[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 215 (Wednesday, November 6, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59744-59746]
[FR Doc No: 2019-24066]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 228

[EPA-R04-OW-2019-0592; FRL-10001-81-Region 4]

Ocean Dumping: Cancellation of Final Designation for an Ocean
Dredged Material Disposal Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to cancel
the final designation of an ocean dredged material disposal site
(ODMDS) pursuant to the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries
Act, as amended (MPRSA). The ODMDS is in the Atlantic Ocean offshore
Wilmington, North Carolina. This proposed action is being taken because
this site has been replaced by another permanent site. In addition, the
EPA proposes to rename the permanent site that exists for the
Wilmington, North Carolina area.

DATES: Comments must be received by December 23, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OW-2019-0592, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments and accessing the docket and materials related to
this proposed rule.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Gary W. Collins, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 4, Water Division, Oceans and Estuarine Management
Section, 61 Forsyth Street, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OW-
2019-0592. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through
www.regulations.gov or email, information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov website is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means the EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with
any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due
to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the
EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should
avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be
free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the
EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically at www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal
business hours from the regional library at the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4 Library, 9th Floor, 61 Forsyth Street,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303. For access to the documents at the Region 4
Library, contact the Region 4 Library Reference Desk at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., and between the hours of
1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal
holidays, for an appointment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary W. Collins, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, Water Division, Oceans and Estuarine
Management Section, 61 Forsyth Street, Atlanta, Georgia 30303; phone
number<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Potentially Affected Persons

    Persons potentially affected by this proposed action include those
who seek or might seek permits or approval to dispose of dredged
material into ocean waters pursuant to the Marine Protection, Research,
and Sanctuaries Act, as amended (MPRSA), 33 U.S.C. 1401 to 1445. The
EPA's proposed action would be relevant to persons, including
organizations and government bodies seeking to dispose of dredged
material in ocean waters offshore of Wilmington, North Carolina.
Currently, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) would be most
affected by this action. Potentially affected categories and persons
include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Examples of potentially regulated
             Category                              persons
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Government................  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil
                                     Works projects, U.S. Navy and other
                                     Federal agencies.
Industry and general public.......  Port authorities, marinas and
                                     harbors, shipyards and marine
                                     repair facilities, berth owners.
State, local and tribal             Governments owning and/or
 governments.                        responsible for ports, harbors, and/
                                     or berths, government agencies
                                     requiring disposal of dredged
                                     material associated with public
                                     works projects.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding persons likely to be affected by this
proposed action. For any questions regarding the applicability of this
proposed action to a particular person, please refer to the contact
person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

II. Background

    Section 102(c) of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act (MPRSA) of 1972, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq., gives the
Administrator of EPA the authority to designate sites where ocean
disposal may be permitted. On October 1, 1986, the Administrator
delegated the authority to designate ocean disposal sites to the
Regional Administrator of the Region in which the sites are located.
This proposed cancellation is being made pursuant to that authority.
    The EPA Ocean Dumping Regulations promulgated under MPRSA (40 CFR
chapter I, subchapter H, Sec.  228.11) state that modifications in
disposal site use which involve withdrawal of disposal sites from use
will be made by promulgation in part 228. This site cancellation is
being published as proposed rulemaking in accordance with Sec.
228.11(a) of the Ocean Dumping Regulations, which permits the
withdrawal of designated disposal sites from use based upon changed
circumstances concerning use of the site.

III. Proposed Action

    The proposed cancellation of the designation of this site is needed
as a housekeeping measure. The ODMDS is no longer a suitable disposal
option and has no foreseeable need. The Wilmington site has been
replaced by a larger site due to changes in alignment of the Federal
navigation channel, which now cuts through the original ODMDS. EPA also
proposes to change the name of the New Wilmington ODMDS to the
Wilmington ODMDS.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This proposed action complies with applicable executive orders and
statutory provisions as follows:

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

    This proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993)
and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and
13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

b. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed action does not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This proposed action
does not require persons to obtain, maintain, retain, report, or
publicly disclose information to or for a Federal agency.

c. Regulatory Flexibility

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires Federal
agencies to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule
subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency
certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small entities,
small entity is defined as: (1) A small business defined by the Small
Business Administration's size regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a
small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county,
town, school district, or special district with a population of less
than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field. The EPA determined that this proposed action
will not have a significant economic impact on small entities. After
considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule, EPA certifies
that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule will not
impose any requirements on small entities.

d. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This proposed action contains no Federal mandates under the
provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of
1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531 to 1538, for State, local, or tribal governments or
the private sector. This action imposes no new enforceable duty on any
State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore,
this action is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205
of the UMRA. This action is also not subject to the requirements of
section 203 of the UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements
that might significantly or uniquely affect small government entities.

e. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This proposed action does not have federalism implications. It does
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 various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does
not apply to this action. The EPA specifically solicits comment on this
proposed action from State and local officials.

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

    This proposed action does not have tribal implications, as
specified in Executive Order 13175 because the proposed action will not
have a direct effect on Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the
Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. The EPA
specifically solicits additional comments on this proposed action from
tribal officials.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the
analysis required under Section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the
potential to influence the regulation. This proposed action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an
environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.

h. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355) because it is not a
``significant regulatory action'' as defined under Executive Order
12866.

i. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law

104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272), directs the EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus bodies.
The NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards. This proposed action does not
involve technical standards. Therefore, the EPA is not considering the
use of any voluntary consensus standards.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629) establishes Federal executive
policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs Federal
agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the
United States. The EPA determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. This proposed action is only cancelling the designation of
an ODMDS which is no longer viable.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 228

    Environmental protection, Water pollution control.

    Authority: This proposed action is issued under the authority of
Section 102 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act,
as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1401, 1411, 1412.

    Dated: August 27, 2019.
Mary S. Walker,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend
chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Register as follows:

PART 228--CRITERIA FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF DISPOSAL SITES FOR OCEAN
DUMPING

0
1. The authority citation for part 228 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1412 and 1418.

0
2. Section 228.15 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (h)(2)
and revising paragraph (h)(20) introductory text to read as follows:

Sec.  228.15   Dumping sites designated on a final basis.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (20) Wilmington, North Carolina; Ocean Dredged Material Disposal
Site.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-24066 Filed 11-5-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: May 21, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 97)]
[Notices]
[Page 28487-28488]
[DOCID:fr21my07-38]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[ Project No. 2237-017]

Georgia Power Company; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing,
Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests, Ready for Environmental
Analysis, and Soliciting Comments, Recommendations, Preliminary Terms
and Conditions, and Preliminary Fishway Prescriptions

May 11, 2007
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New Major License.
    b. Project No.: P-2237-017.
    c. Date filed: February 27, 2007.
    d. Applicant: Georgia Power Company.
    e. Name of Project: Morgan Falls Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The existing project is located in the metropolitan
city of Atlanta area on the Chattahoochee River, at river mile 312.6,
and about 36 miles downstream from the U.S. Corps of Engineers' Buford
dam (Lake Sidney Lanier) in Cobb and Fulton Counties, Georgia. The
project occupies about 14.4 acres of federal lands within the
Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area managed by the National
Park Service.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Douglas E. Jones, Senior Vice-President,
Southern Company Generation, 241 Ralph McGill Boulevard NE., Bin 10240,
Atlanta, Georgia 30308-3374, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; or George A.
Martin, Project Manager, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Additional information on this project is

available on the applicant's Web site: http://www.southerncompany.com/gapower/hydro
.

    i. FERC Contact: Janet Hutzel at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests, comments,
recommendations, preliminary terms and conditions, and preliminary
fishway prescriptions is 60 days from the issuance of this notice;
reply comments are due 105 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    Motions to intervene, protests, comments, recommendations,
preliminary terms and conditions, and preliminary fishway prescriptions
may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The
Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
http://www.ferc.gov under the ``e-Filing'' link.

    k. This application has been accepted for filing and is now is
ready for environmental analysis.
    l. Project Description: The existing project consists of the
following: (1) A 1,031-foot-long, 56-foot-maximum height concrete
gravity dam consisting of a 46-foot-long non-overflow westerly
abutment; a 680-foot-long gated spillway with sixteen 40-foot-wide by
8-foot-tall Taintor gates; a 21-foot-long trash gate section containing
one 8-foot-

wide by 4-foot-tall trash gate; a 195-foot-long, 73-foot-high combined
powerhouse and intake section integral with the dam containing seven
horizontal double runner Francis turbines coupled to seven generating
units with a total generating capacity of 16.8 megawatt; and an 89-
foot-long non-overflow easterly abutment; (2) a 684-acre reservoir
(Bull Sluice Lake) at normal full pool elevation of 866.0 feet plant
datum,\1\ with 2,239 acre-feet of usable storage; and (3) appurtenant
facilities. The average annual generation at the project is about
15,221 megawatt-hours. The applicant has no plans to modify the
existing project facilities or the current modified run-of-river mode
of operation.
    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''

link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-
866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also available for
inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Plant datum = mean sea level + 12.39 ft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm to be

notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.
    n. Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene
in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure,
18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to
take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments
filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with
the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any
comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or
before the specified comment date for the particular application.
    All filings must: (1) bear in all capital letters the title
``PROTEST,'' ``MOTION TO INTERVENE,'' ``COMMENTS,'' ``REPLY COMMENTS,''
``RECOMMENDATIONS,'' ``PRELIMINARY TERMS AND CONDITIONS,'' or
``PRELIMINARY FISHWAY PRESCRIPTIONS;'' (2) set forth in the heading the
name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must
set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the
application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or
motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the
applicant specified in the particular application. A copy of all other
filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof
of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the
Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and
385.2010.
    o. Procedural Schedule:
    The application will be processed according to the following Hydro
Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as
appropriate.
    At this time we do not anticipate the need for preparing a draft
environmental assessment (EA). We intend to prepare one environmental
document. The EA will include our recommendations for operating
procedures and environmental enhancement measures that should be part
of any new license issued by the Commission. Recipients will have 30
days to provide the Commission with any comments on that document. All
comments on the EA, filed with the Commission, will be considered in an
Order taking final action on the license application. However, should
substantive comments requiring reanalysis be received on the NEPA
document, we would consider preparing a subsequent NEPA document.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interventions, recommendations,       July 12, 2007.
 preliminary terms and conditions,
 and fishway prescriptions due.
Reply comments due..................  August 26, 2007.
FERC issues single EA (without a      November 9, 2007.
 draft).
Comments on EA due..................  December 9, 2007.
Filing of modified terms and          February 8, 2008.
 conditions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    p. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    q. A license applicant must file no later than 60 days following
the date of issuance of the notice of acceptance and ready for
environmental analysis provided for in Sec.  5.22: (1) A copy of the
water quality certification; (2) a copy of the request for
certification, including proof of the date on which the certifying
agency received the request; or (3) evidence of waiver of water quality
certification.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-9683 Filed 5-18-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 182 (Thursday, September 19, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49293-49297]
[FR Doc No: 2019-20324]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2019-0415; FRL-10000-02- OW]

Water Quality Trading Under The National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notification, request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is requesting
comment on policy approaches for addressing ``baseline'' issues in
watersheds with EPA-approved Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) where
policy makers would like to pursue water quality trading as a
regulatory option for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit compliance. These policy approaches may also be of
interest to stakeholders pursuing market-based water quality
improvement programs outside of the NPDES permit program.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 18, 2019. A
combined in-person and online listening session will be held at EPA
Headquarters in Washington, DC on October 21, 2019, from 12 p.m. to 5
p.m. EDT.

ADDRESSES: The listening session will be held at the following
location:
     US EPA Headquarters, William Jefferson Clinton East
Building, Room 1153, 1201 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004;
     The online listening session will be accessible at https://www.epa.gov/npdes/nonpoint-source-baselines-water-quality-trading.
    To register for the listening session, go to: https://www.epa.gov/npdes/nonpoint-source-baselines-water-quality-trading.
    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ- OW-2019-
0415, at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received
to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amelia Letnes, Office of Wastewater
Management, Water Permits Division, Mail Code 4203M, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This supplementary information section is
organized as follows:

I. General Information
II. Background
III. Nonpoint Source Baselines for Water Quality Trading
IV. Request for Comment

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Entities potentially affected by this action are: Authorized NPDES
states, territorial, and tribal programs; municipal and industrial
point sources; and nonpoint sources of pollution. This table is not
intended to be exhaustive; rather, it provides a guide for readers
regarding entities that this action is likely to affect.

                             Table I-1--Entities Potentially Affected by This Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Examples of potentially affected
                                   Category                                                 entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Environmental Protection Agency..........................................  The Environmental Protection
                                                                                Agency when acting as a
                                                                                permitting authority, conducting
                                                                                oversight, and enforcing
                                                                                permits.
State, Territorial, and Indian Tribal Governments............................  States and territories authorized
                                                                                to administer the National
                                                                                Pollutant Discharge Elimination
                                                                                System (NPDES) permitting
                                                                                program (permitting
                                                                                authorities); states,
                                                                                territories, and Indian tribes
                                                                                that provide certification under
                                                                                section 401 of the Clean Water
                                                                                Act (CWA); states, territories,
                                                                                and Indian tribes that own or
                                                                                operate treatment works.
Municipalities...............................................................  Publicly Owned Treatment Works
                                                                                (POTWs), municipal separate
                                                                                storm sewer systems (MS4s), or
                                                                                other municipal entities
                                                                                required to apply for or seek
                                                                                coverage under an NPDES
                                                                                individual or general permit.

Industry.....................................................................  Facilities required to apply for
                                                                                or seek coverage under an NPDES
                                                                                individual or general permit.
Nonpoint Sources.............................................................  Facilities that are not required
                                                                                to apply for or seek coverage
                                                                                under an NPDES individual or
                                                                                general permit but may generate
                                                                                pollutant reduction credits.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. Public Listening Session

    i. Public Listening Session: The EPA will hold a public listening
session to hear feedback from interested members of the public on the
issues and concerns of which the Agency should be aware concerning the
issues presented in this document. The public listening session will
include the ability to make a statement either in person or online in
addition to any official comments. All official comments must be
submitted in writing at https://www.regulations.gov/. The public
listening session will begin with the EPA providing a brief background
on the water quality trading issues discussed in this document,
followed by an opportunity for the public to provide supplemental input
on these issues. The EPA is asking that oral statements be limited to
three minutes or less. The listening session will begin at 12 p.m. EDT
and continue until all those wishing to speak have had a chance to make
statements, or until 5 p.m., whichever comes first. A transcript of
oral remarks made during the listening session will be at https://www.epa.gov/npdes/nonpoint-source-baselines-water-quality-trading and
included in the docket for public review.
    ii. Additional Information and Public Meeting Registration: Prior
to each listening session, the EPA will post any relevant materials to
the following website: https://www.epa.gov/npdes/nonpoint-source-baselines-water-quality-trading. Information posted to the website will
include any handouts that may be provided at the meeting as well as a
web link that participants may use to register for the listening
session in advance. Advance registration is not required but is
requested so that the EPA can ensure there is sufficient space and time
allotted for those who wish to participate. The listening session will
continue until all speakers in attendance have had a chance to make
statements, or the listed end time, whichever comes first. If you
choose not to pre-register to speak, it is recommended that you arrive
at the start of the listening session to register in person to ensure
the opportunity to participate.

II. Background

    The EPA strongly supports market-based mechanisms to accomplish its
mission to protect human health and the environment. Market-based
mechanisms include water quality trading, an approach that promotes
water quality improvements at lower cost than more traditional
regulatory approaches. The Agency has long interpreted the CWA to allow
pollutant reductions from water quality trading and offsets to achieve
compliance with CWA regulatory requirements including water quality-
based effluent limitations (WQBELs). Neither the CWA nor the EPA's
implementing regulations explicitly address water quality trading. In
the absence of explicit statutory language or regulations, the EPA has
provided guidance for permitting authorities and stakeholders to
consider when developing market-based programs, including water quality
trading. However, the EPA is aware that despite its efforts to support
these types of programs, they have not been implemented to their
fullest potential. In response, the Agency is exploring ways to expand
the implementation of water quality trading and other market-based
mechanisms to accomplish water quality improvements.
    In 2003, the EPA issued its Water Quality Trading Policy \1\ (2003
Policy). The 2003 Policy included recommendations for permitting
authorities and stakeholders to consider when developing water quality
trading programs. The Agency issued the Water Quality Trading Toolkit
for Permit Writers in 2007 and updated it in 2009 \2\ (2009 Toolkit) to
expand on the 2003 Policy and provide real-life examples. The EPA
understands that some permitting authorities and stakeholders have
viewed the 2003 Policy and 2009 Toolkit as having the force and effect
of law or regulation, i.e., mandating certain actions or outcomes and
containing standards or requirements with which a market-based program
must conform. The Agency wants to clarify that the 2003 Policy and the
2009 Toolkit do not mandate specific actions, outcomes or requirements;
but rather provide non-binding and non-mandatory recommendations and
guidance for permitting authorities to consider when establishing and
implementing water quality trading programs for NPDES permit
compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This document is available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-04/documents/wqtradingtoolkit_app_b_trading_policy.pdf.
    \2\ This document is available at https://www.epa.gov/npdes/water-quality-trading-toolkit-permit-writers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the intervening fifteen years since the release of the 2003
Policy, nonpoint source pollution reduction technologies and practices
have improved. Research has provided better information on the
performance of many best management practices (BMPs). Mapping and
modeling efforts have become more robust. Capabilities for evaluating
resources at the edge-of-field and at the landscape scale have
improved. In-stream and other monitoring approaches have expanded our
understanding of the resources we are working to protect. These
advances have created an opportunity for the Agency to reconsider and,
if appropriate, update and expand its recommendations for policy makers
considering implementing market-based mechanisms, including water
quality trading.
    As a first step to modernizing its approach to market-based
programs, the EPA issued ``Updating the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) Water Quality Trading Policy to Promote Market-Based
Mechanisms for Improving Water Quality'' on February 6, 2019 (2019
Memorandum). The 2019 Memorandum reiterates the EPA's strong support
for water quality trading; promotes the adoption of market-based
programs to incentivize the implementation of technologies and
practices to reduce nonpoint source pollution; provides additional
guidance and policy options to stakeholders for developing and
implementing market-based programs; and promotes increased investment
in conservation actions. To achieve these goals, the 2019 Memorandum
identified six market-based principles:

    (1) States, tribes, and stakeholders should consider implementing
water quality trading and other market-based programs on a watershed
scale.
    (2) The EPA encourages the use of adaptive management strategies
for implementing market-based programs.
    (3) Water quality credits and offsets may be banked for future use.
    (4) The EPA encourages simplicity and flexibility in implementing
baseline concepts.
    (5) A single project may generate credits for multiple markets.
    (6) Financing opportunities exist to assist with deployment of
nonpoint source land use practices.
    This document is the next step in modernizing the EPA's approach to
market-based programs and water quality trading and focuses on the
fourth principle in the 2019 Memorandum--simplicity and flexibility in
implementing baseline concepts. The EPA's interpretation of the 2003
Policy, as provided in the 2009 Toolkit, recommended that individual
nonpoint sources were to make their portion of the reductions
identified in a TMDL as the ``load allocation,'' called the
``baseline,'' before nonpoint source pollution reduction activities
could generate credits or offsets. In many TMDLs, the load allocation/
baseline is not an insubstantial portion of reductions necessary in the
watershed; achieving this level of reduction may be costly and a
barrier to entry to a trading or offset market. The EPA is seeking and
will consider comments on proposed recommendations related to baselines
for nonpoint sources in watersheds covered by a TMDL.
    The EPA is proposing to provide additional guidance on several of
the market-based principles identified in the 2019 Memorandum. This
proposal seeks comment on additional draft guidance related to nonpoint
source baseline issues and presents a variety of tools and approaches
that could be used to develop and implement nonpoint source trading
baselines. Lastly, the EPA is seeking comment on other topics addressed
in the 2003 Policy and the 2009 Toolkit that should be clarified,
updated, or otherwise modified to be consistent with the 2019
Memorandum.

III. Nonpoint Source Baselines for Water Quality Trading

    The EPA has developed and is seeking comment on a variety of policy
options regarding nonpoint source baselines for water quality trading
in areas with a TMDL. These options can be used individually or
combined in a single program. Some of these options would be changes to
existing policy, while others offer additional clarification.

A. Definition of Baseline

    As previously noted, neither the CWA nor the EPA's implementing
regulations address water quality trading generally, or the specific
issue of nonpoint source baselines. In the absence of explicit
statutory language or regulations, the EPA provided guidance for
permitting authorities and stakeholders to consider when developing
market-based programs, including water quality trading.
    As described above, the 2003 Policy and 2009 Toolkit recommended an
approach to defining a nonpoint source baseline in a watershed where a
TMDL has been approved or established. That approach could lead to
substantial upfront costs for nonpoint sources despite no regulatory
requirement mandating those reductions. The baseline portions of the
2003 Policy were seen by some stakeholders as confusing, complex and
restrictive, creating a barrier to entry for point source-nonpoint
source trading in watersheds where a TMDL has been approved by the EPA.
Another concern is that expecting a nonpoint source to meet a pollutant
reduction baseline derived from a TMDL load allocation before the
nonpoint source can generate tradable credits may be inconsistent with
the definition of baseline in the 2003 Policy. This is because load
allocations on their own are not legally enforceable pollutant control
``requirements.'' As a result, such load allocation baselines should
not be considered to be ``requirements'' that must be met by the
nonpoint source prior to being able to generate credits for sale into a
market. The EPA is seeking comment on the above concerns and whether
the following proposed baseline definition revision would provide
clarity and flexibility to states and tribes to define a nonpoint
source baseline and ensure that market-based programs and water quality
trading may be implemented in watersheds with EPA-approved TMDLs.
    The EPA is considering whether to include the language below in an
updated policy memorandum on water quality trading.

B. Baselines for Water Quality Trading

    The EPA recommends that pollution reduction credits that are
applied to water quality-based effluent limitations in NPDES permits be
derived from and comply with all applicable water quality standards and
be consistent with the assumptions and requirements of wasteload
allocations in applicable EPA-approved TMDLs, consistent with 40 CFR
122.44(d)(1)(vii).
    For point source-nonpoint source trading, where a TMDL has been
established for the particular waterbody, the EPA recommends that
nonpoint sources be allowed to generate credits for any pollutant
reductions the nonpoint source makes that are not included in the
assumptions that support the TMDL load allocation. Under this revised
baseline definition, any such pollutant reductions would be immediately
available for use by point sources as credits.
    The EPA seeks comment on whether this language provides the clarity
necessary to support market-based programs, including water quality
trading, and whether there is other language that may provide greater
clarity or regulatory certainty. The EPA intends that, in watersheds
where a TMDL has been approved by the EPA, this definition of
``baseline'' would allow for individual nonpoint sources to generate
pollutant reduction credits for any pollutant reduction above existing
practices, provided there is a reasonable assurance that the overall
load allocation will, over time, be met. Stated differently, nonpoint
sources may not need to apply pollution controls to meet a baseline
derived from a load allocation before pollutant reduction credits could
be generated. This option is intended to encourage stakeholders to make
progress towards meeting water quality standards while allowing credits
to be generated without unnecessary delay.
    This approach assumes that: (1) The TMDL, its implementation plan
or other documentation describes plans to achieve the TMDL's load
allocation, and (2) the reductions that a nonpoint source makes to
generate credits are in addition to reductions described in such plans
to achieve the load allocation. If the state, territory, or tribe
desires increased certainty that the overall load allocation will be
met under this approach, it might provide a greater level of detail in
its implementation plan to ensure a greater commitment to achieving the
load allocation. Policy makers and permitting authorities may conclude
that modifying a TMDL implementation plan may be necessary to provide
additional flexibility to prioritize specific areas of the watershed
for reductions; to describe a specifically-identified pollutant
reduction project (such as the Dixie Drain Phosphorus Removal Facility
in Idaho); \3\ or to

implement other watershed-wide plans for meeting the TMDL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For additional information on the Dixie Drain Phosphorus
Removal Facility see https://www.livboise.org/initiatives/dixie-drain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In most cases, the EPA assumes that point source-nonpoint source
water quality trading would represent a relatively small portion of the
total loadings under a TMDL. The EPA solicits comment on the potential
environmental and policy impacts--positive or negative--of the proposed
change to the nonpoint source baseline definition at large volumes and
over larger geographic areas. The EPA solicits comment on the proposed
language and the assumptions articulated above, and on whether
pollutant reductions used to generate credits could also be used to
achieve a TMDL load allocation.

C. Incremental Baseline

    As described above, the EPA is requesting comments on additional
recommendations to provide additional flexibility for permitting
authorities whereby nonpoint sources may not need to apply pollution
controls to meet a baseline derived from a TMDL load allocation before
pollutant reduction credits could be generated. Alternatively,
permitting authorities might consider an incremental approach. An
incremental baseline approach divides nonpoint source reductions into
(1) immediately available tradeable credits, and (2) reductions
assigned towards meeting the load allocation. The state, territory, or
tribe would identify the appropriate ratio between the two types of
reductions.
    This ratio could be directly aligned with the reductions
anticipated in the TMDL load allocation, or it could be based on an
alternate policy goal. The concept could be analogous to a mortgage
payment divided between principal and interest. Some of the pollutant
reductions would be applied to meeting the load allocation and some of
the pollutant reductions would be applied to generate credits.
    Variations on an incremental approach could address alternate
policy goals by establishing a variable percentage on bases such as:
     Creating incentives for nonpoint source reductions in
certain areas of a watershed;
     A nonpoint source's existing BMPs; or
     A community's ability to pay.
    Under these variations, some nonpoint sources might generate more
credits than others based on factors such as geography, existing BMPs,
or availability of trading partners.
    As in all trading scenarios, a point source would need to make
sufficient reductions to meet its WQBEL. This can be through onsite
controls (a non-trading approach), through the purchase of credits
(water quality trading), or through a combination of the two
approaches. If there are insufficient credits immediately available,
this approach might, where appropriate, be coupled with a compliance
schedule as described below. The EPA solicits comment on the
incremental baseline approach described in this document and if it
could be a useful tool for policy makers and permitting authorities to
implement market-based programs, including water quality trading.

D. Compliance Schedules

    Where the appropriate criteria under 40 CFR 122.47 are met, a
permitting authority has the discretion to include a schedule of
compliance with a WQBEL in an NPDES permit. Under this policy option, a
permitting authority might consider including a compliance schedule in
the permit to account for the time it would take for a nonpoint source
partner to generate sufficient pollutant reduction credits or offsets
to achieve compliance with the NPDES permit WQBEL. For example, an
NPDES permit might provide a schedule for a point source permittee to
arrange for a nonpoint source to install BMPs necessary to generate
pollutant reduction credits sufficient to offset reductions required by
WQBEL. A compliance schedule would need to specify the achievement of
these reductions ``as soon as possible'' (see 40 CFR 122.47(a)(1)).
While the types of activities/BMPs leading to nonpoint source pollutant
reductions during the compliance schedule might differ in a trading
scenario from those undertaken by a point source in a non-trading
scenario, the regulatory requirements for a permittee to qualify for
and the authority to establish a compliance schedule would remain the
same under either scenario.
    The EPA solicits comment on whether the use of compliance schedules
could be a useful tool for policy makers and permitting authorities to
implement market-based programs, including water quality trading.

E. Water Quality Standard (WQS) Variances

    A WQS variance is a time-limited designated use and criterion for a
specific pollutant(s) that reflects the highest attainable condition of
a waterbody during the term of the WQS variance. A WQS variance is a
WQS that is subject to review and approval by the EPA under section
303(c) of the CWA. States and tribes might consider whether in
appropriate cases, a WQS variance might be used to support a market-
based program, including water quality trading.
    A WQS variance might be appropriate in those circumstances where it
is not clearly known how or if a point source can buy enough pollutant
reduction credits from nonpoint sources to meet its WQBEL. In that
circumstance, a WQS variance might be designed to ensure that at the
end of the WQS variance, enough pollutant reduction credits would be
generated by nonpoint sources to meet the point source's WQBEL, based
on the terms of the WQS variance.
    For example, a state, territory, or authorized tribe might identify
in the WQS variance a quantifiable interim effluent condition that
reflects the greatest pollutant reduction achievable (40 CFR
131.14(b)(1)(ii)(A)(2)) by a combination of point source control and
funding of nonpoint source reductions. The state, territory, or
authorized tribe might collect funds from the point source(s) to pay
for nonpoint source reductions needed to achieve the highest attainable
condition in the WQS variance. Alternatively, the point source might
enter into binding agreements with nonpoint sources directly. In this
situation, the reductions made to achieve the highest attainable
condition could first be credited to the point source, and then applied
to the nonpoint source load allocation.
    As another example, the point source might be able to identify and
fund implementation of nonpoint source reductions as part of the
adopted and legally binding pollutant minimization program (PMP) that
would be a required part of the highest attainable condition under 40
CFR 131.14(b)(1)(ii)(A)(3) (where no additional feasible pollutant
control technology can be identified). In this case, the point source
maintains an existing level of treatment, and the activities necessary
to achieve nonpoint source reductions would be part of the adopted PMP.
At the WQS variance reevaluation period (which is required at least
every five years for any WQS variance longer than five years), the
state, territory, or authorized tribe would determine if there are
additional nonpoint source reduction activities to incorporate into the
permit.
    The EPA solicits comment on whether the use of WQS variances in
this context could be a useful tool for policy makers and permitting
authorities to implement market-based programs, including water quality
trading.

F. Alternative Approaches to Disaggregation

    Generally, TMDL load allocations are identified very broadly,
covering entire sectors, or even having a single load allocation for
all nonpoint sources in the watershed. The EPA recommends that states,
tribes, and territories consider whether it is appropriate to apply
these broad load allocations uniformly across the watershed or,
instead, apply it differentially to nonpoint sources on a geographic
basis or some other basis within the watershed to maximize water
quality improvements. Examples of options that policy makers and
permitting authorities may consider include:
     Reductions of nonpoint source pollution at certain
locations within the watershed will result in reductions sufficient to
meet the TMDL load allocation (e.g., at the headwaters of streams or
along the shoreline of the impaired waterbody). Under this scenario,
because the entire load allocation would be met by reductions in a
certain segment of the watershed, nonpoint sources in other areas of
the watershed could be free to generate credits immediately because
reductions from those sources are not needed to meet the load
allocation.
     A group of nonpoint source pollutant reduction practices
will meet the load allocation and any pollutant reduction activities
beyond those practices are eligible to generate credits. This option
addresses equity concerns that might prevent early actors from making
early reductions.
     Specific nonpoint source sectors (e.g. agriculture,
silviculture, rangeland) may need different levels of reductions to
meet the overall load allocation.
     A treatment facility installed on a polluted waterway
segment (as was done in Idaho on the Dixie Drain) may make sufficient
reductions through wastewater treatment to achieve the load allocation.
    The EPA recommends that any alternate approaches that states decide
to adopt should be clear, transparent, and demonstrate that the overall
planned reductions in the watershed are sufficient to meet the overall
TMDL allocations for the watershed. The EPA solicits comment on whether
these are viable and appropriate options and whether additional or
alternate approaches may also be appropriate.

G. In-Lieu Fee Program

    An in-lieu fee program might allow NPDES permitted facilities to
meet their WQBELs by paying into a state, territorial, or tribal fund
specifically allocated for nonpoint source pollutant loading
reductions. The state, territory, or tribe might use this funding,
possibly combined with other state, territorial, tribal, or federal
funds, to implement nonpoint source BMPs in the relevant geographic
area. In-lieu fee programs might be based on a payment of a uniform
fee, or payment of varying fees (established in increasing tiers) to:
     Incentivize onsite as well as offsite reductions;
     Provide equity for early actors;
     Address affordability;
     Address geographic disparities; or
     Address any relevant environmental justice concerns.
    The in-lieu fee could be set at a level slightly higher than
necessary for the state, territory, or tribe to fund the BMPs needed to
generate the required credits to cover the administrative costs of
running the program, insure against risk, and enhance overall
environmental benefit.
    To ensure water quality protection and progress towards meeting
TMDL goals, the state, territory, or tribe could use these funds to pay
nonpoint sources to implement pollutant reductions or to support other
activities that would reduce overall nutrient loading in the TMDL
watershed. A reverse auction model could maximize reductions per
dollar. In a reverse auction, the buyer (the state, territory, or
tribe) could offer a price it would pay for a specified pollutant
reduction, and whomever is willing to produce that reduction (the
credit) accepts the offer. If the offer is not sufficient to cover
credit generation costs, generally no one would make a bid, and the
buyer would offer a higher bid until it has found a willing generator
of a sufficient amount of credits. This approach could keep costs down
and offer flexibility if the true cost of credit generation rises.
    The EPA solicits comment on the concept of an in-lieu fee program
and whether it could be a useful tool for policy makers and permitting
authorities to implement market-based programs, including water quality
trading. The EPA also solicits comment on examples of existing in-lieu
fee programs that are used to achieve environmental improvements and if
there are specific programmatic components that may enhance water
quality improvements.

IV. Request for Comment

    The EPA is considering modifying or clarifying existing EPA policy
and guidance on water quality trading to remove unnecessary barriers
and better support market-based mechanisms, including water quality
trading, consistent with the 2019 Memorandum. The EPA is requesting
comment from states, tribes, stakeholders and other members of the
public on all aspects of this document. In particular, the Agency is
requesting comment on:
     The proposed approaches described in Section III of this
document, including preferences between the approaches and the
recommended mechanisms to implement those approaches;
     Other policy ideas or enhancements that could help promote
or facilitate market-based programs to improve water quality; and
     Other aspects of the 2003 Policy and the 2019 Memorandum
(including potential conflicting or ambiguous policy advice) that may
benefit from additional policy or clarification from the EPA.

    Dated: September 4, 2019.
David P. Ross,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Water.
[FR Doc. 2019-20324 Filed 9-18-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 104 (Thursday, May 30, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32345-32347]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12515]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 104 / Thursday, May 30, 2013 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-1000; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-065-AD;
Amendment 39-17460; AD 2013-10-07]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-605R, and B4-622R
airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report that the door frame shells
of passenger doors 2 and 4 may not have sufficient structural strength
to enable the airplane to operate safely. This AD requires reinforcing
the door frame shells of passenger doors 2 and 4 on both sides of the
fuselage. We are issuing this AD to prevent structural failure of the
door frame shells, which could result in in-flight decompression of the
airplane and consequent injury to passengers.

DATES: This AD becomes effective July 5, 2013.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of July 5,
2013.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on September 24, 2012
(77 FR 58785). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for
the specified products. The Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness
Information (MCAI) states:

    As a result of the Extended Service Goal 2 exercise (ESG2) it
was shown that the door frame shells of passenger doors 2 and 4
(both sides of the aeroplane) may not have sufficient structural
strength to enable the aeroplane to operate safety beyond ESG1
(Extended Service Goal 1 equal to 42,500 Flight Cycles--FC or 89,000
Flight Hours--FH) and up to ESG2 (Extended Service Goal 2 equal to
51,000 FC or 89,000 FH) limits.
    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to structural
failure of the affected door shells, possibly resulting in in-flight
decompression of the aeroplane and consequent injury to occupants.
    For the reasons stated above, this [European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA)] AD requires the reinforcement at door frame shells of
passenger doors 2 and 4.

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Comments

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

Request for a Copy of the Service Information

    FedEx requested that copies of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-
6170, dated May 16, 2011, be provided to understand the full intent of
the modification. FedEx stated that copies of Airbus Service Bulletin
A300-53-6170, dated May 16, 2011, are not available to operators
without paying for the modification kit for ESG-2 operations.
    As stated in the NPRM (77 FR 58785, September 24, 2012), copies of
the referenced service information may be reviewed at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. No
change has been made to the AD in this regard. After publication of the
final rule, you may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

Request for Exception for Certain Passenger Doors

    FedEx requested an exception for the passenger door 2 on airplanes
modified from passenger to freighter per supplemental type certificate
(STC) ST01431NY* (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/9F0C4BC1162AA3CE862571B2005F355C?OpenDocument&Highlight=st01431ny).
FedEx stated that the passenger door 2 has been removed from the
modified airplanes to install the upper deck cargo door in these
positions. FedEx noted that applicability to the remaining door 4 would
remain in effect.
    We disagree with the commenter's request. Operators should work
with the STC holder to evaluate and determine what actions might be
necessary to address the unsafe condition if it exists. Operators may
request approval of an alternative method of compliance to address this
evaluation. No change has been made to the AD in this regard.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data, including the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. We have
determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (77 FR 58785, September 24, 2012) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 58785, September 24, 2012).

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 124 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 400 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $10,000

per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs
that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no
charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for
affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated
here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the
U.S. operators to be $5,456,000, or $44,000 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM (77 FR 58785, September 24,
2012), the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for the Docket Operations office
(telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2013-10-07 Airbus: Amendment 39-17460. Docket No. FAA-2012-1000;
Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-065-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective July 5,
2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-
605R, and B4-622R airplanes; certificated in any category; all
serial numbers.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report that the door frame shells of
passenger doors 2 and 4 may not have sufficient structural strength
to enable the airplane to operate safely. We are issuing this AD to
prevent structural failure of the door frame shells, which could
result in in-flight decompression of the airplane and consequent
injury to passengers.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Reinforcement

    Before the accumulation of 42,500 total flight cycles or within
2,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs later: Do the actions specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2)
of this AD, as applicable.
    (1) For Model A300 B4-622R airplanes: Reinforce the door frame
shells of passenger doors 2 and 4 on both sides of the fuselage, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-53-6170, dated May 16, 2011.
    (2) For Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-605R
airplanes: Reinforce the door frame shells of passenger doors 2 and
4 on both sides of the fuselage, using a method approved by either
the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) (or
its delegated agent).

(h) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Dan Rodina,
Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information may be
emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office. The
AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(i) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2012-0044, dated
March 23, 2012; and Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6170, dated May
16, 2011; for related information.

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6170, dated May 16, 2011.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness

Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex,
France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com.
    (4) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 16, 2013.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-12515 Filed 5-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P