[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 193 (Tuesday, October 6, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60295-60297]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25343]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0283; FRL-9935-04-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas;
Revisions to the Minor New Source Review (NSR) State Implementation
Plan (SIP) for Portable Facilities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving
revisions to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) on March 19, 2010 and
July 2, 2010. These revisions to the Texas SIP revise the minor New
Source Review (NSR) program to provide for the relocation and change of
location of permitted portable facilities, establish definitions
related to portable facilities, and establish public participation for
changes of location to portable facilities. The EPA finds that these
revisions to the Texas SIP comply with the Federal Clean Air Act (the
Act or CAA) and are consistent with our regulations and policy for
minor NSR. The EPA is finalizing this approval under section 110 of the
Act.

DATES: This final rule is effective on November 5, 2015.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0283. All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas,
Texas 75202-2733.

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

I. Background

    The background for today's action is discussed in detail in our
July 17, 2015 proposal (80 FR 42443). In that notice, we proposed to
approve severable portions of SIP submittals for the State of Texas
submitted on March 19, 2010, and July 2, 2010 that revised the Texas
SIP minor NSR program for portable facilities. The TCEQ issues the
underlying minor NSR portable facility permits under the existing minor
NSR SIP provisions in Chapter 116. 30 TAC Sections 116.20 and 116.178
provide that once a permit has been issued to a portable facility, the
facility can be moved either through a change of location or a
relocation. A change of location occurs when a portable facility is
moved to a new location and is required to go through the SIP-approved
minor NSR public notice requirements of Chapter 39. A relocation of a
portable facility is movement of the portable facility without public
notice under Chapter 39. Relocations occur in one of two scenarios.
First, portable facilities can be relocated to a location in support of
a public works project in which the new site is located in or
contiguous to the right-of way of the public works project. The second
possibility, is that a portable facility relocates to a site in which a
portable facility has previously been located at any time during the
previous two years and the site was subject Chapter 39 public notice
requirements. Public notice requirements for the change of location or
relocation of a portable facility are established at 30 TAC Section
39.402(a)(12). We received one comment letter in support of our
proposal. Therefore, we are taking this final action under section 110
of the Act.

II. Final Action

    We are approving severable portions of SIP submittals for the State
of Texas submitted on March 19, 2010, and July 2, 2010, that revised
the Texas SIP minor NSR program for portable facilities. The EPA has
determined that the submitted rules were adopted and submitted in
accordance with the CAA and are consistent with our regulations and
policies regarding minor NSR permitting. Therefore, the EPA approves
the following as revisions to the Texas SIP:
     30 TAC Section 116.20 as adopted on February 10, 2010,
submitted on March 19, 2010;
     30 TAC Section 116.178 as adopted on February 10, 2010,
submitted on March 19, 2010; and
     30 TAC Section 39.402(a)(12) adopted on June 2, 2010,
submitted on July 2, 2010.
    This action is being taken under section 110 of the Act.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, we are finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1
CFR 51.5, we are finalizing the incorporation by reference of the
revisions to the Texas regulations as described in the Final Action
section above. We have made, and will continue to make, these documents
generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or
in hard copy at the EPA Region 6 office.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 7, 2015. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposed of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon Monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental relations,
Lead, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 23, 2015.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart SS--Texas

0
2. In Sec.  52.2270(c) the table titled ``EPA Approved Regulations in
the Texas SIP'' is amended by revising the entry for Section 39.402 and
adding a new entry for Section 116.20, and by adding a new heading for
``Division 8'' and a new entry for Section 116.178 in numerical order,
to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2270  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                    EPA Approved Regulations in the Texas SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             State
                                                           approval/
          State citation              Title/subject        submittal     EPA Approval date       Explanation
                                                             date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Chapter 39--Public Notice
                               Subchapter H--Applicability and General Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 39.402...................  Applicability to           6/2/2010  10/6/2015 [Insert    SIP includes 39.402
                                    Air Quality                          Federal Register     (a)(1)-(a)(6),
                                    Permits and Permit                   citation].           (a)(8), (a)(11),
                                    Amendments.                                               and (a)(12).

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Chapter 116 (Reg 6)--Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification
                                            Subchapter A--Definitions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 116.20...................  Portable Facilities       2/10/2010  10/6/2015 [Insert    ...................
                                    Definitions.                         Federal Register
                                                                         citation].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Subchapter B--New Source Review Permits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Division 8--Portable Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 116.178..................  Relocations and           2/10/2010  10/6/2015 [Insert    ...................
                                    Changes of                           Federal Register
                                    Location of                          citation].
                                    Portable
                                    Facilities.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2015-25343 Filed 10-5-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 120 (Friday, June 25, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 33697]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13604]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

June 21, 2021.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP21-898-000.
    Applicants: Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Capital Cost Surcharge #2 to
be effective 7/15/2021.
    Filed Date: 6/15/21.
    Accession Number: 20210615-5081.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/28/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-921-004.
    Applicants: Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing RP20-921 MNE Settlement Compliance
Filing to be effective 6/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 6/17/21.
    Accession Number: 20210617-5116.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/29/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-899-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Petition for Limited Waiver of Tariff Provision of El
Paso Natural Gas, L.L.C.
    Filed Date: 6/17/21.
    Accession Number: 20210617-5127.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/29/21.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 21, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-13604 Filed 6-24-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: July 23, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 140)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 40073-40075]
[DOCID:fr23jy07-7]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Part 1910

[Docket No. S-108C]
RIN 1218-AB95

Electrical Standard; Approval of Information Collection
Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Final rule; notice of Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
approval of collection of information requirements.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA is announcing that the collection of information
requirements contained in the Design Safety Standards for Electrical
Systems of 29 CFR Part 1910.302 through 1910.308 and 1910.399, Subpart
S, have been approved by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
The OMB approval number is 1218-0256.

DATES: This final rule is effective August 13, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Owen, OSHA, Directorate of
Standards and Guidance, Room N-3609, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-
2222.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OSHA published a final rule for the Design Safety Standards for
Electrical Systems (Electrical Standard) on February 14, 2007, after
determining that electrical hazards pose a significant risk of injury
or death to employees in the workplace. In addition, this revision of
these requirements is reasonably necessary to provide protection from
these hazards. The final rule becomes effective on August 13, 2007. As
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Register
notice for the Electrical Standard final rule stated that compliance
with the collection of information requirements was not required until
those collection of information requirements have been approved by OMB,
and the Department of Labor publishes a notice in the Federal Register
announcing that OMB approved and assigned a control number to the
Electrical Standard collection of information requirements. Under 5 CFR
1320.5(b), an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of
information unless: (1) The collection of information displays a
current valid OMB control number; and (2) the agency informs members of
the public who must respond to the collection of

information that they are not required to respond to the collection of
information unless the agency displays a currently valid OMB control
number.
    On February 14, 2007, OSHA submitted the Electrical Standard
information collection request for the final rule to OMB for approval
in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520). On May 22, 2007, OMB approved the collections of information
contained in the final rule and assigned these collections OMB Control
Number 1218-0256 titled ``Design Safety Standards for Electrical
Systems (29 CFR 1910.302-308 and 1910.399.)'' The approval for these
collections expires on May 31, 2010. The approved collections of
information are:

A. Disconnecting Means and Circuits (Sec.  1910.303(f))

Section 1910.303(f)(5)(i)

    Where circuit breakers or fuses are applied in compliance with the
series combination ratings marked on the equipment by the manufacturer,
the equipment enclosures shall be legibly marked in the field to
indicate that the equipment has been applied with a series combination
rating.

Section 1910.303(f)(5)(ii)

    The marking required by paragraph (f)(5)(i) of this section shall
be readily visible and shall state ``Caution--Series Combination System
Rated----Amperes. Identified Replacement Component Required.''

B. Branch Circuits (Sec.  1910.304(b))

Section 1910.304(b)(1)

    Where more than one nominal voltage system exists in a building
containing multiwire branch circuits, each ungrounded conductor of a
multiwire branch circuit, where accessible, shall be identified by
phase and system. The means of identification shall be permanently
posted at each branch-circuit panelboard.

Section 1910.304(b)(3)(ii)(C)(1)

    (C) Where the ground-fault circuit-interrupter protection required
by paragraph (b)(3)(ii)(B) of this section is not available for
receptacles other than 125-volt, single-phase, 15-, 20-, and 30-ampere,
the employer shall establish and implement an assured equipment
grounding conductor program covering cord sets, receptacles that are
not a part of the building or structure, and equipment connected by
cord and plug that are available for use or used by employees on those
receptacles. This program shall comply with the following requirements:
    (1) A written description of the [assured equipment grounding
conductor (AEGC)] program, including the specific procedures adopted by
the employer, shall be available at the jobsite for inspection and
copying by the Assistant Secretary of Labor and any affected
employee[.]

Section 1910.304(b)(3)(ii)(C)(6)

    Tests performed as required in paragraph (b)(3)(ii)(C) of this
section shall be recorded. This test record shall identify each
receptacle, cord set, and cord- and plug-connected equipment that
passed the test and shall indicate the last date it was tested or the
interval for which it was tested. This record shall be kept by means of
logs, color coding, or other effective means and shall be maintained
until replaced by a more current record. The record shall be made
available on the jobsite for inspection by the Assistant Secretary and
any affected employee.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Paragraph (b)(3)(ii)(C)(4) of the section specifies the
testing requirements as follows: ``The following tests shall be
performed on all cord sets and receptacles which are not a part of
the permanent wiring of the building or structure, and cord- and
plug-connected equipment required to be grounded: (i) All equipment
grounding conductors shall be tested for continuity and shall be
electrically continuous; (ii) [e]ach receptacle and attachment cap
or plug shall be tested for correct attachment of the equipment
grounding conductor. The equipment grounding conductor shall be
connected to its proper terminal; and (iii) [a]ll required tests
shall be performed before first use; before equipment is returned to
service following any repairs; before equipment is used after any
incident which can be reasonably suspected to have caused damage
(for example, when a cord set is run over); and at intervals not to
exceed 3 months, except that cord sets and receptacles which are
fixed and not exposed to damage shall be tested at intervals not
exceeding 6 months[.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Identification and Signs (Sec.  1910.306(c))

Section 1910.306(c)(6)(i)

    Where there is more than one driving machine in a machine room, the
disconnecting means shall be numbered to correspond to the identifying
number of the driving machine that they control.

Section 1910.306(c)(6)(ii)

    The disconnecting means shall be provided with a sign to identify
the location of the supply-side overcurrent protective device.

D. Carnivals, Circuses, Fairs, and Similar Events (Sec.  1910.306(k))

Section 1910.306(k)(4)(iv)(B)

    Single-pole separable connectors used in portable professional
motion picture and television equipment may be interchangeable for ac
or dc use or for different current ratings on the same premises only if
they are listed for ac/dc use and marked to identify the system to
which they are connected[.]

 E. Documentation (Sec.  1910.307(b))

    All areas designated as hazardous (classified) locations under the
Class and Zone system and areas designated under the Class and Division
system established after August 13, 2007 shall be properly documented.
This documentation shall be available to those authorized to design,
install, inspect, maintain, or operate electric equipment at the
location.

 F. Emergency Power Systems (Sec.  1910.308(b))

Section 1910.308(b)(3)(i)

    A sign shall be placed at the service entrance equipment indicating
the type and location of on-site emergency power sources. However, a
sign is not required for individual unit equipment.

Section 1910.308(b)(3)(ii)

    Where the grounded circuit conductor connected to the emergency
source is connected to a grounding electrode conductor at a location
remote from the emergency source, there shall be a sign at the
grounding location that shall identify all emergency and normal sources
connected at that location.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1910

    Electric power, Fire prevention, Hazardous substances, Occupational
safety and health, Safety.

Authority and Signature

    Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The
authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3506 et seq.), and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2007 (72 FR
31159).

    Signed at Washington, DC on July 16, 2007.
Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.

Amendments to Standards

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble to this final rule, the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration amends 29 CFR Part 1910,
subpart A to read as follows:

PART 1910--[AMENDED]

Subpart A--[AMENDED]

0
1. Revise the authority citation for subpart A to read as follows:

    Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and 657); Secretary of
Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48
FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR
50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), and S-2007 (72 FR 31159), as
applicable.

Sections 1910.7 and 1910.8 also issued under 29 CFR Part 1911.
Section 1910.7(f) also issued under 31 U.S.C. 9701, 29 U.S.C. 9a, 5
U.S.C. 553; Pub. L. 106-113 (113 Stat. 1501A-222); and OMB Circular
A-25 (dated July 8, 1993) (58 FR 38142, July 15, 1993).

0
2. Amend Sec.  1910.8 by adding to the table contained therein the
entry ``1910.302-.308'' in the proper numerical sequence as follows:

Sec.  1910.8  OMB Control numbers under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            OMB control
                     29 CFR citation                            No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 * * * *
1910.302-.308...........................................       1218-0256

                                 * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

 [FR Doc. E7-14113 Filed 7-20-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register: January 26, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 17)]
[Notices]
[Page 3814]
[DOCID:fr26ja07-57]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-114-001]

Cheyenne Plains Gas Pipeline Company, LLC; Notice of Filing

January 22, 2007.
    Take notice that on January 17, 2007, Cheyenne Plains Gas Pipeline
Company, L.L.C. (Cheyenne Plains) tendered for filing as part of its
FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets to
become effective December 20, 2006:

Substitute Original Sheet No. 28
Substitute Original Sheet No. 28A

    Cheyenne Plains states that the tariff sheet is being filed to
correct the term of the reported agreement and to add a footnote
stating that the agreement conforms to the applicable Form of Service
Agreement.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of
the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest
must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-1247 Filed 1-25-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 191 (Friday, October 2, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 59767]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25017]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2492-013-Maine]

Woodland Pulp LLC: Notice of Availability of Final Environmental
Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office
of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for license for the
Vanceboro Dam Storage Project, located on the East Branch of the St.
Croix River Washington County, Maine. The project does not occupy any
federal land.
    Staff prepared a final environmental assessment (EA), which
analyzes the potential environmental effects of licensing the project,
and concludes that licensing the project, with appropriate
environmental protective measures, would not constitute a major federal
action that would significantly affect the quality of the human
environment.
    A copy of the final EA is on file with the Commission and is
available for public inspection. The final EA may also 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>. You may also register online
at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via
email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending
projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Watts at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
     Dated: September 23, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-25017 Filed 10-1-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 66 (Friday, April 7, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16927-16930]
[FR Doc No: 2017-06877]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0575; FRL-9960-57-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; Tennessee: Reasonable Measures Required

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking
direct final action to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of Tennessee, through the Tennessee
Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), on March 25, 1999.
The SIP submittal includes a change to the TDEC regulation ``Reasonable
Measures Required.'' EPA is proposing to approve this SIP revision
because it is consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and
federal regulations governing SIPs.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective June 6, 2017 without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by May 8, 2017. If EPA
receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that
the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2016-0575 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: D. Brad Akers, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Mr. Akers can be reached via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>
and via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On March 25, 1999, TDEC submitted a change to the Tennessee rules
to EPA for approval and incorporation into the Tennessee SIP.
Specifically, the submittal includes a change to remove a portion of
text from Tennessee Air Pollution Control Regulation (TAPCR) Rule 1200-
3-20-.02, ``Reasonable Measures Required,'' at paragraph (1). Existing
paragraph (1) covers measures that air contaminant sources must take
during periods of startup and shutdown and the treatment of equipment
failures that are not considered to be malfunctions. This provision was
originally submitted by TDEC as part of Chapter 1200-3-20, ``Limits on
Emissions Due to Malfunctions, Start-ups, and Shutdowns'' on February
13, 1979, and approved by EPA on February 6, 1980 (45 FR 8004).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The current SIP-approved version of paragraph (1) of Chapter
1200-3-20-.02 is the version that became state-effective on February
13, 1977. 40 CFR 52.2220(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Analysis of State's Submittal

    The current SIP-approved version of TAPCR 1200-3-20-.02 provides,
in part, that for sources that are in or are significantly affecting a
nonattainment area, ``failures that are caused by poor maintenance,
careless operation or any other preventable upset condition or
preventable equipment breakdown shall not be considered malfunctions,
and shall be considered in violation of the emission standard exceeded
and this rule.'' The March 25, 1999, submittal modifies the treatment
of those equipment failures that are not considered malfunctions by
removing the statement that such failures ``shall be considered in
violation of the emission standard exceeded and this rule.'' \2\ This
rule change simply eliminates language indicating that a source which
experiences an equipment failure is automatically in violation of
applicable emission standards and the Tennessee rule. EPA believes this
change is appropriate because an instance of equipment failure does not
always result in an exceedance of an emission standard. In addition,
EPA notes that, in accordance with TAPCR 1200-3-13-.01, any preventable
failure to properly operate control equipment may still be in violation
of emission control requirements contained in specific emission
standards of the Tennessee SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The provision at TAPCR 1200-3-20-.02(1) in the March 25,
1999, submittal does not include the phrase ``[f]or sources
identified in Chapter 1200-3-19, or by a permit condition or an
order issued by the Board or by the Technical Secretary as being in
or significantly affecting a nonattainment area,'' which is
currently approved into the SIP. However, EPA is processing only the
revision presented in the March 25, 1999, submittal, as discussed in
Section II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This SIP revision does not provide an exemption for any applicable
emission standards, nor does it modify any applicable requirements for
air contaminant sources. With this change, all applicable emission
standards will continue to apply during all times. EPA is approving
this revision because it is consistent with the CAA.

III. Start Up, Shutdown, and Malfunction (SSM) SIP Call Considerations

    In this action, EPA is not approving or disapproving revisions to
any existing pollutant emission limitations that apply during periods
of startup, shutdown and malfunction. EPA notes that on June 12, 2015,
the Agency published a formal finding that a number of states,
including Tennessee, have SIPs with SSM provisions that are contrary to
the CAA and existing EPA guidance. See 80 FR 33840. Accordingly, EPA
issued a formal ``SIP call'' requiring the affected states to make a
SIP submission to correct the SSM regulations identified by EPA as
being deficient. Id. In that final action, EPA determined that TAPCR
Chapters 1200-3-20 and 1200-3-5 have provisions that are contrary to
the CAA, specifically TAPCR 1200-3-20-.07(1), 1200-3-20-.07(3) and
1200-3-5-.02(1). This direct final action only removes language from
1200-3-20-.02(1) indicating that an equipment failure that does not
qualify as a malfunction is an automatic violation. Therefore, this
final action does not impact the provisions of the Tennessee
regulations implicated in the SSM SIP call and has no effect on EPA's
June 12, 2015, finding of inadequacy regarding Tennessee's SIP.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of TAPCR 1200-3-
20-.02(1), entitled ``Reasonable Measures Required,'' effective
November 11, 1997, which removed a statement that preventable failures
of process or control equipment were presumptively in violation of
applicable emission standards and the rule. Therefore, these materials
have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been
incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally
enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective
date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be
incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in
the next update to the SIP compilation.\3\ EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these materials generally available through
www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 4 Office (please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Final Action

    EPA is approving a change to the Tennessee SIP at TAPCR 1200-3-
20-.02, submitted March 25, 1999, because

it is consistent with the CAA and federal regulations. EPA is
publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views
this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal
Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should adverse
comments be filed. This rule will be effective June 6, 2017 without
further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by May 8,
2017.
    If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document
withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will
not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not
institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting
should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public
is advised that this rule will be effective on June 6, 2017 and no
further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the 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).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by June 6, 2017. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: March 15, 2017.
V. Anne Heard,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart RR--Tennessee

0
2. In Sec.  52.2220, table 1 in paragraph (c) is amended by revising
the entry for ``1200-3-20-.02'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                   Table 1--EPA Approved Tennessee Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            State
         State citation              Title/subject     effective date   EPA approval date       Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               CHAPTER 1200-3-20 LIMITS ON EMISSIONS DUE TO MALFUNCTIONS, START-UPS, AND SHUTDOWNS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
1200-3-20-.02...................  Reasonable Measures      11/11/1997  4/7/2017, [insert   .....................
                                   Required.                            Federal Register
                                                                        citation].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-06877 Filed 4-6-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


State and local governments recommended that the standards for newly manufactured engines of already certified models should be implemented one year after the effective date of the final rulemaking. At a minimum, EPA should have an implementation date that prohibits engine manufacturers from selling already certified engines unless the engines were recertified or redesigned to meet the proposed standards. Such a provision would be consistent with a stated objective of the rulemaking, which is to assure that progress in reducing aircraft engine emissions is not reversed in the future. Without such standards high emitting engines can continue to be produced and brought into service, further adding to the long term growth in aircraft emissions DRAFT to OMB 6/ 30/ 05 69 that is anticipated without a more aggressive approach to regulating this source.

Airlines commented that as the proposal acknowledges, market incentives lead manufacturers to bring their engines to the levels of the CAEP/ 4 NO x standards as soon as possible once the standards take effect. Airlines investing in costly, long lasting assets prefer to buy engines that meet the latest standards, and demand engines that perform better than the standard without regulatory intervention of a production cut off ( applying standards to newly manufactured engines of already certified models). Such market forces together with EPA's fouryear delay in proposing to adopt the CAEP/ 4 NO x standards, account for the fact that 94 percent of in production engines already meet the standard.

In addition, airlines expressed that for the same reasons that the Agency should generally align with ICAO standards, it should be consistent with ICAO on whether to apply CAEP/ 4 standards to newly manufactured engines of already certified models. If EPA differed from ICAO on this provision, there would be the very inconsistency between domestic and international practice that aligning with ICAO requirements avoids. Furthermore, if EPA adopts such a provision prior to ICAO, such action would potentially place U. S. manufacturers and airlines at a competitive disadvantage for what EPA acknowledges to be minimal environmental benefit.

In addition, one airline expressed that it presently has the JT8D 219 engine on some of its commercial jets. The proposal indicated that the JT8D 219 would be used in supersonic business jets, which the airline does not operate; however, it ( and maybe other domestic airlines) operates this engine in our commercial aircraft fleet. Therefore, the implication of these provisions has not been fully investigated by EPA as mandated by the CAA. ( See the Summary and Analysis of DRAFT to OMB 6/ 30/ 05 70 Comments for this rulemaking for further discussion of comments.)

In response, as indicated earlier, the implementation date applicable to newly designed and certified engines under CAEP/ 4, December 31, 2003, has already occurred for the CAEP/ 4 standards, and at this late date to promulgate a provision to apply today's standards to newly manufactured engines of already certified models ( a production cut off) could be disruptive to the production planning of engine manufacturers. EPA and ICAO ( as we mentioned in the proposal and as one commenter noted in its comments) have historically adopted production cut offs for previous standards, but in today's unique case the lateness of the rule may not provide manufacturers enough lead time for such planning. However, as we discussed earlier in section 1,

we intend to consider more stringent NO x standards in a future rulemaking, and similar to CAEP/ 6' s future plans described above, we also intend to consider applying more stringent standards to newly manufactured engines of already certified models for such a future rulemaking.

This provision is an important issue that we expect to fully consider for future standards.

While we solicited comment on extending the CAEP/ 4 standards to newly manufactured engines of already certified models, we did not develop a record that fully analyzes the emissions benefits ( if any) and the implementation costs of going beyond CAEP in this manner. Therefore,

the public has not been provided an opportunity to analyze and comment upon these important factors. We believe that our analysis of these factors would need to be weighed through a noticeand comment process in determining whether a production cut off, with a specific lead time period, would be appropriate under CAA section 231 in this case. Particularly regarding the cost of compliance within necessary lead time issue, we are concerned that there is insufficient data DRAFT to OMB 6/ 30/ 05 71 that specifically addresses the appropriate lead time for subjecting the few remaining inproduction engine models to the CAEP/ 4 standards, and that our selection of a production cut off date could therefore be viewed as arbitrarily chosen.

Since we have not yet provided that opportunity for public comment on our analysis of this issue, and since attempting to do so now would in our view unacceptably slow down this rulemaking, in the interests of expediency and of bringing U. S. domestic law into conformity with our obligations under the Chicago Convention ( albeit tardily), we have decided that the most appropriate course for now, under CAA section 231 ( a), is to simply update our regulations to track CAEP/ 4 in terms of both stringency levels and scope of applicability. Similarly, without having developed the necessary record and analysis, at this time we are unable to respond to the substantive comments offered by commenters regarding the production cutoff issue, and our decision today should in no way be viewed as either endorsing or rejecting the concept of a production cut off. Given the need to quickly promulgate standards that are at least as stringent as CAEP/ 4, we must decline to resolve the numerous issues raised either in favor of or in opposition to applying the CAEP/ 4 standards to newly manufactured engines of already certified models.

IV. Amendments to Criteria on Calibration and Test Gases for Gaseous Emissions Test and Measurement Procedures In today's rulemaking, EPA will incorporate by reference ICAO's 1997 amendments to the DRAFT to OMB 6/ 30/ 05 97Such engines include newly manufactured engines of already certified models.

98Russian Federation, " Corrections to Annex 16, Volume II," Agenda Item 2: Review of reports of working groups relating to engine emissions and the development of recommendations to the Council thereon, Working Paper 19, Presented by A. A. Gorbatko, November 11, 1995 ( distributed November 30, 1995), CAEP/ 3, Montreal, December 5 to 15, 1995. A copy of this paper can be found in Docket OAR 2002 0030.

72 criteria on calibration and test gases for the test procedures of gaseous emissions ( ICAO International Standards and Recommended Practices Environmental Protection, Annex 16,

Volume II, " Aircraft Engine Emissions," Second Edition, July 1993; Amendment 3, March 20,

1997, Appendices 3 and 5) in 40 CFR 87.64 . ICAO's amendments, which became effective on March 20, 1997, apply to subsonic ( newly certified and newly manufactured engines97) and supersonic gas turbine engines. The technical changes will correct a few inconsistencies between the specifications for carbon dioxide ( CO 2) analyzers ( Attachment B of Appendices 3 and 5) and the calibration and test gases ( Attachment D of Appendices 3 and 5) of gaseous emissions. The test procedure amendments incorporated by reference will be effective 30 days after the publication of the final rule.

For CAEP/ 3 in 1995, the Russian Federation presented a working paper entitled,

" Corrections to Annex 16, Volume II," that stated the following: 98 According to CAEP/ 2 recommendations, in the list of calibration and test gases ( see the table in Attachment of Appendices 3 and 5) " CO 2 in N 2" was replaced with " CO 2 in air" gas. At the same time the following sub paragraph was newly introduced into Attachment B ( Appendices 3 and 5) : DRAFT to OMB 6/ 30/ 05 99United Kingdom, " Amendments to Annex 16, Volume II, Attachment D to Appendices 3 and 5 ( Calibration and Test Gases)," Agenda Item 2: Review of reports of working groups relating to engine emissions and the development of recommendations to the Council thereon, Working Paper 20, Presented by M. E. Wright, November 14, 1995 ( distributed November 30, 1995), CAEP/ 3, Montreal, December 5 to 15, 1995. A copy of this paper can be found in Docket OAR 2002 0030.

73 ( g) The effect of oxygen ( O 2) on the CO 2 analyzer response shall be checked. For a change from 0 percent O 2 to 21 percent O 2 the response of a given CO 2 concentration shall not change by more than 2 per cent of reading. If this limit cannot be met and appropriate correction factor shall be applied.

Since the best way to carry out this checking procedure is to calibrate the analyzer first with CO 2 in nitrogen and then with CO 2 in air, both " CO 2 in N 2" and " CO 2 in air" gases have to be retained in the list. It seems then that " CO in air," " CO 2 in air," " NO in N 2" and now " CO 2 in N 2" have to be replaced with " CO in zero air,"

" CO 2 in zero air," " CO 2 in zero nitrogen" and " NO in zero nitrogen" just by analogy with the gaseous mixtures of different hydrocarbons diluted by zero air and listed in the same table.

In addition, at CAEP/ 3 the United Kingdom then presented a working paper on this same issue. 99 They indicated that CAEP's Working Group 3 ( Emissions Working Group) had accepted the above proposals of the Russian Federation paper on correcting inconsistencies in the list of calibration and test gases specified in Annex 16, Volume II, Attachment D to Appendices 3 and 5,

and Working Group 3 had recommended that these proposals be presented at CAEP/ 3. The DRAFT to OMB 6/ 30/ 05 100ICAO/ CAEP, Report of Third Meeting, Montreal, Quebec, December 5 15, 1995, Document 9675, CAEP/ 3.

74 United Kingdom also recommended the adoption of these Russian Federation proposals   to utilize CO 2 in nitrogen gas mixture to check the effect of oxygen on CO 2 analyzers. In addition,

they recommended the specification of all calibration and test gases required for all the gaseous emissions tests required in Annex 16.

At CAEP/ 3, the CAEP members agreed that the above amendments to the calibration and test gases were justified, and thus, these amendments were then adopted. 100 Today, EPA will incorporate by reference the amendments to the criteria on calibration and test gases for the test procedures of gaseous emissions, because the changes improve the test procedures by correcting inconsistencies and distinguishing between calibration and test gases. The amendments will include the following: ( 1) listing all calibration gases separately from test gases for HC, CO 2, CO and NO x analyzers, ( 2) changing " N 2" to " zero nitrogen" in relation to the test gases for the HC and NO x analyzers, ( 3) adding " CO 2 in zero nitrogen" as a test gas for CO 2 analyzer, ( 4) changing " air" to " zero air" in relation to the test gas for CO and CO 2 analyzers, ( 5) revising the accuracy to "+ 1 percent" for the " propane in zero air" test gas of HC analyzer, ( 6) amending the accuracy to "+ 1 percent" for the " CO 2 in zero air" test gas of CO 2 analyzer, ( 7) adding the accuracy "+ 1 percent" for the " CO 2 in zero nitrogen" test gas of CO 2 analyzer, ( 8) changing accuracy to "+ 1 percent" for test gas of CO analyzer, and ( 9) revising accuracy to "+ 1 percent" for test gas of NO x analyzer.

Manufacturers are already voluntarily complying with ICAO's 1997 amendments to the criteria on calibration and test gases for the test procedures of gaseous emissions. Thus, formal DRAFT to OMB 6/ 30/ 05 101This action was taken in 1984 to provide greater flexibility to manufacturers for scheduling engine production rates during the final years.

75 adoption of these ICAO test procedure amendments will require no new action by manufacturers.

In addition, the existence of ICAO's requirements will ensure that the costs of compliance ( as well as the air quality impact) with these test procedures will be minimal. ( In the 1982 and 1997 final rules on aircraft engine emissions ( 47 FR 58462, December 30, 1982 and 62 FR 25356, May 8,

1997, respectively), EPA incorporated by reference the then existing ICAO testing and measurement procedures for aircraft engine emissions ( ICAO International Standards and Recommended Practices Environmental Protection, Annex 16, Volume II, " Aircraft Engine Emissions," First and Second Editions, Appendices 3 and 5 were incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 87.64) in order to eliminate confusion over minor differences in procedures for demonstrating compliance with the U. S. and ICAO standards.)

V. Correction of Exemptions for Very Low Production Models Because of an editorial error, the section in the aircraft engine emission regulations regarding exemptions for very low production models is incorrectly specified ( see section 40 CFR 87.7( b)( 1) and ( 2)). In the October 18, 1984 final rulemaking ( 49 FR 41000), EPA intended to amend the low production engine provisions of the aircraft regulations by revising paragraph ( b)

and deleting paragraphs ( b)( 1) and ( b)( 2) in order to eliminate the maximum annual production limit of 20 engines per year. In the revisions to paragraph ( b), EPA retained the maximum total production limit of 200 units for aircraft models certified after January 1, 1984.101 For § 87.7( b), DRAFT to OMB 6/ 30/ 05 76 Today, EPA will correct this editorial error by eliminating paragraph ( b)( 1) and ( b)( 2).

As discussed further in the 1984 final rulemaking, this action will provide more flexibility for engine manufacturers in scheduling during the last few engine production years. Also, the air quality impact of eliminating the annual production limit will be very small.

VI. Coordination with FAA The requirements contained in this action are being promulgated after consultation with the Federal Aviation Administration ( FAA). Section 231( a)( 2)( B)( i) of the CAA requires EPA to " consult with the Administrator of the [ FAA] on aircraft engine emission standards" 42 U. S. C.

§ 7571( a)( 2)( B)( i), and section 231( a)( 2)( B)( ii) indicates that EPA " shall not change the aircraft engine emission standards if such change would significantly increase noise...." 42 U. S. C.

§ 7571( a)( 2)( B)( ii). Section 231( b) of the CAA states that "[ a] ny regulation prescribed under this section ( and any revision thereof) shall take effect after such period as the Administrator finds necessary ( after consultation with the Secretary of Transportation) to permit the development and application of the requisite technology, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within such period." 42 U. S. C. § 7571( b). Section 231( c) provides that any regulation under section 231 " shall not apply if disapproved by the President  on the basis of a finding by the Secretary of Transportation that any such regulation would create a hazard to aircraft safety." 42 U. S. C. § 7571( c). Under section 232 of the CAA, the Department of Transportation ( DOT) has the responsibility to enforce the aircraft emission standards established by EPA under section DRAFT to OMB 6/ 30/ 05 102The functions of the Secretary of Transportation under part B of title II of the Clean Air Act ( § § 231 234, 42 U. S. C. § § 7571 7574) have been delegated to the Administrator of the FAA. 49 C. F. R. § 1.47( g).

103The Third Meeting of CAEP ( CAEP/ 3) occurred in Montreal, Quebec from December 5 through 15 in 1995. CAEP/ 4 took place in Montreal from April 6 through 8, 1998.

77 231.102 As in past rulemakings and pursuant to the above referenced sections of the CAA, EPA has coordinated with the FAA of the DOT with respect to today's action.

Moreover, FAA is the official U. S. delegate to ICAO. FAA agreed to the 1997 and 1999 amendments at ICAO's Third and Fourth Meetings of the Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection ( CAEP/ 3 and CAEP/ 4) after advisement from EPA. 103 FAA and EPA were both members of the CAEP's Working Group 3 ( among others), whose objective was to evaluate emissions technical issues and develop recommendations on such issues for CAEP/ 3 and CAEP/ 4.

After assessing emissions test procedure amendments and new NO x standards, Working Group 3 made recommendations to CAEP on these elements. These recommendations were then considered at the CAEP/ 3 and CAEP/ 4 meetings, respectively, prior to their adoption by ICAO in 1997 and 1999.

In addition, as discussed above, FAA will have the responsibility to enforce today's requirements. As a part of its compliance responsibilities, FAA conducts the emission tests or delegates that responsibility to the engine manufacturer, which is then monitored by the FAA.

Since the FAA does not have the resources or the funding to test engines, FAA selects engineers at each plant to serve as representatives ( called designated engineering representatives ( DERs))

for the FAA while the manufacturer performs the test procedures. DERs' responsibilities include evaluating the test plan, the test engine, the test equipment, and the final testing report sent to DRAFT to OMB 6/ 30/ 05 104FAA and EPA, " Agreement Between Federal Aviation Administration and Environmental Protection Agency Regarding Environmental Matters Relation to Aviation," signed on March 24, 1998 by FAA's Acting Assistant Administrator for Policy, Planning, and International Aviation, Louise Maillet, and EPA's Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, Richard Wilson. A copy of this document can be found in Docket OAR 2002 0030.

78 FAA. DERs' responsibilities are determined by the FAA and today's rulemaking will not affect their duties.

VII. Possible Future Aviation Emission Reductions ( EPA/ FAA Voluntary Aviation Emissions Reduction Initiative)

As discussed in the proposal, there is growing interest, particularly at the state and local level, in addressing emissions from aircraft and other aviation related sources. Such interest is often related to plans for airport expansion which is occurring across the country. It is possible that other approaches may provide effective avenues to achieve additional aviation emission reductions, beyond EPA establishing aircraft engine emission standards.

Concerns by state and local air agencies and environmental and public health organizations about aviation emissions, led to EPA and FAA signing a memorandum of understanding ( MOU)

in March 1998 agreeing to work to identify efforts that could reduce aviation emissions. 104 FAA and EPA participated in a national stakeholder initiative led by states and industry whose goal was to develop a voluntary program to reduce pollutants from aircraft and other aviation sources that contribute to local and regional air pollution in the United States. The major stakeholders that participated in this initiative included representatives of the aviation industry ( passenger and cargo DRAFT to OMB 6/ 30/ 05 105Two engine models were indeed certificated with emissions retrofit kits, and a number of these engines have been purchased for aircraft with the retrofit kits installed in their stock configuration. However, retrofit kits have not to date provided widescale emissions improvements because it seems they may have limited applicability to certain engine types, small emission benefits, and cost issues.

106The stakeholders considered the impact, operation and design of GSE at airports, and whether to undertake projects at several airports to reduce overall emissions.

107Operational strategies, such as reducing the time in which aircraft are in idle and taxi modes and the impact of auxiliary power units ( APUs) were also considered.

108The Vision 100 Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act, signed into law on December 12, 2003 ( P. L. 108 176), directs the FAA to establish a national program to reduce airport ground emissions at commercial service airports located in air quality nonattainment and maintenance areas. The new Voluntary Airport Low Emissions ( VALE) program will allow airport sponsors to use the Airport Improvement Program ( AIP) and Passenger Facility Charges ( PFCs) to finance low emission vehicles, refueling and recharging stations, gate electrification, and other airport air quality improvements. See the FAA website located at http:// www. faa. gov/ arp/ environmental/ vale.

79 airlines and engine manufacturers), airports, state and local air pollution control officials,

environmental organizations, and NASA.

Initially, the discussions with stakeholders focused on the prospect of aircraft engine emission reduction retrofit kits, which might be applied to certain existing aircraft engines. 105 However, as the initiative evolved, the focus was expanded by the stakeholders to identify strategies for various types of ground service equipment ( GSE) in use at airports, 106 in addition to strategies to reduce aircraft emissions. 107 ( At the same time, FAA developed a program, with Congressional approval, to fund conversion of airport infrastructure and ground support vehicles to alternative fuels technologies. 108) Unfortunately, the state and industry stakeholders did not reach consensus on a national aviation emissions reduction program. The Agencies are currently contemplating next steps following from the national stakeholder initiative and discussions of DRAFT to OMB 6/ 30/ 05 80 potential voluntary programs.

In addition, in the proposal EPA invited comment on the national stakeholder initiative and any other approaches for aviation emission reductions, and we received many suggestions from commenters. We may consider these suggested approaches during our current reflection on the stakeholder initiative and for future voluntary programs.

Finally, FAA has two other initiatives that will assist in addressing concerns with respect to emissions from aircraft. First, in September 2003 it created a Center of Excellence

Partnership for Reduction of Air Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction ( PARTNER)  a consortium of 8 universities, 29 industry representatives as well as NASA and Transport Canadato develop new approaches and solutions to reduce aviation's environmental impacts. Second,

with the assistance of the National Academy of Sciences, FAA is developing the next generation of aviation noise and emissions models and analytical tools improve measurement, understanding,

and targeted solutions. See the Summary and Analysis of Comments for further discussion of approaches to additional aviation emission reductions.

VIII. Regulatory Impacts Aircraft engines are international commodities, and thus, they are designed to meet international standards. Today's action will have the benefit of establishing consistency between U. S. and international emission standards and test procedures. Thus, an emission certification test which meets U. S. requirements will also be applicable to all ICAO requirements. Engine DRAFT to OMB 6/ 30/ 05 109CAEP's Forecasting and Economic Analysis Support Group ( FESG) concluded at CAEP/ 4 that their assessment of these new NO x standards indicates that the direct costs of the standards would be minimal, and the benefits would be modest. ( ICAO, CAEP/ 4, Working Paper 4, " Economic Assessment of the EPG NO x Stringency Proposal," March 12, 1998, Presented by the Chairman of FESG, Agenda Item 1: Review of proposals relating to NO x emissions, including the amendment of Annex 16, Volume II.. A copy of this paper can be found in Docket OAR 2002 0030.

81 manufacturers are already developing improved technology in response to the ICAO standards that match standards promulgated here, and EPA does not believe that the costs incurred by the aircraft industry as a result of the existing ICAO standards should be attributed to today's regulations. Also, the test procedure amendments ( revisions to criteria on calibration and test gases) necessary to determine compliance are already being adhered to by manufacturers during current engine certification tests. Therefore, EPA believes that today's regulations will impose no additional burden on manufacturers.

The existence of ICAO's requirements results in minimal cost as well as air quality benefits from today's requirements. 109 Since aircraft and aircraft engines are international commodities,

there is commercial benefit to consistency between U. S. and international emission standards and control program requirements. Also, the adoption of the ICAO standards and related test procedures is consistent with our treaty obligations.

IX. Public Participation A number of interested parties participated in the rulemaking process that culminates with this final rule. This process provided opportunity for submitting written public comments DRAFT to OMB 6/ 30/ 05 82 following the proposal that we published on September 30, 2003 ( 68 FR 56226). We considered these comments in developing the final rule. In addition, we held a public hearing on the proposed rulemaking on November 13, 2003, and we have considered comments presented at the hearing.

We have prepared a detailed Summary and Analysis of Comments document, which describes comments we received on the proposal and our response to each of these comments.

The Summary and Analysis of Comments is available in the e docket for this rule, as well as on the Office of Transportation and Air Quality homepage ( www. epa. gov/ otaq/ aviation. htm). In addition, comments and responses for key issues are included throughout this preamble.

X. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority The statutory authority for today's proposal is provided by sections 231 and 301( a) of the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 7571 and § 7601( a). See section II of today's rule for discussion of how EPA meets the CAA's statutory requirements.

XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 ( 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency must DRAFT to OMB 6/ 30/ 05 83 determine whether this regulatory action is " significant" and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines " significant regulatory action" as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:

( 1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $ 100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;

( 2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

( 3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or ( 4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.

Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB has notified EPA that it considers this a " significant regulatory action" within the meaning of the Executive Order. EPA has submitted this action to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations will be documented in the public record.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq. Any reporting and recordkeeping DRAFT to OMB 6/ 30/ 05 84 requirements associated with these standards would be defined by the Secretary of Transportation in enforcement regulations issued later under the provisions of section 232 of the Clean Air Act.

Since most if not all manufacturers already measure NO x and report the results to the FAA, any additional reporting and record keeping requirements associated with FAA enforcement of today's regulations would likely be very small.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with this final rule. DRAFT to OMB 6/ 30/ 05 85 For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: ( 1) a small business as defined by SBA size standards; ( 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; or ( 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 following Table XI C 1 provides an overview of the primary SBA small business categories potentially affected by this regulation.

Table XI. C 1   Primary SBA Small Business Categories Potentially Affected by This Regulation Industry NAICSa Codes Defined by SBA as a small business if: b Manufacturers of new aircraft engines 336412 < 1,000 employees Manufacturers of new aircraft 336411 < 1,500 employees a North American Industry Classification System ( NAICS)

b According to SBA's regulations ( 13 CFR part 121), businesses with no more than the listed number of employees or dollars in annual receipts are considered " small entities" for purposes of a regulatory flexibility analysis.

After considering the economic impacts of today's rule on small entities, EPA has concluded that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will not impose any requirements on small entities. Our review of the list of manufacturers of commercial aircraft gas turbine engines with rated thrust greater than 26.7 kN DRAFT to OMB 6/ 30/ 05 86 and manufacturers of aircraft with such engines indicates that there are no U. S. manufacturers that qualify as small businesses. We are unaware of any foreign manufacturers with a U. S. based facility that will qualify as a small business.

As discussed earlier, today's action will codify emission standards that manufacturers currently adhere to ( nearly all in production engines already meet the standards). These standards are equivalent to the ICAO international consensus standards. Today's emission standards will not impose any additional burden on manufacturers because they are already designing engines to meet the ICAO standards. Also, the test procedure amendments ( revisions to criteria on calibration and test gases) necessary to determine compliance are already being adhered to by manufacturers during current engine certification tests.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ( UMRA), Public Law 104 4,

establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with " Federal mandates" that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $ 100 million or more in any one year.

Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory DRAFT to OMB 6/ 30/ 05 87 alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.

EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditure of $ 100 million or more for State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate or the private sector in any one year. This rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Today's action will codify emission standards that manufacturers currently adhere to ( nearly all in production engines already meet the standards). These standards are equivalent to the ICAO international consensus standards.

Today's emission standards will not impose any additional burden on manufacturers because they are already designing new engines to meet the ICAO standards. Thus, the annual effect on the economy of today's standards will be minimal. Today's rule is not subject to the requirements of DRAFT to OMB 6/ 30/ 05 88 sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism Executive Order 13132, entitled " Federalism" ( 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure " meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications." " Policies that have federalism implications" is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have " substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government."

Today's rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. As discussed earlier, section 233 of the CAA preempts states from adopting or enforcing aircraft engine emission standards that are not identical to our standards.

This rule merely modifies existing EPA aircraft engine emission standards and test procedures and therefore will merely continue an existing preemption of State and local law. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicited DRAFT to OMB 6/ 30/ 05 89 comment on the proposed rule from State and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175, entitled " Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments" ( 65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure " meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications."

This rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. The promulgated emission standards and other related requirements for private industry in this rule have national applicability and therefore do not uniquely affect the communities of Indian Tribal Governments. As discussed earlier, section 233 of the CAA preempts states from adopting or enforcing aircraft engine emission standards that are not identical to our standards. This final rule merely modifies existing EPA aircraft engine emission standards and test procedures and therefore will merely continue an existing preemption of State and local law. In addition, today's rule will be implemented at the Federal level and impose compliance obligations only on engine manufacturers. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health & Safety Risks Executive Order 13045, " Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and DRAFT to OMB 6/ 30/ 05 90 Safety Risks" ( 62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that ( 1) is determined to be " economically significant" as defined under Executive Order 12866, and ( 2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, Section 5 501 of the Order directs the Agency to evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children,

and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. EPA believes that the NO x emission reductions ( NO x is a precursor to the formation of ozone and PM) from this rulemaking will further improve air quality and will further improve children's health.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This rule is not a " significant energy action" as defined in Executive Order 13211,

" Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use"

( 66 FR 28355 ( May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. As discussed earlier, today's action will codify emission standards that manufacturers currently adhere to ( nearly all in production engines already meet the standards). These standards are equivalent to the ICAO international consensus standards. DRAFT to OMB 6/ 30/ 05 110ICAO International Standards and Recommended Practices Environmental Protection, Annex 16, Volume II, " Aircraft Engine Emissions," Second Edition, July 1993  Amendment 3,

91 The final standards will have no likely adverse energy effects because manufacturers are already designing engines to meet the ICAO standards. Also, the test procedure amendments ( revisions to criteria on calibration and test gases) necessary to determine compliance are already being adhered to by manufacturers during current engine certification tests. Thus, we have concluded that this rule is not likely to have any adverse energy effects.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act Section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (" NTTAA"), Public Law 104 113, section 12( d) ( 15 U. S. C. 272 note) directs 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 standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

This final rulemaking involves technical standards for testing emissions for commercial aircraft gas turbine engines. EPA will use test procedures contained in ICAO International Standards and Recommended Practices Environmental Protection, with the modifications contained in this rulemaking. 110 These procedures are currently used by all manufacturers of DRAFT to OMB 6/ 30/ 05 March 20, 1997. Copies of this document can be obtained from ICAO ( www. icao. int).

92 commercial aircraft gas turbine engines ( with thrust greater than 26.7 kN) to demonstrate compliance with ICAO emissions standards.

J. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U. S. C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U. S. Senate, the U. S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a " major rule" as defined by 5 U. S. C.

804( 2). This rule will be effective [ Insert date 30 days after date of publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER].

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 87 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Aircraft, Incorporation by reference. DRAFT to OMB 6/ 30/ 05 93 Dated: _______ XX, 200X Stephen L. Johnson,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 87  CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION FROM AIRCRAFT AND AIRCRAFT ENGINES 1. The authority citation for part 87 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 231, 301( a), Clean Air Act, as amended ( 42 U. S. C 7571, 7601( a)).

Subpart A   [ Amended]

2. Section 87.7 is amended by removing paragraphs ( b)( 1) and ( b)( 2).

3. A new section 87.8 is added to read as follows:

§ 87.8 Incorporation by reference. DRAFT to OMB 6/ 30/ 05 94 We have incorporated by reference the documents listed in this section. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference as prescribed in 5 U. S. C. 552( a) and 1 CFR part 51. Anyone may inspect copies at the U. S. EPA, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Room B102, EPA West Building,

Washington, DC 20460 or at the National Archives and Records Administration ( NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202 741 6030, or go to:

http:// www. archives. gov/ federal_ register/ code_ of_ federal_ regulations/ ibr_ locations. html.

( a) ICAO material. Table 1 of § 87.8 lists material from the International Civil Aviation Organization that we have incorporated by reference. The first column lists the number and name of the material. The second column lists the sections of this part where we reference it. Anyone may purchase copies of these materials from the International Civil Aviation Organization,

Document Sales Unit, 999 University Street, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3C 5H7. Table 1 follows:

Table 1 of § 87.8   ICAO Materials Document number and name Part 87 reference International Civil Aviation Organization Annex 16, Environmental Protection, Volume II, Aircraft Engine Emissions, Second Edition, July 1993, Including Amendment 3 of March 20, 1997 ( as indicated in footnoted pages.) 87.8, 87.64, 87.71, 87.82,

87.89 ( b) [ Reserved] DRAFT to OMB 6/ 30/ 05 95 Subpart C   [ Amended]

4. Section 87.21 is amended by adding paragraph ( d)( 1)( vi) and ( d)( 1)( vii) to read as follows:

§ 87.21 Standards for exhaust emissions.

* * * * *

( d) * * *

( 1) * * *

( vi) Engines of a type or model of which the date of manufacture of the first individual production model was after December 31, 2003:

( A) Engines with a rated pressure ratio of 30 or less:

( 1) Engines with a maximum rated output greater than 89 kilonewtons:

Oxides of Nitrogen: ( 19 + 1.6( rPR)) grams/ kilonewtons rO. DRAFT to OMB 6/ 30/ 05 96 ( 2) Engines with a maximum rated output greater than 26.7 kilonewtons but not greater than 89 kilonewtons:

Oxides of Nitrogen: ( 37.572 + 1.6( rPR)  0.2087( rO)) grams/ kilonewtons rO.

( B) Engines with a rated pressure ratio greater than 30 but less than 62.5:

( 1) Engines with a maximum rated output greater than 89 kilonewtons:

Oxides of Nitrogen: ( 7 + 2( rPR)) grams/ kilonewtons rO.

( 2) Engines with a maximum rated output greater than 26.7 kilonewtons but not greater than 89 kilonewtons:

Oxides of Nitrogen: ( 42.71 + 1.4286( rPR)  0.4013( rO) + 0.00642( rPR × rO))

grams/ kilonewtons rO.

( A) Engines with a rated pressure ratio of 62.5 or more:

Oxides of Nitrogen: ( 32 + 1.6( rPR)) grams/ kilonewtons rO. DRAFT to OMB 6/ 30/ 05 97 ( vii) The emission standards prescribed in paragraph ( d)( 1)( vi) of this section shall apply as prescribed beginning [ Insert date 30 days after date of publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER].

* * * * *

Subpart G   [ Amended]

5. Section 87.64 is revised to read as follows:

§ 87.64 Sampling and analytical procedures for measuring gaseous exhaust emissions.

The system and procedures for sampling and measurement of gaseous emissions shall be as specified by Appendices 3 and 5 to ICAO Annex 16 ( incorporated by reference in § 87.8).

6. Section 87.71 is revised to read as follows:

§ 87.71 Compliance with gaseous emission standards.

Compliance with each gaseous emission standard by an aircraft engine shall be determined by comparing the pollutant level in grams/ kilonewton/ thrust/ cycle or grams/ kilowatt/ cycle as DRAFT to OMB 6/ 30/ 05 98 calculated in § 87.64 with the applicable emission standard under this part. An acceptable alternative to testing every engine is described in Appendix 6 to ICAO Annex 16 ( incorporated by reference in § 87.8). Other methods of demonstrating compliance may be approved by the Secretary with the concurrence of the Administrator.

7. Section 87.82 is revised to read as follows:

§ 87.82 Sampling and analytical procedures for measuring smoke exhaust emissions.

The system and procedures for sampling and measurement of smoke emissions shall be as specified by Appendix 2 to ICAO Annex 16 ( incorporated by reference in § 87.8).

8. Section 87.89 is revised to read as follows:

§ 87.89 Compliance with smoke emission standards.

Compliance with each smoke emission standard shall be determined by comparing the plot of SN as a function of power setting with the applicable emission standard under this part. The SN at every power setting must be such that there is a high degree of confidence that the standard will not be exceeded by any engine of the model being tested. An acceptable alternative to testing every engine is described in Appendix 6 to ICAO Annex 16 ( incorporated by reference in § 87.8). DRAFT to OMB 6/ 30/ 05 99


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 216 (Wednesday, November 7, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66861-66862]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27273]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4086-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

New Jersey; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the
State of New Jersey (FEMA-4086-DR), dated October 30, 2012, and related
determinations.

Dates: Effective Date: November 1, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, on October 31,
2012, the President amended the cost-sharing arrangements regarding
Federal funds provided under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.
(the ``Stafford Act''), as follows:

I authorize a one hundred percent (100%) Federal cost share for ten
days for emergency power restoration assistance and emergency public
transportation assistance, including direct Federal assistance, for
those areas within counties designated for Public Assistance. I
authorize this cost-share adjustment beginning October 30, 2012
through November 9, 2012.
This adjustment to State and local cost sharing applies only to
Public Assistance costs for emergency power restoration assistance
and emergency public transportation assistance, including direct
Federal assistance. All other Public Assistance costs will continue
to be reimbursed at 75 percent of total eligible costs. The law
specifically prohibits a similar adjustment for funds provided to
States for Other Needs Assistance (Section 408) and the Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program (Section 404). These funds will continue to
be reimbursed at 75 percent of total eligible costs.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used

for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans;
97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster
Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA);
97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing
Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared
Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and
Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to
Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--
Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039,
Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2012-27273 Filed 11-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P