[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 18 (Thursday, January 27, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4918-4919]
[FR Doc No: 2011-1759]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-D-0143; (formerly Docket No. FDA-2008-D-0128)]

Drug-Induced Liver Injury: Are We Ready to Look?; Public
Conference; Request for Comments

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of public conference; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing a public
conference entitled ``Drug-Induced Liver Injury: Are We Ready to
Look?'' The public conference will be cosponsored with the American
Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) and the
Pharmaceutical and Research Manufacturers of America to discuss and
debate issues regarding drug-induced liver injury (DILI). The purpose
of this conference is to consider the effect of the recommendations in
the guidance for industry entitled ``Drug-Induced Liver Injury:
Premarketing Clinical Evaluation'' since its publication in July 2009
and to seek suggestions for future revision.

DATES: The public conference will be held on March 23, 2011, from 8
a.m. to 6 p.m. and March 24, 2011, from 8 a.m. until 3:30 p.m. Submit
either electronic or written comments on Agency guidance at any time.

ADDRESSES: The conference will take place at the National Labor
College, 10000 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993.
    Submit written requests for single copies of the 2009 guidance to
the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
51, rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed
adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the 2009
guidance document.
    Submit electronic comments on the 2009 guidance and the issues and
questions presented at the conference to http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lana L. Pauls, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, rm. 4307, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-0518, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In July 2009, FDA made available a guidance for industry entitled
``Drug-Induced Liver Injury: Premarketing Clinical Evaluation'' (see 74
FR 38035, July 30, 2009). The 2009 guidance explains that DILI has been
the most frequent cause of safety-related drug marketing withdrawals
for the past 50 years, and that hepatoxicity has limited the use of
many drugs that have been approved and prevented the approval of
others. It discusses methods of detecting DILI by periodic tests of
serum enzyme activities and bilirubin concentration elevations, and how
those laboratory tests might change over time, along with symptoms and
physical findings, to allow estimation of severity of the injury. It
suggests some rules for stopping or interrupting drug treatment, and
the need to obtain additional clinical information to estimate the
likelihood of the true cause. Public comments on the draft guidance
were sought in 2007 and 2008, and those comments were taken into
consideration when issuing the final guidance in July 2009.

II. The Public Conference

A. Why are we holding this conference?

    The purpose of the 2011 conference is to discuss the most current
information and thinking about how drugs cause liver injury and why
certain individuals are more susceptible than others, combining views
of both basic science and clinical experts, and selecting for specific
debate and discussion issues such as:
     Liver injury and dysfunction in patients,
     Liver reaction to injury,
     Biomarkers and predictors of liver injury and dysfunction,
and
     Postmarketing DILI.

B. Is there a fee and how do I register for the conference?

    A registration fee will be charged to attendees other than invited
speakers to help defray the costs of rental of the meeting spaces,
meals and snacks provided, and if possible, to cover travel costs
incurred by invited academic (but not Government or industry) speakers,
and other costs. The fee for the 2-day meeting is $500 for industry
registrants and $250 for Federal Government and academic registrants.
Registration fees will be waived for invited speakers and moderators.
    The registration process will be handled by AASLD, a not-for-profit
organization with extensive experience in planning, organizing, and
executing educational meetings.
    Additional information on the conference, program, and registration
procedures is available on the Internet at http://www.aasld.org (go to
Conferences and Education, Meetings and Conferences), and also at
http://www.fda.gov by typing into the search box ``liver toxicity.''
(FDA has verified the AASLD Web site address, but FDA is not
responsible for any subsequent changes to the Web site after this
document publishes in the Federal Register.)
    Transcripts: The presentations and discussions will be transcribed
and published on the Internet at http://www.aasld.org for public
availability after minor editing by the organizers of the meeting (Lana
Pauls and John Senior). Please be advised that as soon as a transcript
is available, it will also be accessible at http://www.regulations.gov.
It may be viewed at the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food
and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD. A
transcript will also be available in either hardcopy or on CD-ROM,
after submission of a Freedom of Information request. Written requests
are to be sent to Division of Freedom of Information (HFI-35), Office
of Management Programs, Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers
Lane, rm. 6-30, Rockville, MD 20857.

III. Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) either electronic or written comments regarding the
guidance and the issues and questions presented at the conference. It
is only necessary to send one set of comments. It is no longer
necessary to send two copies of mailed comments. Identify comments with
the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this notice.
Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management
between 9 a.m. Monday through 4 p.m. Friday.

IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at
either http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: January 19, 2011.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-1759 Filed 1-26-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 126 (Monday, July 1, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31174-31176]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14009]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2018-1036; Special Conditions No. 25-751-SC]

Special Conditions: Dassault Aviation Model Falcon 7X Airplanes;
Large Non-Structural Glass in the Passenger Compartment

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Dassault Aviation
(Dassault) Model Falcon 7X airplane. This airplane will have a novel or
unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology
envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport-category
airplanes. This design feature is the installation of large, non-
structural glass panels in the passenger compartment. The applicable
airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety
standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the
additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary
to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the
existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: This action is effective on Dassault on July 1, 2019. Send
comments on or before August 15, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by Docket No. FAA-2018-1036 using
any of the following methods:
     Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://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 (DOT), 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>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the
docket website, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all
comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an
association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-19478).
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shannon Lennon, FAA, Airframe and
Cabin Safety Branch, AIR-675, Aircraft Certification Service, 2200 S
216th St., Des Moines, Washington 98198-6547; telephone and fax 206-
231-3209.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The substance of these special conditions
previously has been published in the Federal Register for public
comment. These special conditions have been derived without substantive
change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public
comment would result in a significant change from the substance
contained herein. Therefore, the FAA has determined that prior public
notice and comment are unnecessary, and finds that, for the same
reason, good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon
publication in the Federal Register.

Comments Invited

    We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by
sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
    We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for
comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments
we receive.

Background

    On June 14, 2016, Dassault applied for a change to Type Certificate
No. A59NM for installation of large, non-structural glass panels in the
passenger compartment in Model Falcon 7X airplanes. The Model Falcon 7X
airplane has three turbofan engines. The airplane will have a maximum
takeoff weight of 73,000 lbs, capacity for 2 crewmembers, and seating
for 19 passengers.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR) 21.101, Dassault must show that the Model Falcon 7X airplane, as
changed, continues to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations
listed in type certificate no. A59NM, or the applicable regulations in
effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier
amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the Dassault Model Falcon 7X airplane
because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are
prescribed under the provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or
unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on
the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or
unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to
the other model under Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Dassault Model Falcon 7X airplane must comply with the
fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the
noise-

certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type
certification basis under Sec.  21.101.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Dassault Model Falcon 7X airplane will have a novel or unusual
design feature associated with the installation of large, non-
structural glass panels in the cabin area occupied by passengers and
crew. Possible installations of large, non-structural glass items
include, but are not limited to, the following items:
     Glass partitions.
     Glass floor installations.
     Glass attached to the ceiling.
     Glass parts integrated in a stairway.
     Wall- or door-mounted mirrors and glass panels.
     Mirrors as part of a door blow-out panel.
     Glass plate installed in a doorframe.
     Washstand with glass panel.
    The installation of these glass items in the passenger compartment,
which can be occupied during taxi, takeoff, and landing (TT&L), is a
novel or unusual design feature with respect to the installed material.
The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for this design feature.

Discussion

    The use of glass results in trade-offs between the one unique
characteristic of glass--its capability for undistorted or controlled
light transmittance, or transparency--and the negative aspects of the
material. Glass, in its basic form as annealed, untreated sheet, plate,
or float glass, when compared to metals, is extremely notch-sensitive,
has a low fracture resistance, has a low modulus of elasticity, and can
be highly variable in its properties. While reasonably strong, it is
nonetheless not a desirable material for traditional airplane
applications because it is heavy (about the same density as aluminum),
and when it fails, it breaks into extremely sharp fragments that have
the potential for injury, and which have been known to be lethal. Thus,
the use of glass traditionally was limited to windshields, and
instrument or display transparencies. The regulations in Sec.  25.775
only address, and likewise only recognize, the unique use of glass in
windshield or window applications where no other material will serve.
This regulation does address the adverse properties of glass, but
pilots occasionally are injured from shattered glass windshields.
    The FAA divides other uses of glass in the passenger cabin into
four groups. These groups were created to address the practical and
functional uses of glass. The four groups are as follows:
    The first group is glass items installed in rooms or areas in the
cabin that are not occupied during TT&L, and a person does not have to
enter or pass through the room or area to get to any emergency exit.
    The second group is glass integrated into a functional device the
operation of which is dependent upon the characteristics of glass, such
as instrument or indicator protective transparencies, or monitor
screens such as liquid crystal displays or plasma displays. This group
may be installed in any area in the cabin regardless of occupancy
during TT&L. Acceptable means of compliance for these items may depend
on the size and specific location of the device containing the glass.
    The third group is small glass items installed in occupied rooms or
areas during TT&L, or rooms or areas that a person does not have to
enter or pass through to get to any emergency exit. The FAA defines a
small glass item as less than 8.8 lbs (4 kg) in mass.
    The fourth group is large glass items, the subject of these special
conditions, installed in occupied rooms or areas during TT&L, or rooms
or areas that a person must enter or pass through to get to any
emergency exit. A large glass item is defined as 8.8 lbs (4 kg) or
greater in mass. Groups of glass items that collectively weigh 4 kg or
more would also be included. The mass is based on the amount of glass
that becomes hazardous in high inertial loads.
    The glass items in groups one, two, and three are restricted to
applications where the potential for injury is either highly localized,
such as flight-instrument faces, or the location is such that injury
due to failure of the glass is unlikely, for example mirrors in
lavatories, because these installations necessitate the use of glass.
These glass items typically are addressed in a method-of-compliance
issue paper for each project based on existing part 25 regulations, or
in established policy. These issue papers identify specific tests that
could include abuse loading and ball-impact testing. In addition, these
items are subject to the inertia loads contained in Sec.  25.561, and
maximum positive-differential pressure for items like video monitors to
meet Sec.  25.789.
    The items in group four are much larger and heavier than previously
approved, and raise additional safety concerns. These large, heavy
glass panels, primarily installed as architectural features, were not
envisioned in the regulations. The unique aspects of glass, with the
potential to become highly injurious or lethal objects during emergency
landing, minor crash conditions, or in flight, warrant a unique
approach to certification that addresses the characteristics of glass
that prevented its use in the past. These special conditions were
developed to ensure that airplanes with large glass features in
passenger cabins provide the same level of safety as airplanes using
traditional, lightweight materials. The FAA reiterates this intention
in the text of the special conditions by qualifying their use for group
four glass items.
    These special conditions contain the additional safety standards
that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of
safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness
standards.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to
Dassault Model Falcon 7X airplanes. Should Dassault apply at a later
date for a change to the type certificate to include another model
incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special
conditions would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on one model series of airplane. It is not a rule of general
applicability.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

Authority Citation

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for the Dassault Model Falcon 7X airplane.
    For large glass items (a single item, or a collective group of
glass items, that weigh 4 kg or more in mass) installed in passenger-
occupied rooms or areas during taxi, takeoff, and landing, or

installed in rooms or areas that occupants must enter or pass through
to access any emergency exit, the glass installations on the Dassault
Model Falcon 7X airplane must meet the following conditions:
    1. Material Fragmentation--The applicant must use tempered or
otherwise treated glass to ensure that, when fractured, the glass
breaks into small pieces with relatively dull edges. The glass
component installation must retain glass fragments to minimize the
danger from flying glass shards or pieces. The applicant must
demonstrate this characteristic by impact and puncture testing, and
testing to failure. The applicant may conduct this test with or without
any glass coating that may be utilized in the design.
    2. Strength--In addition to meeting the load requirements for all
flight and landing loads, including any of the applicable emergency-
landing conditions in subparts C & D of 14 CFR part 25, the glass
components that are located such that they are not protected from
contact with cabin occupants must not fail due to abusive loading, such
as impact from occupants stumbling into, leaning against, sitting on,
or performing other intentional or unintentional forceful contact with
the glass component. The applicant must assess the effect of design
details such as geometric discontinuities or surface finish, including
but not limited to embossing and etching.
    3. Retention--The glass component, as installed in the airplane,
must not come free of its restraint or mounting system in the event of
an emergency landing, considering both the directional loading and
resulting rebound conditions. The applicant must assess the effect of
design details such as geometric discontinuities or surface finish,
including but not limited to embossing and etching.
    4. Instructions for Continued Airworthiness--The instructions for
continued airworthiness must reflect the method used to fasten the
panel to the cabin interior and must ensure the reliability of the
methods used (e.g., life limit of adhesives, or clamp connection). The
applicant must define any inspection methods and intervals based upon
adhesion data from the manufacturer of the adhesive, or upon actual
adhesion-test data, if necessary.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on June 20, 2019.
Christopher R. Parker,
Acting Manager, Transport Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-14009 Filed 6-28-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 42 (Friday, March 2, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 9072]
[FR Doc No: 2018-04244]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Thirty Eighth RTCA SC-213 Enhanced Flight Vision Systems/
Synthetic Vision Systems (EFVS/SVS) Joint Plenary With EUROCAE Working
Group 79

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

ACTION: Thirty Eighth RTCA SC-213 Enhanced Flight Vision Systems/
Synthetic Vision Systems (EFVS/SVS) Joint Plenary with EUROCAE Working
Group 79.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of Thirty Eighth RTCA SC-213 Enhanced Flight Vision Systems/
Synthetic Vision Systems (EFVS/SVS) Joint Plenary with EUROCAE Working
Group 79.

DATES: The meeting will be held April 18-19, 2018 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at: European Aviation Safety
Agency, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, D-50668, K[ouml]ln, Germany.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Morrison at [email protected]
or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW, Suite
910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax at
(202) 833-9434, or website at http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a meeting of the Thirty Eighth RTCA SC-213 Enhanced
Flight Vision Systems/Synthetic Vision Systems (EFVS/SVS) Joint Plenary
with EUROCAE Working Group 79. The agenda will include the following:

Wednesday April 18, 2018, 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.

1. Plenary discussion (sign-in at 09:00 a.m.)
2. Introductions and Administrative items
3. DFO statement
4. Review and approve minutes from October 2017 Plenary meeting
5. Review and approve minutes from December 2017 Virtual Plenary
6. Review and approve minutes for January 2018 Virtual Plenary
7. Review of terms of reference and update work product dates
8. WG1, WG2, WG3 and WG4 status updates
9. Industry updates
10. Working group discussions--WG-4

Thursday April 19, 2018, 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.

11. Working group discussions
12. Discuss initiating open consultation/final review and comment for:
Safety and Performance Requirements (SPR) for Vision Systems for
Takeoff (WG-2)
13. Discuss finalizing open consultation/final review and comment for:
Minimum Aviation System Performance Standards (MASPS) for a Combined
Vision Guidance System for Rotorcraft Operations (WG-4)
14. Administrative items (new meeting location/dates, action items
etc.)
15. Adjourn

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Registration is required
for attendance. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain
information should contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may present a
written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC on February 25, 2018.
Michelle Swearingen,
Systems and Equipment Standards Branch, AIR-6B0, Policy and Innovation
Division, AIR-600, Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2018-04244 Filed 3-1-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Farm ID # _______________

Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption Enterprise Budget Work Sheets Alternatives Tomatoes  Ruskin Palmetto  Fall  Double Crop Yield Cartons Per Acre  Tomato Cartons Per Acre  Cucurbits IFAS Average 1,269 564 Farm Information Cost Information IFAS Farm Information Acre Carton Acre Carton Pre Harvest Production Costs:

Fertilizer 701.27 Fumigant 847.00 Crop Protection Materials 1,424.91 Transplants/ Seeds 332.30 Stakes 32.00 Plastic String 120.00 Plastic Mulch/ Irrigation Tubing 294.00 Frost Protection Machinery: Irrigation 403.53 Non irrigation 738.99 Plastic Mulch/ Drip Tape Disposal 198.42 Scounting 35.00 Labor Costs: Tractor Drivers 411.79 Direct Labor 427.17 Miscellaneous 50.00 Interest 271.11 Fixed Costs: Land Cost 300.00 Supervision 1,208.97 Overhead 1,511.22 Total Pre Harvest Production Costs: 9,307.68 $ 5.08 $  $ # DIV/ 0!

Harvesting 1,992.33 $ 1.09 $ # DIV/ 0!

Packing, Selling & Related Overhead 4,836.30 $ 2.64 $ # DIV/ 0!

TOTAL COST: 16,136.31 $ 8.80 $  $ # DIV/ 0! Farming Costs:

dwcgi 15181 1081177149 376894000. xls August 3, 2003


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 10, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47410-47413]
[FR Doc No: 2019-18707]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0656; Product Identifier 2019-SW-039-AD; Amendment
39-19722; AD 2019-17-02]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH

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

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (Airbus Helicopters) Model EC135P1,
EC135P2, EC135P2+, EC135P3, EC135T1, EC135T2, EC135T2+, and EC135T3
helicopters. This AD requires inspecting certain part-numbered
actuators for corrosion, and removing them from service as necessary.
This AD also requires reporting certain information to Airbus
Helicopters. This AD is prompted by a hard landing of a helicopter and
discovery of a ruptured and displaced tie bar inside the piston of the
longitudinal single-axis actuator of the main rotor actuator (MRA). The
actions of this AD are intended to address an unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective September 25, 2019.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain document listed in this AD as of September 25,
2019.
    The FAA must receive comments on this AD by November 12, 2019.

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 by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
0656; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, any service
information that is incorporated by reference, the economic evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
Docket Operations is listed above. Comments will be available in the AD
docket shortly after receipt.
    For service information identified in this final rule, contact
Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at
http://www.helicopters.airbus.com/website/

en/ref/Technical-Support_73.html. You may review the referenced service
information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest
Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. It is
also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-0656.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Hatfield, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA,
10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and the FAA did not provide you with notice and an opportunity
to provide your comments prior to it becoming effective. However, the
FAA invites you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written
comments, data, or views. The FAA also invites comments relating to the
economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that resulted
from adopting this AD. The most helpful comments reference a specific
portion of the AD, 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 them only one time. The FAA will file in the docket all comments
that the FAA receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive
public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking during the
comment period. The FAA will consider all the comments received and may
conduct additional rulemaking based on those comments.

Discussion

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD No. 2019-0087-E, dated April 24,
2019, to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Helicopters Deutschland
GmbH (AHD), formerly Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH, Eurocopter
Espa[ntilde]a S.A. Model EC135 P1, EC135 P2, EC135 P2+, EC135 P3, EC135
T1, EC135 T2, EC135 T2+, EC135 T3, EC635 P2+, EC635 P3, EC635 T1, EC635
T2+ and EC635 T3 helicopters with a longitudinal single-axis actuator
part number (P/N) L673M20A1008 or P/N L673M30A2111; a collective
single[hyphen]axis actuator P/N L673M20A1012, P/N L673M30A1211, or P/N
E673M30A1201; or a lateral single[hyphen]axis actuator P/N L673M20A1011
or P/N L673M30A2311, that have accumulated 6 or more years since
manufacturing date or last overhaul, whichever occurred later,
installed. EASA advises of a report of a hard landing by a Model EC135
helicopter. Inspection revealed that the tie bar inside the piston of
the longitudinal single-axis actuator of the MRA was ruptured and
displaced.
    EASA states that this condition, if not detected and corrected,
could lead to loss of control of the helicopter, possibly resulting in
damage to the helicopter and/or injury to occupants. Accordingly, the
EASA AD requires a one-time inspection for corrosion, reporting
inspection results to AHD, and depending on findings, replacing parts
at different compliance times. The EASA AD also allows installing an
MRA that has any of the affected parts installed, provided the affected
parts are inspected and replaced as required by the AD. The EASA AD
states it is considered an interim action and further AD action may
follow.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by EASA and are approved for
operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral
agreement with the European Union, EASA has notified the FAA of the
unsafe condition described in the EASA AD. The FAA is issuing this AD
because the FAA evaluated all information provided by EASA and
determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or
develop on other helicopters of these same type designs.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus Helicopters has issued Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No.
EC135-67A-039, Revision 1, dated April 23, 2019. This service
information specifies reviewing records to determine the date of
manufacture or date of last overhaul of certain part-numbered single-
axis actuators, procedures to visually inspect the single-axis
actuators for the external appearance of corrosion, instruction to take
photos of any corroded single-axis actuators, and report certain
information to Airbus Helicopters. This service information also
specifies replacing single-axis actuators and references Airbus
Helicopters Service Bulletin No. EC135-67-040, Revision 0, dated April
25, 2019 (SB EC135-67-040), which is not incorporated by reference in
this AD, for inspection criteria of serviceable parts and replacement
procedures.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Other Related Service Information

    Airbus Helicopters has issued SB EC135-67-040, which identifies
procedures to inspect the longitudinal, collective, and lateral
single[hyphen]axis actuators for corrosion and to replace those parts.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires visually inspecting for corrosion all external
surfaces of certain part-numbered longitudinal, collective, and lateral
single[hyphen]axis actuators that have accumulated 6 or more years
since manufacturing date or last overhaul, whichever occurs later.
Based on the inspection outcome, this AD requires removing the single-
axis actuators from service at different compliance times. This AD also
requires reporting certain information, along with photos of any
corrosion, to Airbus Helicopters.

Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD applies to Model EC635 P2+, EC635 P3, EC635 T1, EC635
T2+ and EC635 T3 helicopters, whereas this AD does not because none of
those models are FAA type-certificated. The EASA AD requires inspecting
the single-axis actuators for the, ``external appearance of
corrosion,'' whereas this AD requires inspecting for any corrosion. The
EASA AD specifies longer compliance times for parts that have
accumulated 6 to 10 years that do not have any corrosion. The FAA plans
to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking to give the public an
opportunity to comment on these longer compliance times.

Interim Action

    The FAA considers this AD interim action. If final action is later
identified, the FAA might consider further rulemaking then.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 311 helicopters of U.S.
Registry. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on
these numbers, the FAA estimates the following costs in order to comply
with this AD.
    Inspecting the single-axis actuators takes about 2 work-hours for
an estimated cost of $170 per helicopter and $52,870 for the U.S.
fleet. Replacing

a single-axis actuator takes about 7 work-hours and parts cost about
$20,000, for an estimated cost of $20,595 per replacement. Reporting
the required information takes about 1 work-hour for an estimated cost
of $85 per helicopter and $26,435 for the U.S. fleet.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for
failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB
Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public
reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be
approximately 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, completing and reviewing the collection of
information. All responses to this collection of information are
mandatory. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other
aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for
reducing this burden to: Information Collection Clearance Officer,
Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX
76177-1524.

Justification for Immediate Adoption and Determination of the Effective
Date

    Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5
U.S.C.) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment
procedures for rules when the agency, for ``good cause'' finds that
those procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the
public interest.'' Under this section, an agency, upon finding good
cause, may issue a final rule without seeking comment prior to the
rulemaking.
    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to
adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public
justifies foregoing notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule
because some of the required actions must be completed within 3 days.
Therefore, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are
impracticable and contrary to public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(3)(B). In addition, for the reason(s) stated above, the FAA
finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making
this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

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.
    The FAA is 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

    The FAA determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866, and
    2. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.
    The FAA prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this 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 Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2019-17-02 Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH: Amendment 39-19722;
Docket No. FAA-2019-0656; Product Identifier 2019-SW-039-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (Airbus
Helicopters) Model EC135P1, EC135P2, EC135P2+, EC135P3, EC135T1,
EC135T2, EC135T2+, and EC135T3 helicopters, certificated in any
category, with any of the following installed that have, as of April
23, 2019, accumulated 6 or more years since manufacturing date or
last overhaul, whichever occurs later:
    (1) Longitudinal single-axis actuator part number (P/N)
L673M20A1008 or P/N L673M30A2111;
    (2) Collective single[hyphen]axis actuator P/N L673M20A1012, P/N
L673M30A1211, or P/N E673M30A1201; or
    (3) Lateral single[hyphen]axis actuator P/N L673M20A1011or P/N
L673M30A2311.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as corrosion in certain
main rotor actuator (MRA) components. This condition could result in
failure of the component, failure of the MRA, and loss of control of
the helicopter.

(c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective September 25, 2019.

(d) 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.

(e) Required Actions

    (1) Within 3 days, visually inspect all external surfaces of
each single-axis actuator for corrosion. Refer to Figure 1 of Airbus
Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. EC135-67A-039,
Revision 1, dated April 23, 2019 (EASB EC135-67A-039), for example
photos of single-axis actuators with corrosion. Refer to Figure 2 of
EASB EC135-67A-039 for example photos of single-axis actuators
without corrosion.
    (i) If there is any corrosion, remove the part from service as
follows:
    (A) For a part that has accumulated 14 or more years, within 7
days.
    (B) For a part that has accumulated 12 or more years, but less
than 14 years, within 14 days.
    (C) For a part that has accumulated 10 or more years, but less
than 12 years, within 30 days.
    (D) For a part that has accumulated 8 or more years, but less
than 10 years, within 60 days.
    (E) For a part that has accumulated 6 or more years, but less
than 8 years, within 120 days.
    (ii) If there is not any corrosion, remove the part from service
as follows:

    (A) For a part that has accumulated 14 or more years, within 14
days.
    (B) For a part that has accumulated 12 or more years, but less
than 14 years, within 30 days.
    (C) For a part that has accumulated 10 or more years, but less
than 12 years, within 90 days.
    (2) Within 7 days after the inspection required by paragraph
(e)(1) of this AD, report the information requested in the Reply
Form Sheet for EASB ``Check of single-axis actuators'' of EASB
EC135-67A-039, along with photos of any corrosion, by email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by using the QR code to report to
Airbus Helicopters. The QR code is available on page 12 of EASB
EC135-67A-039.

(f) Special Flight Permits

    Special flight permits are prohibited.

(g) Paperwork Reduction Act Burden Statement

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to
the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that
collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control
Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is
2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is
estimated to be approximately 1 hour per response, including the
time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,
gathering and maintaining the data needed, completing and reviewing
the collection of information. All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory. Send comments regarding this burden
estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Information
Collection Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards
Branch, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to:
David Hatfield, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Section,
Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth,
TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, the FAA suggests
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.

(i) Additional Information

    (1) Airbus Helicopters Service Bulletin No.
EC135[hyphen]67[hyphen]040, Revision 0, dated April 25, 2019, which
is not incorporated by reference, contains additional information
about the subject of this AD. For service information identified in
this AD, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N Forum Drive, Grand
Prairie, TX 75052; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
(972) 641-3775; or at http://www.helicopters.airbus.com/website/en/ref/Technical-Support_73.html. You may review a copy of the service
information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest
Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.
    (2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2019-0087-E, dated April 24, 2019. You
may view the EASA AD on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2019-0656.

(j) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 67000, Rotorcraft
Flight Control.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Airbus Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No.
EC135-67A-039, Revision 1, dated April 23, 2019.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For Airbus Helicopters service information identified in
this AD, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N Forum Drive, Grand
Prairie, TX 75052; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
(972) 641-3775; or at http://www.helicopters.airbus.com/website/en/ref/Technical-Support_73.html.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-
321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 21, 2019.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-18707 Filed 9-9-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 105 (Thursday, May 31, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24954-24960]
[FR Doc No: 2018-11572]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2018-0001; FRL-9978-75--Region 10]

Air Plan Approval; Washington; Regional Haze Progress Report

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revision to the regional haze State Implementation Plan
(SIP), submitted by Washington on November 6, 2017. Washington
submitted its Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report (progress report or
report) and a negative declaration stating that further revision of the
existing regional haze implementation plan is not needed at this time.
Washington submitted both the progress report and the negative
declaration in the form of implementation plan revisions as required by
federal regulations. The progress report addresses the federal Regional
Haze Rule requirements under the Clean Air Act to submit a report
describing progress in achieving reasonable progress goals established
for regional haze and a determination of the adequacy of the existing
plan addressing regional haze.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 2, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2018-0001 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Hunt, Air Planning Unit, Office
of Air and Waste (OAW-150), Environmental Protection Agency--Region 10,
1200 Sixth Ave., Seattle, WA 98101; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.

I. Background

    Washington submitted its initial regional haze SIP to the EPA on
December 22, 2010, and supplemental

information on December 29, 2011. The EPA approved portions of the
Washington regional haze SIP on December 6, 2012, and June 11, 2014.\1\
In the same June 11, 2014, action, the EPA disapproved certain elements
related to best available retrofit technology (BART), discussed in more
detail in section III.A. below, and promulgated a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) for the disapproved elements of the SIP. With
the exception of the disapproved BART elements, the EPA approved all
remaining portions of Washington's regional haze SIP, including: The
identification of affected Class I Federal areas \2\ (Class I area or
areas); the determination of baseline conditions, natural conditions,
and uniform rate of progress (URP) for each Class I area; the emissions
inventories; the sources of visibility impairment in Washington's Class
I areas; the state's monitoring strategy; the state's consultation with
other states and Federal Land Managers; the reasonable progress goals
(RPGs); the long-term strategy; and the state's remaining BART
determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 77 FR 72742 and 79 FR 33438.
    \2\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist
of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7472(a)).
Listed at 40 CFR part 81, subpart D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Five years after submission of the initial regional haze plan,
states are required to submit reports that evaluate progress towards
the RPGs for each Class I area within the state and in each Class I
area outside the state which may be affected by emissions from within
the state. 40 CFR 51.308(g). States are also required to submit, at the
same time as the progress report, a determination of the adequacy of
the state's existing regional haze plan. 40 CFR 51.308(h). On November
6, 2017, the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) submitted
as a SIP revision a report on the progress made in the first
implementation period towards the RPGs for Class I areas.
    The Regional Haze Rule requires states to provide in the progress
report an assessment of whether the current ``implementation plan'' is
sufficient to enable the states to meet all established RPGs under 40
CFR 51.308(g). The term ``implementation plan'' is defined for purposes
of the Regional Haze Rule to mean any SIP, FIP, or Tribal
Implementation Plan. See 40 CFR 51.301. The EPA is, therefore,
proposing to determine that the Agency may consider measures in any
issued FIP as well as those in a state's regional haze plan in
assessing the adequacy of the ``existing implementation plan'' under 40
R 51.308(g)(6) and (h). As discussed below, the EPA is proposing to
approve Washington's progress report on the basis that it satisfies the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308. We also propose to find that
Washington's long-term strategy and emission control measures in the
existing regional haze implementation plan are sufficient to meet all
established RPGs for 2018.

II. Context for Understanding Washington's Progress Report

    To facilitate a better understanding of Washington's progress
report as well as the EPA's evaluation of it, this section provides
background on the regional haze program in Washington.

A. Framework for Measuring Progress

    The EPA established a metric for determining visibility conditions
at Class I areas referred to as the ``deciview index,'' measured in
deciviews (dv), as defined in 40 CFR 51.301. The deciview index is
calculated using monitoring data collected from the Interagency
Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network monitors.
Washington has eight Class I areas within its borders: Alpine Lakes
Wilderness Area, Glacier Peak Wilderness Area, Goat Rocks Wilderness
Area, Mount Adams Wilderness Area, Mount Rainier National Park, North
Cascades National Park, Olympic National Park, and Pasayten Wilderness
Area. Monitoring data representing visibility conditions in
Washington's eight Class I areas is based on the six IMPROVE monitors
identified in Table 1. As shown in the table, the NOCA1 monitoring site
represents two Class I areas, the WHPA1 site represents two other Class
I areas, and the remaining four sites represent individual Class I
areas.

  Table 1--Washington IMPROVE Monitoring Sites and Represented Class I
                                  Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Site code                          Class I area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OLYM1.............................  Olympic National Park.
NOCA1.............................  North Cascades National Park,
                                     Glacier Peak Wilderness.
PASA1.............................  Pasayten Wilderness.
SNPA1.............................  Alpine lakes Wilderness.
MORA1.............................  Mt. Rainier National Park.
WHPA1.............................  Goat Rocks Wilderness, Mt. Adams
                                     Wilderness.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Regional Haze Rule, a state's initial regional haze SIP
must establish two RPGs for each of its Class I areas: One for the 20
percent least impaired days and one for the 20 percent most impaired
days. The RPGs must provide for an improvement in visibility on the 20
percent most impaired days and ensure no degradation in visibility on
the 20 percent least impaired days, as compared to visibility
conditions during the baseline period. In establishing the RPGs, a
state must consider the uniform rate of visibility improvement from the
baseline to natural conditions in 2064 and the emission reductions
measures needed to achieve it. Washington set the RPGs for its eight
Class I areas based on regional atmospheric air quality modeling
conducted by the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) using
projected emission reductions in western states from federal and state
control strategies expected to be in place before 2018.
    As part of the WRAP coordination and joint modeling, Washington
worked closely with other western states to ensure that control
measures put in place to meet RPGs for Washington Class I areas were
also sufficient to address Washington's impact on Class I areas in
other states. The EPA, in our approval of Washington's 2010 regional
haze SIP, stated that Washington's control measures coordinated through
the WRAP would enable it to achieve the RPGs established for the
mandatory Class I areas in Washington, as well as the RPGs established
by other states for the Class I areas where Washington sources are
reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment.\3\ The
progress report provided an update using the Mt. Hood Wilderness Area
in Oregon as an example. The coordinated WRAP projected emissions
inventories and modeling, approved as part of the 2010 regional haze
SIP, showed that in 2002 Washington contributed 33.5% of the nitrate
and 21.6% of the sulfate on the worst days at Mount Hood Wilderness
Area. However, by 2018, Washington's contribution on the worst days was
projected to decrease to 25.9% and 17.5%, respectively. The EPA notes
that the Mount Hood Wilderness Area is currently meeting the 2018
reasonable progress goals for best and worst days based on 2012-2016
data,\4\ further supporting Washington's view that coordination through
the WRAP is an effective means of meeting reduction targets in
neighboring western states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 77 FR 76174, 76205; 79 FR 33438.
    \4\ See the EPA's proposed approval of the Oregon regional haze
progress report (83 FR 11927, March 19, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Data Sources for Washington's Progress Report

    Washington relied on the WRAP technical data and analyses in a
report

titled ``Western Regional Air Partnership Regional Haze Rule Reasonable
Progress Summary Report'' (WRAP Report), dated June 28, 2013, included
as Appendix A of the progress report, in the docket for this action.
The WRAP report was prepared for the 15 western state members to
provide the technical basis for the first of their individual progress
reports. Data is presented in this report on a regional, state, and
Class I area-specific basis that characterize the difference between
baseline conditions (2000-2004) and the first 5-year progress period
(2005-2009). Washington also evaluated visibility conditions in its
eight Class I areas based on the most recent 5-year data available at
the time Washington developed the progress report (2010-2014).

III. The EPA's Evaluation of Washington's Progress Report

    This section describes the contents of Washington's progress report
and the EPA's evaluation of the report, as well as the EPA's evaluation
of the determination of adequacy required by 40 CFR 51.308(h) and the
requirement for state and Federal Land Manager coordination in 40 CFR
51.308(i).

A. Status of All Measures Included in the Regional Haze Implementation
Plan

    In its progress report, Washington provided a description of the
control measures that the state relied on to implement the regional
haze program and make projections of expected emissions reductions from
the 2002 base year to 2018. Washington's regional haze SIP noted that
many of the control measures were already-adopted federal and state
provisions such as: The Heavy Duty Diesel (2007) Engine Standard, Tier
2 Tailpipe Standards, Large Spark Ignition and Recreational Vehicle
Rule, Non-road Diesel Rule, low sulfur fuel requirements for gasoline
engines, on-road diesel engines, off-road diesel engines, and
locomotives, as well as Washington's decision to adopt the California
low emission vehicle requirements. Other control measures were
originally adopted to reduce ozone or particulate matter (PM) with the
co-benefit of reducing visibility impairment, such as the smoke
management and agriculture burning programs. Because these other state
and federal control measures with the expected co-benefit of reducing
visibility impairment were generally already in place, the most
significant focus of Washington's initial regional haze SIP was
implementation of BART, as summarized below.
1. British Petroleum Cherry Point Refinery
    The British Petroleum (BP) Cherry Point Refinery is located near
Ferndale, Washington. Washington issued BART Order 7836, with emissions
limitations for nitrogen oxides (NOX) and sulfur oxides
(SOX) from process heaters, as well as limitations on total
sulfur content of the refinery fuel gas used in all process heaters and
boilers. In the progress report Washington noted that all emission
reductions required by the BART order have been implemented. On
February 16, 2016, the EPA approved the most recent modification to the
BART order which coordinated emission limitations with more recent
minor source new source review approvals, and to accommodate future
equipment replacement projects (81 FR 7710).
2. Intalco Aluminum Corporation
    The Intalco Aluminum Corporation (Intalco) is a primary aluminum
smelter also located at Cherry Point near Ferndale, Washington.
Washington issued BART Order 7837, Revision 1, to Intalco on November
15, 2010. The revised order imposed Washington's determined BART
control technology, pollution prevention measures, emission limits,
compliance dates, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements. On June
11, 2014, the EPA finalized a limited approval and limited disapproval
of Washington's sulfur dioxide (SO2) BART determination for
Intalco.\5\ Concurrent with the limited disapproval, the EPA
promulgated a FIP imposing a SO2 ``Better than BART''
alternative on Intalco.\6\ This alternative, as requested by Intalco in
a letter dated June 22, 2012, consisted of a 5,240 tons per year annual
SO2 emission limit on the potlines. The progress report
noted that Intalco has complied with the requirements of the BART
order, the FIP, and all other regulatory requirements contained in the
plant's air operating permit. The progress report also showed that
while emissions have increased due to increased aluminum production,
levels remain below the SO2 emission limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 79 FR 33438, 33452; See also proposed rulemaking, 77 FR
76174, at pages 76188-76192.
    \6\ See 40 CFR 52.2500.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company
    The Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company (Tesoro) operates a
refinery near Anacortes, Washington, that processes crude oil into
refined oil products, including ultra-low sulfur diesel oil, jet fuel,
#6 fuel oil, and gasoline. The primary emission units of concern were
the process heaters, boiler, and flares. On July 7, 2010, Ecology
issued BART Order 7838 requiring specific fuel gas sulfur content
limits, a wet scrubber system on the catalyst regeneration/carbon
monoxide boiler exhaust, and NOX limits on two process
heaters. The EPA approved portions of BART Order 7838 but disapproved
the NOX BART determination for five BART emission units and
promulgated a FIP imposing a ``Better than BART'' alternative. The
federal ``Better than BART'' alternative was based on Tesoro's request
to the EPA on November 5, 2012. In the request, Tesoro identified seven
non-BART units at the facility that achieve substantially more
SO2 emission reductions compared to the NOX
emission reductions that would be achieved from BART on the five BART
subject units. Tesoro requested SO2 emission limitations on
those non-BART units as an alternative to emission limits for
NOX on the BART subject units. The EPA determined that the
visibility improvement would be greater under the alternative than
under BART, and promulgated the federal ``Better than BART''
alternative under the FIP.\7\ The progress report noted that Tesoro
continues to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the BART
order, the FIP, and all other regulatory requirements contained in the
plant's air operating permit. The progress report also showed that
SO2 emissions have declined significantly over the past ten
years, while NOX and PM emissions have remained stable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 40 CFR 52.2501. See also proposed rulemaking 77 FR
76174, at pages 76196-76198.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Alcoa Wenatchee Works
    In our June 11, 2014, final action, the EPA disapproved
Washington's BART exemption for the Alcoa Wenatchee Works located in
Malaga, Washington (Wenatchee Works), and promulgated a federal BART
FIP for all emission units subject to BART at the facility.\8\ After
evaluating various control technologies, we determined that the costs
of compliance and the anticipated visibility benefits did not warrant
new controls at the facility. We therefore determined that the existing
controls at the facility were BART and adjusted some emission limits in
the facility's air operating permit to reflect the level of emission
reductions achievable by those existing controls.\9\ The progress
report noted that Alcoa decided to curtail

operations at this plant at the end of 2015, until market prices of
aluminum recover sufficiently to restart the plant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See 40 CFR 52.2502.
    \9\ See 79 FR 33438, page 33440.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Lafarge North America
    Lafarge North America (Lafarge) is located in Seattle, Washington
and produces Portland cement by the wet kiln process. The largest BART
sources of concern were the rotary kiln and the clinker cooler. The
other BART units included raw material handling, finished product
storage bins, finish mill conveying system, bagging system, and bulk
loading/unloading system baghouses, with a total of just 480 tons per
year of PM emissions. Washington issued, and the EPA approved, BART
Order 7841 to implement emission controls for NOX and
SOX. The progress report noted that prior to the compliance
date in the BART order, the company ceased cement production at this
facility. The plant must meet all requirements, including
NOX and SOX emission controls identified in the
BART order, prior to restarting the plant.
6. TransAlta Centralia Power Plant
    In a final action on December 6, 2012, the EPA approved
Washington's BART determination for the TransAlta Centralia Generation
LLC coal-fired power plant in Centralia, Washington (TransAlta).\10\
The BART determination and compliance order established a
NOX emission limit of 0.21 pounds per million British
Thermal Units, and among other things, required selective noncatalytic
reduction (SNCR) to be installed by January 1, 2013. The BART order
also required one coal fired unit to permanently cease burning coal no
later than December 31, 2020, and the second coal fired unit to
permanently cease burning coal no later than December 31, 2025, unless
Washington determines that state or federal law requires that selective
catalytic reduction must be installed on either unit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 77 FR 72742, 72744.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The progress report noted that TransAlta installed SNCR, along with
other associated controls, and demonstrated compliance with the initial
emission limitation in the order. However, the progress report noted
that the plant is also required to determine if it could reliably
comply with a lower emission limitation. At the time of the progress
report submission, Washington explained that this work had not been
completed due to a number of factors, primarily inconsistent plant
operation and difficulties with the in situ ammonia slip monitors. With
respect to inconsistent plan operation, Washington noted that plant
operation has reduced to 50%-60% of full annual capacity compared to
greater than 80% when the BART order was issued, with NOX
emissions in 2015 approximately half the amount emitted in 2010.
7. Weyerhaeuser Corporation, Longview
    Weyerhaeuser Corporation (Weyerhaeuser) operates a Kraft pulp and
paper mill in Longview, Washington. The facility has three emission
units subject to BART: No. 10 recovery furnace; No. 10 smelt dissolver
tank; and No. 11 power boiler. On July 7, 2010, Washington issued BART
Order 7840. As described in the EPA's proposed approval of BART for
this facility, Washington determined that the existing controls,
techniques, and emission limits, already in place to meet prior new
source review and national emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants (NESHAP) requirements, constituted BART for NOX,
SO2, and PM.\11\ Specifically, these controls were an
electrostatic precipitator and a staged combustion system for the
recovery furnace and a high efficiency wet scrubber for the smelt
dissolver tank. The No. 11 power boiler controls were: (1) A multiclone
to remove large particulate, (2) dry trona injection to remove
SO2, (3) a dry electrostatic precipitator for additional
particulate control, and (4) good combustion practices for
NOX emission control. The progress report noted that
Weyerhauser continues to comply with the BART order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 77 FR 76174, at page 76201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. Port Townsend Paper Company
    Port Townsend Paper Company operates a kraft pulp and paper mill in
Port Townsend, Washington that manufactures kraft pulp, kraft papers,
and lightweight liner board. The four BART eligible emission units
identified in the 2010 regional haze SIP were the recovery furnace,
smelt dissolving tank, No. 10 power boiler, and lime kiln. On October
20, 2010, Washington issued Order 7839, Revision 1, which established
emission limits for the existing controls at the facility as BART. The
controls under the BART order are an electrostatic precipitator to
control PM from the recovery furnace, a wet scrubber to control PM and
SO2 from the smelt dissolving tank, a multiclone and wet
scrubber to control PM emissions from the No. 10 power boiler, and a
Venturi wet scrubber to control PM and SO2 from the lime
kiln. The progress report noted that the facility continues to comply
with the BART order.

B. Summary of Visibility Conditions

    In the progress report, Washington documented the differences
between the visibility conditions during the baseline period (2000-
2004) and the most current five year averaging period available at the
time Washington developed the progress report (2010-2014).\12\
Washington demonstrated that all Class I areas experienced improvements
in visibility for the 20% most and least impaired days between the
baseline (2000-2004) and current (2010-2014) visibility periods,
meeting all the 2018 reasonable progress goals established in the
regional haze SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Additional in-depth analysis for the 2005-2009 progress
period conducted by the WRAP was also included as an appendix to the
progress report.

                                         Table 2--Visibility Conditions on the 20% Most and Least Impaired Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      20% Most impaired days                          20% Least impaired days
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Monitor                    Class I area                           2010-14                                         2010-14
                                                              2000-04     Current period  2018 RPGs (dv)      2000-04     Current period  2018 RPGs (dv)
                                                           Baseline (dv)       (dv)                        Baseline (dv)       (dv)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OLYM1..........................  Olympic Nat'l Park.....            16.7            13.8            16.4             6.0             3.7             6.0
NOCA1..........................  North Cascades National            16.0            13.0            15.6             3.4             2.7             3.4
                                  Park, Glacier Peak
                                  Wilderness.
SNPA1..........................  Alpine Lakes Wilderness            17.8            15.6            16.3             5.5             3.4             5.5
MORA1..........................  Mount Rainier National             18.2            15.2            16.7             5.5             3.9             5.5
                                  Park.
WHPA1..........................  Goat Rocks Wilderness,             12.8            11.8            11.8             1.7             0.9             1.7
                                  and Mount Adams
                                  Wilderness.

PASA1..........................  Pasayten Wilderness....            15.2            13.1            15.1             2.7             1.8             2.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Washington's progress report included an analysis of progress and
impediments to progress. With respect to impediments to progress,
Washington cited wildfire smoke originating in the state or transported
from outside the state, offshore and ocean-going vessel emissions,
mobile source emissions (on-road and non-road sources under federal
emission control), and international emissions as factors largely
beyond state control that can interfere with progress toward improved
visibility in Class I areas. Further detail on many of these source
categories is included in the emissions inventory discussion below.
    The progress report also contained a review of Washington's
visibility monitoring strategy, concluding that the IMPROVE network
continues to comply with the monitoring requirements in the Regional
Haze Rule. Washington will continue to rely on the IMPROVE network to
collect and analyze the visibility data and suggested additional sites
for consideration should additional federal or state funding become
available. These proposed sites include the southwest portion of
Olympic National Park, and Stevens Pass or Stehekin to better reflect
conditions at Glacier Peak Wilderness.

C. Summary of Emissions Reductions

    The Washington progress report also included a summary of the
emissions reductions achieved throughout the state from the control
measures discussed above. The progress report included the 2002 WRAP
inventory used for baseline condition modeling, Ecology's periodic
comprehensive inventory submitted to the EPA for the national emission
inventories for the years 2005 and 2011, and the WRAP's projected
emissions inventory for 2018. The progress report highlighted
significant differences between the inventories due to methodology
changes over the years. First, mobile source emission estimates are not
directly comparable because they are based on different emissions
models. Starting in 2007, the EPA required the use of the MOVES model
for mobile source emissions modeling. The progress report noted that
the model transition resulted in significant changes, especially for
NOX emissions when comparing prior year estimates and
projections based on those estimates, including the WRAP's 2018
projections calculated with Mobile 6.2. Second, the WRAP did not
estimate direct PM2.5 from mobile sources, only dust from
road surfaces, representing a large difference between the WRAP
inventories and Ecology's 2005 and 2011 inventories. Third, the WRAP
emission inventories did not separately report emissions from
locomotives or marine vessels. These emissions are included in the
mobile source segment. Lastly, the progress report noted that
Washington recently updated its inventory to reflect revised emission
factors for some area source categories and fires, compared to what was
used by the WRAP. Factoring in these differences in the emissions
inventory methodology, Washington concluded that emissions have
declined for most source categories.

                                  Table 3--Sulfur Oxides Emissions by Category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Category                         WRAP 2002         2005            2011          WRAP 2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary sources..............................          52,885          23,367          13,832          37,444
Area sources....................................           7,311           1,562           1,472           8,667
Wildfires.......................................           1,641           1,563             348           1,641
Anthropogenic fires.............................           1,411  ..............  ..............           1,043
Mobile sources..................................          19,436           7,505           1,059             941
Locomotives.....................................  ..............           1,546              95  ..............
Marine vessels..................................  ..............          15,774          11,529  ..............
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................          82,684          51,317          28,335          49,736
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 Table 4--Nitrogen Oxides Emissions by Category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Category                         WRAP 2002         2005            2011          WRAP 2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary sources..............................          43,355          43,386          26,565          49,456
Area sources....................................          17,587           8,581           8,599          22,746
Wildfires.......................................           5,997           5,714             679           5,997
Anthropogenic fires.............................           6,821  ..............  ..............           4,971
Mobile sources..................................         286,701         198,168         202,436         102,440
Locomotives.....................................  ..............          18,973          15,026  ..............
Marine vessels..................................  ..............          29,142          20,486  ..............
Biogenic........................................          17,923  ..............  ..............          17,923
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................         378,384         303,964         273,791         203,533
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  Table 5--Fine Particle Emissions by Category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Category                         WRAP 2002         2005            2011          WRAP 2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary sources..............................           2,257           5,773           3,958           2,625
Area sources....................................          12,708          39,822          55,060          17,234
Wildfires.......................................           1,139          22,196           3,706           1,139
Anthropogenic fires.............................           3,869  ..............  ..............           2,691
Mobile sources..................................           2,819           6,944           8,757           2,910
Locomotives.....................................  ..............             583             428  ..............
Marine vessels..................................  ..............           1,440           1,021  ..............
Fugitive and windblown dust.....................          18,358  ..............  ..............          22,767
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................          41,150          76,758          72,930          49,366
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its progress report, Washington concluded that the state is
making adequate progress in improving visibility as a result of control
measures in the regional haze implementation plan. The state also
identified more recent federal and international control measures not
included in 2018 emission projections. These measures include the
International Maritime Organization NOX and fuel sulfur
requirements, the more stringent Emission Control Area (ECA)
requirements for the United States and Canadian west coasts, updated
federal Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards, and
more stringent federal mobile source standards promulgated since
Washington's submission of the original regional haze SIP.

D. Determination of Adequacy (40 CFR 51.308(h))

    In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(h)(1), if the state determines
that the existing implementation plan requires no further substantive
revision at this time in order to achieve established goals for
visibility improvement and emissions reductions, the state must provide
to the EPA a negative declaration that further revision of the existing
implementation plan is not needed at this time. Within the progress
report, Washington provided a negative declaration stating that further
revision of the existing implementation plan is not needed. The basis
for the state's negative declaration is the finding that visibility on
the 20% most and least impaired days has improved, and Washington has
attained the 2018 RPGs at all Washington IMPROVE monitors. Accordingly,
the EPA proposes to find that Washington adequately addressed the
requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(h) in its determination that the existing
Washington regional haze implementation plan requires no substantive
revisions at this time to achieve the established RPGs for Class I
areas.

E. Consultation With Federal Land Managers (40 CFR 51.308(i))

    In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(i), the state provided the Federal
Land Managers with an opportunity for consultation at least 60 days
prior to holding any public hearings on an implementation plan (or plan
revision). The state also included a description of how it addressed
the comments provided by the Federal Land Managers, presented in
Appendix E of the progress report. The EPA proposes to find that
Washington has addressed the requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(i).

IV. The EPA's Proposed Action

    The EPA proposes to approve the Regional Haze 5-Year Progress
Report, submitted by Washington to the EPA on November 6, 2017, as
meeting the applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act and Regional
Haze Rule, as set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g). The EPA proposes to find
that the existing regional haze implementation plan is adequate to meet
the state's visibility goals and requires no substantive revision at
this time, as set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(h). We propose to find that
Washington fulfilled the requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(i) regarding
state coordination with Federal Land Managers.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act
and applicable federal regulations.\13\ Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that
they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements, and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this proposed action:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because actions such as SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866;
     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 this rulemaking does not involve technical standards; and
     Does not provide the 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 proposed action does not apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of

Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Nevertheless,
the EPA offered consultation and coordination to Washington tribes in
letters dated July, 6, 2017.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: May 17, 2018.
Chris Hladick,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2018-11572 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P