submit your comments
and any supporting material by only one means to avoid the receipt and
review of duplicate submissions.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov and search for the docket ID. Submitted comments
may also be inspected at FEMA, Office of Chief Counsel, 8NE, 500 C
Street SW., Washington, DC 20472.

II. Background

    The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act
(Stafford Act), 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207, provides an orderly and continuing
means of assistance by the Federal Government to State, Tribal,
Territorial, and local governments in carrying out their
responsibilities to alleviate the suffering and damage which result
from disasters. 42 U.S.C. 5121(b). A ``major disaster,'' as defined by
the Stafford Act, is ``any natural catastrophe (including any
hurricane, tornado, storm, high water, winddriven water, tidal wave,
tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, mudslide, snowstorm,
or drought), or, regardless of cause, any fire, flood, or explosion, in
any part of the United States, which in the determination of the
President causes damage of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant
major disaster assistance . . . to supplement the efforts and available
resources of [State, Tribal, Territorial, and local governments], and
disaster relief organizations, in alleviating the damage, loss,
hardship, or suffering caused thereby.'' 42 U.S.C. 5122(2).
    The declaration process is governed by Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) regulations at 44 CFR part 206, subpart B. Upon receipt
of a declaration request, FEMA formulates a recommendation which is
forwarded to the President along with the request. 44 CFR 206.37(c). In
developing its recommendation, FEMA considers such factors as the
amount and type of damages, the impact of damages on affected
individuals, the State, Tribal, Territorial, and local governments, the
available resources of the State, Tribal, Territorial, and local
governments, and other disaster relief organizations, the extent and
type of insurance in effect to cover losses, assistance available from
other Federal programs and other sources, imminent threats to public
health and safety, recent disaster history, hazard mitigation measures
taken by the State, Tribal, Territorial, or local governments
(especially implementation of measures required as a result of previous
major disaster declarations), and other factors pertinent to a given
incident. 44 CFR 206.37(c)(1).
    A disaster declaration specifies the types of assistance that may
be awarded under the Stafford Act, such as Public Assistance,
Individual Assistance, or Hazard Mitigation assistance. Public
Assistance provides assistance for debris removal, emergency protective
measures, and permanent restoration of infrastructure to State, Tribal,
Territorial, and local governments and certain private nonprofit
organizations. 44 CFR part 206, subparts G and H.
    When evaluating the need for Public Assistance in a major disaster
request FEMA evaluates the following factors: Estimated cost of
assistance, localized impacts, insurance coverage in force, hazard
mitigation, recent multiple disasters, and the availability of other
Federal assistance programs. 44 CFR 206.48(a). FEMA evaluates the
estimated cost of assistance on a per capita basis using the State
population (using the most recent decennial Census population), and has
established a per capita indicator of $1 (adjusted annually based on
the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers, the indicator is
$1.41 for events occurring in Fiscal Year 2015) as a level at which an
event might warrant Federal assistance. 44 CFR 206.48(a)(1).
    Currently, once Public Assistance is authorized, FEMA documents all
projects, including debris removal, emergency protective measures, and
repair and replacement of eligible facilities, on Project Worksheets to
reimburse the Recipient (formerly known as the Grantee, this is the
State, Tribal, or Territorial government that received the disaster
declaration) and Subrecipients (formerly known as Subgrantees, these
are local and Tribal governments, and certain private nonprofit
organizations that apply for and receive funding through the Recipient)
for all of their eligible costs at the level of the Federal cost share
designated by the President. 44 CFR part 206, subpart G.
    This practice of funding all eligible costs is somewhat at odds
with the principle underlying the Stafford Act that there is a level of
disaster activity which the affected State, Tribal, or Territorial
government can handle on its own. For simplicity, consider a State that
is subject to the $1 million minimum threshold. 44 CFR 206.48(a)(1). An
event that causes $999,999 in Public Assistance-eligible damage will
most likely not warrant a major disaster declaration and the State and
affected Tribal and local governments will need to fund all $999,999 in
disaster costs without any supplemental Federal assistance. However, an
incident that causes exactly $1 million in damage in the same State
likely will result in a major disaster declaration. Once declared, FEMA
will reimburse $750,000 under the typical 75% Federal cost share
arrangement and the State will only need to fund $250,000. FEMA is
arguably supplanting $750,000 that the State should be fully capable to
handle itself.

III. Deductible

    Consistent with the principles of the Stafford Act that assistance
from the Federal Government is supplemental in nature and that every
recipient of disaster assistance has some measureable capacity to
independently respond, FEMA is considering the establishment of a
disaster ``deductible.'' To ensure a Recipient's participation in
recovery from disaster losses, following receipt of a major disaster
declaration authorizing the Public Assistance Program, the Recipient(s)
would be required to demonstrate it has satisfied a predetermined
deductible amount before FEMA would provide assistance through a
Project Worksheet for eligible Public Assistance work. FEMA would
intend for the calculation of the deductible level for each Recipient
to be published periodically and to be representative of Recipient
capability. In addition to considering how to calculate a deductible
amount, FEMA is considering what means by which a Recipient could
demonstrate it has satisfied a deductible requirement, including
through completion of FEMA-eligible projects entirely with its own
funding, or through other Recipient activities for which FEMA would
calculate an appropriate credit against the deductible. FEMA might
provide a credit toward the deductible, for example, for a Recipient's
prior adoption of a building code that reduces risk; for adoption of
proactive fiscal planning such as establishing a disaster relief fund
or a self-insurance fund; or investment in programs of assistance
available when there is not a federal declaration.

    FEMA anticipates a deductible would be calculated and applied at
the Recipient (i.e., State, Tribal, or Territorial level), not
Subrecipient, level. However, the deductible would need to be satisfied
before any project, at either the Recipient or Subrecipient level,
would be eligible for assistance.
    FEMA believes that a deductible could result in more effective use
of taxpayer resources. It could incentivize proactive fiscal planning
by Recipients for disasters, encouraging them to set aside funding
specifically reserved for disaster response and recovery. The
availability of credits toward the deductible could incentivize
increased planning and adoption of specific mitigation activities which
will result in risk-informed mitigation strategies on a broad scale.
States may be encouraged to develop and fund special programs such as
emergency management programs and individual assistance programs, as
such plans may be credited toward satisfaction of the deductible.
Recipients that adopt standardized and enhanced building codes could be
rewarded with a credit toward their deductible amount. The results of
these efforts may in turn increase our nation's resiliency to disaster
events: Increased self-sufficiency on the part of State and local
governments and their ability to support their citizens during and
after a disaster, and a decrease in the negative effects of a disaster
on our citizens.

IV. Public Comment

    FEMA welcomes public comment on all aspects of the deductible
concept, but would derive particular benefit from commenters addressing
one or more of the following questions (``Recipient'' in these
questions refers to any possible entity that might be a Grantee for
Public Assistance, including States, Tribes, and Territories):
    1. Calculating the Deductible: How should FEMA calculate the
deductible amount for each Recipient to adequately reflect individual
Recipient capacity?
    a. Using the Public Assistance per capita indicator established by
44 CFR 206.48(a)(1)? Why?
    b. Using population estimates? Why?
    i. If so, should FEMA continue to rely upon the decennial census
population calculations, consider population estimates, or consider
other population calculation sources and why?
    c. Using the Recipient's fiscal capacity? Why?
    i. If so, how should FEMA measure fiscal capacity? Which metrics
should be used to assess it and why? Please also identify preferred
sources for suggested metrics. Potential metrics include, but are not
limited to:
    1. Actual revenue.
    2. Potential revenue.
    3. Total Taxable Resources.
    4. Gross Domestic Product.
    5. Budget surplus/deficit.
    6. Economic projections.
    7. Bond ratings.
    8. Unemployment rate.
    9. Other.
    d. Using a measurement of disaster risk? Why?
    i. If so, how should FEMA measure disaster risk? Which metrics
should be used to assess it and why? Potential metrics include, but are
not limited to:
    1. Past presidential declarations.
    2. Past FEMA disaster relief.
    3. Insurance industry data.
    4. Climatological data, including projected future risk.
    5. Priority placed on mitigation in the State or local budget.
    2. Scope of Deductible: How should FEMA define the applicability of
the deductible to ensure it incentivizes meaningful improvements in
planning, fiscal capacity, and risk mitigation?
    a. Should the deductible apply to State governments, Territorial
governments, Tribal governments, or all of the above?
    b. To which of the following types of FEMA Public Assistance should
the deductible apply and why?
    i. Direct Federal Assistance (emergency work performed, or
contracted for, by the Federal government at the request of the
Recipient).
    ii. Emergency Work (debris removal and emergency protective
measures).
    iii. Permanent Work (infrastructure repair and replacement).
    iv. Management Costs.
    v. Other.
    3. Satisfying the Deductible: How should a Recipient be able to
satisfy its deductible?
    a. Should only Recipient actions be allowed to satisfy the
deductible, or should Subrecipient actions be considered as well and
why?
    i. If Subrecipient actions should be considered, which of the
following Subrecipients should be included and why?
    1. Local governments.
    2. Indian Tribal governments.
    3. Private nonprofit organizations.
    b. What of the following types of actions should qualify towards
satisfying the deductible and why?
    i. Work that would be eligible for FEMA assistance but for the
deductible.
    ii. Management costs for work that would be eligible for FEMA
assistance but for the deductible.
    iii. Spending on incidents that do not receive a Presidential
declaration and supplemental FEMA assistance (for example, emergencies
declared by the Governor).
    iv. For incidents that do receive a Presidential declaration,
spending in jurisdictions that were not designated for supplemental
FEMA assistance.
    v. Cost-share requirements for FEMA programs.
    1. If so, which programs and why?
    vi. Spending on projects beyond the cost-share required amount.
    vii. Investments in emergency management programs using non-Federal
funds.
    viii. Establishment of a disaster relief fund or ``rainy day''
fund.
    ix. Expenditures from a disaster relief fund or ``rainy day'' fund.
    x. Establishment of an individual assistance program.
    xi. Expenditures from an individual assistance program.
    xii. Planning, preparedness, or mitigation programs supported by
non-Federal funding.
    xiii. Adoption of standardized or enhanced building codes.
    xiv. Proportion of the jurisdiction which is covered by
standardized and/or enhanced building codes.
    xv. Other.
    c. How much of an administrative burden would it be for Recipients
to track, and submit for verification, documentation related to each
manner of satisfying the deductible?
    i. How would Recipients track the documentation?
    ii. How should FEMA verify the information?
    d. How should these actions be counted or credited toward
satisfaction the deductible? Why?
    i. Dollar-for-dollar reductions in the deductible. For example,
each dollar spent through a Recipient's own individual assistance
program could count as a dollar toward meeting the deductible.
    ii. Percentage credits toward the deductible. For example, a
Recipient may receive a credit of X percent of the deductible for
establishing its own individual assistance program.
    iii. Other. If so, please provide details regarding these other
actions.
    4. Incentivizing Change: FEMA believes a deductible could improve
the United States' disaster management system and increase disaster
resilience nationally by driving Recipient legislative action,
budgeting, planning and other measures that further greater resilience.
FEMA seeks comment on this, as follows:
    a. Will a deductible requirement incentivize potential future
Recipients of disaster assistance to adopt measures

that make them more resilient or more capable to respond to future
disasters? If so, how?
    b. In which of the following areas should FEMA focus the incentives
of a deductible approach in order to achieve those improvements in
disaster management and resilience and why?
    i. Increased fiscal capacity to address disasters at the Recipient
level.
    ii. Better planning by Recipients for the financial costs of
disaster.
    iii. Reduced long-term impact of disasters.
    iv. Reduced risk of loss from disaster.
    v. Decreased future disaster costs.
    vi. Better levels of cooperation among neighboring jurisdictions.
    vii. Increased State emergency management staffing and funding.
    viii. Other.
    c. What specific actions should FEMA seek to incentivize and why?
Potential actions include:
    i. Acceptance of greater financial responsibility for disaster
costs by non-Federal entities.
    ii. Increased non-Federal investment in emergency management
programs generally.
    iii. Increased investment in mitigation strategies at Recipient
levels.
    iv. Establishment of Recipient disaster relief funds or ``rainy
day'' funds.
    1. Increased spending from such funds where they already exist.
    v. Establishment of Recipient individual assistance programs.
    1. Increased spending from such funds where they already exist.
    vi. Increased level of Recipient financial relief provided for
incidents that do not receive a Presidential declaration pursuant to
the Stafford Act.
    vii. Other.
    d. How could a deductible incentivize the actions necessary to
achieve improvements in the selected areas and how should FEMA design
the deductible to provide that incentive?
    e. Are there alternatives to a deductible that could serve as a
better incentive to the selected improvements and actions?
    i. If so, what are those alternatives?
    ii. Why would those alternatives be more effective than a
deductible?
    5. Implementation Considerations: How could FEMA design deductible
implementation so as to maximize effectiveness of the deductible as an
incentive, but also ensure Recipients have sufficient opportunity to
adjust to it?
    a. What specific actions might Recipients take if a deductible were
introduced to FEMA's Public Assistance Program? What specific types of
actions should we seek to incentivize through the establishment of a
deductible?
    b. How would Recipients meet the deductible?
    i. Would Recipients seek to pass the costs of the deductible on to
Subrecipients? How?
    ii. Would the passing on of costs to Subrecipients be appropriate?
Why or why not?
    iii. Should FEMA seek to prevent Recipients from passing the costs
on to Subrecipients? Why?
    iv. If so, what methods could FEMA use to prevent the transfer of
responsibility for costs from Recipients to Subrecipients?
    c. Should the deductible be applied on an annual basis or per
disaster?
    i. If annual, how should FEMA define the year? Why?
    ii. If per disaster, should there be a cap on the number of
deductibles, or total deductible amount, that a Recipient should be
responsible for in a given year? Why? In what way can FEMA be sensitive
to problems caused by recurrent disasters through a deductible policy?
    iii. If appropriate, how should FEMA set the cumulative annual
deductible cap for repetitive disasters?
    d. Should FEMA ever consider waiving all or part of the deductible?
Why?
    i. If so, under what circumstances should FEMA consider waiving all
or part of the deductible?
    ii. If so, how should FEMA determine what portion of the deductible
should be waived?
    iii. How frequently should FEMA consider waiving all or a portion
of the deductible? Why?
    e. If FEMA introduced a deductible concept to the Public Assistance
Program, what steps would Recipients take to adjust?
    i. How long would it take Recipients, working with relevant
stakeholders, to appropriately adjust to the introduction of a
deductible?
    ii. Should FEMA consider a phased implementation approach through
which the deductible would be applied over time? Why?
    iii. If so, over how much time should the deductible concept be
phased in and in what way? Why?
    6. Estimating Impacts: Implementation of a deductible as a
prerequisite for receiving Public Assistance would have an economic
impact on future Recipients of disaster assistance.
    a. Do Recipients currently maintain a disaster relief or ``rainy
day'' fund?
    b. If not, how much would it cost to establish and administer a
disaster relief or ``rainy day'' fund?
    c. If a Recipient could satisfy its deductible through provision of
its own individual assistance program, would Recipients establish or
expand existing individual assistance programs?
    d. What are the costs of establishing and running various
individual assistance programs?
    e. If a Recipient could satisfy its deductible through an increase
in planning, preparedness, or mitigation programs, would Recipients
increase the level of such activities or programs?
    f. If a Recipient could satisfy its deductible through adoption of
enhanced building codes, would Recipients or Recipient communities
adopt such codes?
    g. What are the costs associated with adoption of such building
codes?
    h. What are the costs associated with the specific actions
Recipients might take if a deductible were introduced to FEMA's
disaster relief programs?
    i. What, if any, disproportionate impacts might be borne by small
nonprofit entities or small government jurisdictions (populations less
than 50,000)?

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.

    Dated: January 13, 2016.
W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2016-00997 Filed 1-19-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 231 (Monday, December 6, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68954-68957]
[FR Doc No: 2021-26148]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2020-0504; FRL-9202-01-R5]

Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; Permit Streamline Updates

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve certain changes to Wisconsin's State Implementation Plan (SIP).
These changes include defining and removing terms, creating a more
streamlined process for permit applications and reports submitted
electronically, and clarifying rules to create a more efficient permit
issuance process. Approving this revision also makes Wisconsin rules
consistent with Federal rules.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 5, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2020-0504 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Kraj, Environmental Engineer,
Air Permits Section, Air Programs Branch (AR18J), Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected]. The EPA Region 5
office is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding Federal holidays and facility closures due to COVID-19.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. Wisconsin's Submittal
II. Review of the Submittal
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Wisconsin's Submittal

    Wisconsin submitted this SIP revision request on April 6, 2021, and
supplemental information on June 22, 2021, and July 27, 2021. This
submittal includes revisions to the definitions in Chapter NR 400, to
the minor construction permit program in Chapter NR 406, and to the
operating permit program in Chapter NR 407. Specifically, Wisconsin is
requesting to repeal NR 406.03(1e)(a), (b), and (j), NR 406.04(1f)(c)
and (Note), NR 407.02(6)(a)3.(Note), NR 407.11(1)(e) and (3)(c), and NR
407.12(1)(b)(Note) and (e); to amend NR 400.02(130), (136m)(intro.) and
(b), NR 406.02(6), NR 406.03(1e)(intro.), (c), (1m)(a), (b), (2)(b)2.c.
and (g), NR 406.04(1)(i)(intro.), 2, 3, 4, (m)(intro.), (zg)1,
(1k)(intro.), (1q)(f), (g), (2)(h), (4)(a)5, (b)(title), (b), (h)2,
(j)2, and (7), NR 406.17(3)(d), NR

407.02(9), NR 407.03(1)(intro.), (1m)(a)2, (c)1, (2)(f) and (g), NR
407.05(2) and (6), NR 407.105(3)(b), NR 407.11(1)(a), NR 407.14(1m)(d),
and NR 407.15(5); and to create NR 400.02(136m)(b)(Note), (136r),
(162)(a)61 and 62, NR 406.04(1)(a)4m, (bm), (1f)(f) and (4)(e)3, NR
407.03(1)(a)4m, (bm) and (2)(ba).
    Wisconsin's Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) has requested
administrative changes to its definitions in Section NR 400. The
definitions of ``reconstruction'' and ``restricted use RICE'' have been
amended, the definition for ``RICE'' was created, and two hazardous air
pollutants (HAPS) have been included to be consistent with the Federal
definition for volatile organic compounds (VOC).
    WDNR also submitted changes to its minor source construction
permitting program, NR 406. The definition of ``permit revision'' in NR
406.02(6), and definitions of ``commence construction'' and ``commence
modification'' were amended to align with the Federal definitions. The
list of activities in NR 406.03 (1e) was revised to remove language
that is outdated. The requirements for application forms were also
clarified.
    The State amended NR 406.03(1m) to clarify the procedures for
applying for a construction permit waiver. Additionally, the State
amended the meaning of economic hardship to remove language restricting
economic or financial hardship that could ``preclude the project in its
entirety.''
    Wisconsin created provisions NR 406.04(1)(a)4m and NR
407.03(1)(a)4m for external combustion sources that fire ultra-low
sulfur diesel fuel oil to comply with 40 CFR 80.510. An exemption for
the incineration of confiscated drugs by a government agency using
certain equipment with specific parameters and limits was added at NR
406.04(1)(bm) and NR 407.03(1)(bm).
    Wisconsin amended the provisions in NR 406.04(1)(i) to clarify that
research and testing exemptions may only be provided for temporary
changes or temporary equipment. Wisconsin created NR 406.04(1f)(f) to
require that an operation permit application shall be submitted prior
to commencing construction or modification even when no construction
permit is required.
    The State also amended the Plantwide Applicability Limit (PAL)
provision at NR 406.04(1f)(f) clarifying that new or modified sources
exempt from construction permitting under a PAL must be included in an
operation permit application submitted prior to commencing construction
or modification. Wisconsin is also clarifying in NR 406.04(1k) that the
exemption for projects evaluated for significant net emissions increase
can only be requested prior to commencing construction, and that this
exemption is only available for the modification of an existing
emission unit and not for the construction of a new emission unit.
    Revisions to NR 406.04(4)(b) allow an exemption for emissions units
that must meet new or revised VOC reasonably available control
technology (RACT) rules to also apply to new or revised nitrogen oxides
(NOX) RACT.
    The State has also revised NR 406.04 to clarify that an increase in
hours of operation does not constitute an exclusion from modification
if the change is subject to certain Federal requirements, and to
clarify that the emissions increase being referred to is the maximum
theoretical emissions increase.
    Revisions were made to NR 406.17(3) to clarify when sources are
ineligible for coverage under a registration construction permit. Also
a note referencing previous EPA guidance on determining when a source
can become an area source referred to as ``once in always in'' has been
removed as this guidance is no longer applicable.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Memorandum: Reclassification of Major Sources as Area
Sources under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, William L. Wehrum,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (January 25, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The definition of ``synthetic minor source'' in NR 407.02 has been
amended to match the Federal policy and guidance on the types of
actions and permit conditions necessary to establish a facility as a
synthetic minor source.
    The permit exemptions in NR 407.03(1m)(a)2 and (c)1, and NR
407.03(2)(f) and (g), are available if the facility is not subject to
an emission limitation or emission standard under section 111 or 112,
are amended to be consistent with the parallel exemptions in NR 406.
    NR 407.03(2)(ba) is created to correct an error by including an
exemption for particulate matter less than 10 microns not to exceed 3.4
pounds per hour to make the exemption in NR 407 consistent with that in
NR 406.
    NR 407.05(2) and (6) are amended to remove certain requirements
relating to submitting multiple paper copies of application materials.
    NR 407.105(3)(b) is amended to replace ``standard or regulation''
with ``emission limitation or emission standard''.
    NR 407.11(1)(e) and (3)(c) under administrative permit revisions
and NR 407.12(1)(b)(Note) and (e) under minor permit revision are
repealed.
    NR 407.14(1m)(d) is amended to clarify that correcting a
typographical error must not substantively change the meaning of a
permit condition.
    NR 407.15 (5), failure to pay fees, is amended to add citations to
Wisconsin statute s. 285.

II. Review of the Submittal

    A. Except for the revisions discussed below in Section II.B,
Wisconsin's submittal includes administrative and non-substantive
changes such as the removal of outdated language, clarifications of
rule applicability and correction of errors, and changes to ensure
conformance with Federal requirements. These revisions remove
provisions that are obsolete, revise rule language for consistency, or
clarify provisions which are already in effect as a matter of law in
the State program. These changes are not substantive, do not affect
emissions, and do not interfere with requirements of the Clean Air Act
(CAA). Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve these revisions.
    B. The following revisions in Wisconsin's submittal require further
analysis: The creation of new exemptions from minor source air
permitting and the revisions to exemptions from minor source air
permitting. Specifically, EPA will review the following below: (1) The
permit exemption for fuel burning installations combusting ultra-low
sulfur diesel fuel, (2) the exemption for incineration of small
quantities of confiscated drugs by a government agency, (3) the
revision to allow temporary steam generating units to operate up to 24
hours simultaneously with the units they are temporarily replacing
during periods of startup and shutdown, and (4) the revision to State
RACT. EPA is using the following criteria to review these changes for
compliance with Federal requirements--40 CFR part 51, subpart I--Review
of New Sources and Modifications, and section 110(l) of the CAA.
    40 CFR 51.160 requires that the SIP set forth legally enforceable
procedures that enable the state or local agency to determine whether
any construction or modification of a source will (1) cause a violation
of the SIP or (2) interfere with attainment or maintenance of a
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). Section 110(l) of the
CAA provides that a revision to a SIP submitted by a state shall be
only be adopted by the state after reasonable notice and public
hearing, and the Administrator shall not approve a revision to a SIP if
the revision would interfere with any applicable

requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or
any other applicable requirement of this chapter.
    WDNR provided opportunities to comment on the proposed rule during
a public comment period from March 5, 2019 through April 24, 2019, and
at a public hearing held on April 17, 2019, in accordance with chapter
227 of the Wisconsin Statutes. Based on our review of the public
process documentation included in the submittal, we find that the
Wisconsin has provided sufficient evidence of public notice and
opportunity for comment and public hearings prior to submittal of this
SIP revision and has satisfied the procedural requirements for notice
and a public hearing under CAA section 110(l).
    For the provisions in 40 CFR 51.160, and section 110(l) of the CAA
that require that the revisions may not cause a violation of the SIP or
interfere with attainment or maintenance of a NAAQS, Wisconsin's
submittal includes an analysis to demonstrate these requirements will
be met. For the reasons discussed below, the new and revised exemptions
in the submittal will not interfere with any SIP requirement or any
applicable requirement concerning attainment.
    Wisconsin provided an analysis for the following changes: The
exemptions in NR 406.04(1)(a)4m and NR 407.03(1)(a)4m for external
combustion sources that fire ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel oil; the
exemptions in NR 406.04(1)(bm) and NR 407.03(1)(bm) for incinerators
operated by a government agency that burn confiscated drugs and meet
other requirements; the revisions to NR 406.04(1)(zg) to allow
temporary steam generating units to operate at the same time as the
permanent steam generation equipment it is replacing for up to 24 hours
during startup or shutdown; and the revisions to NR 406.04(4)(b) to
allow the exemption for emissions units that must meet new or revised
VOC RACT rules, to also apply to new or revised NOX RACT
rules.
    For the exemptions in NR 406.04(1)(a)4m, and NR 407.03(1)(a)4m
regarding ultra-low sulfur, Wisconsin provided in its analysis that
this exemption increased the size of exempt units from 10 million
British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/hr) to 25 MMBtu/hr for external
combustion furnaces firing ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel. Because of the
reduction in sulfur content in ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel, emissions
will not increase when the unit size is increased to 25 MMBtu/hr and
emissions will remain below all existing SIP-approved exemption
thresholds.
    For the exemption in NR 406.04(1)(bm) and NR 407.03(1)(bm) for
incinerators operated by government agencies to burn certain
confiscated drugs, Wisconsin provided that this exemption follows
Federal regulations that exclude incineration of confiscated drugs by
law enforcement and border patrols from the applicable National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants requirements (40 CFR
60.2887(p)). Wisconsin also provided emissions estimates (for maximum
theoretical emissions) based on uncontrolled emission factors for
medical waste incineration. The State deems these factors similar and
appropriate because confiscated drugs are likely to be burned with
plastic or foil packaging and possibly needles. Wisconsin's analysis
also assumed the worst-case fuel for the emission calculations.
Wisconsin's emission estimates demonstrate that combusting confiscated
drugs under the parameters required by NR 406.04(1)(bm) and NR
407.03(1)(bm) will result in emissions that are less than the existing
SIP-approved permit exemption thresholds in NR 406.04(2) and NR
407.03(2). In addition, the rules require the use of a monitoring
device that continuously measures and records the temperature of the
secondary chamber of the incinerator to ensure a proper destruction
efficiency.
    For the revision to the exemption in NR 406.04(1)(zg) for temporary
steam generating units, Wisconsin explained in its analysis that the
current unrevised SIP-approved exemption limits these temporary units
to operating a total of 3,200 hours during nine calendar months, and
this limit is unchanged by the revision. Therefore, the maximum
emissions will not increase. The exemption also continues to require
that the NAAQS are protected at all times the temporary units are
operating.
    The revision to NR 406.04(4)(b) excludes from permit modifications
changes needed for the source to assure compliance with any new or
revised RACT requirements for NOX. The revision adds
NOX to the existing exemption which was for VOC RACT. Before
any new or revised NOX RACT rules can be SIP-approved, there
will need to be a demonstration under section 110(l) of the CAA for
that submittal.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    For the reasons set forth above, EPA is proposing to approve the
requested revisions to Wisconsin's SIP as submitted on April 6, 2021.
These revisions were included in the certified Board Order AM-24-12b
and published in the Wisconsin Administrative Register #777B on
September 28, 2020. Based on the information submitted by Wisconsin on
April 6, 2021, June 22, 2021, and July 27, 2021, EPA has determined
that Wisconsin's submittal is approvable and there were no deficiencies
found that would prevent EPA approval.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference revisions to Wisconsin Administrative Code rules NR 400, 406
and 407 as published in the Wisconsin Register #777B on September 28,
2020, effective October 1, 2020, discussed in section I of this
preamble. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents
generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 5
Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will
not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November
9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: November 24, 2021.
Debra Shore,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2021-26148 Filed 12-3-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 122 (Tuesday, June 27, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 41507]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13593]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2023-0236]

Safety Zones; Recurring Safety Zones in Captain of the Port Sault
Sainte Marie Zone

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce various safety zones in the
Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie Zone. Enforcement of these
safety zones is necessary to protect the safety of life and property on
the navigable waters immediately prior to, during, and immediately
after the events. During the aforementioned periods, the Coast Guard
will enforce restrictions upon, and control movement of, vessels in a
specified area immediately prior to, during, and immediately after
events. During each enforcement period, vessels must stay out of the
established safety zone and may only enter with permission from the
designated representative of the Captain of the Port Sault Sainte
Marie.

DATES: The regulations listed in 33 CFR 165.918 will be enforced for
the safety zones identified in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
below for the dates and times specified.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
publication, call or email Waterways Management division, LT Deaven
Palenzuela, Coast Guard Sector Sault Sainte Marie, U.S. Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety
zones in 33 CFR 165.918, Table 165.918, at the following dates and
times for the following events:
    (1) Jordan Valley Freedom Festival Fireworks (East Jordan, MI) from
10 through 10:30 p.m. on June 24, 2023. The zone encompasses all U.S.
navigable waters of Lake Charlevoix within the arc of a circle with an
approximate 1200-foot radius from the fireworks launch site in position
45[deg]09'18'' N, 085[deg]07'48'' W.
    (2) Grand Marais Splash-In (Grand Marais, MI) from 1 p.m. through 5
p.m. on June 17, 2023. The zone encompasses all U.S. navigable waters
within the southern portion of West Bay bound within the following
coordinates: 46[deg]40'22.08'' N, 085[deg]59'0.12'' W,
46[deg]40'22.08'' N, 85[deg]58'22.08'' W, and 46[deg]40'14.64'' N,
85[deg]58'19.56'' W, with the West Bay shoreline forming the South and
West boundaries of the zone.
    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.918, entry into, transiting, or
anchoring within the safety zones during an enforcement period is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sault Sainte
Marie or his designated representative. Those seeking permission to
enter the safety zone may request permission from the Captain of Port
Sault Sainte Marie via channel 16, VHF-FM. Vessels and persons granted
permission to enter the safety zone shall obey the directions of the
Captain of Port Sault Sainte Marie or his designated representatives.
While within the safety zone, all vessels shall operate at the minimum
speed necessary to maintain a safe course.
    This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR
165.918 and 5 U.S.C. 552 (a). In addition to this notice of enforcement
in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime
community with advance notification of this enforcement period via
Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. If the
Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie determines that the safety zone
need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, he or
she may suspend such enforcement and notify the public of the
suspension via Broadcast Notice to Mariners and grant general
permission to enter the respective safety zone.

    Dated: June 20, 2023.
A.R. Jones,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie.
[FR Doc. 2023-13593 Filed 6-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P