[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 108 (Wednesday, June 5, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33726-33731]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13186]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0062; FRL-9820-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Kentucky:
Kentucky Portion of Cincinnati-Hamilton, Revision to the Motor Vehicle
Emissions Budgets

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve a revision to the
Kentucky State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted to EPA on August 9,
2012, by the Commonwealth of Kentucky, through the Kentucky Energy and
Environment Cabinet, Division for Air Quality (DAQ). Kentucky's August
9, 2012, SIP revision includes changes to the maintenance plan for the
Kentucky portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN, maintenance area
for the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS). The Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN, maintenance area for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS includes the counties of Boone, Campbell and
Kenton in Kentucky (hereafter also referred to as Northern Kentucky); a
portion of Dearborn County, Indiana; and the entire counties of Butler,
Clermont, Clinton, Hamilton and Warren in Ohio. Kentucky's August 9,
2012, SIP revision proposes to update the motor vehicle emissions
budget using an updated mobile emissions model, the Motor Vehicle
Emissions Simulator (also known as MOVES2010a), and to increase the
safety margin allocated to motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs or
budgets) for nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic
compounds (VOC) for Northern Kentucky to account for changes in the
emissions model and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) projection model. EPA
is approving this SIP revision and deeming the MVEB adequate for
transportation conformity purposes, because the Commonwealth has
demonstrated that it is consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on August 5, 2013 without further notice,
unless EPA receives relevant adverse comment by July 5, 2013. If EPA
receives such comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register informing the public that this rule will not take
effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2013-0062 by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0062, Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2013-0062. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or
email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information

about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at
http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding
federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Sheckler, Air Quality and
Transportation Modeling Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Kelly
Sheckler may be reached by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by electronic
mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What is the background for this action?
    a. SIP Budgets and Transportation Conformity
    b. Prior Approval of Budgets
    c. The MOVES Emissions Model and Regional Transportation
Conformity Grace Period
    d. Submissions of New Budgets Based on MOVES2010a
II. What are the criteria for approval?
III. What is EPA's analysis of the Commonwealth's SIP revision?
    a. Approvability of the MOVES2010a-Based Budgets
    b. Applicability of MOVES2010a-Based Budgets
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Is the background for this action?

a. SIP Budgets and Transportation Conformity

    Under the CAA, states are required to submit, at various times,
control strategy SIP revisions and maintenance plans for nonattainment
and maintenance areas for a given NAAQS. These emission control
strategy SIP revisions (e.g., reasonable further progress and
attainment demonstration SIP revisions) and maintenance plans include
budgets of on-road mobile source emissions for criteria pollutants and/
or their precursors to address pollution from cars, trucks, and other
on-road vehicles. SIP budgets are the portions of the total allowable
emissions that are allocated to on-road vehicle use that, together with
emissions from other sources in the area, will provide for attainment
or maintenance. The budget serves as a ceiling on emissions from an
area's planned transportation system. For more information about
budgets, see the preamble to the November 24, 1993, transportation
conformity rule (58 FR 62188).
    Under section 176(c) of the CAA, transportation plans,
transportation improvement programs (TIPs), and transportation projects
must ``conform'' to (i.e., be consistent with) the SIP before they can
be adopted or approved. Conformity to the SIP means that transportation
activities will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing
air quality violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS or an
interim milestone. The transportation conformity regulations can be
found at 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93.
    Before budgets can be used in conformity determinations, EPA must
affirmatively find the budgets adequate. However, adequate budgets do
not supersede approved budgets for the same CAA purpose. If the
submitted SIP budgets are meant to replace budgets for the same CAA
purpose and year(s) addressed by a previously approved SIP, as in the
case of Kentucky's MOVES2010a VOC and NOX budgets for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (the subject of this action), EPA must approve
the revised SIP and budgets, and can affirm the budgets are adequate at
the same time. Once EPA approves the SIP revision and determines the
budgets adequate, the revised budgets must be used by the state and
federal agencies in determining whether transportation activities
conform to the SIP as required by section 176(c) of the CAA. EPA's
substantive criteria for determining the adequacy of budgets are set
out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).

b. Prior Approval of Budgets

    Northern Kentucky, as part of the Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN
area, was designated as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
effective June 15, 2004 (69 FR 23858).\1\ Subsequently, Northern
Kentucky, as part of the Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN area, was
redesignated as attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS on August 5,
2010, (75 FR 47218). As part of this redesignation, EPA approved a 10-
year air quality maintenance plan covering the years 2010 through 2020.
The 10-year air quality maintenance plan for Northern Kentucky
established MVEBs for 2015 and 2020 for transportation conformity
purposes using the MOBILE 6.2 model which was the latest approved
emissions model at that time. That plan satisfied the CAA requirement
for a 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan.
    The same counties in Northern Kentucky were designated
nonattainment for the 1997 annual fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) NAAQS. See 70 FR 944 (January 5, 2005).
Subsequently, on December 15, 2011, EPA approved a redesignation
request for this same area for the 1997 annual PM2.5 from
nonattainment to attainment. See 76 FR 77903. Kentucky's 1997 annual
PM2.5 maintenance plan included MVEBs that were derived with
the MOVES model--the latest approved emissions model at that time.
    Kentucky is taking the opportunity through the Commonwealth's
August 9, 2012, SIP revision to align and update the mobile model used
to derive the MVEBs for ozone for the ease of implementing
transportation conformity requirements in the Northern Kentucky Area.
Specifically, Kentucky has opted to update the 1997 8-hour ozone MVEBs
with the MOVES model. This update would align the 1997 8-hour ozone
MVEBs with the most current mobile model and would align these MVEBs
with the mobile model (i.e., MOVES) that has to be used for both the
ozone and PM2.5 transportation conformity analysis.

c. The MOVES Emissions Model and Regional Transportation Conformity
Grace Period

    The MOVES model is EPA's state-of-the-art tool for estimating
highway emissions. The model is based on analyses of millions of
emission test results and considerable advances in the Agency's
understanding of vehicle emissions. MOVES incorporates the latest
emissions data, more sophisticated calculation algorithms, increased
user flexibility, new software design, and significant new capabilities
relative to those reflected in MOBILE 6.2.
    EPA announced the release of MOVES2010 in March 2010 (75 FR 9411).
EPA subsequently released two minor model revisions: MOVES2010a in
September 2010 and MOVES2010b in

April 2012. Both of these minor revisions enhance model performance and
do not significantly affect the criteria pollutant emissions results
from MOVES2010.
    MOVES will be required for new regional emissions analyses for
transportation conformity determinations (``regional conformity
analyses'') outside of California that begin after March 2, 2013 (or
when EPA approves MOVES-based budgets, whichever comes first).\2\ The
MOVES grace period for regional conformity analyses applies to both the
use of MOVES2010 and approved minor revisions (e.g., MOVES2010a and
MOVES2010b). For more information, see EPA's ``Policy Guidance on the
Use of MOVES2010 and Subsequent Minor Model Revisions for State
Implementation Plan Development, Transportation Conformity, and Other
Purposes'' (April 2012), available online at: www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/policy.htm#models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Upon the release of MOVES2010, EPA established a two-year
grace period before MOVES is required to be used for regional
conformity analyses (75 FR 9411). EPA subsequently promulgated a
final rule on February 27, 2012, to provide an additional year
before MOVES is required for these analyses (77 FR 11394).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA encouraged areas to examine how MOVES would affect future
transportation plan and TIP conformity determinations so, if necessary,
SIPs and budgets could be revised with MOVES or transportation plans
and TIPs could be revised (as appropriate) prior to the end of the
regional transportation conformity grace period. EPA also encouraged
state and local air agencies to consider how the release of MOVES would
affect analyses supporting SIP submissions under development (77 FR
9411 and 77 FR 11394).
    For consistency purposes with future Transportation conformity
determinations, the interagency consultation partners for
transportation conformity decided to update the 1997 8-hour ozone
MOBILE6.2-based MVEBs with MOVES

d. Submission of New Budgets Based on MOVES2010a

    On August 9, 2012, the Commonwealth submitted a SIP revision to
revise the 1997 8-hour ozone MVEBs using the MOVES2010a emissions model
for the Kentucky portion of the Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana MSA. The
revision reflects changes in emission estimates due to new emissions
model, VMT projection models, and other emission model input data. The
Indiana and Ohio portion of this Area have separate MVEBs. In its
August 9, 2012, SIP revision, Kentucky also provides for a safety
margin to the 1997 8-hour ozone MVEBs for the years 2015 and 2020 for
both NOX and VOC. The 1997 8-hour ozone MVEBs (expressed in
tons per day (tpd)) that are being updated through today's action were
originally approved by EPA on August 5, 2010 (75 FR 47218). These MVEBs
were established for NOX and VOC for the years, 2015 and
2020.

II. What are the criteria for approval?

    EPA has always required under the CAA that revisions to existing
SIPs continue to meet applicable requirements (i.e., reasonable further
progress (RFP), attainment, or maintenance). States that revise their
existing SIPs to include MOVES budgets must therefore show that the SIP
continues to meet applicable requirements with the new level of motor
vehicle emissions contained in the budgets. The SIP must also meet any
applicable SIP requirements under CAA section 110.
    In addition, the transportation conformity rule (40 CFR
93.118(e)(4)(iv)) requires that ``the motor vehicle emissions
budget(s), when considered together with all other emissions sources,
is consistent with applicable requirements for [RFP], attainment, or
maintenance (whichever is relevant to the given implementation plan
submission).'' This and the other adequacy criteria found at 40 CFR
93.118(e)(4) must be satisfied before EPA can find submitted budgets
adequate or approve them for conformity purposes.
    In addition, areas can revise their budgets and inventories using
MOVES without revising their entire SIP if: (1) The SIP continues to
meet applicable requirements when the previous motor vehicle emissions
inventories are replaced with MOVES base year and milestone,
attainment, or maintenance year inventories; and (2) the state can
document that growth and control strategy assumptions for non-motor
vehicle sources continue to be valid and any minor updates do not
change the overall conclusions of the SIP. For example, the first
criterion could be satisfied by demonstrating that the emissions
reductions between the base year and attainment or maintenance year are
the same or greater using MOVES than they were previously.
    For more information, see EPA's ``Policy Guidance on the Use of
MOVES2010 and Subsequent Minor Model Revisions for State Implementation
Plan Development, Transportation Conformity, and Other Purposes''
(April 2012).

III. What is EPA's analysis of the Commonwealth's SIP revision?

    As discussed above, EPA issued an updated motor vehicle emissions
model known as MOVES. In its announcement of this model, EPA
established a two-year grace period for continued use of MOBILE6.2 in
regional emissions analyses for transportation plan and TIPs conformity
determinations (extending to March 2, 2013), after which states (other
than California) must use MOVES in conformity determinations for TIPs.
MOBILE6.2 was the applicable mobile source emissions model that was
available when the Commonwealth submitted the original maintenance plan
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The Commonwealth has opted to update
its 1997 8-hour ozone MVEBs with the MOVES model for ease of
implementing transportation conformity requirements.

              Table 1--Original MVEBs for Northern Kentucky
                  [Boone, Campbell and Kenton Counties]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 2015 (tpd)   2020 (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX...........................................        14.40        13.27
VOC...........................................         9.76        10.07
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following tables show the difference between the MOBILE6.2
MVEBs and the MOVES MVEB.

                                                                  Table 2--VOC Emissions Inventory: MOBILE6.2 versus MOVES MVEB
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           VOC                                                 MOBILE6.2                                             MOVES                                             MOVES
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------
                         Sector                               2005         2008         2015         2020         2005         2008         2015         2020     2005  2008  2015  2020  2005
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------
Point...................................................         4.02         4.26         4.65         4.93         4.02         4.26         4.65         4.93
Area....................................................        21.43        20.63        20.36        20.36        21.43        20.63        20.36        20.36

Non-Road................................................         9.52         8.53         7.60         7.31         9.52         8.53         7.60         7.31
Mobile..................................................        11.17        10.14         7.76         7.07        25.20        16.53         9.09         5.89
                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................        46.14        43.56        40.37        39.67        60.17        49.95        41.70        38.49
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                 Table 3--NOX Emissions Inventory: MOBILE6.2 versus MOVES MVEBs
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           NOX                                                 MOBILE6.2                                             MOVES                                             MOVES
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------
                         Sector                               2005         2008         2015         2020         2005         2008         2015         2020     2005  2008  2015  2020  2005
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------
Point...................................................        23.98        23.32        25.13        26.53        23.98        23.32        25.13        26.53
Area....................................................        10.57        10.40        10.35        10.35        10.57        10.40        10.35        10.35
Non-Road................................................        27.72        23.69        20.49        19.57        27.72        23.69        20.49        19.57
Mobile..................................................        26.64        21.78        11.40         8.27        80.15        55.34        31.56        18.74
                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................        88.91        79.19        67.37        64.72       142.42       112.75        87.53        75.19
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the on-road mobile source emissions increased from the
original MOBILE 6.2 MVEBs for a number of projection years, the revised
data does not change the ozone attainment status for the Cincinnati-
Hamilton, OH-KY-IN area. The point, area, and non-road sectors of the
SIP emissions inventory are not affected. The only affected portions
are the on-road mobile source emissions and the overall totals. EPA
notes that the change in the projected emissions for on-road mobile
sources is due solely to the transitions from reliance on MOBILE 6.2
MVEBs to reliance on MOVES MVEBs.
    The Commonwealth is currently allocating portions of the available
safety margin \3\ to the MVEBs to account for new emissions models, VMT
projections models, as well as changes to future vehicle mix
assumptions, that influence the emission estimations. A portion of the
safety margin for both VOC and NOX will be allocated for
budget years 2015 and 2020 to address the additional projected
emissions increases associated with the use of the MOVES model. The
MVEB years will remain the same with the MOVES updated numbers.
Specifically, 2.06 tpd of the available VOC safety margin is allocated
to the 2015 MVEBs and 2.87 tpd for the 2020 MVEBs.\4\ Additionally,
6.31 tpd of the available NOX safety margin are allocated to
the 2015 MVEBs and 9.39 tpd for the 2020 MVEBs. The remaining safety
margin for VOC for 2015 is 6.19 tpd and for 2020 is 8.59 tpd. The
remaining safety margin for NOX for 2015 is 18.91 tpd and
for 2020 is 28.17 tpd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A safety margin is the difference between the attainment
level of emissions from all source categories (i.e., point, area,
and mobile) and the projected level of emissions from all source
categories. The State may choose to allocate some of the safety
margin to the MVEB, for transportation conformity purposes, so long
as the total level of emissions from all source categories remains
equal to or less than the attainment level of emissions.
    \4\ EPA notes that projected mobile emissions for 2020 decrease
from 7.07 tpd under the MOBILE 6.2 model projection to 5.89 tpd
under the MOVES model projection. Nonetheless, KDAQ has proposed to
allocate 2.87 tpd of its VOC safety margin to the 2020 MVEBs to
account for potential changes in methodology that may occur in the
future such as updated socioeconomic data, new models, and other
factors.

                  Table 4--Northern Kentucky NOX MVEBs
                                  [tpd]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          2015     2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              NOX Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-Road Mobile Emissions..............................    31.56    18.74
Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs......................     6.31     9.39
NOX Conformity MVEBs..................................    37.87    28.13
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  Table 5--Northern Kentucky VOC MVEBs
                                  [tpd]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          2015     2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              VOC Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-Road Mobile Emissions..............................     9.09     5.89
Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs......................     2.06     2.87
VOC Conformity MVEBs..................................    11.15     8.76
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Taking into consideration the portion of the safety margin applied
to the MVEBs, the resulting difference between the attainment level of
emissions from all sources and the projected level of emissions from
all sources in the maintenance area, the Area still attains the NAAQS
and meets the maintenance requirements. The new safety margins are
listed below in Table 6.

          Table 6--New Safety Margins for the Northern Kentucky
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Year                         VOC tpd      NOX tpd
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015..........................................         6.19        18.91
2020..........................................         8.59        28.17
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in Tables 2 and 3 above, VOC and NOX total
emissions in Northern Kentucky are projected to steadily decrease from
2008 to the maintenance year of 2020. This VOC and NOX
emission decrease demonstrates continued maintenance of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS for ten years from 2010 (the year the Area was effectively
designated attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS) as required by
the CAA.

a. Approvability of the MOVES2010a-Based Budgets

    EPA is approving the MOVES2010a-based budgets submitted by the
Commonwealth for use in determining transportation conformity in
Northern Kentucky for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is making this
approval based on our evaluation of these budgets using the adequacy
criteria found in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and our evaluation of the
Commonwealth's submittal and SIP requirements. EPA has determined,
based on its evaluation, that the Area's SIP would continue to serve
its

intended purpose with the submitted MOVES2010a-based budgets at 40 CFR
93.118(e)(4). Specifically:
     The submitted SIP was endorsed by Kentucky Energy and
Environment Cabinet Secretary, Leonard K. Peters, and was subject to a
state public hearing ((e)(4)(i));
     Before the submitted SIP was submitted to EPA,
consultation among federal, state, and local agencies occurred, full
documentation was provided to EPA [and EPA's stated concerns were
addressed, if applicable] ((e)(4)(ii));
     The budgets are clearly identified and precisely
quantified ((e)(4)(iii));
     The budgets, when considered together with all other
emissions sources, are consistent with applicable requirements for
reasonable further progress, attainment, or maintenance ((e)(4)(iv));
     The budgets are consistent with and clearly related to the
emissions inventory and control measures in the submitted SIP
((e)(4)(v); and,
     The revisions explain and document changes to the previous
budgets, impacts on point and area source emissions, and changes to
established safety margins, and reasons for the changes (including the
basis for any changes related to emission factors or vehicle miles
traveled) ((e)(4)(vi)).
    EPA has always required under the CAA that revisions to existing
SIPs and budgets continue to meet applicable requirements (e.g., RFP or
attainment). Therefore, states that revise existing SIPs with MOVES
must show that the SIP continues to meet applicable requirements with
the new level of motor vehicle emissions calculated by the new model.
    To that end, Kentucky DAQ's submitted SIP meets EPA's two criteria
for revising budgets without revising the entire SIP if:
    (1) The SIP continues to meet applicable requirements when the
previous motor vehicle emissions inventories are replaced with [MOVES
model used] base year and milestone, attainment, or maintenance year
inventories, and
    (2) The state can document that growth and control strategy
assumptions for non-motor vehicle sources continue to be valid and any
minor updates do not change the overall conclusions of the SIP.
    As described above in section above, the Area meets both of the
above criteria based on information provided to EPA or if there are
more significant changes in other inventory categories. Based on review
of the SIP and the new budgets provided, EPA is determining that the
SIP will continue to meet applicable requirements if the revised motor
vehicle emissions inventories are replaced with MOVES2010a.

b. Applicability of MOVES2010a-Based Budgets

    Pursuant to the Commonwealth's request, EPA is approving the
revised budgets. The Commonwealth's existing MOBILE6.2 budgets will no
longer be applicable for transportation conformity purposes upon the
effective date of this final approval.
    In addition, once EPA approves the MOVES2010a-based budgets, the
regional transportation conformity grace period for using MOVES2010
(and subsequent minor revisions) for the pollutants included in these
budgets will end for Northern Kentucky for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
on the effective date of this final approval.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For more information, see EPA's ``Policy Guidance on the Use
of MOVES2010 and Subsequent Minor Revisions for State Implementation
Plan Development, Transportation Conformity, and Other Purposes,''
(April 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Final Action

    EPA is taking direct final action to approve Commonwealth's August
9, 2012, SIP revision to replace the existing MOBILE 6.2 MVEBs for VOC
and NOX with new budgets based on MOVES2010a. In addition,
EPA is taking direct final action to allocate a portion of the
available safety margin to the MOVES2010a MVEBs for Northern Kentucky
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is approving this action because
it is consistent with the CAA and the transportation conformity
requirements at 40 CFR 93.
    EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a non-controversial amendment 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 an
adverse comment be filed. This rule will be effective on August 5, 2013
without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comment by
July 5, 2013. 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 on this action. Any parties
interested in commenting must do so at this time. If no such comments
are received, the public is advised this rule will be effective on
August 5, 2013 and no further action will be taken on the proposed
rule.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by
Commonwealth law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian

country, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs
on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by August 5, 2013. 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, Ozone,
Intergovernmental relations, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen
dioxides, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Volatile
organic compounds.

    Dated: May 22, 2013.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart S--Kentucky

0
2. Section 52.920 (e) is amended by adding a new entry at the end of
the table for the ``MVEB Update for the 1997 8-hour Ozone Maintenance
Plan for Northern Kentucky'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.920  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                 EPA Approved Kentucky Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Applicable       State submittal
   Name of non-regulatory SIP        geographic or       date/effective    EPA approval date      Explanation
            provision              nonattainment area         date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
MVEB Update for the 1997 8-hour   Boone, Campbell,                8/9/12  6/5/13 [Insert      ..................
 Ozone Maintenance Plan for        and Kenton                              citation of
 Northern Kentucky.                Counties, KY.                           publication].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2013-13186 Filed 6-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 169 (Thursday, August 30, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44214-44216]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18765]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0131; Airspace Docket No. 18-ASO-4]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Eastover, SC and
Sumter, SC

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class D airspace and Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Mc Entire Joint
National Guard Base (JNGB), Eastover, SC, to accommodate airspace
reconfiguration due to the decommissioning of the Mc Entire non-
directional radio beacon (NDB) and cancellation of the NDB approach.
Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of
instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action
also updates the geographic coordinates of the Mc Entire JNGB, and Shaw
AFB, and Sumter Airport, Sumter, SC, and updates the names of Mc Entire
JNGB and Sumter Airport. In addition, an editorial change is made to
the airspace designation in both Class D and E airspace.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, November 8, 2018. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11B at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701
Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends Class D and Class E airspace at Mc Entire JNGB, Shaw AFB,
and Sumter Airport, Eastover and Sumter, SC, to support IFR operations
at these airports.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (83 FR 14610, April 5, 2018) for Docket No. FAA-2018-0131 to
amend Class D and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface at Mc Entire JNGB due to the decommissioning of the Mc
Entire NDB, and cancellation of the NDB approach. The NPRM also advised
of the proposed amendment to the geographic coordinates of Mc Entire
JNGB, and Shaw AFB, and Sumter Airport, Sumter, SC, and the Mc Entire
JNGB TACAN geographic coordinates. Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on
the proposal to the FAA. One comment was received from the Aircraft
Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) in support of the proposal. In
their comment, AOPA stated that the NPRM did not comply with FAA
guidance in Order 7400.2, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters,
because a graphic was not included in the docket. Additionally, AOPA
encouraged the FAA to follow

their guidance by making the action effective date concurrent with
publication of the VFR sectional chart publication date.
    The FAA has determined AOPA's comments raised no substantive issues
related to the proposed changes to the airspace addressed in the NPRM.
To the extent the FAA failed to follow its policies related to
publishing graphics in the docket and coincidental to the sectional
chart date, we note the following.
    The FAA provided graphics for this proposal on April 25, 2018.
Nevertheless, specific to AOPA's comment regarding the FAA already
creating a graphical depiction of new or modified airspace overlaid on
a Sectional Chart for quality assurance purposes, this is not correct
nor required in all cases. During the airspace reviews, airspace
graphics may be created, if deemed necessary, to determine if there are
terrain issues, or if cases are considered complex. However, in many
cases, a graphic is not required when developing an airspace proposal.
    With respect to AOPA's comment addressing effective dates, FAA
Order 7400.2L, para 2-3-7.a.4. states that, to the extent practicable,
airspace areas and restricted areas should become effective on a
sectional chart date and that consideration should be given to
selecting a sectional chart date that matches a 56-day en route chart
cycle date. The FAA does consider Class E airspace amendment effective
dates to coincide with the publication of sectional charts, to the
extent practicable; however, this consideration is accomplished after
the NPRM comment period ends in the Final Rule. Substantive comments
received to NPRMs, flight safety concerns, management of IFR operations
at affected airports, and immediacy of required proposed airspace
amendments are some of the factors that must be taken into
consideration when selecting the appropriate effective date. After
considering all factors, the FAA may determine that selecting an
effective date that conforms to a 56-day en route chart cycle date that
is not coincidental to sectional chart dates is better for the NAS and
its users rather than awaiting the next sectional chart date.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15,
2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11B lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 amends Class D airspace and Class E airspace extending upward
from 700 feet or more above the surface of Mc Entire JNGB, due to the
decommissioning of the Mc Entire NDB, and cancellation of the NDB
approach. The changes enhance the safety and management of IFR
operations at the airport.
    The geographic coordinates of the Mc Entire JNGB, Shaw AFB, Sumter
Airport, Sumter, and the Mc Entire JNGB TACAN also are adjusted to
coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database, and the airport names
are updated to Mc Entire JNGB (formerly Mc Entire ANGB), and Sumter
Airport (formerly Sumter Municipal Airport). Also, this action updates
the name of the Mc Entire ANGB TACAN navigation aid to the Mc Entire
JNGB TACAN.
    Finally, an editorial change is made to the airspace designation,
removing the city from the airport name associated with Mc Entire JNGB
and Shaw AFB to comply with a recent change to FAA Order 7400.2L,
Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters.
    Class D and E airspace designations are published in Paragraphs
5000 and 6005, respectively of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3,
2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by
reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in
this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified
that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, is
amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

ASO SC D Eastover, SC [Amended]

Mc Entire JNGB, SC
    (Lat. 33[deg]55'15'' N, long. 80[deg]48'04'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,800 feet MSL within a 4.5-mile radius of Mc Entire JNGB. This
Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and
times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective
date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart
Supplement.

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ASO SC E5 Sumter, SC [Amended]

Shaw AFB, SC
    (Lat. 33[deg]58'22'' N, long. 80[deg]28'14'' W)
Mc Entire JNGB
    (Lat. 33[deg]55'15'' N, long. 80[deg]48'04'' W)
Mc Entire JNGB TACAN
    (Lat. 33[deg]55'27'' N, long. 80[deg]48'8'' W)
Sumter Airport, SC

    (Lat. 33[deg]59'42'' N, long. 80[deg]21'41'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 10-mile radius of Shaw AFB and within a 6.8-mile radius of
Mc Entire JNGB and within 3 miles each side of Mc Entire JNGB TACAN
138[deg] radial, extending from the 6.8-mile radius to 12 miles
southeast of the TACAN and within a 7-mile radius of Sumter Airport;
excluding that airspace contained within Restricted Area R-6002 when
it is in use.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on August 22, 2018.
Ryan W. Almasy,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2018-18765 Filed 8-29-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 142 (Wednesday, July 26, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34654-34655]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15645]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER12-2205-010; ER10-1821-015; ER12-2159-009; ER12-
919-008.
    Applicants: Meadow Creek Project Company LLC, Goshen Phase II LLC,
Canadian Hills Wind, LLC, Rockland Wind Farm LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Meadow Creek Project
Company LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 7/20/17.
    Accession Number: 20170720-5130.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-814-001; ER17-816-001; ER17-815-001; ER10-
2543-004; ER10-2606-012.
    Applicants: Verso Energy Services LLC, Verso Luke LLC, Verso
Escanaba LLC, Verso Androscoggin LLC, Consolidated Water Power Company.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of the Verso MBR Sellers.
    Filed Date: 7/20/17.
    Accession Number: 20170720-5077.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1778-001.
    Applicants: HD Project One LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: MBRA Application Amendment to be
effective 7/21/2017.
    Filed Date: 7/20/17.
    Accession Number: 20170720-5040.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2044-001.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 3215R2 People's Electric Cooperative
NITSA NOA to be effective 6/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 7/20/17.
    Accession Number: 20170720-5062.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2114-000.
    Applicants: The Dayton Power and Light Company, Ohio Power Company,
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Interconnection Agreement SA
No. 1461 between Dayton and Ohio Power to be effective 7/21/2017.
    Filed Date: 7/20/17.
    Accession Number: 20170720-5059.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or 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 (866)
208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 20, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-15645 Filed 7-25-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 23 (Friday, February 3, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5425-5426]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2422]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0084; Directorate Identifier 2010-SW-089-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited
Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited (BHTC) Model 427 helicopters.
This proposed AD is prompted by a review of the tailboom attachment
installation, which revealed that the torque value of the bolts
specified in the BHTC Model 427 Maintenance Manual and applied during
manufacturing was incorrect and exceeded the torque range recommended
for the bolts. The proposed actions are intended to prevent an over-
torque of the tailboom attachment bolt (bolt), bolt failure, loss of
the tailboom, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 3, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Examining the AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket
Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the
economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The
street address for the Docket Operations Office (telephone (800) 647-
5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD
docket shortly after receipt.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir,
Mirabel, Quebec J7J1R4, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax
(450) 433-0272, or at http://www.bellcustomer.com/files/.
    You may review copies of the referenced service information at the
FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham
Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon Miles, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Regulations and Policy Group, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas
76137; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to
the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might
result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To
ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters
should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed
electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
    We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as
a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we
will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay.
We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

Discussion

    Transport Canada (TC), which is the aviation authority for Canada,
has issued AD CF-2010-32, dated September 30, 2010 (AD CF-2010-32), to
correct an unsafe condition for the BHTC Model 427 helicopters, serial
numbers (S/Ns) 56001 through 56084, and S/Ns 58001 and 58002. TC
advises that a review of the tailboom attachment installation
determined that the torque value of the bolts specified in the BHTC
Model 427 Maintenance Manual and applied during manufacturing exceeded
the torque range recommended for the bolts. They state that this
situation, if not corrected, could lead to a bolt failure, detachment
of the tailboom, and loss of control of the helicopter.

FAA's Determination

    This helicopter model is manufactured in Canada and is type
certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of
14 CFR 21.29 and the applicable bilateral agreement. Pursuant to the
bilateral agreement, TC has kept the FAA informed of the situation
described above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all
information provided by TC and determined the unsafe condition is
likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type
designs.

Related Service Information

    BHTC has issued Alert Service Bulletin No. 427-10-31, dated March
1, 2010 (ASB), which specifies installing new attachment hardware with
a reduced torque value. This ASB specifies determining the torque of
the newly installed bolts and nuts every 1 to 5 flight hours until
torque stabilizes at all locations, and thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 300 flight hours. TC classified this ASB as mandatory and issued
AD CF-2010-32 to ensure the continued airworthiness of these
helicopters.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require, within 150 hours time-in-service
(TIS) or 90 days, whichever occurs first, the following actions:
     Remove the left upper bolt, washers, and nut. Install the
new bolt, part number (P/N) NAS627-27; washers, P/N 140-007-29S25E6 and
P/N NAS1149G0732P; and new nut, P/N 42FLW-720. Run the nut onto the
threads of the mating bolt with a torque wrench and measure the
existing tare. Any bolt and nut used must have a minimum tare of 14
inch/lbs. Torque the nut and coat the bolt head, nut, and washers with
appropriate corrosion preventive compound to seal the joint. Repeat
these actions at the three remaining bolt locations.
     After installation of the new attachment hardware, at
intervals of no less than 1 hour TIS but not exceeding 5 hours TIS,
determine the torque of each nut until torque stabilizes at each
attachment location. Thereafter, determine the torque of each nut at
intervals not to exceed 300 hours TIS.
    The actions would be required to be accomplished by following
specified

portions of the service bulletin described previously.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the TC AD

    The differences between this proposed AD and the TC AD are as
follows:
     The TC AD applies to the BHTC Model 427 helicopter, serial
numbers 58001 and 58002; however, this proposed AD is not applicable to
the BHTC Model 427 helicopters with these serial numbers because they
are not eligible for an FAA Certificate of Airworthiness.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 28 helicopters of
U.S. registry. We estimate it would take about 2.0 work-hours per
helicopter to replace the hardware, and 1.0 work-hour per helicopter to
determine the recurring torque value at an average labor rate of $85
per work hour. Required parts would cost about $488 per helicopter.
Based on these figures, we estimate for the first year the total cost
per helicopter to be $913, and the total cost impact on U.S. operators
to be $25,564. This estimated total cost assumes attachment hardware
will be replaced on all affected helicopters, the torque will be
considered stabilized after one torquing, and the recurring 300 hour
TIS torque determination will be accomplished twice a year.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new
Airworthiness Directive (AD):

Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited (BHTC): Docket No. FAA-2012-
0084; Directorate Identifier 2010-SW-089-AD.

    (a) Applicability. This AD applies to model 427 helicopters,
serial numbers 56001 through 56084, certificated in any category.
    (b) Unsafe Condition. This AD defines the unsafe condition as an
over torque of the tailboom attachment bolt (bolt). This condition
could result in bolt failure, loss of the tailboom, and subsequent
loss of control of the helicopter.
    (c) Compliance. You are responsible for performing each action
required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it
has already been accomplished prior to that time.
    (d) Required Actions.
    (1) Within 150 hours time-in-service (TIS) or 90 days, whichever
occurs first, replace the tailboom attachment hardware (attachment
hardware) as follows:
    (i) Remove the left upper bolt, washers, and nut.
    (ii) Install a new bolt, part number (P/N) NAS627-27; washer, P/
N 140-007-29S25E6; washer(s), P/N NAS1149G0732P; and new nut, P/N
42FLW-720 in accordance with paragraphs 5.a) through 5.d) of the
Accomplishment Instructions in BHTC Alert Service Bulletin No. 427-
10-31, dated March 1, 2010 (ASB).
    (iii) Run the nut onto the threads of the mating bolt with a
torque wrench and measure the existing tare torque. Any bolt and nut
used must have a minimum tare torque value of 14 inch/lbs.
    (iv) Torque the nut in accordance with paragraphs 5.f) and 5.g)
of the ASB.
    (v) Coat the bolt head, nut, and washers with appropriate
corrosion preventive compound to seal the joint.
    (vi) At each remaining attachment location, remove the bolt,
washers, and nut, and install the attachment hardware in accordance
with paragraphs (d)(1)(ii) through (d)(1)(v) of this AD.
    (2) After installation of the new attachment hardware, at
intervals of not less than 1 hour TIS but not exceeding 5 hours TIS,
determine the torque of each nut until the torque stabilizes at each
attachment location. Thereafter, at intervals not to exceed 300
hours TIS, determine the torque of each nut. When determining the
torque, it is acceptable to use the minimum tare torque of 14 inch/
lbs (1.58 Nm) added to the minimum torque range of 550-560 inch/lbs
(62.1 to 63.3 Nm). If you remove corrosion preventative compound
during the torquing, recoat the bolt head, nut, and washers with
appropriate corrosion preventive compound to seal the joint.
    (e) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOC).
    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Send your proposal to: Sharon Miles, 2601 Meacham
Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
(817) 222-5961, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a Part 119 operating
certificate or under Part 91, Subpart K, we suggest that you notify
your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the
manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate
holding district office before operating any aircraft complying with
this AD through an AMOC.
    (f) Additional Information. The subject of this AD is addressed
in Transport Canada AD CF-2010-32, dated September 30, 2010.
    (g) Subject. Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 5302:
Rotorcraft Tailboom.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on January 23, 2012.
Kim Smith,
Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-2422 Filed 2-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


From:
"Jones, DonnaLee"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Mon, 12 Sep 2022 16:52:00
To:
"Cornelius; Jay"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:
Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Coke ICR2<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Shappley, Ned<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Mcginn, Kevin<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
RE: Coke Oven RTR, ICR Enclosure 2 (Part) - Test Plan/Fugitive Monitoring Plan - ABC Coke, Tarrant
Jay - We, on the Coke 114 team (Kevin, Ned, et al.), have reviewed ABC Coke's REVISED QAPP documents and found them all acceptable. Thank you for your efforts on this task.

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711
Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

Pronouns - She/Her/Hers
Salutation - Dr./Ms.

From: Cornelius, Jay<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2022 8:18 AMTo: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>GABRIELLE RAYMOND<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Shappley, Ned<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Mcginn, Kevin<EMAIL_ADDRESS>RE: Coke Oven RTR, ICR Enclosure 2 (Part) - Test Plan/Fugitive Monitoring Plan - ABC Coke, Tarrant

Good morning, Dr. Jones,

ABC Coke's REVISED QAPP documents, including GPS coordinates, are attached as requested.  Please let me know if you have any questions or require additional information.

Regards,

Jay Cornelius
Manager  -  Environmental Control

Office:<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

From: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>> Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 12:45 PMTo: Cornelius, Jay<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>Cc: GABRIELLE RAYMOND<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>; Shappley, Ned<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>; Mcginn, Kevin<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>Subject: RE: Coke Oven RTR, ICR Enclosure 2 (Part) - Test Plan/Fugitive Monitoring Plan - ABC Coke, Tarrant

Hello Jay  -  Thank you for the submission of your QAPP in response to the 2022 Clean Air Act section 114 test request for the Coke Ovens RTR. We reviewed your submission and had the following comments and requests:

"This test plan needs the GPS coordinates of the actual locations rather than only indicated on a map, so we can confirm the proper placement."

Please submit a revised QAPP documents addressing these deficiencies by Monday, September 12, 2022 COB.

Thank you for your efforts wth this 114 request.

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711
Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

Pronouns - She/Her/Hers
Salutation - Dr./Ms.

From: Cornelius, Jay<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2022 12:08 PMTo: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>Cc: Freeman, Caroline<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>; French, Chuck<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>; David Ailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>Subject: Coke Oven RTR, ICR Enclosure 2 (Part) - Test Plan/Fugitive Monitoring Plan - ABC Coke, Tarrant

Dr. Jones,

Attached please find ABC Coke's Draft Test Plan in response to CAA Section 114 request, ICR for Coke Ovens RTR, Enclosure 2, Section 1.7.  Also included is a Draft Fugitive Monitoring Plan (including Quality Manual and SOPs), and QAPP prepared by our subcontractor, Alliance, detailing the proposed approach for the fenceline and interior monitoring at our facility in Tarrant, AL.

Some of these documents remain in DRAFT due to the limited time allotted for their development and the likely need to finalize the plan prior to implementation.  It is important to note that at this point, the challenge of supplying reliable power to remote fenceline monitoring stations nearly a half-mile from the plant is unresolved.  The installation of temporary power poles/lines to these stations is a substantial effort and neither ABC nor our consultants have come up with an acceptable and reasonable solution.  A simple option is to use alternative air sampling methods that do not require power.  Another significant yet unresolved concern is the security of sampling devices positioned at the ABC property boundary, but away from the plant proper and/or outside the security fence.  To date, dependable measures to deter theft/tampering of the devices and disrupting sample collection has not been developed.  Lacking viable solutions to these issues, the monitoring approach/methodology proposed in these draft documents may require revision to include acceptable alternatives.

Regards,

Jay Cornelius
Manager  -  Environmental Control

Office:<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 7 (Tuesday, January 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1460-1461]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00259]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-638, OMB Control No. 3235-0687]

Submission Collection; Comment Request; Extension: Rule 239

Upon Written Request Copies Available From:, Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission

(``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
this request for extension of the previously approved collection of
information discussed below.
    Rule 239 (17 CFR 230.239) provides exemptions under the Securities
Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.), the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) and the Trust Indenture Act of 1939
(U.S.C. 77aaa et seq.) for security-based swaps issued by certain
clearing agencies satisfying certain conditions. The purpose of the
information required by Rule 239 is to make certain information about
security-based swaps that may be cleared by the registered or the
exempt clearing agencies available to eligible contract participants
and other market participants. We estimate that each registered or
exempt clearing agency issuing security-based swaps in its function as
a central counterparty will spend approximately 2 hours each time it
provides or update the information in its agreements relating to
security-based swaps or on its website. We estimate that each
registered or exempt clearing agency will provide or update the
information approximately 20 times per year. In addition, we estimate
that 75% of the 2 hours per response (1.5 hours) is prepared internally
by the clearing agency for a total annual reporting burden of 180 hours
(1.5 hours per response x 20 times x 6 respondents).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following website: www.reginfo.gov. Find this
particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice
to (i) www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain and (ii) David Bottom,
Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission,
c/o John Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or by sending
an email to: [email protected].

    Dated: January 5, 2022.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-00259 Filed 1-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 230 (Friday, November 29, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71601-71602]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28719]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 14521-001, 14561-000]

KC Small Hydro LLC; Advanced Hydropower, Inc.; Notice of
Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting
Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On May 13, 2013, KC Scoby LLC filed an application for a
preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act
(FPA), and on October 30, 2013 filed for amendment of the application,
changing the applicant to KC Small Hydro LLC. (KCS Hydro). On November
5, 2013, Advanced Hydropower, Inc. (Advanced Hydro) filed a competing
application for a preliminary permit. Both applicants propose to study
the feasibility of a hydropower project to be located at the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers' (Corps) Falls Lake Dam on the Neuse River near the
town of Raleigh in Wake County, North Carolina. The sole purpose of a
preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority
to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary
permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-
disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by
others without the owners' express permission.
    KCS Hydro's proposed project would consist of the following: (1)
Two turbine/generator units, with a total capacity of 1,700 kilowatts
(kW), installed within the existing intake tower; (2) an electrical
control booth constructed on top of the intake tower; and (3) a 700-
foot-long, 13.2 kilo-Volt (kV) underground transmission line. The
proposed project would have an average annual generation of 5,000
megawatt-hours (MWh), and operate as directed by the Corps.

    Applicant Contact: Ms. Kelly Sackheim, KC Small Hydro LLC, 5096
Cocoa Palm Way, Fair Oaks, CA 95628.<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Advanced Hydro's proposed project consists of two alternatives:
    Alternative One: (1) A 17.4-foot-diameter extension of the existing
outlet conduit; (2) a double wye connection with trashracks and butter-
fly valves to route flow; (3) a powerhouse containing two generating
units with a total capacity of 3,320 kW; (4) the existing stilling
basin at the end of the outlet conduit would be enlarged; (5) a
substation; and (6) a 180-foot-long, 13.2 kV transmission line. The
proposed project would have an average annual generation of 9,800
megawatt-hours, and operate as directed by the Corps.
    Alternative two: (1) A new intake structure with trashracks located
in the reservoir to the south of the dam; (2) a 500-foot-long, 10-foot-
diameter penstock; (3) a powerhouse containing two generating units
with a total capacity of 3,320 kW; (4) the existing stilling basin at
the end of the outlet conduit would be enlarged; (5) a substation; and
(6) a 180-foot-long, 13.2 kV transmission line. The proposed project
would have an average annual generation of 9,800 megawatt-hours, and
operate as directed by the Corps.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Colin M. Gaines, Advanced Hydropower, Inc.,
3774 Chessa Lane, Clovis, CA 93619.<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Michael Spencer<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202) 502-
6093.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file,
please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14521 or P-14561) in the docket number field
to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: November 22, 2013.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-28719 Filed 11-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 245 (Friday, December 22, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 88546-88548]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28227]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2023-1758; Airspace Docket No. 23-AWP-44]
RIN 2120-AA66

Modification of Class E Airspace; Mammoth Lakes Airport, Mammoth
Lakes, CA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to modify the Class E airspace designated
as a surface area, modify the Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface, and remove the Class E airspace extending
upward from 1,200 feet above the surface at Mammoth Lakes Airport,
Mammoth Lakes, CA. Additionally, this action proposes administrative
amendments to update the airport's existing Class E

airspace legal descriptions. These actions would support the safety and
management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 5, 2024.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by FAA Docket No. FAA-2023-1758 and
Airspace Docket No. 23-AWP-44 using any of the following methods:
    * Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov and follow
the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.
    * Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S. Department
of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140, West
Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    * Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in
Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
    * Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions for
accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of
the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. You may also contact the Rules and
Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Drasin, Federal Aviation
Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200
S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106,
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it would modify Class E airspace to support IFR operations
at Mammoth Lakes Airport, Mammoth Lakes, CA.

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. The most
helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain
the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To
ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters
should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or
commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments
are filed in writing.
    The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well
as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA
personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this
proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before
the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed
after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without
incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light
of the comments it receives.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at
www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Operations office (see ADDRESSES section for address, phone number, and
hours of operations). An informal docket may also be examined during
normal business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western
Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200 S 216th Street, Des
Moines, WA 98198.

Incorporation by Reference

    Class E2 and E5 airspace designations are published in paragraph
6002 and 6005 respectively, of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference
in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document proposes to amend the
current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11,
2023, and effective September 15, 2023. These updates would be
published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. That order is
publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11H lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas,
air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 that would
modify the Class E airspace designated as a surface area, modify the
Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, and
remove Class E airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the
surface at Mammoth Lakes Airport, Mammoth Lakes, CA.
    The Class E surface area extension east of the airport centered on
the 099[deg] bearing should be recentered on the airport's 096[deg]
bearing instead. Additionally, the width should be reduced from 1.8
miles to 1 mile either side of the bearing, and the extension length
should be reduced from 5.6 miles to 4.6 miles east of the airport. This
would better contain arriving IFR operations between the surface and
1,000 feet above the surface while executing the Area Navigation (RNAV)
(Global Positioning System [GPS]) Runway (RWY) 27 approach.
    The existing Class E airspace extending from 700 feet above the
surface should be extended eastward to include that airspace within 2.6
miles either side of the airport's 091[deg] bearing extending from the
6.6-mile radius to 13.1 miles east of the airport. This would contain
arriving IFR operations below 1,500 feet above the surface while
executing the RNAV (GPS) RWY 27 approach.
    The existing Class E airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet
above

the surface should be removed, as the area is already within the
Coaldale Class E en route domestic airspace area.
    Finally, the FAA proposes administrative modifications to the
airport's legal descriptions. The text header of both legal
descriptions should be changed to match the new airport name, Mammoth
Yosemite Airport. The geographic coordinates located in the text header
of both legal descriptions should be updated to match the FAA's
database. The text of the Class E airspace extending upward from the
surface should be updated to show the new airport name and replace the
outdated use of the phrases ``Notice to Airmen'' and ``Airport/Facility
Directory.'' These phrases should be amended to read ``Notice to Air
Missions'' and ``Chart Supplement,'' respectively, to align with the
FAA's current nomenclature. The text of the Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface should be updated to show the
new airport name.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures, prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 11,
2023, and effective September 15, 2023, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as Surface Areas.

* * * * *

AWP CA E2 Mammoth Lakes, CA [Amended]

Mammoth Yosemite Airport, CA
    (Lat. 37[deg]37'27'' N, long. 118[deg]50'20'' W)

    That airspace within a 4.1-mile radius of the airport and within
1 mile either side of the 096[deg] bearing from the airport,
extending from the 4.1-mile radius to 4.6 miles east of the airport.
This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates
and times established in advance by a Notice to Air Missions. The
effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in
the Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AWP CA E5 Mammoth Lakes, CA [Amended]

Mammoth Yosemite Airport, CA
    (Lat. 37[deg]37'27'' N, long. 118[deg]50'20'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.6-mile radius of the airport and within 2.6 miles either
side of the airport's 091[deg] bearing, extending from the 6.6-mile
radius to 13.1 miles east.
* * * * *

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on December 18, 2023.
B.G. Chew,
Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2023-28227 Filed 12-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P