[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 249 (Wednesday, December 29, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 81854-81856]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32802]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2010-1108]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; New Year's Celebration for the City of San
Francisco, Fireworks Display, San Francisco, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in
support of the New Year's Eve Celebration for the City of San Francisco
Fireworks Display. The temporary safety zone will extend 100 feet from
the nearest point of the barge during the loading, transit, and arrival
of the pyrotechnics, and will extend 1,000 feet from the nearest point
of the barge during the fireworks display. This safety zone is
established to ensure the safety of participants and spectators from
the dangers associated with the pyrotechnics. Unauthorized persons or
vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or
remaining in the safety zone without permission of the Captain of the
Port or her designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 11 a.m. on December 31, 2010 until
12:30 a.m. on January 1, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2010-1108 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2010-1108 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call Lieutenant Junior Grade Allison Natcher at 415-
399-7442, or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions
on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule, as it would be impracticable to do so
because the event would occur before the rulemaking process would be
completed. Because of the dangers posed by the pyrotechnics used in
these fireworks displays, the safety zones are necessary to provide for
the safety of event participants, spectators, spectator craft, and
other vessels transiting the event area. For the safety concerns noted,
it is in the public interest to have these regulations in effect during
the event.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Any delay in the effective date of
this rule would expose mariners to the dangers posed by the
pyrotechnics used in the fireworks display.

Background and Purpose

    The City of San Francisco will sponsor the New Year's Eve
Celebration for the City of San Francisco Fireworks Display from 11:45
p.m. on December 31, 2010 until 12:30 a.m. on January 1, 2011, on the
navigable waters of San Francisco Bay located 1,000 feet from the San
Francisco Ferry Building in San Francisco, CA. The fireworks display is
for entertainment purposes. From 11 a.m. until 11 p.m. on December 31,
2010, pyrotechnics will be loaded onto a barge at Pier 50 near position
37[deg]46'29.5'' N, 122[deg]22'57.4'' W. From 11 p.m. until 11:20 p.m.
the loaded barge will be transiting from Pier 50 to the launch site
located at position 37[deg]47'42.60'' N, 122[deg]23'19.10'' W. The
Coast Guard has granted the event sponsor a marine event permit for the
fireworks displays. We believe that a safety zone is necessary to
protect spectators, vessels, and other property from the hazards
associated with pyrotechnics on the fireworks barges.

Discussion of Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone to keep spectators
and vessels a safe distance away from the fireworks barges to ensure
the safety of participants, spectators, and transiting vessels during
the fireworks display.

The temporary safety zone will extend 100 feet from the nearest point
of the barge during the loading, transit, and arrival of the
pyrotechnics from Pier 50 to position 37[deg]47'42.60'' N,
122[deg]23'19.10'' W. The fireworks display will occur from 11:45 p.m.
on December 31, 2010 until 12:30 a.m. on January 1, 2011, during which
the safety zone will extend 1,000 feet from the nearest point of the
barge at position 37[deg]47'42.60'' N, 122[deg]23'19.10'' W. At 12:30
a.m. on January 1, 2011 the safety zone will terminate.
    The effect of the temporary safety zones will be to restrict
navigation in the vicinity of the fireworks sites while the fireworks
are set up, and until the conclusion of the scheduled displays. Except
for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander,
no person or vessel may enter or remain in the restricted area.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    Although this rule restricts access to the waters encompassed by
the safety zones, the effect of this rule will not be significant. The
entities most likely to be affected are pleasure craft engaged in
recreational activities. In addition, the rule will only restrict
access for a limited time. Finally, the Public Broadcast Notice to
Mariners will notify the users of local waterway to ensure that the
safety zone will result in minimum impact.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, 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 Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    Although this rule may affect owners and operators of pleasure
craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing, it will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities for several reasons: (i) This rule will encompass only a small
portion of the waterway for a limited period of time; (ii) vessel
traffic can pass safely around the area; (iii) vessels engaged in
recreational activities and sightseeing have ample space outside of the
affected areas of San Francisco, CA to engage in these activities; and
(iv) the maritime public will be advised in advance of this safety zone
via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have Tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
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.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not

require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 0023.1 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually
or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph
(34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule involves establishing,
disestablishing, or changing Regulated Navigation Areas and security or
safety zones. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical
exclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5;
Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add temporary Sec.  165.T11-385 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T11-385  Safety Zone; New Year's Celebration for the City of
San Francisco Fireworks Display, San Francisco, CA.

    (a) Location.
    (1) During the loading of the fireworks, on December 31, 2010 at 11
a.m. at Pier 50 in San Francisco, CA, and until the start of the
fireworks displays at 11:45 p.m. on December 31, 2010 the temporary
safety zone will extend 100 feet from the loaded pyrotechnics barge
beginning near position 37[deg]46'29.5'' N, 122[deg]22'57.4'' W, during
transit and arrival to position 37[deg]47'42.60'' N, 122[deg]23'19.10''
W.
    (2) From 11:45 p.m. on December 31, 2010 until 12:30 a.m. on
January 1, 2011, the temporary safety zone will increase in size to
1,000 feet at position 37[deg]47'42.60'' N, 122[deg]23'19.10'' W. At
12:30 a.m. on January 1, 2011, this safety zone will terminate.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, ``designated
representative'' means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a
Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast
Guard vessel and a Federal, State, and local officer designated by or
assisting the Captain of the Port San Francisco (COTP) in the
enforcement of the safety zone.
    (c) Regulations.
    (1) Under the general regulations in Sec.  165.23, entry into,
transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless
authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
    (2) The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the COTP or a designated representative.
    (3) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone must contact the COTP or a designated representative to obtain
permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter or
operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to
them by the COTP or the designated representative. Persons and vessels
may request permission to enter the safety zones on VHF-16 or through
the 24-hour Command Center at telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 11 a.m.
on December 31, 2010 until 12:30 a.m. on January 1, 2011.

    Dated: December 16, 2010.
C.L. Stowe,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2010-32802 Filed 12-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 73 (Wednesday, April 16, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21421-21424]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08638]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0366; FRL-9909-48-Region 5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Indiana; Particulate Matter Limitations for Coating Operations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revision to the Indiana State Implementation Plan (SIP) under
the Clean Air Act (CAA). The particulate matter (PM) rules that were
submitted consist of emission control requirements for coating
operations along with exemptions from certain coating operations that
produce minimal PM emissions. EPA is also proposing to take no action
on one section submitted by

Indiana, as it pertains to a definition in an unapproved portion of
Indiana's Title V regulations. Indiana submitted this request to
approve PM rules on April 27, 2012.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 16, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2012-0366, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2012-0366. 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 information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means 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 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, 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 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. For additional
instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.
We recommend that you telephone Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer, at
(312) 886-6524 before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer,
Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section is arranged as follows:

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
II. What is the background for this action?
III. What is EPA's analysis?
IV. What action is EPA proposing to take?
V. Statutory and executive order reviews

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    When submitting comments, remember to:
    1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    2. Follow directions--EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

II. What is the background for this action?

    On April 27, 2012, Indiana submitted a request to revise its SIP
under the CAA to incorporate the revised rules. Specifically, Indiana
requested that EPA approve the following sections as part of the SIP:
326 Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) 6-3-1, 326 IAC 6.5-1-1, 326 IAC
6.5-1-2, 326 IAC 6.5-1-5, 326 IAC 6.5-1-6, 326 IAC 6.8-1-1, 326 IAC
6.8-1-2, 326 IAC 6.8-1-5, and 326 IAC 6.8-1-6. These provisions would
replace requirements that EPA has previously been approved into the
Indiana SIP. EPA approved 326 IAC 6-3 on July 25, 2005 (70 FR 42495).
EPA approved the addition of 326 IAC 6.5 and 326 IAC 6.8 into the
Indiana SIP on March 22, 2006 (71 FR 14383). EPA approved subsequent
revisions of sections of 326 IAC 6.5 and 326 IAC 6.8 into the Indiana
SIP on April 30, 2008 (73 FR 23356).
    Article 6 of 326 IAC contains Indiana's PM rules. Article 6.5 of
326 IAC contains statewide PM emission limitations except for Lake
County and Article 6.8 of 326 IAC provides the PM emission limits for
Lake County sources.
    The language Indiana added in 326 IAC 6.5-1-2(h) and 326 IAC 6.8-1-
2(h) is very similar to the language in 326 IAC 6-3-2(d). As noted, EPA
approved 326 IAC 6-3 including 326 IAC 6-3-2(d) on July 25, 2005 (70 FR
42495).

III. What is EPA's analysis?

    Indiana made the same revisions to the rules of 326 IAC 6.5-1 and
326 IAC 6.8-1. Thus, EPA analyzed the revisions to the same rules and
sections of 326 IAC 6.5-1 and 326 IAC 6.8-1 together and concluded that
the changes were acceptable in both regulations.

A. Applicability: 326 IAC 6-3-1; 326 IAC 6.5-1-1; 326 IAC 6.8-1-1

    In 326 IAC 6-3-1, Indiana revised two sections. Indiana submitted a
revision to 326 IAC 6-3-1(b)(13) to reference the definition of trivial
activities as found in

326 IAC 2-7-1, part of Indiana's Title V rules. The definition of
``trivial activities'' is not currently in either Indiana's Title V
permitting program or SIP. For that reason, EPA is proposing to take no
action at this time on the revision of 326 IAC 6-3-1(b)(13). It should
be noted that the term ``trivial activities'' is not contained in any
of the regulations that EPA is approving in this action.
    Indiana moved a phrase in 326 IAC 6-3-1(c) to improve clarity.
There is no material change from what is approved into the Indiana SIP
and thus EPA is proposing approval of the 326 IAC 6-3-1(c) revision.
    Indiana revised both 326 IAC 6.5-1-1 and 326 IAC 6.8-1-1 by adding
a new subsection (c) that exempts certain surface coating operations
from PM emission limits. The exempt processes are dip coating, roll
coating, flow coating, and brush coating. The primary emissions of
concern from surface coating are the volatile organic compound
emissions that arise from solvent evaporation. PM emissions from
coatings primarily are from overspray, the fine coating droplets that
are not applied as desired. Overspray, the portion of coating solids
that does not land on the item and is exhausted as PM emissions, is
common on spray coating operations but is not an issue with the four
exempt coating methods: Dip coating, roll coating, flow coating, and
brush coating. EPA expects minimal PM emission will occur from the
exempted coating methods and thus is proposing to approve the
exemptions.
    Indiana also included in 326 IAC 6.5-1-1(c) and 326 IAC 6.8-1-1(c)
an exemption from the PM limits for facilities that use less than five
gallons of coating per day. EPA is satisfied that facilities that use
less than five gallons of coating daily will have de minimis PM
emissions because of the limited potential for overspray. Thus, EPA is
proposing to approve the exemptions from PM limits in these cases.
    The remaining changes to 326 IAC 6.5-1-1 and 326 IAC 6.8-1-1 are
simply updates to the section references from the version approved into
the Indiana SIP. For example, 326 IAC 6.5-1-1(c) became 326 IAC 6.5-1-
1(d) and 326 IAC 6.8-1-1(c) became 326 IAC 6.8-1-1(d) following the
addition of a new section (c) in both articles.

B. Particulate Emission Limitations, Modifications by Commissioner: 326
IAC 6.5-1-2; 326 IAC 6.8-1-2

    Indiana also revised both 326 IAC 6.5-1-2 and 326 IAC 6.8-1-2.
Indiana made revisions by rewording and moving phrases to 326 IAC 6.5-
1-2(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e). Identical revisions were made to 326
IAC 6.8-1-2(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e). The changes to the revised
sections are insubstantial when compared to the approved sections.
    Indiana added requirements for PM emission controls on surface
coating operations in 326 IAC 6.5-1-2(h) and 326 IAC 6.8-1-2(h).
Sources are required to operate a dry particulate filter, a water wash,
or an equivalent PM control device. If overspray occurs, 326 IAC 6.5-1-
2(h)(2) and 326 IAC 6.8-1-2(h)(2) require the source to inspect and
repair the control device or adjust operations to eliminate the
overspray within four hours. The source must keep a record of its
action to remedy the overspray. Select sources are allowed under 326
IAC 6.5-1-2(h)(3) and 326 IAC 6.8-1-2(h)(3) to follow the control
device inspection and repair requirements in its permit if overspray is
detected in place of the general control device inspection and repair
requirements in 326 IAC 6.5-1-2(h)(2) and 326 IAC 6.8-1-2(h)(2). As
usual, the most stringent requirement applies and thus the permit
requirements must be at least as stringent as the requirements in 326
IAC 6.5-1-2(h)(2) and 326 IAC 6.8-1-2(h)(2). EPA finds that the
addition of the PM emission control requirement for coating operations
to be satisfactory and thus is proposing approval. The requirements of
these sections will require any sources lacking the requirement to take
corrective action once overspray is detected. Overspray is sign that
the control equipment is not properly operating.
    Indiana further added, at 326 IAC 6.5-1-2(h)(4) and 326 IAC 6.8-1-
2(h)(4), a provision that if a facility increases its use of coatings
to exceed five gallons per day, it is no longer exempt from the
regulation; and Indiana must require appropriate PM emissions controls,
even if the source subsequently reduces its coating use back to using
less than five gallons of coating per day. Indiana's Federally approved
permitting rules require each source to keep records for ensuring
compliance with applicable emission limits. Therefore, each source will
be required in its permits (title V or Federally enforceable state
operating permit) to maintain records of its coating usage to establish
applicability according to the criteria in 326 IAC 6.5-1-2(h)(4) or 326
IAC 6.8-1-2(h)(4).
    Indiana renamed 326 IAC 6.5-1-2(h) to 326 IAC 6.5-1-2(i) and 326
IAC 6.5-1-2(i) to 326 IAC 6.5-1-2(j) following the addition of the new
326 IAC 6.5-1-2(h). Identical section renaming was also made in 326 IAC
6.8-1-2. EPA is proposing to approve the addition of 326 IAC 6.5-1-2(h)
and 326 IAC 6.8-1-2(h) along with the revision to the other sections of
326 IAC 6.5-1-2 and 326 IAC 6.8-1-2 into the Indiana SIP.

C. Control Strategies and SIP Revisions: 326 IAC 6.5-1-5; 326 IAC 6.5-
1-6; 326 IAC 6.8-1-5; 326 IAC 6.8-1-6

    References to other rule sections in 326 IAC 6.5-1-5, 326 IAC 6.5-
1-6, 326 IAC 6.8-1-5, and 326 IAC 6.8-1-6 were updated to reflect the
revised section and subsection numbering in the referenced rules. The
revisions improve the clarity of the rules with clear language and
current references without changing the PM limits or any requirements
that have previously been approved. 326 IAC 6.5-1-6 and 326 IAC 6.8-1-6
specifically require that any exemptions or provisions granted by the
state in sections 2(a), 2(g), 2(i), 2(j), 4, and 5 of the rule shall be
submitted to EPA as revisions to the SIP. Thus, EPA is proposing to
approve the modifications to 326 IAC 6.5-1-5, 326 IAC 6.5-1-6, 326 IAC
6.8-1-5, and 326 IAC 6.8-1-6 into the Indiana SIP.

IV. What action is EPA proposing to take?

    EPA is proposing to approve into the Indiana SIP revisions to PM
rules submitted by Indiana on April 27, 2012. These revisions add PM
control requirements for coating operations. The other primary
revisions provide PM limit exemptions for coating operations that
produce minimal PM emissions. The remaining modifications are clerical
revisions that increase the lucidity of the rules without altering the
PM limits.
    Specifically, EPA is proposing approval of 326 IAC 6-3-1(c), 326
IAC 6.5-1-1, 326 IAC 6.5-1-2, 326 IAC 6.5-1-5, 326 IAC 6.5-1-6, 326 IAC
6.8-1-1, 326 IAC 6.8-1-2, 326 IAC 6.8-1-5, and 326 IAC 6.8-1-6. EPA is
proposing to take no action on 326 IAC 6-3-1(b).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under

Executive 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: April 3, 2014.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2014-08638 Filed 4-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: November 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 210)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 67029-67031]
[DOCID:fr01no10-1]

========================================================================
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.

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security

15 CFR Part 748

[Docket No. 101006492-0494-02 ]
RIN 0694-AF02

Amendment to Existing Validated End-User Authorization in the
People's Republic of China: Semiconductor Manufacturing International
Corporation

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this action, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS)
amends the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to remove one
facility from the list of Semiconductor Manufacturing International
Corporation (SMIC) facilities that are authorized to receive certain
items in the People's Republic of China (PRC) under SMIC's validated
end-user (VEU) authorization. Specifically, BIS removes Cension
Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation (Cension) from SMIC's list of
approved VEU facilities in the PRC due to a material change at SMIC.
This amendment is not the result of prohibited activities by Cension or
by SMIC, nor does it establish any new license requirements or more
restrictive licensing policies for exports, reexports or transfers (in-
country) of items to the facility identified in this rule; license
requirements set forth in the EAR continue to apply to this facility.

DATES: This rule is effective November 1, 2010. Although there is no
formal comment period, public comments on this regulation are welcome
on a continuing basis.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by RIN 0694-AF02 by any
of the following methods:
    E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include ``RIN 0694-AF02'' in
the subject line of the message.
    Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please alert the Regulatory Policy Division,
by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>, if you are faxing comments.
    Mail or Hand Delivery/Courier: Sheila Quarterman, U.S. Department
of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security, Regulatory Policy
Division, 14th Street & Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 2705,
Washington, DC 20230, Attn: RIN 0694-AF02.
    Send comments regarding the collection of information associated
with this rule, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to
Jasmeet Seehra, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), by e-mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>. Comments
on this collection of information should be submitted separately from
comments on the final rule (i.e., RIN 0694-AF02)--all comments on the
latter should be submitted by one of the three methods outlined above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Nies-Vogel, Chairman, End-User
Review Committee, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street & Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
by telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authorization Validated End-User

    Consistent with U.S. Government policy to facilitate trade for
civilian end-users in the PRC, on June 19, 2007 BIS amended the EAR in
a final rule (72 FR 33646) to create a new authorization to allow
``validated end-users'' (VEUs) located in eligible destinations to
receive certain items through export, reexport or transfer (in-country)
under a general authorization rather than requiring a license. 15 CFR
748.15. Companies listed as VEUs may obtain eligible items that are on
the Commerce Control List, set forth in Supplement No. 1 to part 774 of
the EAR, without having to wait for their suppliers to obtain export
licenses from BIS. Eligible items may include commodities, software and
technology, except for those items that are controlled for missile
technology or crime control reasons.
    Authorization VEU is a mechanism to facilitate increased high-
technology exports to companies in eligible destinations that have a
verifiable record of civilian uses for such items. The validated end-
users listed in Supplement No. 7 to Part 748 of the EAR were reviewed
and approved by the U.S. Government in accordance with the provisions
of Section 748.15 and Supplement Nos. 8 and 9 to Part 748 of the EAR.
In addition to U.S. exporters, Authorization VEU may be used by foreign
reexporters and persons transferring in-country, and does not have an
expiration date. Currently, VEUs are located in the PRC and India.

Removal of Cension Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation (Cension)
From the List of Validated End-User Semiconductor Manufacturing
International Corporation's (SMIC's) Approved Facilities in the PRC

    In a rule published in the Federal Register on October 19, 2007 (72
FR 59231), BIS designated SMIC as a VEU, thus authorizing certain
specific exports, reexports and transfers (in-country) to the five
listed facilities of the company, including Cension. Due to a material
change at the Cension facility of SMIC, and consistent with section
748.15 of the EAR, BIS now amends Supplement No. 7 to Part 748 of the
EAR to remove the Cension facility from that list of SMIC's approved
VEU facilities. This change leaves four SMIC facilities that are
approved to receive eligible items under SMIC's VEU authorization.
Cension's address (i.e., 3/F, 8-1 Kexin Road, Export Processing Zone
(West Area), Chengdu, China 611731) will also be removed from the list
of SMIC's authorized VEU facilities. As a result of this rule, the
Cension facility will no longer be authorized to receive items through
Authorization VEU. Thus, parties seeking to export, reexport or
transfer (in-country) items under the EAR to the Cension facility may
now have to obtain a license to do so, depending on the item at issue.
    This amendment is not the result of prohibited activities by
Cension or SMIC. SMIC remains a qualified participant in the VEU
program and exports, reexports and transfers (in-country) of the items
controlled under the export control classification numbers listed in
SMIC's entry in Supplement No. 7 to Part 748 of the

EAR to the SMIC facilities listed in the same part may continue to be
made under Authorization VEU. Nor does this action establish any new
license requirements, or more restrictive licensing policies, for
exports, reexports or transfers (in-country) of items to the Cension
facility. Rather, the license requirements set forth in the EAR
continue to apply to this facility.
    Note that this amendment applies only to transactions under
Authorization VEU involving SMIC's Cension facility. All conditions and
restrictions that applied to transactions that were undertaken pursuant
to Authorization VEU prior to the effective date of this amendment, and
that involve the Cension facility, continue to apply to those
transactions. These restrictions and conditions include any that were
imposed on this facility in connection with its eligibility for
Authorization VEU, as established by BIS in its communications
authorizing the Cension facility's participation in the VEU program.

Saving Clause

    Shipments of items removed from eligibility for export, reexport or
transfer (in-country) under Authorization VEU (i.e., under the
designator VEU) as a result of this regulatory action that were on dock
for loading, on lighter, laden aboard an exporting carrier, or en route
aboard a carrier to a port of export, on November 1, 2010, pursuant to
actual orders for export, reexport or transfer (in-country) to an
eligible destination, may proceed to that destination under the
previously applicable Authorization so long as they are exported,
reexported or transferred (in-country) before November 16, 2010. Any
such items not actually exported, reexported or transferred (in-
country) before midnight, on November 16, 2010, require an individual
license or other applicable authorization under the EAR.
    Since August 21, 2001, the Export Administration Act has been in
lapse and the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17,
2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002)), as extended most recently by
the Notice of August 12, 2010 (75 FR 50681) (August 16, 2010), has
continued the EAR in effect under the International Emergency Economic
Powers Act. BIS continues to carry out the provisions of the Act, as
appropriate and to the extent permitted by law, pursuant to Executive
Order 13222.

Rulemaking Requirements

    1. This final rule has been determined to be not significant for
the purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    2. This rule involves information collections previously approved
by OMB under control number 0694-0088, ``Multi-Purpose Application''
(Form BIS 748). This collection has a burden hour estimate of 58
minutes for the preparation and submission of the form, and an
estimated burden of 30 minutes per submission for recordkeeping,
reporting and review requirements in connection with the Authorization
VEU program. Although this rule may result in a slight increase in
license applications, this rule is not expected to impact the
information collection request previously approved by OMB under control
number 0694-0088.
    Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person is required
to respond to nor be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a
collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA), unless that
collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control
Number.
    3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications
as that term is defined under Executive Order 13132.
    4. There is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive the
provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requiring prior
notice and the opportunity for public comment because, specific to this
rule, they are unnecessary, impracticable and contrary to the public
interest.
    In determining whether to grant or revoke validated end-user
designations, a committee of U.S. Government agencies evaluates a
variety of information, the nature and terms of which are set forth in
15 CFR part 748, Supplement No. 8. The criteria for evaluation by the
committee are set forth in 15 CFR 748.15(a)(2). The information,
commitments and criteria for this extensive review were all established
through the notice of proposed rulemaking and public comment process
(71 FR 38313, July 2, 2006 and 72 FR 33646, June 19, 2007). Thus,
authorization of a VEU is similar to granting a license: To receive
Authorization VEU, an application must be submitted on behalf of an
entity; the entity must be found to meet certain previously identified
criteria; and the application must be approved. Because the
authorization granted by BIS pursuant to 15 CFR Sec.  748.15 is similar
to that granted to exporters for individual licenses, which do not
undergo public review when they are approved, denied, revoked, or
amended, allowing public review and comments to this rule is
unnecessary.
    The procedure for revocation of a facility from the Authorized VEU
list is similar to the license revocation procedure, and because this
rule involves revocation, public comment on it is unnecessary. During
the revocation procedure, the U.S. Government analyzes confidential
business information according to set criteria to determine whether a
given authorized VEU entity remains eligible for VEU status. Revocation
may, as in this case, be the result of a material change in
circumstance at the authorized facility. Examples of such a material
change include changes in the operational status of a VEU facility or
changes in the end-use of the products produced at the facility. Such
changes may result in a VEU or a VEU facility no longer meeting the
eligibility criteria for Authorization VEU, and thus may lead the U.S.
Government to modify or revoke VEU authorization. Facilities that
undergo material changes that result in their no longer meeting the
criteria to be eligible VEUs must, according to the VEU program, have
their VEU status revoked. Here, the Cension facility is no longer
eligible to be an Authorized VEU, and so, by the terms of the EAR and
the VEU program, the facility's VEU status must be revoked; thus public
comments on whether to revoke this status are unnecessary.
    Additionally, allowing for prior public notice and comment on this
rule may be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The EAR
advance U.S. national security, foreign policy, and economic objectives
by ensuring an effective export control system. In accordance with the
pre-set criteria, the U.S. Government reviews each VEU and its
facilities to ensure that exports, reexports and transfers (in-country)
of specified items to these entities are consistent with such
objectives. Accordingly, VEUs and their facilities may receive through
export, reexport or transfer (in-country) items that would otherwise
require a license and transaction-specific review, in part due to
national security concerns. However, the listed facility here is no
longer eligible to be an Authorized VEU facility, and in order to
protect national security, the restrictions of the EAR must be in place
as soon as possible. Allowing public comments to this rule would hinder
the ability of BIS to enforce the EAR's restrictions on exports without
a license to the listed facility, and therefore public comment on this
rule is both impracticable, because allowing such comment would prevent
BIS from undertaking its

statutory duties, and contrary to the public's national security
interests.
    In addition, BIS finds good cause to waive the requirement of 5
U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to delay the effectiveness of this regulation, because
such a delay is contrary to the public's interest. When the U.S.
Government has been notified of or has identified a material change in
circumstances that warrants revocation or modification of VEU status
for an end-user or a facility of an end-user, there is a need to
quickly alert the public that the facility is no longer authorized as a
recipient of items under Authorization VEU. Delaying this action's
effectiveness could result in items that otherwise require licenses
being exported, reexported or transferred (in-country), license-free,
to an ineligible facility. Accordingly, it would be contrary to the
public interest to delay this rule's effectiveness.
    No other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an
opportunity for public comment be given for this final rule. Because a
notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are
not required to be given for this rule under the Administrative
Procedure Act or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) are not applicable
and no regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared.

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 748

    Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

0
Accordingly, part 748 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR
parts 730-774) is amended as follows:

PART 748--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 748 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.;
E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66
FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 12, 2010 (75
FR 50681) (August 16, 2010).

0
2. Supplement No. 7 to part 748 is amended by removing ``Cension
Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation'' and its address ``(3/F, 8-1
Kexin Road, Export Processing Zone (West Area), Chengdu, China
611731)'' from the list of ``Eligible Destinations'' for ``Validated
End-User'' ``Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation'' in
``China (People's Republic of)''.

    Dated: October 26, 2010.
Kevin J. Wolf,
Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-27517 Filed 10-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-33-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 185 (Friday, September 23, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59011-59013]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24202]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0569; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-240-AD;
Amendment 39-16811; AD 2011-20-02]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model
BAe 146 and Avro 146-RJ Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    BAE Systems have received reports of in-service failure of the
Main Landing Gear (MLG) shock absorber lower attachment pin.
* * * * *
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to a
MLG collapse on the ground or during landing and consequently damage
to the aeroplane or injury to the occupants.

We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective October 28, 2011.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of October 28,
2011.

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: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1175; 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 June 22, 2011 (76 FR
36398). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    BAE Systems have received reports of in-service failure of the
Main Landing Gear (MLG) shock absorber lower attachment pin.
    Investigation has shown that the pin failures were due to
corrosion.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to a
MLG collapse on the ground or during landing and consequently damage
to the aeroplane or injury to the occupants.
    For the reasons described above, this AD requires repetitive
[general visual] inspections [for damage (cracking, corrosion, and
exposed material)] of the MLG shock absorber lower attachment pins
and replacement, depending on findings.

The replacement, if damage is found, consists of installing serviceable
pins. 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 received no comments on the NPRM (76 FR 36398, June 22,
2011) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have required different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences
are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect about 1 product of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it will take about 2 work-hours per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate
the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $170 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 2 work-hours and require parts costing $14,000, for a cost
of $14,170 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 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); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    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 (76 FR 36398, June 22, 2011),
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:

2011-20-02 BAE Systems (Operations) Limited: Amendment 39-16811.
Docket No. FAA-2011-0569; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-240-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective October
28, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model
BAe 146-100A, -200A, and -300A airplanes; and Model Avro 146-RJ70A,
146-RJ85A, and 146-RJ100A airplanes; certificated in any category;
all serial numbers.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32: Landing
gear.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    BAE Systems have received reports of in-service failure of the
Main Landing Gear (MLG) shock absorber lower attachment pin.
* * * * *
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to a
MLG collapse on the ground or during landing and consequently damage
to the aeroplane or injury to the occupants.

Compliance

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

Inspections

    (g) Within 4,000 flights cycles or 2 years after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Do the initial inspection
of the MLG shock absorber lower attachment pins in accordance with
paragraph 2.C of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service
Bulletin ISB.32-176, initial issue, dated November 12, 2009; and
paragraph 3 of Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin 146-32-157, excluding
Appendix A, dated February 12, 2009.
    (h) Thereafter, at intervals not to exceed 8,000 flights cycles
or 4 years, whichever occurs first, repeat the inspection required
by paragraph (g) of this AD.

Corrective Action

    (i) If, during any inspection required by paragraphs (g) and (h)
of this AD, the chromium plating on the outer diameter of any pin is
found cracked, or the base material is exposed, or any corrosion is
found on the chromium plating on the outer diameter of any pin,
before further flight, replace the pin with a serviceable pin in
accordance with paragraph 2.C of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.32-176, initial issue, dated
November 12, 2009; and paragraph 3 of Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin
146-32-157, excluding Appendix A, dated February 12, 2009.
    (j) Replacing the pin, as required by paragraph (i) of this AD,
does not constitute a terminating action for the repetitive
inspections required by paragraph (h) of this AD.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 1: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (k) 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: Todd
Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Information may be e-mailed 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.

Related Information

    (l) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness
Directive 2010-0201, dated October 5, 2010; BAE Systems (Operations)
Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.32-176, initial issue, dated
November 12, 2009; and Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin 146-32-157,
excluding Appendix A, dated February 12, 2009; for related
information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (m) You must use BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection
Service Bulletin ISB.32-176, initial issue, dated November 12, 2009;
and Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin 146-32-157, excluding Appendix A,
dated February 12, 2009; to do the actions required by this AD,
unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For BAE Systems (Operations) Limited service information
identified in this AD, contact BAE Systems (Operations) Limited,
Customer Information Department, Prestwick International Airport,
Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland, United Kingdom; telephone +44 1292
675207; fax +44 1292 675704; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet

http://www.baesystems.com/Businesses/RegionalAircraft/index.htm.
    (3) For Messier-Dowty service information identified in this AD,
contact Messier Services Americas, Customer Support Center, 45360
Severn Way, Sterling, Virginia 20166-8910; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://techpubs.services/messier-dowty.com.
    (4) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may also review copies of the 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/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington on September 14, 2011.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-24202 Filed 9-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 8, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6560-6562]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2904]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9628-4]

Notice of a Project Waiver of the Buy American Requirement of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) to the City of
Austin, TX

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Regional Administrator of EPA Region 6 is hereby granting
a project waiver of the Buy American requirements of ARRA Section 1605
under the authority of Section 1605(b)(2) [manufactured goods are not
produced in the United States in sufficient and reasonably available
quantities and of a satisfactory quality] to the City of Austin (``the
City'') for the purchase of ten (10) vertical linear motion mixers for
the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) Hornsby Bend Biosolids
Management Plant (BMP) Digester Improvement and Sustainability Project.
The required vertical linear motion mixers are manufactured by foreign
manufacturers and no United States manufacturer produces an alternative
that meets the City's technical specifications. This is a project
specific waiver and only applies to the use of the specified product
for the ARRA funded project being proposed. Any other ARRA project that
may wish to use the same product must apply for a separate waiver based
on the specific project circumstances. The Regional Administrator is
making this determination based on the review and recommendations of
the EPA Region 6, Water Quality Protection Division. The City has
provided sufficient documentation to support its request.
    The Assistant Administrator of the EPA's Office of Administration
and Resources Management has concurred

on this decision to make an exception to Section 1605 of ARRA. This
action permits the purchase of the selected vertical linear motion
mixers not manufactured in America, for the proposed project being
implemented by the City.

DATES: Effective Date: January 12, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nasim Jahan, Buy American Coordinator,
(214) 665-7522, SRF & Projects Section, Water Quality Protection
Division, U.S. EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with ARRA Section 1605(c) and
1605(b)(2), EPA hereby provides notice that it is granting a project
waiver of the requirements of Section 1605(a) of Public Law 111-5, Buy
American requirements, to the City for the acquisition of selected
vertical linear motion mixers. The City has been unable to find
American made vertical linear motion mixers to meet its specific
wastewater requirements.
    Section 1605 of ARRA requires that none of the appropriated funds
may be used for the construction, alteration, maintenance, or repair of
a public building or public work unless all of the iron, steel, and
manufactured goods used in the project are produced in the United
States unless a waiver is provided to the recipient by EPA. A waiver
may be provided if EPA determines that: (1) Applying these requirements
would be inconsistent with public interest; (2) iron, steel, and the
relevant manufactured goods are not produced in the United States in
sufficient and reasonably available quantities and of a satisfactory
quality; or (3) inclusion of iron, steel, and the relevant manufactured
goods produced in the United States will increase the cost of the
overall project by more than 25 percent.
    The City has noted that out of the ten (10) vertical linear motion
mixers, two 10 horse power (hp) mixers are required for the flow
equalization tanks, four 20 hp mixers for the thickened sludge tanks,
and four 15 hp mixers for the anaerobic digesters. The City specified
the linear mixers because of their cam-scotch-yoke mechanism and
superior energy efficiency. The linear mixers are a proprietary
technology and are only manufactured by Enersave, a Canadian
manufacturer. The City has provided information to the EPA
demonstrating that there are no Vertical linear motion mixers
manufactured in the United States in sufficient and reasonable quantity
and of a satisfactory quality to meet the required technical
specification.
    Based on additional research conducted by EPA Region 6 there do not
appear to be any American-made vertical linear motion mixers that would
meet the City's technical specifications. EPA's national contractor
prepared a technical assessment report based on the waiver request
submittal, which confirmed the waiver applicant's claim that there are
no American-made vertical linear motion mixers available for use in the
proposed waste water treatment system.
    EPA has also evaluated the City's request to determine if its
submission is considered late or if it could be considered timely, as
per the OMB regulation at 2 CFR 176.120. EPA will generally regard
waiver requests with respect to components that were specified in the
bid solicitation or in a general/primary construction contract as
``late'' if submitted after the contract date. However, EPA could also
determine that a request be evaluated as timely, though made after the
date that the contract was signed, if the need for a waiver was not
reasonably foreseeable. If the need for a waiver is reasonably
foreseeable, then EPA could still apply discretion in these late cases
as per the OMB Guidance, which says ``the award official may deny the
request.'' For those waiver requests that do not have a reasonably
unforeseeable basis for lateness, but for which the waiver basis is
valid and there is no apparent gain by the ARRA recipient or loss on
behalf of the government, then EPA will still consider granting a
waiver.
    In this case, the waiver request was submitted after the contract
date because of a delay in the process of the LMTM Mixer
technology being purchased by the City's supplier, Ovivo USA, LLC
(``Ovivo''), f/k/a Eimco Water Technologies, from Enersave (the
inventor), in order to obtain control of all technical drawings and
manufacture the mixers in the United States. The vertical linear motion
mixers have recently been patented by Enersave and Ovivo has purchased
only the rights to use the technology in the municipal market in North
America. Ovivo has been working with Enersave to allow the complete
transfer of information to take place; however, the duration has taken
longer than anticipated as the provided information has been found
incomplete requiring detailed support and fabrication from the
inventor. All linear motion mixers have been fabricated by the inventor
(Enersave) to date, due to the detailed technical drawings not being in
the control of Ovivo. The initial schedule of events planned to allow
Ovivo to do the fabrication for the Hornsby Bend mixers in the United
States, however, the delay in getting the necessary information
prevented this from occurring. When Ovivo found that the schedule would
not allow fabrication to occur in the United States the waiver was
requested. In light of the unexpected delay in the purchase of the
LMTM Mixer technology, EPA believes that the need for a
waiver was not reasonably forseeable and thus will treat the City's
waiver request as if timely submitted.
    The April 28, 2009, EPA HQ Memorandum, Implementation of Buy
American provisions of Public Law 111-5, the ``American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009,''defines reasonably available quantity as
``the quantity of iron, steel, or relevant manufactured good is
available or will be available at the time needed and place needed, and
in the proper form or specification as specified in the project plans
and design.'' The City has incorporated specific technical design
requirements for installation of vertical linear motion mixers at its
wastewater treatment plant.
    The purpose of the ARRA is to stimulate economic recovery in part
by funding current infrastructure construction, not to delay projects
that are ``shovel ready'' by requiring utilities, such as the City, to
revise their standards and specifications, institute a new bidding
process, and potentially choose a more costly, less efficient project.
The imposition of ARRA Buy American requirements on such projects
otherwise eligible for State Revolving Fund assistance would result in
unreasonable delay and thus displace the ``shovel ready'' status for
this project. To further delay construction is in direct conflict with
a fundamental economic purpose of the ARRA, which is to create or
retain jobs.
    The Region 6 Water Quality Protection Division has reviewed this
waiver request, and has determined that the supporting documentation
provided by the City is sufficient to meet the criteria listed under
ARRA, Section 1605(b), Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
regulations at 2 CFR 176.60--176.170, and in the April 28, 2009,
memorandum, ``Implementation of Buy American provisions of Public Law
111-5, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.'' The basis
for this project waiver is the authorization provided in ARRA, Section
1605(b)(2). Due to the lack of production of this product in the United
States in sufficient and reasonably available quantities and of a
satisfactory quality in order to meet the City's

technical specifications, a waiver from the Buy American requirement is
justified.
    EPA headquarters' March 31, 2009 Delegation of Authority Memorandum
provided Regional Administrators with the authority to issue exceptions
to Section 1605 of ARRA within the geographic boundaries of their
respective regions and with respect to requests by individual grant
recipients. Having established both a proper basis to specify the
particular goods required for this project, and that these manufactured
goods are not available from a producer in the United States, the City
is hereby granted a waiver from the Buy American requirements of ARRA,
Section 1605(a) of Public Law 111-5 for the purchase of the selected 10
vertical linear motion mixers, using ARRA funds, as specified in the
City's request. This supplementary information constitutes the detailed
written justification required by ARRA, Section 1605(c), for waivers
``based on a finding under subsection (b).''

    Authority: Public Law 111-5, section 1605.

    Issued on: Dated: January 12, 2012.
 Al Armendariz,
Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2012-2904 Filed 2-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P