[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 78 (Thursday, April 23, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22671-22672]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09405]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0924; FRL-9924-78-Region 9]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Feather
River Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve revisions to the Feather River Air Quality Management District
(FRAQMD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP).
These revisions concern volatile organic compound (VOC), oxides of
nitrogen (NOx), and particulate matter (PM) emissions from rice straw
burning, boilers, steam generators, process heaters, stationary
internal combustion engines, surfacing preparation and cleanup
solvents, and wood product coating operations. We are proposing to
approve local rules to regulate these emission sources under the Clean
Air Act (CAA or the Act).

DATES: Any comments on this proposal must arrive by May 26, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2014-0924, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.

    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as
such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email.
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses.
    Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901.
While all documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov,
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be
publicly available in either location (e.g., 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: Kevin Gong, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-
3073<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposal addresses the following FRAQMD
rules: 10.9, 3.14, 3.20, 3.21 and 3.22. In the Rules and Regulations
section of this Federal Register, we are approving these local rules in
a direct final action without prior proposal because we believe these
SIP revisions are not controversial. If we receive adverse comments,
however, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule
and address the comments in subsequent action based on this proposed
rule. Please note that if we receive adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
    We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone
interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not
receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further
information, please see the direct final action.

    Dated: February 27, 2015.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2015-09405 Filed 4-22-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 198 (Monday, October 16, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 71352]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22767]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER24-34-000]

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

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Proxima Solar, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is October 30, 2023.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

    Dated: October 10, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-22767 Filed 10-13-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


accordance with Sec.  91.107 and during other phases of flight, the
individual would use an SRS.
    This proposed rule would also require operators to provide
passengers with an enhanced safety briefing that includes a passenger's
satisfactory demonstration of competency to release quickly the SRS
with no assistance. The rule also proposes certain requirements
regarding persons who may seek to participate in such flights.
Passengers unable to release quickly from an SRS, passengers under 15
years of age, individuals seated in the flightdeck, and passengers
occupying an approved child restraint system would be prohibited from
using the SRS. Furthermore, children may not be held in an adult's lap
if the adult uses an SRS or the aircraft doors are opened or removed.
The FAA intends these proposed requirements to ensure the safety of all
aircraft occupants on such flights.
    The cost of the proposed rule to operators, passengers, and pilots
would arise out of purchasing harnesses and lanyards that meet specific
requirements as set forth in this rule, a pre-flight safety briefing on
the use of the SRS, and passengers demonstrating their ability to
remove the SRS in the event of an emergency. The cost to the FAA comes
from approving the addition of SRS to part 135 passenger safety
briefing cards and for periodic surveillance of parts 91 and 135 SRS
operations. The estimated cost of these requirements is $22.3 million
at 7 percent present value

and $31.6 million at 3 percent present value, as shown in the table
below.

                                Table 4--Proposed Rule Total Cost Over 20 Years *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Requirements                                Part 91        Part 135          Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harness + Replacement...........................................        $172,608        $623,616        $796,224
Lanyard + Replacement...........................................          43,152         155,904         199,056
Create Briefing.................................................          14,572          19,774          34,346
Passenger Briefing (Pilot + Passenger)..........................      16,840,356       2,139,920      18,980,276
Passenger Demonstration (Pilot + Passenger).....................      20,342,887       2,584,989      22,927,876
FAA costs.......................................................             583             898           1,481
Total Cost......................................................      37,414,159       5,525,101      42,939,259
Total Cost at 7 Percent Present Value...........................      19,361,893       2,933,645      22,295,537
Total Cost at 3 Percent Present Value...........................      27,541,440       4,109,635      31,651,075
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Table values have been rounded. Totals may not add due to rounding.

4. Costs Relative to Post-Emergency Order of Prohibition
    After the FAA published the Emergency Order of Prohibition,
operators were required to comply with many of the requirements of this
proposed rule. This subsection measures the costs which are above and
beyond the costs of complying with the Emergency Order of Prohibition.
    There are three main differences between this rule and the
Emergency Order of Prohibition. First, the Emergency Order of
Prohibition does not prohibit passengers using an SRS from being seated
in the flightdeck, while the proposed rule would prohibit this. The FAA
estimates minimal cost from this proposed prohibition.
    Second, the Emergency Order of Prohibition applies only to
operations conducted for compensation or hire. The proposed rule would
extend this to all civil operations. The FAA does not have precise data
on operations using an SRS that are not for compensation or hire, and
so assumes there would be a negligible number.
    Finally, the Emergency Order of Prohibition does not require a
passenger demonstration of the passenger's ability to release the SRS.
The FAA estimates the undiscounted costs, beyond the Emergency Order of
Prohibition, to be $22.9 million ($11.8 million at 7 percent present
value, or $16.8 million at 3 percent present value). At either discount
rate, the annualized cost is approximately $1.1 million. These costs
come entirely from the value of passenger and pilot time spent on the
demonstration.
5. Alternatives Considered
    The FAA considered proposing the Emergency Order of Prohibition as
the proposed rule but applying it to all civil operations. The
Emergency Order of Prohibition prohibits the use of an SRS that cannot
be released quickly in an emergency during flight operations for
compensation or hire with the doors opened or removed. The Emergency
Order of Prohibition requires: a supplemental harness that meets
specific safety requirements, an application for an LOA to include a
link to a video (roughly 8 seconds long) demonstrating the user's
ability to release themselves from the supplemental harness without
assistance, a preflight briefing on the release of the SRS, and FAA
review and approval of the application. The table below summarizes the
costs of each of these requirements.

   Table 5--Emergency Order of Prohibition Total Cost Over 20 Years *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Requirements              Part 91      Part 135        Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost of Harness + Application     $4,747,142    $1,225,615    $5,972,757
 + Video + Safety Briefing....
FAA Cost......................         2,399         4,107         6,506
Total Cost....................     4,749,541     1,229,722     5,979,263
Total Cost at 7 Percent            4,394,485       986,054     5,380,539
 Present Value................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Table values have been rounded. Totals may not add due to rounding.

    The FAA considered proposing the above requirements in this
proposed rule, but after careful review of the NTSB final accident
report and the information gathered through the Emergency Order of
Prohibition, the FAA determined that it could tailor the requirements
to increase the likelihood that passengers would be able to quickly
release the supplemental restraint in the event of an emergency. For
example, the Emergency Order of Prohibition does not address the use of
an SRS in the flightdeck. Additionally, the proposed rule would require
operators to conduct an enhanced safety briefing and passengers to
complete a demonstration. Passengers in the Liberty Helicopters
accident received a briefing on how to release their supplemental
restraints but were unable to release them during the accident.
Requiring passengers to demonstrate successfully their ability to
release the SRS would ensure passengers not only understand how to
release themselves from the SRS during an emergency but also increase
the likelihood that they would be able to release themselves from the
SRS during an emergency. The proposed passenger demonstration
requirement would be necessary to achieve the effectiveness estimate of
0.6 to 0.9 as discussed in the main analysis of the proposed rule.
However, uncertainty exists regarding the incremental reduction in the
effectiveness of a regulatory alternative that would not require
passengers to demonstrate proficiency in using the SRS. The FAA
requests comments and data to help quantify the benefits of this
alternative relative to the proposed rule.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354), as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (Pub.

L. 104-121) and the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-240),
requires federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory
action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any
significant economic impact. The term ``small entities'' comprises
small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The FAA is publishing this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) to aid the public in commenting on the potential impacts to
small entities from this proposal. The FAA invites interested parties
to submit data and information regarding the potential economic impact
that would result from the proposal. The FAA will consider comments
when making a determination or when completing a Final Regulatory
Flexibility Assessment.
    An IRFA must contain the following:
    (1) A description of the reasons why the action by the agency is
being considered;
    (2) A succinct statement of the objective of, and legal basis for,
the proposed rule;
    (3) A description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number
of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply;
    (4) A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and
other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an
estimate of the classes of small entities that will be subject to the
requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record;
    (5) An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant
federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the
proposed rule; and
    (6) A description of any significant alternatives to the proposed
rule that accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and
that minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on
small entities.
1. Reasons the Action Is Being Considered
    This proposed rule addresses safety issues that contributed to the
Liberty Helicopters accident to ensure the safety of similar
operations. The operator-provided harness/tether system the passengers
used on that flight, while intended as a safety measure when the
aircraft was in flight, hindered the passengers' egress from the
aircraft. This proposed rule would address the safety issue by
proposing specific requirements for individuals using an SRS or
participating in flights with doors opened or removed.
2. Objectives of the Proposed Rule
    For flights with doors opened or removed, each person would be
required to either occupy an approved seat or berth with a safety belt
and, if installed, shoulder harness, properly secured about the
individual during all phases of flight; or occupy an approved seat or
berth with a safety belt and, if installed, shoulder harness, properly
secured about the individual during movement on the surface, takeoff,
and landing, and during other phases of flight, the individual uses an
SRS.
    For flights using an SRS, this proposed rule would require the
harness and lanyard, at a minimum, to have an accessible front or side
release mechanism that can be operated quickly with minimal difficulty
during an emergency. As proposed, the lanyard must be connected to an
aircraft attaching point or points, not in the flightdeck, with a rated
strength equal to or greater than the weight of the occupant (or the
combined weight if there is more than one occupant attached to an
attachment point). This proposed rule would require the lanyard to
ensure the torso of the person using the SRS remains inside the
aircraft. Additionally, operators would be required to provide
passengers with an enhanced safety briefing, and passengers would
demonstrate the capability to release quickly the SRS with no
assistance. Passengers under 15 years of age, individuals seated in the
flightdeck, passengers occupying an approved child restraint system, or
passengers unable to release quickly from the SRS would be prohibited
from using the SRS.
3. All Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict
    This proposed rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with
any other rule.
4. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities
    This proposed rule would affect flights with doors opened or
removed and all operations with individuals on board who choose to use
an SRS. A search of the Web Based Operations Safety System (WebOPSS)
database, as of June 2021, indicates that the rule could affect 1,121
part 91 operators and 2,200 part 135 operators. These flights include
sightseeing, motion picture and television filming, electronic news
gathering, power line inspection, game management, and fire
suppression, for example. The Small Business Administration (SBA)
defines charter nonscheduled passenger air transport (NAICS 481211)
with less than 1,500 employees or scenic and sightseeing transportation
(NAICS 487990) with less than $8.0 million in revenue as small
businesses.\70\ Census data indicates that revenue for the scenic and
sightseeing transportation industry (NAICS 4879), which includes
airplane and helicopter operations, was roughly $502.5 million for 220
establishments, and for nonscheduled chartered passenger air
transportation (NAICS 481211), there are 28,261 employees for 1,604
firms.\71\ Based on census data and the SBA definition of a small
business, a substantial number of operators affected by this proposed
rule would be considered small businesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ United States Small Business Administration, Table of Size
Standards (2019), available at https://www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards.
    \71\ United States Census Bureau, Transportation and
Warehousing: Geographic Area Series: Summary Statistics for the
U.S., States, Metro Areas, Counties, and Places (2012), available at
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
    The cost of the proposed rule would include purchasing harnesses
and lanyards that meet specific requirements as set forth in this rule,
a preflight safety briefing on the use of the SRS, and passengers'
satisfactory demonstration of their ability to remove the SRS in the
event of an emergency. The estimated cost for these requirements per
year for a part 91 operator is $71,949 and $6,905 for a part 135
operator, as shown in the table below.

                 Table 6--Estimated Cost per Operator *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Provisions                  Part 91 \72\    Part 135 \73\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harness + Replacement...................          $6,639         $15,590

Lanyard + Replacement...................           1,660           3,898
Create + Update Briefing................             560             494
Passenger Briefing (Pilot + Passenger)..         647,706          53,498
Passenger Demonstration (Pilot +                 782,419          64,625
 Passenger).............................
Total Over 20 Years.....................       1,438,984         138,105
Estimated Yearly Cost Per Operator......          71,949           6,905
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Table values have been rounded. Totals may not add due to rounding.

6. Significant Alternatives Considered
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ Total cost per requirement is divided by 26 part 91
operators.
    \73\ Total cost per requirement is divided by 40 part 135
operators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA considered proposing to codify the requirements of the
Emergency Order of Prohibition applied to all civil operations, but
determined to propose adding the requirement for operators to brief
passengers on the SRS and verify that passengers could release the SRS
in an emergency.
    The Emergency Order currently prohibits the use of an SRS during
flights with doors opened or removed unless it complies with the
process referenced in FAA Order 8900.4. FAA Order 8900.4 requires
harnesses and lanyards that fulfill the same requirements this proposed
rule would require; therefore, operators already incur the cost of the
harness and lanyard. Under this proposed rule, operators would
primarily incur the additional cost of the enhanced safety briefing.
However, the majority of the cost comes from the pilot safety briefing
and the passenger demonstration and is directly tied to the passenger
count. Based on the foregoing, this proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The FAA solicits comments regarding this proposed determination.

C. International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits federal
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic
objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also
requires consideration of international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has
assessed the potential effect of this proposed rule and determined that
it would have only a domestic impact and, therefore, no effect on
international trade.

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
governs the issuance of federal regulations that require unfunded
mandates. An unfunded mandate is a regulation that requires a state,
local, or tribal government or the private sector to incur direct costs
without the federal government having first provided the funds to pay
those costs. The FAA determined that the proposed rule will not result
in the expenditure of $177 million or more by state, local, or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector, in any one year.
    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by state, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $177.0 million in lieu of $100
million.
    This proposed rule would not contain such a mandate. Therefore, the
requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
the FAA to consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. According to the 1995
amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR 1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an
agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information, nor
may it impose an information collection requirement, unless it displays
a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)),
the FAA has submitted a new information collection to OMB for its
review.
     Summary: The FAA is proposing to require operators
conducting operations using SRS, including during operations with doors
opened or removed, to present updated safety information to passengers.
     Use: Part 91 and 135 operators would create and brief an
enhanced passenger safety briefing.
     Respondents: As of June 2021, the FAA estimates that 26
part 91 operators (based on the number of approved Letter of
Authorization holders and the A049 \74\ population) and 40 part 135
operators would choose to offer flights with use of an SRS over the
next 20 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ An A049 is a Letter of Authorization for Commercial Air
Tour Operations Authorization and Drug and Alcohol Testing Program
Registration. This allows a Part 91 operator to operate commercially
and allows the FAA to estimate the affected population.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Frequency: Operators who choose to offer flights using an
SRS would initially develop and periodically update an enhanced
passenger safety briefing pertaining to the SRS. The FAA assumes
updates would occur every ten years, based on a typical SRS replacement
period.
     Annual Burden Estimated: The total burden hours are
calculated by multiplying the number of enhanced passenger safety
briefings and subsequent updates by 2 hours per briefing. As shown in
the table below, this sums to 90 hours for part 91 operators and 134
hours for part 135 operators over 3 years. The FAA is updating existing
Information Collection Request (ICR) 2120-0005 (General Operating and
Flight Rules--FAR 91 and FAR 107).

                                     Table 7--Information Collection Burdens
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Number of operators       Time to develop or         Total hour burden
               Year                --------------------------  update briefing (hours  -------------------------
                                      Part 91      Part 135         per briefing)         Part 91      Part 135
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................           21           31                        2            42           62
2.................................            0            0                        2             0            0
3.................................            0            1                        2             0            2
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.........................  ...........  ...........  ........................           42           64
    Average Over 3 Years..........  ...........  ...........  ........................           14           21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For part 91 operators, the FAA assumes that a pilot, with an hourly
wage of $75.90, would be the person developing and updating the content
of the briefing. At $75.90 the total cost burden is $3,188 ($2,602 at 7
percent present value) over a 3-year period. For part 135 operators,
the Director of Operations, at an hourly wage of $68.66, could be the
person responsible for developing the briefing. Total cost burden for
part 135 operators over a 3-year period is $4,394 ($3,578 at 7 percent
present value) for developing the content of the briefing.
    Pilots would also brief passengers on the content of the enhanced
passenger briefing prior to each flight. The estimated number of
flights per year is multiplied by 2 minutes per briefing for parts 91
and 135 annual burden hours to brief passengers. Total burden hours,
over 3 years, as shown in the table below, sums to 8,177 hours for part
91 operators and 962 hours for part 135 operators.

                             Table 8--Total Hour Burden for Enhanced Safety Briefing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Number of flights        Time to present the        Total hour burden
               Year                -------------------------- enhanced safety briefing -------------------------
                                      Part 91      Part 135     (hours per briefing)      Part 91      Part 135
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................       89,935       10,475                     0.03         2,698          314
2.................................       90,845       10,684                     0.03         2,725          321
3.................................       91,780       10,897                     0.03         2,753          327
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.........................  ...........  ...........  ........................        8,177          962
    Average Over 3 Years..........  ...........  ...........  ........................        2,726          321
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A pilot would be presenting the briefing at an hourly wage of
$75.90. At $75.90 the total cost burden over a 3-year period, for part
91 operators, is $620,598 ($506,593 at 7 percent present value) and
$72,989 ($59,581 at 7 percent present value) for part 135 operators.
    The agency is soliciting comments to--
    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;
    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and
    (4) Minimize the burden of collecting information on those who are
to respond, including by using appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms
of information technology.
    Individuals and organizations may send comments on the information
collection requirement to the address listed in the ADDRESSES section
at the beginning of this preamble by January 22, 2024. Comments also
should be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk Officer for FAA,
New Executive Office Building, Room 10202, 725 17th Street NW,
Washington, DC 20053.

F. International Compatibility and Cooperation

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to
International Civil Aviation Organization Standards and Recommended
Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has reviewed the
ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and has not identified any
conflicts with these proposed regulations.

G. Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical
exclusion identified in paragraph 5-6.6f for regulations and involves
no extraordinary circumstances.
    This rulemaking action provides a framework for civil aircraft
operations conducted with SRS, including during operations with doors
opened or removed. It does not affect the frequency of aircraft
operations in the airspace of the United States. The FAA has reviewed
the implementation of the rulemaking action and determined it is
categorically excluded from further environmental review. Possible
extraordinary circumstances that would preclude the use of a
categorical exclusion have been examined, and the FAA has determined
that no such circumstances exist. After careful and thorough
consideration of the rulemaking action, the FAA finds that it does not
require preparation of an Environmental Assessment or Environmental
Impact Statement in accordance with the requirements of NEPA, Council
on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, and FAA Order 1050.1F.

VI. Executive Order Determinations

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency has
determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect
on the states, or the relationship between the federal government and
the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government, and, therefore, would not have
federalism implications.

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    The FAA analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. The agency has determined that it would not be a
``significant energy action'' under the executive order and would not
be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.

C. Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation

    Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation, promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet
shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security,
environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent
unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has
analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of
Executive Order 13609 and has determined that this action would have no
effect on international regulatory cooperation.

VII. Additional Information

A. Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The agency
also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy,
or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in
this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion
of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and
include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain
duplicate comments, commenters should submit only one time if comments
are filed electronically, or commenters should send only one copy of
written comments if comments are filed in writing.
    The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well
as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA
personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this
proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before
the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed
after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without
incurring expense or delay. The agency may change this proposal in
light of the comments it receives.
    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 https://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
https://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Confidential Business Information: 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 the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document. Any commentary that the FAA receives that is not
specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for
this rulemaking.

B. Electronic Access and Filing

    A copy of the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), all comments
received, any final rule, and all background material may be viewed
online at https://www.regulations.gov using the docket number listed
above. A copy of this rule will be placed in the docket. Electronic
retrieval help and guidelines are available on the website. It is
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. An electronic copy of
this document may also be downloaded from the Office of the Federal
Register's website at https://www.federalregister.gov and the
Government Publishing Office's website at https://www.govinfo.gov. A
copy may also be found at the FAA's Regulations and Policies website at
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies.
    Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this
rulemaking.
    All documents the FAA considered in developing this proposed rule,
including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed in
the electronic docket for this rulemaking.

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 91

    Air carrier, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Charter flights,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

14 CFR Part 135

    Air taxis, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

14 CFR Part 136

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, National parks,
Recreation and recreation areas, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:

PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES

0
1. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40101, 40103, 40105, 40113,
40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715,
44716, 44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506-46507, 47122,
47508, 47528-47531, 47534, Pub. L. 114-190, 130 Stat. 615 (49 U.S.C.
44703 note); articles 12 and 29 of the Convention on International
Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180), (126 Stat. 11).

0
2. Amend Sec.  91.107 by revising paragraph (a)(3)(i) to read as
follows:

Sec.  91.107  Use of safety belts, shoulder harnesses, and child
restraint systems.

    (a) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) Be held by an adult, except as outlined in Sec.  91.108(j), who
is occupying an approved seat or berth, provided that the person being
held has

not reached his or her second birthday and does not occupy or use any
restraining device;
* * * * *
0
3. Add Sec.  91.108 to read as follows:

Sec.  91.108  Use of supplemental restraint systems.

    (a) Use of supplemental restraint systems. Except as provided in
this section, no person may conduct an operation in a registered civil
aircraft in which any individual on board is secured with a
supplemental restraint system.
    (b) Doors opened or removed flight operations. Except as provided
under paragraph (k) of this section:
    (1) No person may operate a registered civil aircraft with the
doors opened or removed unless--
    (i) Each individual on board occupies an approved seat or berth
with a safety belt and, if installed, shoulder harness, properly
secured about the individual or an approved child restraint system
properly secured to an approved seat or berth with a safety belt and,
if installed, shoulder harness in accordance with Sec.
91.107(a)(3)(iii) or Sec.  135.128(a)(2) of this chapter, during all
phases of flight; or
    (ii) Each individual on board--
    (A) Occupies an approved seat or berth with a safety belt and, if
installed, shoulder harness, properly secured about the individual
during movement on the surface, takeoff, and landing; and
    (B) Is secured during the remainder of the flight using a
supplemental restraint system in accordance with, and that meets the
requirements of, this section.
    (2) Prior to releasing an FAA-approved safety belt and, if
installed, shoulder harness during an operation with the doors opened
or removed, an individual must be properly secured by a supplemental
restraint system that is connected to an airframe attachment point. An
individual cannot release their safety belt and, if installed, shoulder
harness until the pilot in command authorizes them to do so.
    (c) Supplemental restraint system design requirements. Each
supplemental restraint system must:
    (1) Have a harness that secures around the torso of the individual
using the supplemental restraint system;
    (2) Have a lanyard that connects the harness to an airframe
attachment point or points inside the aircraft and that ensures the
torso of the individual using the supplemental restraint system remains
inside the aircraft at all times;
    (3) Not impede egress from the aircraft in an emergency after being
released; and
    (4) Have a release mechanism that--
    (i) Can be quickly operated by the individual using the
supplemental restraint system with minimal difficulty;
    (ii) Is attached to the front or side of the harness in a location
easily accessible to and visible by the individual using the
supplemental restraint system;
    (iii) Prevents inadvertent release; and
    (iv) Does not require the use of a knife to cut the restraint, any
other additional tool, or the assistance of any other individual to
release the supplemental restraint system.
    (d) Who may provide the supplemental restraint system. The
supplemental restraint system may be provided by the operator or by the
individual using the supplemental restraint system. An individual
providing their own supplemental restraint system must:
    (1) Confirm with the pilot in command, either verbally or in
writing, as determined by the pilot in command, the system's continued
serviceability and readiness for its intended purposes; and
    (2) Ensure they are complying with the sizing criteria for which
the supplemental restraint system is rated.
    (e) Supplemental restraint system operational requirements. The
following are supplemental restraint system operational requirements:
    (1) A qualified person designated by the operator must--
    (i) Connect the supplemental restraint system to an airframe
attachment point or points with a rated strength equal to or greater
than the weight of the individual using the supplemental restraint
system (or the combined weight if there is more than one supplemental
restraint system attached to an attachment point); and
    (ii) Not connect the supplemental restraint system to any airframe
attachment point located in the flightdeck.
    (2) A supplemental restraint system must fit the individual using
it based on the sizing criteria for which the supplemental restraint
system is rated.
    (f) Pilot in command. The pilot in command--
    (1) Has the overall responsibility to ensure that the supplemental
restraint system meets the requirements of this section and must not
permit an individual to use a supplemental restraint system that does
not meet the requirements of this section;
    (2) Must ensure, for any supplemental restraint system provided by
either the operator or the pilot in command, the supplemental restraint
system's continued serviceability and readiness for its intended
purpose;
    (3) May only permit an individual to use a supplemental restraint
system provided by the operator or the pilot in command if that
individual complies with the sizing criteria for which the supplemental
restraint system is rated;
    (4) Has final authority regarding whether the supplemental
restraint system may be used during flight operations; and
    (5) Has final authority to authorize an individual to release the
FAA-approved safety belt and, if installed, shoulder harness and remain
secured only by the supplemental restraint system.
    (g) Passenger briefing. Before each takeoff, the pilot in command
must ensure that each passenger who intends to use a supplemental
restraint system has been briefed on:
    (1) How to use, secure, and release the supplemental restraint
system properly. This requirement is not necessary for an individual
providing their own supplemental restraint system, but that individual
must meet the passenger demonstration requirements in paragraph (h) of
this section.
    (2) Means of direct communication between crewmembers and
passengers during normal and emergency operating procedures regarding--
    (i) The use of headset and intercom systems, if installed;
    (ii) How passengers will be notified of an event requiring action,
including emergencies, egress procedures, and other unforeseen
circumstances;
    (iii) How each passenger will be notified when the passenger is
permitted to release the FAA-approved safety belt and, if installed,
shoulder harness, and move within the aircraft using the supplemental
restraint system;
    (iv) How each passenger will be notified when the passenger must
return to their seat and secure the FAA-approved safety belt and, if
installed, shoulder harness; and
    (v) When and how to notify a crewmember of safety concerns.
    (h) Passenger demonstration. After the briefing required by
paragraph (g) of this section, prior to ground movement, any passenger
intending to use a supplemental restraint system must demonstrate to
the pilot in command, a crewmember, or other qualified person
designated by the operator, the following:
    (1) The ability to use, secure, and release the FAA-approved safety
belt and, if installed, shoulder harness, and
    (2) The ability to accomplish all actions required for quick
release of the supplemental restraint system, without assistance and
with minimal difficulty.
    (i) Individuals not permitted to use supplemental restraint
systems. The

following individuals are not permitted to use a supplemental restraint
system, as defined in paragraph (l) of this section:
    (1) Any passenger who cannot demonstrate--
    (i) That they are able to occupy, secure, and release the FAA-
approved seat belt and, if installed, shoulder harness; and
    (ii) That they are able to release quickly the supplemental
restraint system with no assistance and with minimal difficulty.
    (2) Any individual who is less than 15 years of age.
    (3) Any individual seated in the flightdeck.
    (4) Any passenger who occupies or uses an approved child restraint
system.
    (j) Lap-held child. Notwithstanding any other requirement of this
chapter, a child who has not reached their second birthday may not be
held by an adult during civil aircraft operations when:
    (1) The adult uses a supplemental restraint system; or
    (2) The aircraft doors are opened or removed.
    (k) Excluded operations. Unless otherwise stated:
    (1) This section does not apply to operations conducted under part
105 or 133 of this chapter and does not apply to the persons described
in Sec.  91.107(a)(3)(ii) of this chapter.
    (2) Operators subject to the requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of
this section may operate an aircraft with doors opened or removed
notwithstanding any flight crewmembers on board who are subject to the
requirements of Sec. Sec.  91.105 and 135.171 of this chapter and who
need to unfasten their shoulder harnesses in accordance with those
sections.
    (3) Paragraph (b)(2) of this section does not apply to any flight
crewmembers subject to Sec. Sec.  91.105 and 135.171 of this chapter to
the extent that the flight crewmembers need to unfasten their shoulder
harnesses in accordance with those sections.
    (l) Definition. For purposes of this section, a supplemental
restraint system means any device that is not installed on the aircraft
pursuant to an FAA approval, used to secure an individual inside an
aircraft when that person is not properly secured by an FAA-approved
seat belt and, if installed, shoulder harness, or an approved child
restraint system. It consists of a harness secured around the torso of
the individual using the supplemental restraint system and a lanyard
that connects the harness to an approved airframe attachment point
inside the aircraft.

PART 135--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: COMMUTER AND ON DEMAND OPERATIONS
AND RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON BOARD SUCH AIRCRAFT

0
4. The authority citation for part 135 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 41706, 44701-44702,
44705, 44709, 44711-44713, 44715-44717, 44722, 44730, 45101-45105;
Pub. L. 112-95, 126 Stat. 58 (49 U.S.C. 44730).

0
5. Amend Sec.  135.117 by adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:

Sec.  135.117  Briefing of passengers before flight.

* * * * *
    (g) If any passengers on board a flight conducted under this part
are secured with a supplemental restraint system, the pilot in command
of that flight must ensure those passengers are briefed in accordance
with Sec.  91.108(g) of this chapter.
0
6. Amend Sec.  135.128 by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:

Sec.  135.128  Use of safety belts and child restraint systems.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Be held by an adult, except as outlined in Sec.  91.108(j) of
this chapter, who is occupying an approved seat or berth, provided the
child has not reached his or her second birthday and the child does not
occupy or use any restraining device; or
* * * * *

PART 136--COMMERCIAL AIR TOURS AND NATIONAL PARKS AIR TOUR
MANAGEMENT

0
7. The authority citation for part 136 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 40119, 44101,
44701-44702, 44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722, 44901,
44903-44904, 44912, 46105.

0
8. Amend Sec.  136.7 by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  136.7  Passenger briefings.

* * * * *
    (c) If any passengers on board a flight conducted under this part
are secured with a supplemental restraint system, the pilot in command
of that flight must ensure those passengers are briefed in accordance
with Sec.  91.108(g) of this chapter.

    Issued in Washington, DC, under the authority of 49 U.S.C.
106(f) and 44701(a)(5).
Wesley L. Mooty,
Acting Deputy Executive Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-24936 Filed 11-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 13, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35287-35291]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14270]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0091, EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0584; FRL-9685-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Virginia; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing the limited approval of the Commonwealth of
Virginia's Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision. EPA
is taking this action because Virginia's SIP revision, as a whole,
strengthens the Virginia SIP. This action is being taken in accordance
with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's rules for
states to prevent and remedy future and existing anthropogenic
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas through a regional
haze program. EPA is also approving this revision as meeting the
infrastructure requirements relating to visibility protection for the
1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and the
1997 and 2006 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS.

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 13, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0091, EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0584. All documents in
the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although
listed in the electronic docket, some information is not publicly
available, i.e., confidential business information (CBI) 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
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for public inspection during normal
business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629 East Main Street,
Richmond, Virginia 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Linden,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Throughout this document, whenever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is
used, we mean EPA. On January 25, 2012 (77 FR 3691), EPA published a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Virginia.
The NPR proposed limited approval and limited disapproval of Virginia's
Regional Haze SIP. The formal SIP revisions were submitted by the
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) on July 17, 2008,
March 6, 2009, January 14, 2010, October 4, 2010, November 19, 2010,
and May 6, 2011. This revision also meets the requirements of CAA
sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110 (a)(2)(J), relating to visibility
protection for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    The SIP revision includes a long term strategy with enforceable
measures ensuring reasonable progress towards meeting the reasonable
progress goals for the first planning period through 2018. Virginia's
Regional Haze Plan contains the emission reductions needed to achieve
Virginia's share of emission reductions and sets the reasonable
progress goals for other states to achieve reasonable progress at the
two Class I Areas within Virginia, Shenandoah National Park and James
River Face Wilderness Area. The specific requirements of the CAA and
EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RH rule) (64 FR 35732, July 1, 1999) and the
rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPR and will
not be restated here. EPA received numerous adverse comments on the
January 25, 2012 NPR. A summary of the comments submitted and EPA's
responses are provided in section III of this document.

III. Summary of Public Comments and EPA Responses

    Comment: The commenter argued that EPA's proposed limited approval/
limited disapproval action based on Virginia's reliance on clean air
interstate rule (CAIR) is unwarranted and should be withdrawn. Instead,
the commenter states that EPA should grant full and unconditional
approval of the Virginia Regional Haze SIP. The commenter disagreed
that CAIR renders the State's SIP unable to satisfy all of the CAA's
regional haze SIP requirements. The commenter noted that Virginia's SIP
was submitted prior to the remand of CAIR and relied on the
requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4), which remain in effect at this
time. The commenter argued that as a result, the Virginia SIP is
entirely consistent with the applicable law. The commenter also argued
that if the D.C. Circuit invalidates the cross state air pollution rule
(CSAPR), EPA's limited disapprovals of regional haze SIPs due to their
reliance on the CAIR equals best available retrofit technology (BART)
provision of the regional haze rules will have created unnecessary
complications for states that should properly be able to continue their
reliance on CAIR. The commenter argued that EPA does not have a basis
to propose or promulgate disapproval or limited disapproval of a
Regional Haze SIP due to its reliance on CAIR and on 40 CFR
51.308(e)(4) because the SIP is fully compliant with the relevant
regulations as they exist today.\1\ The commenter believes that the
only proper course of action for EPA is to promptly promulgate a full
and unconditional approval of the Virginia SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The word ``today'' in the text refers to the date of the
comment letter, February 24, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter and has determined the
limited approval/limited disapproval is appropriate for this SIP. The
requirements for a BART alternative program, specific to trading
programs in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) state that ``such an

emissions trading program or other alternative measure must achieve
greater reasonable progress than would be achieved through the
installation and operation of BART.'' EPA's analysis, in 2005, showing
that CAIR would provide for greater reasonable progress than BART, was
based on the then reasonable assumption that CAIR met the requirements
of the CAA and would remain in place. EPA's Transport Rule, commonly
referred to as the CSAPR, sunset the requirements of CAIR. EPA's
decision to sunset CAIR is the result of a decision by the Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit remanding CAIR to EPA and leaving CAIR in
place only ``temporarily,'' as noted in our notice of proposed
rulemaking and by the commenters. As such, notwithstanding the
regulatory text in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4), we cannot fully approve the
Virginia Regional Haze SIP which relies heavily on CAIR as part of its
long-term strategy and to meet the BART requirements.
    The EPA has also completed an analysis and has proposed the
Transport Rule as an alternative to BART for electrical generating
units (EGUs) located in the Transport Rule states (which include
Virginia). (76 FR 82219, December 30, 2011). Given the significance of
the emissions reductions from CAIR to Virginia's demonstration that it
has met the requirements of the Regional Haze Rule, EPA proposed
issuing a limited disapproval of the Virginia SIP. Although CAIR is
currently being administered by EPA pursuant to an order by the Court
of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v.
EPA, it will not remain in effect indefinitely. For this reason, EPA
cannot fully approve Regional Haze SIP revisions that rely on CAIR for
emission reduction measures.
    Comment: The commenter stated that EPA's proposal of approving the
reasonable progress controls for Mead Westvaco is contrary to EPA's
position in the proposal of Arkansas's Regional Haze SIP that the
uniform rate of progress (URP) does not establish a ``safe harbor'' and
is not supported by the preamble to the RH rule (64 FR 35732). The
commenter also stated that VADEQ and EPA placed undue weight on the
premise that the visibility improvements projected for the affected
Class I areas are in excess of those needed to be on the URP glidepath,
and therefore, a less-rigorous Reasonable Progress analysis was
acceptable. Another commenter gave a similar comment but added that the
1 percent contribution to impairment before a source will be considered
for control for reasonable progress purposes is arbitrary.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter regarding the comments
on the URP. The RH rule preamble states that ``[i]f the State
determines that the amount of progress identified through the [URP]
analysis is reasonable based upon the statutory factors, the State
should identify this amount of progress as its reasonable progress goal
for the first long-term strategy, unless it determines that additional
progress beyond this amount is also reasonable. If the State determines
that additional progress is reasonable based on the statutory factors,
the State should adopt that amount of progress as its goal for the
first long-term strategy. Virginia did determine that the reasonable
progress goals (RPG) for the first implementation period would be
beyond the URP and developed the RPGs using the four factors required
by the statute. As such, the URP glidepath was not a stopping point for
analysis done by VADEQ. The analysis of reasonable measures evaluated
by VISTAS can be found in Virginia's appendices. The 1 percent
contribution of impairment for reasonable progress is not arbitrary,
but rather explained in Virginia's submittal.
    Comment: The commenter stated that a 90 percent efficient scrubber
at Mead Westvaco should be reasonable progress instead of the upgrade
to the current flue gas desulfurization (FGD). The commenter stated
that the new scrubber with 90 percent efficiency could have a
cumulative improvement of visibility on four Class I areas of 0.8-1.3
deciview beyond the BART limit. The commenter also stated that the
upgrade to the current FGD results in a cumulative improvement of
visibility on four Class I areas of 0.3 deciview beyond BART.
    Response: The visibility improvement provided by the commenter is
calculated using a cumulative impact, combining the improvement at all
class I areas impacted by the source. The RH rule does not require the
use of cumulative impact in reviews done by the state, and VADEQ chose
not to assess visibility on a cumulative basis. Virginia did include in
their determination for reasonable progress that the upgrade of the FGD
at Mead Westvaco, along with the other measures in the long-term
strategy ensure that the state is on the glidepath for achieving
natural background for the 20 percent worst days by 2064 and that there
is no degradation to the 20 percent best days as required. Thus, EPA
agrees that the upgrade to the FGD is acceptable for reasonable
progress in the regional haze planning period.
    Comment: The commenter believes that VADEQ overestimated the costs
of a New Caustic flue gas desulfurization (FGD) and new Spray Dryer
with Baghouse, while the commenters analysis shows that the costs of a
New Caustic FGD and new Spray Dryer with Baghouse are reasonable in
terms of total and incremental costs per ton and per deciview.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter's analysis of costs of
the FGD and baghouse. The approach used by the commenter to calculate
the revised costs of the New Caustic FGD and Spray Dryer with Baghouse
use a cumulative total visibility impact and this approach is not
required by EPA, but rather recommended. The state has the option to
use a cumulative approach for calculating the cost per deciview of a
control technology. EPA therefore agrees with VADEQ in their reasoned
cost analysis for BART controls for sulfur dioxide (SO2).
    Comment: The commenter stated VADEQ was incorrect and inconsistent
in applying its cost thresholds, and its conclusions are inconsistent
with BART determinations for paper mill power boilers in Virginia and
in other states.
    Response: EPA disagrees that VADEQ's BART determinations are
incorrect, or inconsistent, or unreasonable. BART determinations are
done on a case-by-case basis, so it is possible that a control
technology for one power boiler may not be a reasonable option for
another. The state has the discretion to rank the technologies of the
BART determination in their analysis. Virginia has completed this
analysis to show the upgrade of the current FGD is BART and EPA agrees.
The commenter supplied other BART determinations which have different
fuel types than that of the Mead Westvaco Facility in Virginia, and the
power boiler number 9 is in a combined stack with three other power
boilers that go through the FGD and will receive additional
SO2 reductions as a result of the upgrade required for BART.
Therefore, the commenter's statements are not analogous, and EPA finds
Virginia's determinations reasonable.
    Comment: The commenter stated it believed that EPA must disapprove
the Virginia Regional Haze SIP due to the reliance on CAIR as a BART
substitute and as part of its reasonable progress demonstration.
    Response: EPA disagrees in general with this comment. EPA
understands that CAIR has been remanded and that is the reason that the
limited disapproval of the Virginia Regional Haze SIP is being
promulgated. EPA has proposed that the Transport Rule is

better than BART and proposed a Federal implementation plan (FIP) for
Virginia to replace the CAIR reliance. (76 FR 82219) EPA does recognize
that the other additional measures in the SIP submitted by Virginia
help strengthen the Virginia SIP as a whole and are the basis for the
limited approval portion of this action.
    Comment: The commenter stated that the Virginia Regional Haze SIP
does not provide enough reductions to meet the uniform rate of progress
for James River Face Wilderness Area on the 20 percent best days and
does not provide a reasoned justification for failing to do so. The
commenter stated the SIP is therefore, deficient and unapprovable. The
Commonwealth has also not complied with the requirement of EPA's rules
that it provide an assessment of the number of years it would take to
attain natural conditions of visibility improvement on the best days
based on the reasonable progress goals selected by the Commonwealth.
The commenter states that a uniform rate of progress to achieve a 9.8
deciview reduction would require reductions of 0.163 deciview per year
(dv/yr), or a total of 2.29 deciview over the 14 years of the first
planning period.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)
states that '' the reasonable progress goals must provide for an
improvement in visibility for the most impaired days over the period of
the implementation plan and to ensure that no degradation in visibility
for the least impaired days over the same period''. The URP does not
apply to the 20 percent best days, but only the 20 percent worst or
most impaired days. The requirement is to demonstrate that the 20
percent best days show no degradation in visibility which VADEQ has
done on page 55 of their October 4, 2010 submittal. EPA believes that
Virginia has met these requirements.
    Comment: The commenter questioned EPA's authority to grant
``limited'' approvals and disapprovals. The commenter also states that
the final limited approval and limited disapproval of the Virginia
Regional Haze SIP cannot lawfully discharge or restart the clock on a
FIP obligation because EPA is already under a nondiscretionary duty to
promulgate a regional haze FIP by virtue of the EPA's findings of
failure to submit for Virginia on January 15, 2009.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter and finds that the
limited approval, limited disapproval is appropriate for SIP
strengthening and due to the status of CAIR. The final limited
disapproval must be signed prior to EPA issuing a FIP to correct the
reliance on CAIR in Virginia's Regional Haze SIP. The explanation in
the proposed notice explained the effects of a limited disapproval and
the timeframe for a FIP to be promulgated. It is understood that EPA
does not have those additional 2 years because EPA is obligated to
finalize the actions on the Virginia Regional Haze SIP pursuant to a
judicial consent decree entered by the National Park Conservation
Association (NPCA). Also, EPA has statutory authority for limited
approvals and limited disapprovals pursuant to Section 110(k)(3) of the
CAA.
    Comment: The commenter noted that Virginia has arbitrarily rejected
Mid-Atlantic Northeast Visibility Union's (MANE-VU) requested measures
as reasonable progress requirements to address Virginia's contribution
to Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge, Great Gulf Wilderness Area, and
Presidential Range--Dry River Wilderness Area. Virginia made assertions
using VISTAS analysis showing that no stack contributes 1 percent or
more to impairment at Brigantine, and that some of the units are
temporarily shut down or predicted by the integrated planning model
(IPM) model to be shut down by 2018. The commenter claimed these
assertions are not federally enforceable and that EPA's rule requires
Virginia to consult with the states whose class I areas it impacts ``in
order to develop coordinated emission management strategies.'' 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(i). The commenter believed that Virginia has not addressed
its share of emission reductions required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii) in
the SIP are needed to meet the progress goal for class I areas
emissions impact and that the SIP should be disapproved. The commenter
stated that Virginia did not comply with this requirement, nor did it
provide the modeling required in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iii). The
commenter stated that EPA's approved regional haze SIP for New Jersey
found the MANE-VU measures are ``necessary to achieve the Reasonable
Progress Goal'' for Brigantine and other class I areas. The commenter
stated that New Jersey and MANE-VU states considered the five factor
analysis required and Virginia did not question those reasonable
progress goals, or provide a reasoned basis for not doing them. See 40
CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A).
    Response: EPA disagrees with the comments regarding reasonable
progress goals and finds the commenter's comparisons not analogous to
Virginia. There are only four factors required for the reasonable
progress goals in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) and they are cost of
compliance, the time necessary for compliance, the energy and non-air
quality environmental impacts of compliance, and remaining useful life
of any potentially affected sources. Virginia has supplied a technical
analysis of the reductions in emissions towards meeting the MANE-VU
measures by using the emission inventory, ambient monitoring data and
modeling done by the regional planning organizations (RPO) VISTAS,
which is found in VADEQ's appendices. EPA recommended that the states
form RPOs for planning purposes of the regional haze SIPs, and both
VISTAS and MANE-VU states did participate in coordination meetings for
developing these SIPs. EPA has approved different approaches for
establishing reasonable progress goals, and the states have the
flexibility in doing so for their respective class I areas.
Additionally, each RPO modeled using a separate set of assumptions to
demonstrate the share of apportioned emission reductions. In using the
VISTAS approach, as approved by EPA, Virginia has met its share of
emission reductions for the class I areas it impacts. If the reasonable
progress goals are not met or on track to be met for the 2018 targets,
then the shortfall will be addressed in the midcourse review and a SIP
revision to address any additional measures needed at that time to
address the shortfall in emission reductions.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is finalizing its limited approval of the revisions to the
Virginia SIP submitted on July 17, 2008, March 6, 2009, January 14,
2010, October 4, 2010, November 19, 2010, and May 6, 2011, address
regional haze for the first implementation period. EPA is issuing a
limited approval of the Virginia SIP since overall the SIP will be
stronger and more protective of the environment with the implementation
of those measures by Virginia and with having Federal approval and
enforceability than it would without those measures being included in
the Virginia's SIP. The final limited disapproval and FIP will be in a
separate rulemaking action done by EPA. EPA is also approving this
revision as meeting the applicable visibility related requirements of
section 110(a)(2) of the CAA including, but not limited to sections
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA, relating to visibility
protection for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive 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 CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    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.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    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).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by August 13, 2012. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action 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 finalizing the limited approval of the Virginia
Regional Haze SIP may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce
its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2) of the CAA.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: May 30, 2012.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    Therefore, 40 CFR part 52 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.

0
2. Amend Sec.  52.2420, in the table in paragraph (e) by adding an
entry for ``Regional Haze Plan'' at the end of the table to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.2420  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Name of non-regulatory SIP         Applicable        State submittal                           Additional
            revision                geographic area          date          EPA approval date      explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Regional Haze Plan..............  Statewide.........  7/17/08, 3/6/09, 1/ 6/13/2012 [Insert   Sec.   52.2452(d);
                                                       14/12, 10/4/10,     page number where   Limited Approval.
                                                       11/19/10, 5/6/11.   the document
                                                                           begins].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. Amend Sec.  52.2452 by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2452  Visibility protection.

* * * * *
    (d) Limited approval of the Regional Haze Plan submitted by the
Commonwealth of Virginia on July 17, 2008, March 6, 2009, January 14,
2010, October 4, 2010, November 19, 2010, and May 6, 2011.

[FR Doc. 2012-14270 Filed 6-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P