[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 188 (Friday, September 27, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51056-51060]
[FR Doc No: 2019-19877]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0189; FRL-9997-88-Region 6]

Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of
Arkansas; Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan Revisions;
Withdrawal of Portions of the Federal Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is amending a
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) that addresses regional haze for the
first planning period for Arkansas as it applies to the best available
retrofit technology (BART) requirements for sulfur dioxide
(SO2) and particulate matter (PM) for seven electric
generating units (EGUs) in Arkansas and the SO2 requirements
under the reasonable progress provisions. These portions of the FIP
will be replaced by the portions of a revision to the Arkansas State
Implementation Plan (SIP) that we are taking final action to approve in
a separate rulemaking that is published elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register.

DATES: This final rule is effective October 28, 2019.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0189. All documents in the dockets 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 either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the EPA Region 6, 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500, Dallas,
Texas 75270-2102.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dayana Medina,<PHONE_NUMBER>;
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What is the background for this action?
II. What Final action is EPA taking?
III. Responses to Comments Received
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background for this action?

    Arkansas submitted a SIP revision on September 9, 2008, to address
the requirements of the first regional haze implementation period. On
August 3, 2010, Arkansas submitted a SIP revision with mostly non-
substantive revisions to Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology
Commission (APCEC) Regulation 19, Chapter 15.\1\ On September 27, 2011,
the State submitted supplemental information to clarify several aspects
of the September 9, 2008 submittal. We are hereafter referring to these
regional haze submittals collectively as the ``2008 Arkansas Regional
Haze SIP.'' On March 12, 2012, we partially approved and partially
disapproved the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP.\2\ On September 27,
2016, in accordance with Section 110(c)(1) of the CAA, we promulgated a
FIP (the Arkansas Regional Haze FIP) addressing the disapproved
portions of

the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP.\3\ Among other things, the FIP
established SO2, nitrogen oxide (NOX), and PM
emission limits under the BART requirements for nine units at six
facilities: Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation (AECC) Bailey
Plant Unit 1; AECC McClellan Plant Unit 1; the American Electric Power/
Southwestern Electric Power Company (AEP/SWEPCO) Flint Creek Plant
Boiler No. 1; Entergy Arkansas, Inc. (Entergy) Lake Catherine Plant
Unit 4; Entergy White Bluff Plant Units 1 and 2; Entergy White Bluff
Auxiliary Boiler; and the Domtar Ashdown Mill Power Boilers No. 1 and
2. The FIP also established SO2 and NOX emission
limits under the reasonable progress requirements for Entergy
Independence Units 1 and 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The September 9, 2008 SIP submittal included APCEC
Regulation 19, Chapter 15, which is the state regulation that
identified the BART-eligible and subject-to-BART sources in Arkansas
and established BART emission limits for subject-to-BART sources.
The August 3, 2010 SIP revision did not revise Arkansas' list of
BART-eligible and subject-to-BART sources or revise any of the BART
requirements for affected sources. Instead, it included mostly non-
substantive revisions to the state regulation.
    \2\ 77 FR 14604.
    \3\ 81 FR 66332; see also 81 FR 68319 (October 4, 2016)
(correction).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the issuance of the Arkansas Regional Haze FIP, the State
of Arkansas and several industry parties filed petitions for
reconsideration and a motion for an administrative stay of the final
rule.\4\ On April 14, 2017, we announced our decision to reconsider
several elements of the FIP, as follows: appropriate compliance dates
for the NOX emission limits for Flint Creek Boiler No. 1,
White Bluff Units 1 and 2, and Independence Units 1 and 2; the low-load
NOX emission limits applicable to White Bluff Units 1 and 2
and Independence Units 1 and 2 during periods of operation at less than
50 percent of the units' maximum heat input rating; the SO2
emission limits for White Bluff Units 1 and 2; and the compliance dates
for the SO2 emission limits for Independence Units 1 and
2.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See the docket associated with this proposed rulemaking for
a copy of the petitions for reconsideration and administrative stay
submitted by the State of Arkansas; Entergy Arkansas Inc., Entergy
Mississippi Inc., and Entergy Power LLC (collectively ``Entergy'');
AECC; and the Energy and Environmental Alliance of Arkansas (EEAA).
    \5\ Letter from E. Scott Pruitt, Administrator, EPA, to Nicholas
Jacob Bronni and Jamie Leigh Ewing, Arkansas Attorney General's
Office (April 14, 2017). A copy of this letter is included in the
docket, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0189-0240.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also published a notice in the Federal Register on April 25,
2017, which administratively stayed the effectiveness of the
NOX compliance dates in the FIP for the Flint Creek, White
Bluff, and Independence units, as well as the compliance dates for the
SO2 emission limits for the White Bluff and Independence
units for a period of 90 days.\6\ On July 13, 2017, the EPA published a
notice proposing to extend the NOX compliance dates for
Flint Creek Boiler No. 1, White Bluff Units 1 and 2, and Independence
Units 1 and 2, by 21 months, to January 27, 2020.\7\ However, EPA did
not take final action on the July 13, 2017 proposed rule because on
July 12, 2017, Arkansas submitted a proposed SIP revision with a
request for parallel processing (Arkansas Regional Haze NOX
SIP revision or Arkansas NOX SIP revision). The State's
proposed revision addressed the NOX BART requirements for
Bailey Unit 1, McClellan Unit 1, Flint Creek Boiler No. 1, Lake
Catherine Unit 4, White Bluff Units 1 and 2, and White Bluff Auxiliary
Boiler, as well as the reasonable progress requirements with respect to
NOX. We processed this proposed SIP revision in parallel
with the state's SIP approval process and, in a proposed rule published
in the Federal Register on September 11, 2017, we proposed approval of
the Arkansas Regional Haze NOX SIP revision and withdrawal
of the corresponding parts of the Arkansas Regional Haze FIP.\8\ On
October 31, 2017, we received ADEQ's final Regional Haze NOX
SIP revision addressing NOX BART for EGUs and the reasonable
progress requirements with respect to NOX for the first
implementation period. On February 12, 2018, we finalized our approval
of the Arkansas Regional Haze NOX SIP revision and our
withdrawal of the corresponding parts of the FIP.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 82 FR 18994.
    \7\ 82 FR 32284.
    \8\ 82 FR 42627.
    \9\ 83 FR 5927 and 83 FR 5915 (February 12, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 8, 2018, Arkansas submitted another SIP revision
(Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision or Phase II
SIP revision) addressing all remaining disapproved parts of the 2008
Regional Haze SIP, with the exception of the BART and associated long-
term strategy requirements for the Domtar Ashdown Mill Power Boilers
No. 1 and 2. The Phase II SIP revision also included a discussion on
Arkansas' interstate visibility transport requirements. In a proposed
rule published in the Federal Register on November 30, 2018, we
proposed approval of a portion of the SIP revision and we also proposed
to withdraw the parts of the FIP corresponding to our proposed
approvals.\10\ We stated in our proposed rule that we intended to
propose action on the portion of the SIP revision discussing the
interstate visibility transport requirements in a future proposed
rulemaking. Since we proposed to withdraw certain portions of the FIP,
we also proposed to revise the numbering of certain paragraphs under
section 40 CFR 52.173 of the FIP. In a final action being published
separately in today's Federal Register, we are taking final action to
approve the Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 83 FR 62204 (November 30, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The background for this final rule and the separate final action
also being published today that approves the Arkansas Regional Haze
SO2 and PM SIP revision is also discussed in detail in our
November 30, 2018 proposal.\11\ The comment period was open for 30
days, and we received comments from four commenters in response to our
proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 83 FR 62204.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What final action is EPA taking?

    We are withdrawing the majority of the Arkansas Regional Haze FIP
that we promulgated on September 27, 2016. Specifically, we are
withdrawing the following components of the FIP at 40 CFR 52.173: The
SO2 and PM BART emission limits for Bailey Unit 1; the
SO2 and PM BART emission limits for McClellan Unit 1; the
SO2 BART emission limit for Flint Creek Boiler No. 1; the
SO2 BART emission limits for White Bluff Units 1 and 2; the
SO2 and PM BART emission limits for the White Bluff
Auxiliary Boiler; the prohibition on burning fuel oil at Lake Catherine
Unit 4; and the SO2 emission limits for Independence Units 1
and 2 under the reasonable progress provisions. Therefore, we are
removing these SO2 and PM emission limitations and
associated requirements for Arkansas EGUs from 40 CFR 52.173(c), and as
of the effective date of this final rule they will no longer apply to
the nine aforementioned units. Since we are withdrawing certain
portions of the FIP, we are also revising the numbering of certain
paragraphs under section 40 CFR 52.173 of the FIP. Our renumbering of
these paragraphs is non-substantive in nature. The provisions of the
Arkansas Regional Haze FIP addressing the Domtar Ashdown Mill are
unaffected by this action and the Domtar Ashdown Mill is the only
remaining facility subject to the FIP.
    As explained in our November 30, 2018 proposal,\12\ this action is
based on our separate action being published in today's Federal
Register to approve the Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM
SIP revision submitted to us on August 8, 2018. In that separate
action, EPA is making the determination that the Arkansas Regional Haze
SO2 and PM SIP revision is approvable because the plan's
provisions meet the applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA
implementing regulations. EPA is

finalizing this action under section 110 and part C of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 83 FR 62204.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Responses to Comments Received

    We received several comment letters concerning our proposed action,
which included both our proposed approval of the portions of the Phase
II SIP revision listed in the previous section and proposed withdrawal
of the FIP provisions addressing the requirements for which we were
proposing SIP approval. EPA did not receive any comments specifically
on withdrawal of the FIP provisions; rather, the comments addressed
EPA's proposed approval of the SIP provisions that would replace the
FIP. Therefore, we have responded to all relevant comments in response
to our proposed action in a separate, final notice published elsewhere
in this issue of the Federal Register that approves the Arkansas
Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision and/or in a separate
document titled the ``Arkansas Regional Haze Phase II SIP Revision
Response to Comments,'' which can be found in the docket associated
with this final rulemaking.\13\ Copies of the comments are also
available in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Please see Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0189 in the
regulations.gov website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

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

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review. This final rule revises a FIP to withdraw source-specific
SO2 and PM emission limits for only six individually
identified facilities in Arkansas and is therefore not a rule of
general applicability.

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 provisions of the PRA. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This
final rule revises a FIP to withdraw source-specific SO2 and
PM emission limits for six individually identified facilities in
Arkansas.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this final action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
RFA. This final action will not impose any requirements on small
entities. This final action revises a FIP to withdraw source-specific
SO2 and PM emission limits that apply to six individually
identified power plants in Arkansas.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This action does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, no additional costs to
State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, will
result from this action.

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, because this partial FIP withdrawal does not
apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA
or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, and
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law. This final action revises a FIP to withdraw source-
specific SO2 and PM emission limits that apply to six
individually identified power plants in Arkansas. There are no Indian
reservation lands in Arkansas. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this action.

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks 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 the human health or environmental risk addressed
by this action will not have potentially disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income
or indigenous populations.

L. Determination Under Section 307(d)

    Pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(1)(B), this action is subject to the
requirements of CAA section 307(d), as it revises a FIP under CAA
section 110(c).

M. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This rule is exempt from the CRA because it is a rule of particular
applicably. EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding this
action under section 801 because this is a rule of particular
applicability that only affects six individually identified facilities
in Arkansas.

N. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 26, 2019. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Best available
retrofit technology, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Ozone, Particulate Matter, Regional haze, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur Dioxide, Visibility.

    Dated: September 9, 2019.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.

    Title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart E--Arkansas

0
2. Section 52.173 is amended:
0
a. By revising paragraphs (c) introductory text and (c)(1);
0
b. In paragraph (c)(2), by revising the definition of ``Boiler-
operating-day'';
0
c. By removing paragraphs (c)(3) through (12) and (22) through (24);
0
d. By redesignating paragraphs (c)(13) through (21) as paragraphs
(c)(3) through (11) and paragraphs (c)(25) through (27) as paragraphs
(c)(12) through (14); and
0
f. By revising newly redesignated paragraphs (c)(4), (5), (7), (8),
(10), and (11).
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  52.173  Visibility protection.

* * * * *
    (c) Federal implementation plan for regional haze. Requirements for
Domtar Ashdown Paper Mill Power Boilers No. 1 and 2 affecting
visibility.
    (1) Applicability. The provisions of this section shall apply to
each owner or operator, or successive owners or operators of the
sources designated as Domtar Ashdown Paper Mill Power Boilers No. 1 and
2.
    (2) * * *
    Boiler-operating-day means a 24-hr period between 6 a.m. and 6 a.m.
the following day during which any fuel is fed into and/or combusted at
any time in the power boiler.
* * * * *
    (4) Compliance dates for Domtar Ashdown Mill Power Boiler No. 1.
The owner or operator of the boiler must comply with the SO2
and NOX emission limits listed in paragraph (c)(3) of this
section by November 28, 2016.
    (5) Compliance determination and reporting and recordkeeping
requirements for Domtar Ashdown Paper Mill Power Boiler No. 1. (i)(A)
SO2 emissions resulting from combustion of fuel oil shall be
determined by assuming that the SO2 content of the fuel
delivered to the fuel inlet of the combustion chamber is equal to the
SO2 being emitted at the stack. The owner or operator must
maintain records of the sulfur content by weight of each fuel oil
shipment, where a ``shipment'' is considered delivery of the entire
amount of each order of fuel purchased. Fuel sampling and analysis may
be performed by the owner or operator, an outside laboratory, or a fuel
supplier. All records pertaining to the sampling of each shipment of
fuel oil, including the results of the sulfur content analysis, must be
maintained by the owner or operator and made available upon request to
EPA and ADEQ representatives. SO2 emissions resulting from
combustion of bark shall be determined by using the following site-
specific curve equation, which accounts for the SO2
scrubbing capabilities of bark combustion:

Y= 0.4005 * X--0.2645

Where:
Y= pounds of sulfur emitted per ton of dry fuel feed to the boiler.
X= pounds of sulfur input per ton of dry bark.

    (B) The owner or operator must confirm the site-specific curve
equation through stack testing. By October 27, 2017, the owner or
operator must provide a report to EPA showing confirmation of the site
specific-curve equation accuracy. Records of the quantity of fuel input
to the boiler for each fuel type for each day must be compiled no later
than 15 days after the end of the month and must be maintained by the
owner or operator and made available upon request to EPA and ADEQ
representatives. Each boiler-operating-day of the 30-day rolling
average for the boiler must be determined by adding together the pounds
of SO2 from that boiler-operating-day and the preceding 29
boiler-operating-days and dividing the total pounds of SO2
by the sum of the total number of boiler operating days (i.e., 30). The
result shall be the 30 boiler-operating-day rolling average in terms of
lb/day emissions of SO2. Records of the total SO2
emitted for each day must be compiled no later than 15 days after the
end of the month and must be maintained by the owner or operator and
made available upon request to EPA and ADEQ representatives. Records of
the 30 boiler-operating-day rolling averages for SO2 as
described in this paragraph (c)(5)(i) must be maintained by the owner
or operator for each boiler-operating-day and made available upon
request to EPA and ADEQ representatives.
    (ii) If the air permit is revised such that Power Boiler No. 1 is
permitted to burn only pipeline quality natural gas, this is sufficient
to demonstrate that the boiler is complying with the SO2
emission limit under paragraph (c)(3) of this section. The compliance
determination requirements and the reporting and recordkeeping
requirements under paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this section would not apply
and confirmation of the accuracy of the site-specific curve equation
under paragraph (c)(5)(i)(B) of this section through stack testing
would not be required so long as Power Boiler No. 1 is only permitted
to burn pipeline quality natural gas.
    (iii) To demonstrate compliance with the NOX emission
limit under paragraph (c)(3) of this section, the owner or operator
shall conduct stack testing using EPA Reference Method 7E, found at 40
CFR part 60, appendix A, once every 5 years, beginning 1 year from the
effective date of our final rule, which corresponds to October 27,
2017. Records and reports pertaining to the stack testing must be
maintained by the owner or operator and made available upon request to
EPA and ADEQ representatives.
    (iv) If the air permit is revised such that Power Boiler No. 1 is
permitted to burn only pipeline quality natural gas, the owner or
operator may demonstrate compliance with the NOX emission
limit under paragraph (c)(3) of this section by calculating
NOX emissions using fuel usage records and the applicable
NOX emission factor under AP-42, Compilation of Air
Pollutant Emission Factors, section 1.4, Table 1.4-1. Records of the
quantity of natural gas input to the boiler for each day must be
compiled no later than 15 days after the end of the month and must be
maintained by the owner or operator and made available upon request to
EPA and ADEQ representatives. Records of the calculation of
NOX emissions for each day must be compiled no later than 15
days after the end of the month and must be maintained by the owner or
operator and made available upon request to EPA and ADEQ
representatives. Each boiler-operating-day of the 30-day rolling
average for the boiler must be determined by adding together the pounds
of NOX from that day and the preceding 29 boiler-operating-
days and dividing the total pounds of NOX by the sum of the
total number of hours during the same 30 boiler-operating-day period.
The result

shall be the 30 boiler-operating-day rolling average in terms of lb/hr
emissions of NOX. Records of the 30 boiler-operating-day
rolling average for NOX must be maintained by the owner or
operator for each boiler-operating-day and made available upon request
to EPA and ADEQ representatives. Under these circumstances, the
compliance determination requirements and the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements under paragraph (c)(5)(iii) of this section
would not apply.
* * * * *
    (7) SO2 and NOX Compliance dates for Domtar Ashdown Mill Power
Boiler No. 2. The owner or operator of the boiler must comply with the
SO2 and NOX emission limits listed in paragraph
(c)(6) of this section by October 27, 2021.
    (8) SO2 and NOX Compliance determination and reporting and
recordkeeping requirements for Domtar Ashdown Mill Power Boiler No. 2.
(i) NOX and SO2 emissions for each day shall be
determined by summing the hourly emissions measured in pounds of
NOX or pounds of SO2. Each boiler-operating-day
of the 30-day rolling average for the boiler shall be determined by
adding together the pounds of NOX or SO2 from
that day and the preceding 29 boiler-operating-days and dividing the
total pounds of NOX or SO2 by the sum of the
total number of hours during the same 30 boiler-operating-day period.
The result shall be the 30 boiler-operating-day rolling average in
terms of lb/hr emissions of NOX or SO2. If a
valid NOX pounds per hour or SO2 pounds per hour
is not available for any hour for the boiler, that NOX
pounds per hour shall not be used in the calculation of the 30 boiler-
operating-day rolling average for NOX. For each day, records
of the total SO2 and NOX emitted for that day by
the boiler must be maintained by the owner or operator and made
available upon request to EPA and ADEQ representatives. Records of the
30 boiler-operating-day rolling average for SO2 and
NOX for the boiler as described in this paragraph (c)(8)(i)
must be maintained by the owner or operator for each boiler-operating-
day and made available upon request to EPA and ADEQ representatives.
    (ii) The owner or operator shall continue to maintain and operate a
CEMS for SO2 and NOX on the boiler listed in
paragraph (c)(6) of this section in accordance with 40 CFR 60.8 and
60.13(e), (f), and (h), and appendix B of 40 CFR part 60. The owner or
operator shall comply with the quality assurance procedures for CEMS
found in 40 CFR part 60. Compliance with the emission limits for
SO2 and NOX shall be determined by using data
from a CEMS.
    (iii) Continuous emissions monitoring shall apply during all
periods of operation of the boiler listed in paragraph (c)(6) of this
section, including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction,
except for CEMS breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and zero and
span adjustments. Continuous monitoring systems for measuring
SO2 and NOX and diluent gas shall complete a
minimum of one cycle of operation (sampling, analyzing, and data
recording) for each successive 15-minute period. Hourly averages shall
be computed using at least one data point in each fifteen-minute
quadrant of an hour. Notwithstanding this requirement, an hourly
average may be computed from at least two data points separated by a
minimum of 15 minutes (where the unit operates for more than one
quadrant in an hour) if data are unavailable as a result of performance
of calibration, quality assurance, preventive maintenance activities,
or backups of data from data acquisition and handling system, and
recertification events. When valid SO2 or NOX
pounds per hour emission data are not obtained because of continuous
monitoring system breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, or zero and
span adjustments, emission data must be obtained by using other
monitoring systems approved by the EPA to provide emission data for a
minimum of 18 hours in each 24-hour period and at least 22 out of 30
successive boiler operating days.
    (iv) If the air permit is revised such that Power Boiler No. 2 is
permitted to burn only pipeline quality natural gas, this is sufficient
to demonstrate that the boiler is complying with the SO2
emission limit under paragraph (c)(6) of this section. Under these
circumstances, the compliance determination requirements under
paragraphs (c)(8)(i) through (iii) of this section would not apply to
the SO2 emission limit listed in paragraph (c)(6) of this
section.
    (v) If the air permit is revised such that Power Boiler No. 2 is
permitted to burn only pipeline quality natural gas and the operation
of the CEMS is not required under other applicable requirements, the
owner or operator may demonstrate compliance with the NOX
emission limit under paragraph (c)(6) of this section by calculating
NOX emissions using fuel usage records and the applicable
NOX emission factor under AP-42, Compilation of Air
Pollutant Emission Factors, section 1.4, Table 1.4-1. Records of the
quantity of natural gas input to the boiler for each day must be
compiled no later than 15 days after the end of the month and must be
maintained by the owner or operator and made available upon request to
EPA and ADEQ representatives. Records of the calculation of
NOX emissions for each day must be compiled no later than 15
days after the end of the month and must be maintained and made
available upon request to EPA and ADEQ representatives. Each boiler-
operating-day of the 30-day rolling average for the boiler must be
determined by adding together the pounds of NOX from that
day and the preceding 29 boiler-operating-days and dividing the total
pounds of NOX by the sum of the total number of hours during
the same 30 boiler-operating-day period. The result shall be the 30
boiler-operating-day rolling average in terms of lb/hr emissions of
NOX. Records of the 30 boiler-operating-day rolling average
for NOX must be maintained by the owner or operator for each
boiler-operating-day and made available upon request to EPA and ADEQ
representatives. Under these circumstances, the compliance
determination requirements under paragraphs (c)(8)(i) through (iii) of
this section would not apply to the NOX emission limit.
* * * * *
    (10) PM compliance dates for Domtar Ashdown Mill Power Boiler No.
2. The owner or operator of the boiler must comply with the PM BART
requirement listed in paragraph (c)(9) of this section by November 28,
2016.
    (11) Alternative PM Compliance Determination for Domtar Ashdown
Paper Mill Power Boiler No. 2. If the air permit is revised such that
Power Boiler No. 2 is permitted to burn only pipeline quality natural
gas, this is sufficient to demonstrate that the boiler is complying
with the PM BART requirement under paragraph (c)(9) of this section.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-19877 Filed 9-26-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 215 (Monday, November 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 68667]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28107]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2010-49]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Title 14. The purpose of this notice is
to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect
of FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor
the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to
affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number involved and must be received on or before November 29, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2008-
0433 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Les Taylor; Small Airplane
Directorate; Aircraft Certification Service; 901 Locust, Room 301;
Kansas City, MO 64106; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or Katherine Haley, ARM-
203, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC on November 2, 2010.
Pamela Hamilton-Powell,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2008-0433.
    Petitioner: Aviation Fabricators.
    Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR 23.815.
    Description of Relief Sought: Aviation Fabricators requests an
exemption to permit them to install Beechcraft Aft Jump Seat Kits in
Beechcraft model B300 aircraft with a wide back executive seat
configuration. The revised configuration would increase seating in the
aircraft to 10 or 11 passengers, without replacing the existing cabin
seats with a narrower seat.

[FR Doc. 2010-28107 Filed 11-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 240 (Wednesday, December 14, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 90363-90365]
[FR Doc No: 2016-30034]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2016-N-4119]

Food Safety Modernization Act Third-Party Certification Program
User Fee Rate for Fiscal Year 2017

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
fiscal year (FY) 2017 fee rate for accreditation bodies applying to be
recognized in the third-party certification program that is authorized
by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), as amended
by the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sylvia Kim, Office of Foods and
Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 1, Rm. 3212, Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

DATES: This fee is effective January 13, 2017, and will remain in
effect through September 30, 2017.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 307 of FSMA, Accreditation of Third-Party Auditors, amends
the FD&C Act to create a new provision, section 808, under the same
name. Section 808 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 384d) directs us to
establish a new program for accreditation of third-party certification
bodies \1\ conducting food safety audits and issuing food and facility
certifications to eligible foreign entities (including registered
foreign

food facilities) that meet our applicable requirements. Under this
provision, we will recognize accreditation bodies to accredit
certification bodies, except for limited circumstances in which we may
directly accredit certification bodies to participate in the third-
party certification program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For the reasons explained in the third-party certification
final rule (80 FR74570 at 74578-74579, November 27, 2015), and for
consistency with the implementing regulations for the third-party
certification program in 21 CFR parts 1, 11, and 16, this notice
uses the term ``third-party certification body'' rather than the
term ``third-party auditor'' used in section 808(a)(3) of the FD&C
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 808(c)(8) of the FD&C Act directs FDA to establish a
reimbursement (user fee) program by which we assess fees and require
reimbursement for the work FDA performs to establish and administer the
third-party certification program under section 808 of the FD&C Act.
The FSMA FY 2017 third-party certification program user fee rate
announced in this notice is effective on January 13, 2017, and will
remain in effect through September 30, 2017. We plan to publish the
FSMA third-party certification program user fee rates for FY 2018 prior
to the beginning of the next fiscal year.
    Section 808(c)(8) of the FD&C Act requires FDA to establish the
user fee program for the third-party certification program by
regulation. Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register we are
issuing a final rule entitled ``Amendments to Accreditation of Third-
Party Certification Bodies to Conduct Food Safety Audits and To Issue
Certifications to Provide for the User Fee Program.''

II. Estimating the Average Cost of a Supported Direct FDA Work Hour for
FY 2017

    In each year, the costs of salary (or personnel compensation) and
benefits for FDA employees account for between 50 and 60 percent of the
funds available to, and used by, FDA. Almost all of the remaining funds
(operating funds) available to FDA are used to support FDA employees
for paying rent, travel, utility, information technology, and other
operating costs.

A. Estimating the Full Cost per Direct Work Hour in FY 2015

    In general, the starting point for estimating the full cost per
direct work hour is to estimate the cost of a full-time equivalent
(FTE) or paid staff year for the relevant activity. This is done by
dividing the total funds allocated to the elements of FDA primarily
responsible for carrying out the activities for which fees are being
collected by the total FTEs allocated to those activities. For the
purposes of the third-party certification program user fees authorized
by section 808(c)(8) of the FD&C Act (the fees that are the subject of
this notice), primary responsibility for the activities for which fees
will be collected rests with FDA's Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA).
ORA carries out field-based activities on behalf of FDA's product
centers, including the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition
(CFSAN) and the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM). Thus, as the
starting point for estimating the full cost per direct work hour, FDA
will use the total funds allocated to ORA for CFSAN and CVM related
field activities. The most recent fiscal year with available data was
FY 2015. In that year, FDA obligated a total of $666,722,326 for ORA in
carrying out the CFSAN and CVM related field activities work, excluding
the cost of inspection travel. In that same year, the number of ORA
staff primarily conducting the CFSAN and CVM related field activities
was 3,022 FTEs or paid staff years. Dividing $666,722,326 by 3,022 FTEs
results in an average cost of $220,623 per paid staff year, excluding
travel costs.
    Not all of the FTEs required to support the activities for which
fees will be collected are conducting direct work such as conducting
onsite assessments. Data collected over a number of years and used
consistently in other FDA user fee programs (e.g., under the
Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) and the Medical Device User Fee
and Modernization Act (MDUFA)) show that every seven FTEs who perform
direct FDA work require three indirect and supporting FTEs. These
indirect and supporting FTEs function in budget, facility, human
resource, information technology, planning, security, administrative
support, legislative liaison, legal counsel, program management, and
other essential program areas. On average, two of these indirect and
supporting FTEs are located in ORA or the FDA center where the direct
work is being conducted, and one of them is located in the Office of
the Commissioner. To get the fully supported cost of an FTE, FDA needs
to multiply the average cost of an FTE by 1.43, to take into account
the indirect and supporting functions. The 1.43 factor is derived by
dividing the 10 fully supported FTEs by 7 direct FTEs. In FY 2015, the
average cost of an FTE was $220,623. Multiplying this amount by 1.43
results in an average fully supported cost of $315,491 per FTE,
excluding the cost of travel.
    To calculate an hourly rate, FDA must divide the average fully
supported cost of $315,491 per FTE by the average number of supported
direct FDA work hours. See table 1.

      Table 1--Supported Direct FDA Work Hours in a Paid Staff Year
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total number of hours in a paid staff year.....................    2,080
Less:
  10 paid holidays.............................................       80
  20 days of annual leave......................................      160
  10 days of sick leave........................................       80
  10 days of training..........................................       80
  2 hours of meetings per week.................................       80
                                                                --------
    Net Supported Direct FDA Work Hours Available for              1,600
     Assignments...............................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dividing the average fully supported cost of an FTE in FY 2015
($315,491) by the total number of supported direct work hours available
for assignment (1,600) results in an average fully supported cost of
$197 (rounded to the nearest dollar), excluding travel costs, per
supported direct work hour in FY 2015--the last fiscal year for which
complete data are available.

B. Adjusting FY 2015 Costs for Inflation To Estimate FY 2017 Costs

    To adjust the hourly rate for FY 2017, FDA must estimate the cost
of inflation in each year for FY 2016 and FY 2017. FDA uses the method
prescribed for estimating inflationary costs under the PDUFA provisions
of the FD&C Act (section 736(c)(1) (21 U.S.C. 379h(c)(1)), the
statutory method for inflation adjustment in the FD&C Act that FDA has
used consistently. FDA previously determined the FY 2016 inflation rate
to be 2.0266; this rate was published in the FY 2016 PDUFA user fee
rates notice in the Federal Register of August 3, 2015 (80 FR 46028).
Utilizing the method set forth in section 736(c)(1) of the FD&C Act,
FDA has calculated an inflation rate of 1.5468 percent for FY 2017 and
FDA intends to use this inflation rate to make inflation adjustments
for FY 2017 for several of its user fee programs; the derivation of
this rate is published in the Federal Register in the FY 2017 notice
for the PDUFA user fee rates (81 FR 49674). The compounded inflation
rate for FYs 2016 and 2017, therefore, is 3.6047 percent (1 plus 2.0266
percent times 1 plus 1.5468 percent).
    Increasing the FY 2015 average fully supported cost per supported
direct FDA work hour of $197 (excluding travel costs) by 3.6047 percent
yields an inflationary adjusted estimated cost of $204 per a supported
direct work hour in FY 2017, excluding travel costs. FDA will use this
base unit fee in determining the hourly fee rate for third-party
certification program fee for FY 2017 prior to including travel costs
as applicable for the activity. For the purpose of estimating the fee,
we are

using the travel cost rate for foreign travel, because we anticipate
that the vast majority of onsite assessments made by FDA under this
program will require foreign travel. In FY 2015, ORA spent a total of
$2,521,216 on 269 foreign inspection trips related to FDA's CFSAN and
CVM field activities programs, which averaged a total of $9,373 per
foreign inspection trip. These trips averaged 3 weeks (or 120 paid
hours) per trip. Dividing $9,373 per trip by 120 hours per trip results
in a total and an additional cost of $78 per paid hour spent for
foreign inspection travel costs in FY 2015. To adjust $78 for
inflationary increases in FY 2016 and FY 2017, FDA must multiply it by
the same inflation factor mentioned previously in this document
(1.036047), which results in an estimated cost of $81 dollars per paid
hour in addition to $204 for a total of $285 per paid hour ($204 plus
$81) for each direct hour of work requiring foreign inspection travel.
FDA will use these rates in charging fees in FY 2017 when travel is
required for the third-party certification program.

                 Table 2--FSMA Fee Schedule for FY 2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Fee rates for
                      Fee category                            FY 2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hourly rate without travel..............................            $204
Hourly rate if travel is required.......................             285
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Application Fee for Accreditation Bodies Applying for Recognition
in the Third-Party Certification Program Under Section 808(c)(8) of the
FD&C Act

    In FY 2017 (the first fiscal year in which the program will
operate), the only fee that will be collected by FDA under section
808(c)(8) of the FD&C Act is the initial application fee for
accreditation bodies seeking recognition. Section 1.705(a)(1)
establishes an application fee for accreditation bodies applying for
initial recognition that represents the estimated average cost of the
work FDA performs in reviewing and evaluating initial applications for
recognition of accreditation bodies.
    The fee is based on the fully supported FTE hourly rates and
estimates of the number of hours it would take FDA to perform relevant
activities. These estimates represent FDA's current thinking, and as
the program evolves, FDA will reconsider the estimated hours. We
estimate that it would take, on average, 60 person-hours to review an
accreditation body's submitted application, 48 person-hours for an
onsite performance evaluation of the applicant (including travel and
other steps necessary for a fully supported FTE to complete an onsite
assessment), and 45 person-hours to prepare a written report
documenting the onsite assessment.
    FDA employees are likely to review applications and prepare reports
from their worksites, so we use the fully supported FTE hourly rate
excluding travel, $204/hour, to calculate the portion of the user fee
attributable to those activities: $204/hour x (60 hours + 45 hours) =
$21,420. FDA employees will likely travel to foreign countries for the
onsite performance evaluations because most accreditation bodies are
located in foreign countries. For this portion of the fee we use the
fully supported FTE hourly rate for work requiring travel, $285/hour,
to calculate the portion of the user fee attributable to those
activities: $285 x 48 hours (i.e., 2 fully supported FTEs x (2 travel
days + 1 day onsite)) = $13,680. The estimated average cost of the work
FDA performs in total for reviewing an initial application for
recognition for an accreditation body based on these figures would be
$21,420 + $13,680 = $35,100. Therefore the application fee for
accreditation bodies applying for recognition in FY 2017 will be
$35,100.

IV. Estimated Fees for Accreditation Bodies and Certification Bodies in
Fee Categories Not Applicable in FY 2017

    The third-party certification program will also assess other
application fees and annual fees in future years of this program.
Section 1.705(a) also establishes application fees for recognized
accreditation bodies submitting renewal applications, certification
bodies applying for direct accreditation, and certification bodies
applying for renewal of direct accreditation. Section 1.705(b)
establishes annual fees for recognized accreditation bodies,
certification bodies directly accredited by FDA, and certification
bodies accredited by recognized accreditation bodies.
    Although we will not be collecting these other fees in FY 2017, for
transparency and planning purposes, we have provided an estimate of
what these fees could have been for FY 2017 based on the fully
supported FTE hourly rates for FY 2017 and estimates of the number of
hours it would take FDA to perform relevant activities as outlined in
the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Third-Party Certification
Regulation. Table 3 provides an overview of the estimated fees for
other fee categories.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Estimated fee
                      Fee category                         rates for FY
                                                               2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Renewal application fee for recognized accreditation             $18,855
 body...................................................
Initial application fee for certification body seeking            35,100
 direct-accreditation from FDA..........................
Renewal application fee for directly-accredited                   26,460
 certification body.....................................
Annual fee for recognized accreditation body............           1,579
Annual fee for certification body directly-accredited by          20,208
 FDA....................................................
Annual fee for accredited certification body............           1,974
------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. How Must the Fee Be Paid?

    Accreditation bodies seeking initial recognition must submit the
application fee with the application.

VI. What Are the Consequences of Not Paying This Fee?

    The consequence of not paying this fee is outlined in Sec.  1.725.
If FDA does not receive an application fee with an application for
recognition, the application will be considered incomplete and FDA
would not review the application.

    Dated: December 9, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-30034 Filed 12-13-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: July 28, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 144)]
[Notices]
[Page 44295]
[DOCID:fr28jy10-129]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Request for Public Comment; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.
Extension:
    Rule 203-2 and Form ADV-W; SEC File No. 270-40; OMB Control No.
3235-0313.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    The title for the collection of information is ``Rule 203-2 (17 CFR
275.203-2) and Form ADV-W (17 CFR 279.2) under the Investment Advisers
Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b).'' Rule 203-2 under the Investment Advisers
Act of 1940 establishes procedures for an investment adviser to
withdraw its registration with the Commission. Rule 203-2 requires
every person withdrawing from investment adviser registration with the
Commission to file Form ADV-W electronically on the Investment Adviser
Registration Depository (``IARD''). The purpose of the information
collection is to notify the Commission and the public when an
investment adviser withdraws its pending or approved SEC registration.
Typically, an investment adviser files a Form ADV-W when it ceases
doing business or when it is ineligible to remain registered with the
Commission.
    The respondents to the collection of information are all investment
advisers that are registered with the Commission or have applications
pending for registration. The Commission has estimated that compliance
with the requirement to complete Form ADV-W imposes a total burden of
approximately 0.75 hours (45 minutes) for an adviser filing for full
withdrawal and approximately 0.25 hours (15 minutes) for an adviser
filing for partial withdrawal. Based on historical filings, the
Commission estimates that there are approximately 500 respondents
annually filing for full withdrawal and approximately 500 respondents
annually filing for partial withdrawal. Based on these estimates, the
total estimated annual burden would be 500 hours ((500 respondents x
.75 hours) + (500 respondents x .25 hours)).
    Rule 203-2 and Form ADV-W do not require recordkeeping or records
retention. The collection of information requirements under the rule
and form are mandatory. The information collected pursuant to the rule
and Form ADV-W are filings with the Commission. These filings are not
kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person
is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid control number.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the documentation of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the agency, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information on respondents, including
through the use of automated collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other
forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to
comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this
publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Charles Boucher, Director/
CIO, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson, 6432
General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an e-mail to: PRA_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: July 20, 2010.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-18446 Filed 7-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 51 (Wednesday, March 16, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 14174]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05864]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. 2016-19]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Boeing
Military Aircraft, Vertical Lift Division

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's
awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process.
Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of
information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of
the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before April 5, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2016-0833
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brent Hart<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office of
Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 29, 2016.
Lirio Liu,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2016-0833.
    Petitioner: Boeing Military Aircraft, Vertical Lift Division.
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: Sec. Sec.  21.9(a)(1)(2) and (c),
and 21.25(a)(2).
    Description of Relief Sought: Boeing is requesting an exemption to
allow production and sale of new replacement parts for installation on
CH-47D Chinook helicopters certificated under Sec.  21.25(a)(2) and
operated as restricted category civil helicopters, without meeting the
requirements of Sec.  21.9(a)(1), 21.9(a)(2) or 21.9(c).

[FR Doc. 2016-05864 Filed 3-15-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


                    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

            DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                    OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

                             WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on September 25, 2003

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN—DOCKET OST-95-838

________________________________________________________________________
______________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Application of      Federal Express Corporation (Federal Express)
filed   8/14/03   to:

XX  Renew exemption pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §40109 to:

Integrate its certificate authority on Routes 119, 205-F, 451, 472, 473,
553, 568, 638, 748, 787, and 793, and all other international route
authority held by Federal Express by exemption to permit Federal Express
operating flexibility to provide around-the-world scheduled all-cargo
air transportation via various points named in its certificates and
exemption authority, and other inter-regional and intra-regional
all-cargo services, subject to applicable bilateral, certificate, and
exemption restrictions.  Federal Express requests that the integration
authority be granted on an indefinite basis or, in the alternative, for
a two year period, through October 24, 2005.

Applicant rep:   David E. Short<PHONE_NUMBER>    DOT Analyst:  Linda
L. Lundell<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX   Granted in part (subject to conditions, see below).

XX   Balance dismissed (i.e., for longer term authority).

The above action was effective when taken:   September 25, 2003, through
  October 24, 2005.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

 	      XX  Holder’s Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity

	      XX  Standard Exemption Conditions (attached Appendix A)

________________________

Conditions:  The route integration authority granted is subject to the
condition that any service provided under this exemption shall be
consistent with all applicable agreements between the United States and
the foreign countries involved.  Furthermore, (a) nothing in award of
the route integration authority granted should be construed as
conferring upon Federal Express rights (including fifth-freedom
intermediate and/or beyond rights) to serve markets where U.S. carrier
entry is limited unless Federal Express notifies the Department of its
intent to serve such a market and unless and until the Department has
completed any necessary carrier selection procedures to determine which
carrier(s) should be authorized to exercise such rights; and (b) should
there be a request by any carrier to use the limited-entry route rights
that are included in Federal Express' authority by virtue of the route
integration exemption granted here, but that are not then being used by
Federal Express, the holding of such authority by route integration will
not be considered as providing any preference for Federal Express in a
competitive carrier selection proceeding to determine which carrier(s)
should be entitled to use the authority at issue.

Dismissal:  Consistent with our standard practice for this type of
application, we renewed Federal Express’ exemption for a period of two
years, and dismissed its request for longer-term authority.

________________________________________________________

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department’s regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the exemption was consistent with the public
interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted or dismissed, we denied all requests in the
referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR §
385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of
issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and the
filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this order is available on the World Wide Web
at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_ aviation.asp								APPENDIX A

U.S. Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S.
Government requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before
commencing any new service (including charter flights) to or from a
foreign airport, contact its Principal Security Inspector (PSI) to
advise the PSI of its plans and to find out whether the Transportation
Security Administration has determined that security is adequate to
allow such airport(s) to be served; and

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

										8/2003

   In this regard, the two-year duration of this exemption will be
through October 24, 2005, the alternate date requested by Federal
Express in this proceeding.

 page   2


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 161 (Tuesday, August 24, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47255-47258]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18069]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0609; Project Identifier AD-2021-00274-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain The Boeing Company Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series
airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design
approval holder (DAH) indicating that the frame splice between certain
stringers is subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). This proposed
AD would require an inspection of certain fuselage frame splices for
existing repairs, repetitive inspections of certain fuselage frame
splices for cracking, and applicable on-condition actions. The FAA is
proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 8,
2021.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS),
2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may
view this referenced service information at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-
0609.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0609; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for Docket
Operations is listed above.

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

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2021-0609; Project Identifier
AD-2021-00274-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Wayne
Ha, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch,
3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Any commentary that the FAA
receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in
the public docket for this rulemaking.

Background

    Fatigue damage can occur locally, in small areas or structural
design details, or globally, in widespread areas. Multiple-site damage
is widespread damage that occurs in a large structural element such as
a single rivet line of a lap splice joining two large skin panels.
Widespread damage can also occur in multiple elements such as adjacent
frames or stringers. Multiple-site damage and multiple-element damage
cracks are typically too small initially to be reliably detected with
normal inspection methods. Without intervention, these cracks will
grow, and eventually compromise the structural integrity of the
airplane. This condition is known as WFD. It is associated with general
degradation of large areas of structure with similar structural details
and stress levels. As an airplane ages, WFD will likely occur, and will
certainly occur if the airplane is operated long enough without any
intervention.
    An FAA final rule (``Aging Airplane Program: Widespread Fatigue
Damage;'' 75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) became effective on January
14, 2011, and amended 14 CFR parts 25, 26, 121, and 129 (commonly known
as the WFD rule). The WFD rule requires certain actions to prevent
structural failure due to WFD throughout the operational life of
certain existing transport category airplanes and all of these
airplanes that will be certificated in the future. DAHs of existing and
future airplanes subject to the WFD rule are required to establish a
limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that support the
structural maintenance program. Operators affected by the WFD rule may
not fly an airplane beyond its LOV, unless an extended LOV is approved.
    The WFD rule does not require identifying and developing
maintenance actions if the DAHs can show that such actions are not
necessary to prevent WFD before the airplane reaches the LOV. Many
LOVs, however, do depend on accomplishment of future maintenance
actions. As stated in the WFD rule, any maintenance actions necessary
to reach the LOV will be mandated by airworthiness directives through
separate rulemaking actions.
    In the context of WFD, this action is necessary to enable DAHs to
propose LOVs that allow operators the longest operational lives for
their airplanes, and still ensure that WFD will not occur. This
approach allows for an implementation strategy that provides
flexibility to DAHs in determining the timing of service information
development (with FAA approval),

while providing operators with certainty regarding the LOV applicable
to their airplanes.
    The FAA has received a report indicating that cracking is occurring
in the frame splice doubler and may occur in the upper frame at the
upper frame splice between stringer S-13 and S-14 on Boeing Model 737-
300, -400, and -500 airplanes at multiple frame locations. The doubler
cracking and possible upper frame cracking at the frame splice between
stringer S-13 and S-14 are the result of fatigue, caused by combined
cyclic loading from fuselage pressurization and flight loads. The FAA
is issuing this AD to address upper frame cracking common to the frame
splice between stringer S-13 and S-14, which could interact with
stringer S-14 skin lap splice lower fastener row cracking in lower
skin, and result in an uncontrolled decompression of the airplane and
loss of structural integrity.

FAA's Determination

    The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe
condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other
products of the same type design.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1388 RB,
dated October 27, 2020. This service information specifies procedures
for a general visual inspection (GVI) of the fuselage frame splices
between stringer S-13 and S-14 station (STA) 360 to STA 520 and STA
727A to STA 907 for existing repairs, repetitive inspections of the
fuselage frame splices between stringer S-13 and S-14 from STA 360 to
STA 520 and STA 727A to STA 907 for cracking, and applicable on-
condition actions. On-condition actions include an open hole high
frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection for cracking at all fastener
hole locations where a fastener was removed due to finding a cracked
doubler, repair, or replacement.
    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 ADDRESSES.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information already described except for any differences
identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this
service information at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0609.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 66 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following
costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
             Action                     Labor cost          Parts cost     Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repetitive Inspections.........  Up to 267 work-hours x               $0  Up to $22,695 per   Up to $1,497,870
                                  $85 per hour = Up to                     inspection cycle.   per inspection
                                  $22,695 inspection                                           cycle.
                                  cycle.
GVI............................  2 work-hours x $85 per                0  $170..............  $11,220.
                                  hour = $170.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost
estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is 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

    The FAA 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 above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

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:

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2021-0609; Project Identifier AD-
2021-00274-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by October 8, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-300, -400, and -
500 series

airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing
Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1388 RB, dated October 27, 2020.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval
holder (DAH) indicating that the frame splice between stringer S-13
and S-14 is subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). The FAA is
issuing this AD to address upper frame cracking common to the frame
splice between stringer S-13 and S-14, which could interact with
stringer S-14 skin lap splice lower fastener row cracking in lower
skin and result in an uncontrolled decompression of the airplane and
loss of structural integrity.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    Except as specified by paragraph (h) of this AD: At the
applicable times specified in the ``Compliance'' paragraph of Boeing
Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1388 RB, dated October 27, 2020,
do all applicable actions identified in, and in accordance with, the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin
737-53A1388 RB, dated October 27, 2020.

    Note 1 to paragraph (g):  Guidance for accomplishing the actions
required by this AD can be found in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-53A1388, dated October 27, 2020, which is referred to in Boeing
Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1388 RB, dated October 27, 2020.

(h) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    (1) Where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1388 RB,
dated October 27, 2020, uses the phrase ``the Original Issue date of
Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1388 RB,'' this AD requires using ``the
effective date of this AD,'' except where Alert Requirements
Bulletin 737-53A1388 RB, dated October 27, 2020, uses the phrase
``the Original Issue date of Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1388 RB,''
in a note or flag note.
    (2) Where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1388 RB,
dated October 27, 2020, specifies contacting Boeing for repair
instructions or for alternative inspections: This AD requires doing
the repair, or doing the alternative inspections and applicable on-
condition actions using a method approved in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority
to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures
found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your
request to your principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards
Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the
manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the
person identified in Related Information. Information may be emailed
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by The Boeing Company Organization Designation
Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los
Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the
repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Wayne Ha,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch,
3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-
5238; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-
5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational
Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued on July 26, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-18069 Filed 8-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: April 27, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 80)]
[Notices]
[Page 22168]
[DOCID:fr27ap10-99]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

ADSOUTH PARTNERS, Inc., American Racing Capital, Inc., Buck-A-
Roo$ Holding Corporation, DDS Technologies USA, Inc., and VECTr Systems
Inc.; Order of Suspension of Trading

April 23, 2010.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
ADSOUTH PARTNERS, Inc. (CIK: 1158235) because it has not filed a
periodic report for any reporting period since the period ended
September 30, 2006.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
American Racing Capital, Inc. (CIK: 1103086) because it has not filed a
periodic report for any reporting period since the period ended March
31, 2008.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Buck-A-Roo$ Holding Corporation (CIK: 1314642) because it has not filed
a periodic report for any reporting period since the period ended March
31, 2008.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
DDS Technologies USA, Inc. (CIK: 1099217) because it has not filed a
periodic report for any reporting period since the period ended
September 30, 2006.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
VECTr Systems Inc. (CIK: 1343259) because it has not filed a periodic
report for any reporting period since the period ended September 30,
2007.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed companies. Therefore, it is ordered,
pursuant to section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that
trading in the securities of the above-listed companies is suspended
for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on April 23, 2010, through 11:59 p.m.
EDT on May 6, 2010.

    By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-9810 Filed 4-23-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 211 (Tuesday, November 1, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67369-67370]
[FR Doc No: 2011-28251]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0356; FRL-9479-3]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Joaquin
Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District and Imperial County Air
Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of revisions to the San Joaquin
Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) and Imperial
County Air Pollution Control District (ICAPCD) portions of the
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions were
proposed in the Federal Register on June 3, 2011 and concern volatile
organic compound (VOC) emissions from Motor Vehicle Assembly, Metal
Parts and Products, Plastic Parts and Products and Pleasure Crafts,
Aerospace Operations and Automotive Refinishing Operations. We are
approving local rules that regulate these emission sources under the
Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on December 1, 2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0356 for
this action. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy
at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While
all documents in the docket are listed at http://www.regulations.gov,
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, multi-volume
reports), and some may not be available in either location (e.g.,
confidential business information (CBI)). To inspect the hard copy
materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours
with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adrianne Borgia, EPA Region IX, (415)
972-3576<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action

    On June 3, 2011 (FR 32113), EPA proposed to approve the following
rules into the California SIP.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Local agency                 Rule No.             Rule title               Adopted     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SJVUAPCD.................................       4602  Motor Vehicle Assembly Coatings.      9/17/09      5/17/10
SJVUAPCD.................................       4603  Surface Coating of Metal Parts        9/17/09      5/17/10
                                                       and Products, Plastic Parts and
                                                       Products and Pleasure Crafts.
ICAPCD...................................        425  Aerospace Coating Operations....      2/23/10      7/20/10
ICAPCD...................................        427  Automotive Refinishing                2/23/10      7/20/10
                                                       Operations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We proposed to approve these rules because we determined that they
complied with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action
contains more information on the rules and our evaluation.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this period, we received no comments.

III. EPA Action

    No comments were submitted that change our assessment that the
submitted rules comply with the relevant CAA requirements. Therefore,
as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving
these rules into the California SIP.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     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 disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is

not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and EPA
notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.

    Dated: September 28, 2011.
Keith Takata,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220, is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(379)(i)(C)(3)
and (4) and (c)(381)(i)(A)(3) and (4) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (379) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (C) * * *
    (3) Rule 4602, ``Motor Vehicle Assembly Coatings,'' amended on
September 17, 2009.
    (4) Rule 4603, ``Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products,
Plastic Parts and Products and Pleasure Crafts,'' amended on September
17, 2009.
* * * * *
    (381) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (3) Rule 425, ``Aerospace Coating Operations,'' revised February
23, 2010.
    (4) Rule 427, ``Automotive Refinishing Operations,'' revised
February 23, 2010.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-28251 Filed 10-31-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P