[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 192 (Thursday, October 7, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55752-55754]
[FR Doc No: 2021-21813]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0812; Airspace Docket No. 19-AAL-71]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of United States Area Navigation (RNAV) Route
T-267; Nome, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend United States Area Navigation
(RNAV) route T-267 in the vicinity of Nome, AK in support of a large
and comprehensive T-route modernization project for the state of
Alaska.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 22, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone:
1(800) 647-5527, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2021-0812; Airspace Docket No. 19-AAL-71 at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Rules and Regulations 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 JO 7400.11F at NARA, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher McMullin, Rules and
Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

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 expand the availability of RNAV in Alaska and
improve the efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace
System (NAS) by lessening the dependency on ground based navigation.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2021-0812; Airspace Docket No. 19-AAL-71) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to FAA Docket No. FAA-2021-0812; Airspace Docket No. 19-AAL-71.'' The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified comment
closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the comment
closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRM

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://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
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the Western Service Center, Operations
Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 2200 South 216th St.,
Des Moines, WA 98198.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective
September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F
lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service
routes, and reporting points.

Background

    In 2003, Congress enacted the Vision 100-Century of Aviation
Reauthorization Act (Pub. L., 108-176), which established a joint
planning and development office in the FAA to manage the work related
to the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). Today,
NextGen is an ongoing FAA-led modernization of the nation's air
transportation system to make flying safer, more efficient, and more
predictable.
    In support of NextGen, this proposal is part of a larger and
comprehensive T-route modernization project in the state of Alaska. The
project mission statement states: ``To modernize Alaska's Air Traffic
Service route structure using satellite based navigation Development of
new T-routes and optimization of existing T-routes will enhance safety,
increase efficiency and access, and will provide en route continuity
that is not subject to the restrictions associated with ground based
airway navigation.'' As part of this project, the FAA evaluated the
existing Colored Airway structure for: (a) Direct replacement (i.e.,
overlay) with a T-route that offers a similar or lower Minimum En route
Altitude (MEA) or Global Navigation Satellite System Minimum En route
Altitude (GNSS MEA); (b) the replacement of the colored airway with a
T-route in an optimized but similar geographic area, while retaining
similar or lower MEA; or (c) removal with no route structure (T-route)
restored in that area because the value was determined to be
insignificant.
    The aviation industry/users have indicated a desire for the FAA to
transition the Alaskan en route navigation structure away from
dependency on Non-Directional Beacons (NDB), and move to develop and
improve the RNAV route structure. The FAA proposes to amend segments of
RNAV route T-267. The amendments would include extending the airway to
the north beyond the current termination point to provide alternate
routing for two colored airways (B-3, and G-18), while also including
RNAV reference points for two NDB's (Atqasuk, AK (ATK), and Noatak, AK
(OQK)) scheduled to be decommissioned. Additionally the proposed
extension of the airway would provide instrument approach connectivity
to Noatak airport, AK (PAWN) and access to Red Dog airport (PADG) via
SICOV WP. The proposed amendments would provide for lower MEAs while
also ensuring that the appropriate route criteria is met along the
entire route.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to amend RNAV
route T-267 in the vicinity of Nome, AK in support of a large and
comprehensive T-route modernization project for the state of Alaska.
The proposed route changes are described below.
    T-267: T-267 currently extends from Nome (OME), AK to Kotzebue
(OTZ), AK. The FAA proposes to extend the route north from OTZ to
provide alternate navigation for Colored airways B-3 and G-18. The rest
of the route would remain unchanged.
    United States Area Navigation Routes are published in paragraph
6011 of FAA Order JO 7400.11F dated August 10,

2021 and effective September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by
reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The RNAV route listed in this document would
be published subsequently in the Order.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

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
Department of Transportation (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 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
7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10,
2021, and effective September 15, 2021, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6011 United States Area Navigation Routes.

* * * * *

T-267 Nome, AK to ZISDU, AK [Amend]

NOME, AK (OME)                                    VOR/DME                       (Lat. 64[deg]29'06.39'' N, long. 165[deg]15'11.43'' W)
BALIN, AK                                         WP                            (Lat. 66[deg]33'54.54'' N, long. 161[deg]34'32.45'' W)
KOTZEBUE, AK (OTZ)                                VOR/DME                       (Lat. 66[deg]53'08.46'' N, long. 162[deg]32'23.77'' W)
SICOV, AK                                         WP                            (Lat. 67[deg]20'44.42'' N, long. 162[deg]49'58.62'' W)
NWIAF, AK                                         WP                            (Lat. 67[deg]42'21.09'' N, long. 162[deg]29'30.89'' W)
BTURN, AK                                         WP                            (Lat. 68[deg]14'34.30'' N, long. 163[deg]06'13.70'' W)
PODKE, AK                                         WP                            (Lat. 68[deg]59'30.64'' N, long. 163[deg]07'52.26'' W)
JODGU, AK                                         WP                            (Lat. 69[deg]44'11.33'' N, long. 162[deg]59'46.66'' W)
ZISDU, AK                                         WP                            (Lat. 70[deg]28'08.64'' N, long. 157[deg]25'38.98'' W)

* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 30, 2021.
Michael R. Beckles,
Acting Manager, Rules and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2021-21813 Filed 10-6-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 231 (Thursday, December 1, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74782-74783]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30872]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 176-018 & Project No. 176-035 California]

City of Escondido Vista Irrigation District; Notice of
Availability of Environmental Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations, 18 CFR Part
380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office of Energy Projects has
reviewed the application for conduit exemption from licensing for the
Bear Valley Powerhouse Project, to be located on the San Luis Rey River
near the city of Escondido, California, and the application for
surrender of license for the Escondido Hydroelectric Project, currently
located on the San Luis Rey River. The Bear Valley Powerhouse Project
is part of the existing Escondido Hydroelectric Project. Commission
staff has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) that analyzes the
potential environmental effects of the conduit exemption and surrender
and concludes that issuing a conduit exemption for the Bear Valley
Powerhouse Project and granting the surrender of the Escondido

Hydroelectric Project, with appropriate environmental measures, would
not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment.
    A copy of the EA is on file with the Commission and is available
for public inspection. The EA may also be viewed on the Commission's
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the
docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-(866)
208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Please contact Carolyn Templeton by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>if you have any questions.

    Dated: November 23, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-30872 Filed 11-30-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: April 23, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 77)]
[Notices]
[Page 18608]
[DOCID:fr23ap09-82]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Submission Deadline for Schedule Information for O'Hare
International Airport, John F. Kennedy International Airport, and
Newark Liberty International Airport for the Winter 2009/10 Scheduling
Season

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

ACTION: Notice of submission deadline.

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

SUMMARY: Under this notice, the FAA announces the submission deadline
of May 14, 2009, for Winter 2009/10 flight schedules at Chicago's
O'Hare International Airport (ORD), New York's John F. Kennedy
International Airport (JFK), and Newark Liberty International Airport
(EWR) in accordance with the International Air Transport Association
(IATA) Worldwide Scheduling Guidelines. The deadline of May 14, 2009,
coincides with the schedule submission deadline for the IATA Schedules
Conference for the Winter 2009/10 scheduling season.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA has designated ORD as an IATA Level
2, Schedules Facilitated Airport, and JFK and EWR as Level 3,
Coordinated Airports. Scheduled operations at JFK and EWR are currently
limited by the FAA under orders that expire on October 24, 2009.\1\ In
addition, the FAA adopted a final rule for Congestion Management at
John F. Kennedy International Airport and Newark Liberty International
Airport that would have continued limits beyond October 2009. 73 FR
60,544 (Oct. 10, 2008). The rule was stayed by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit prior to the December 9,
2008, effective date. The FAA is presently reconsidering whether to go
forward with the rule and is evaluating whether to propose its
rescission. Accordingly, the FAA requested that the briefing schedule
be held in abeyance. The court granted the FAA's request on April 1,
2009. Given the uncertainty surrounding the rule, it is likely that the
orders at JFK and EWR will be extended through the Winter 2009/10
scheduling season.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Operating Limitations at John F. Kennedy International
Airport, 73 FR 3,510 (Jan. 18, 2008); Operating Limitations at
Newark Liberty International Airport, 73 FR 29,550 (May 21, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The hourly capacity at JFK and EWR has not increased significantly
since the orders took effect last spring. Because the demand for
operations at New York-area airports remains high, and in light of the
judicial stay, obtaining schedule information by the standard industry
deadline and reviewing those schedules under the current procedures is
the most practical way to proceed at this time.
    The FAA is primarily concerned about planned passenger and cargo
operations during peak hours, but carriers may submit schedule plans
for the entire day. At ORD, the peak hours are between 7 a.m. and 9
p.m. Central Standard Time (1300-0300 UTC) and at EWR and JFK between
the hours of 6 a.m. and 11 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (1100-0400 UTC).
Carriers should submit schedule information in sufficient detail
including, at minimum, the operating carrier, flight number, scheduled
time of operation, frequency, and effective dates. IATA standard
schedule information format and data elements (Standard Schedules
Information Manual) may be used.
    The U.S. winter scheduling season is from October 25, 2009, through
March 27, 2010, in recognition of the IATA scheduling season dates. The
FAA understands there may be differences in schedule times due to the
U.S. daylight saving time dates, and we will accommodate these
differences to the extent that it is possible.

DATES: Schedules must be submitted no later than May 14, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Schedules may be submitted by mail to the Slot
Administration Office, AGC-240, Office of the Chief Counsel, 800
Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
ARINC: DCAYAXD; or by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Tegtmeier, Associate Chief
Counsel for the Air Traffic Organization, Office of the Chief Counsel,
Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: 202-
267-7971; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 17, 2009.
Rebecca B. Macpherson,
Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations.
[FR Doc. E9-9299 Filed 4-22-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Ornamentals a) Yoder Brothers Inc. for use in chrysanthemum production b) California rose nurseries prohibited from using 1,3 dichloropropene products because local township limits for this alternative have been reached Peppers a) California growers with the limiting critical conditions of moderate to severe fungal pathogens, and/ or moderate to sever disease infestation, and/ or moderate to sever nematode infestation, and/ or moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation, and/ or a prohibition on the use of 1,3 dichloropropene products because local township limits for this alternative have been reached b) Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia growers with one or more of the following limiting critical conditions: moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation, and/ or the presence of an occupied structure within 76 meters of a grower's field the size of 100 acres or less c) Florida growers with one or more of the following limiting critical conditions: moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation, and/ or karst topography Strawberry Nurseries a) California growers with one or more of the following limiting critical conditions: moderate to severe black root rot or crown rot, moderate to severe nematode infestation, and/ or moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation b) North Carolina and Tennessee growers with the presence of an occupied structure within 76 meters of a grower's field the size of 100 acres or less Strawberry Fruit a) California growers with one or more of the following limiting critical conditions: moderate to severe black root rot or crown rot, moderate to severe nematode infestation, moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation, a prohibition of the use of 1,3 dichloropropene products because local township limits for this alternative have been reached b) Florida growers with one or more of the following limiting critical conditions: moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge, and/ or karst topography c) Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Ohio and, New Jersey growers with one or more of the following limiting critical conditions: moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge, and/ or the presence of an occupied structure within 76 meters of a grower's field the size of 100 acres or less  76  Sweet Potatoes a) California growers with the contingent limiting critical condition of a prohibition on the use of 1,3 dichloropropene products because local township limits for this alternative have been reached Tomatoes a) Michigan growers with moderate to severe disease and/ or fungal pathogens b) Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia growers with one or more of the following limiting critical conditions: moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation, and/ or the presence of an occupied structure within 76 meters of a grower's field the size of 100 acres or less c) Florida growers with one or more of the following limiting critical conditions: moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation, and/ or karst topography Turfgrass a) U. S. turfgrass sod nursery producers for the production of industry certified pure sod b) U. S. golf courses for establishing sod in the construction of new golf courses or the renovation of putting greens, tees, and fairways POST HARVEST USES Food Processing a) Rice millers in Arkansas, California Louisiana, Florida, Missouri, and Mississippi with one or more of the following limiting critical conditions: older structures that can not be properly sealed to use an alternative to methyl bromide, and/ or the presence of sensitive electronic equipment subject to corrosivity b) Pet food manufacturing facilities in the U. S. with one or more of the following limiting critical conditions: older structures that can not be properly sealed to use an alternative to methyl bromide, and/ or the presence of sensitive electronic equipment subject to corrosivity c) Kraft Foods with one or more of the following limiting critical conditions: older structures that can not be properly sealed to use an alternative to methyl bromide, and/ or the presence of sensitive electronic equipment subject to corrosivity d) Members of the North American Millers' Association with one or more of the following limiting critical conditions: older structures that can not be properly sealed to use an alternative to methyl bromide, and/ or the presence of sensitive electronic equipment subject to corrosivity Commodity Storage a) Gwaltney of Smithfield for smokehouse ham curing facilities owned by the company  77  b) California entities storing walnuts, beans, dried plums, and pistachios in California with one or more of the following limiting critical conditions: rapid fumigation is required to meet a critical market window, such as during the holiday season, rapid fumigation is required when a buyer provides short ( 2 days or less) notification for a purchase, and/ or there is a short period after harvest in which to fumigate and there is limited silo availability for using alternatives


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 6, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 76027-76029]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31177]

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

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

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

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

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 6, 2011 /
Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0733; Directorate Identifier 2010-NE-36-AD;
Amendment 39-16885; AD 2011-25-09]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney Division (PW) PW4000
Series Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
PW4000 turbofan engines. This AD was prompted by an updated low-cycle
fatigue (LCF) life analysis performed by PW. This AD requires removing
certain part number (P/N) high-pressure turbine (HPT) stage 1 and HPT
stage 2 airseals and HPT stage 1 airseal rings before their published
life limit and establishes a new lower life limit for these parts. We
are issuing this AD to prevent failure of these parts, which could lead
to an uncontained engine failure and damage to the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective January 10, 2012.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact Pratt
& Whitney, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06108; phone: (860) 565-
1605. You may review copies of the referenced service information at
the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Document Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Gray, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, 12 New England Executive Park; phone: (781)
238-7742; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 14, 2011 (76 FR
41430). That NPRM proposed to require removing certain P/N HPT stage 1
and HPT stage 2 airseals and HPT stage 1 airseal rings before their
published life limit, and establishes a new lower life limit for these
parts.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal
and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Publish Date When Chapter 5 Will Be Revised

    One commenter, Lufthansa Technik AG (Lufthansa), requested that we
note in the AD that Chapter 5 will be revised and indicate when it will
occur. Lufthansa believes this knowledge will help optimize planning
for removal of parts that will be close to their reduced life limits
when Chapter 5 is revised.
    We do not agree. Although Chapter 5 may be revised in the future,
we do not know when. If Chapter 5 is revised in the future, we will
publish an NPRM that will allow the public an opportunity to comment.
We did not change the AD as a result of this comment.

Request To Indicate How To Perform Pro-Rata Calculation

    One commenter, SR Technics, requested that the AD define how to
perform the pro-rata calculation of the parts' life limit after the
effective date of the AD for parts that have been installed on engines
with different thrust loads.
    We do not agree. Information on how to track part life for parts
that have been installed on engines with different thrust loads can be
found in the relevant engine manual. We did not change the AD as a
result of this comment.

Request for Industry Support Program

    One commenter, FedEx Express (FedEx), indicated that the proposed
AD would affect 174 engines in its fleet and cost FedEx $8,149,290.
FedEx requested that Pratt & Whitney, therefore, provide an industry
support program to help alleviate this financial burden.
    We do not agree. We do not have the authority to require a design
approval holder to offer such a program. We did not change the AD as a
result of this comment.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes to the Unsafe
Condition paragraph made for clarification.
    We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (76 FR 41430, July 14, 2011) for correcting the unsafe condition;
and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (76 FR 41430, July 14, 2011).

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 869 engines installed on
airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that, because the removals
will be performed at piece-part level, no additional work-hours will be
required. Prorated life for the HPT is about $46,835 per engine. Based
on these figures, we estimate the total cost of this AD to U.S.
operators is $40,699,615.

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

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2011-25-09 Pratt & Whitney Division: Amendment 39-16885; Docket No.
FAA-2011-0733; Directorate Identifier 2010-NE-36-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective January 10, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the following Pratt & Whitney Division (PW)
turbofan engines, with high-pressure turbine (HPT) stage 1 airseal,
part number (P/N) 50L879; HPT stage 2 airseal, P/N 53L030; or HPT
stage 1 airseal ring, P/N 50L664, installed:

(1) PW4000-100'' Engines

    PW4000-100'' engine models PW4164, PW4164C, PW4164C/B, PW4168,
and PW4168A.

(2) PW4000-94'' Engines

    (i) PW4000-94'' engine models PW4060, PW4060A, PW4060C, PW4062,
PW4062A, PW4156A, PW4158, PW4160, PW4460, and PW4462 that have
incorporated either Engineering Change Numbers EC92KK322G, H, I, J,
and K, or one of the following PW Service Bulletins (SBs): PW4ENG
72-490, PW4ENG 72-504, PW4ENG 72-512, PW4ENG 72-572, PW4ENG 72-588,
PW4ENG 73-150; as indicated with a (-3), (-3A), or (-3B) suffix on
the engine data plate.
    (ii) PW4000-94'' engine models PW4050, PW4052, PW4056, PW4152,
PW4156, and PW4650 that have incorporated either Engineering Change
Numbers EC92KK322G, H, I, J, and K, or one of the following PW SBs:
PW SB PW4ENG 72-490, PW4ENG 72-504, PW4ENG 72-512, PW4ENG 72-572,
PW4ENG 72-588, PW4ENG 73-150; as indicated with a (-3), (-3A), or (-
3B) suffix on the engine data plate.

(d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an updated low-cycle fatigue (LCF) life
analysis performed by PW. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure
of these parts, which could lead to an uncontained engine failure
and damage to the airplane.

(e) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(f) Removing From Service, the Stage 1 HPT Airseal, P/N 50L879

    Remove the stage 1 HPT airseal, P/N 50L879, at the next piece-
part exposure after the effective date of this AD or before
accumulating the number of cycles listed in Table 1 of this AD,
whichever occurs later.

 Table 1--Removal of Stage 1 HPT Airseals, P/N 50L879, by Cycles-Since-
                                New (CSN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Remove stage 1 HPT airseal
          For engine model . . .                      by . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Listed in paragraph (c)(1) of the       12,600 CSN.
 Applicability Section of this AD.
(2) Listed in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of the    13,900 CSN.
 Applicability Section of this AD.
(3) Listed in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of the   18,900 CSN.
 Applicability Section of this AD.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(g) Removing From Service, the Stage 2 HPT Airseal, P/N 53L030

    Remove the stage 2 HPT airseal, P/N 53L030, at the next piece-
part exposure after the effective date of this AD or before
accumulating the number of cycles listed in Table 2 of this AD,
whichever occurs later.

      Table 2--Removal of Stage 2 HPT Airseals, P/N 53L030, by CSN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Remove stage 2 HPT airseal
          For engine model . . .                      by . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Listed in paragraph (c)(1) of the       13,900 CSN.
 Applicability Section of this AD.

(2) Listed in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of the    13,800 CSN.
 Applicability Section of this AD.
(3) Listed in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of the   15,900 CSN.
 Applicability Section of this AD.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(h) Removing From Service, the Stage 1 HPT Airseal Ring, P/N 50L664

    Remove the stage 1 HPT airseal ring, P/N 50L664, at the next
piece-part exposure after the effective date of this AD or before
accumulating the number of cycles listed in Table 3 of this AD,
whichever occurs later.

    Table 3--Removal of Stage 1 HPT Airseal Ring, P/N 50L664, by CSN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Remove stage 1 HPT airseal
          For engine model . . .                    ring by * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Listed in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of the    14,800 CSN.
 Applicability Section of this AD.
(2) Listed in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of the   16,800 CSN.
 Applicability Section of this AD.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(i) Installation Prohibition

    After the effective date of this AD, do not install any stage 1
HPT airseal, P/N 50L879, stage 2 HPT airseal, P/N 53L030, or stage 1
HPT airseal ring, P/N 50L664, that is at piece-part exposure and
exceeds the new life limit listed in Table 1, Table 2, or Table 3 of
this AD.

(j) Definitions

    For the purpose of this AD, piece-part exposure means that the
part is completely disassembled and removed from the engine.

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your
request.

(l) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact James Gray,
Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
(781) 238-7199; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued in Burlington, MA, on November 30, 2011.
Peter A. White,
Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-31177 Filed 12-5-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 181 (Tuesday, September 20, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 57379]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20202]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0827; Airspace Docket No. 21-AEA-12]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment and Revocation of Air Traffic Service (ATS) Routes;
Eastern United States

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action corrects a final rule published by the FAA in the
Federal Register on September 8, 2022, that amended jet routes J-14, J-
24, J-52, and J-68; and removed jet routes J-165, J-207, J-506, J-561,
J-563, J-573, J-582, and J-585. The final rule inadvertently re-
inserted a segment in J-52 that had been removed by a previous
rulemaking action. This action makes an editorial correction to the
description of J-52 to remove the incorrect route segment.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, November 3, 2022. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and
publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Rules and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Rules and Regulations
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    The FAA published a final rule (87 FR 54880; September 8, 2022)
effective on November 3, 2022, that included an amendment of jet route
J-52. The rule inadvertently re-inserted the route segment ``Liberal,
KS, INT Liberal 137[deg] and Ardmore, OK 309[deg] radials'' in the J-52
description that had been removed as published in an earlier action (87
FR 38916; June 30, 2022) which became effective on September 8, 2022.
    This rule corrects that error by removing the route segment and
editing the J-52 route description accordingly.
    Jet routes are published in paragraph 2004 of FAA Order JO
7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022 which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The ATS route listed in
this document will be published subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.

Correction to Final Rule

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the
description of jet route J-52, published in the Federal Register of
September 8, 2022 (87 FR 54880), FR Doc. 2022-19287, is corrected as
follows:

0
1. On page 54882, in the first column, correct the description of J-52
to read as follows:

J-52 [Corrected]

    From Vancouver, BC, Canada; via Spokane, WA; Salmon, ID; Dubois,
ID; Rock Springs, WY; Falcon, CO; Hugo, CO; to Lamar, CO. From
Ardmore, OK; Texarkana, AR; to Sidon, MS. The portion within Canada
is excluded.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 13, 2022.
Scott M. Rosenbloom,
Manager, Airspace Rules and Regulations.
[FR Doc. 2022-20202 Filed 9-19-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


     UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

                             OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFTEY
AND POLLUTION PREVENTION

RE:  	Meeting with Azon and EPA to discuss conditions of use for di-isobutyl phthalate

List of Documents
 Meeting Summary
 Attendees
Meeting Summary
On October 28, 2019, EPA met with Azon to discuss use information on di-isobutyl phthalate (CASRN 84-69-5). EPA provided a general overview of the process of gathering use information under TSCA section 6. Azon shared details about their Azo-Grout and Azo-Cat product lines that include DIBP. They discussed their products' uses, how they are applied, what percentages are DIBP, and their overall supply chain and market.

Attendees
EPA:
Alex Smith
Claire Brisse
Jordan Garbin
Marc Edmonds
Nerija Orentas

Azon:
Matt Diettrick
Michael Vennix
Nick Haan


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 217 (Wednesday, November 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69753-69755]
[FR Doc No: 2011-28978]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2011-0032; OMB No. 1660-0068]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request, Federal Hotel and Motel Fire Safety Declaration Form

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity
to

comment on a proposed extension, without change, of a currently
approved information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning the
collection of information regarding the existence of smoke detectors
and sprinkler systems within hotels and motels.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before January 9, 2012.

ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use
only one of the following means to submit comments:
    (1) Online. Submit comments at  http://www.regulations.gov under
Docket ID FEMA-2011-0032. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments.
    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to Regulatory Affairs Division,
Office of Chief Counsel, DHS/FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Room 835,
Washington, DC 20472-3100.
    (3) Facsimile. Submit comments to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Email. Submit comments to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include Docket
ID FEMA-2011-0032 in the subject line.
    All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket
ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material,
all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any
personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this
information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy Act
notice that is available via the link in the footer of http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bruce Hensler, Fire Program
Specialist, FEMA/U.S. Fire Administration,<PHONE_NUMBER> for
additional information. You may contact the Records Management Division
for copies of the proposed collection of information at facsimile
number<PHONE_NUMBER> or email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Law 101-391 requires FEMA to
establish and maintain a list of hotels, motels, and similar places of
public accommodation meeting minimum requirements for protection of
life from fire; the list is known as the National Master List (NML).
This law resulted from a series of deadly fires in hotels and motels,
occurring in the late 70's and 80's, with high loss of life. The
legislative intent of this public law is to provide all travelers the
assurance of fire-safety in accommodations identified on the National
Master List. Public Law 101-391 further stipulates that Federal
employees on official travel stay in properties approved by the
authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) and listed on the current NML.

Collection of Information

    Title: Federal Hotel and Motel Fire Safety Declaration Form.
    Type of Information Collection: Extension, without change, of a
currently approved information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0068.
    Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Form 516-0-1, Federal Hotel and Motel
Fire Safety Declaration Form.
    Abstract: FEMA collects information voluntarily offered by places
of accommodation regarding the existence of smoke detectors and
automatic fire sprinkler systems. The information is compiled as a
National Master List of lodging establishments meeting minimum criteria
for life-safety from fire, as defined in the Hotel and Motel Fire
Safety Act of 1990. The list is used by Federal employees to select
lodging for work-related travel and by the general public seeking life-
safety while traveling.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit; State, local or
Tribal Government.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 694 hours.

                                                       Estimated Annualized Burden Hours and Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Number of
                                   Form name/form     Number of     responses   Total Number   Average burden   Total annual     Average    Total annual
       Type of respondent              number        respondents       per      of responses    per  response    burden (in    hourly wage   respondent
                                                                   respondent                    (in hours)        hours)         rate          cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Business or other for-Profit...  Federal Hotel and         2,275             1         2,275  0.25............           569        $36.72       $20,894
                                  Motel Fire                                                  (15 mins.)......
                                  Safety
                                  Declaration Form/
                                  FEMA Form 516-0-
                                  1.
State, local or Tribal           Review of FEMA               19            20           380  0.33............           125         35.70         4,463
 Government.                      Form 516-0-1.                                               (20 mins.)......
                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total......................  .................         2,294  ............         2,655  ................           694  ............        25,357
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimated Cost: The estimated annual cost to respondents for the
hour burden is $25,357. There are no annual costs to respondents
operations and maintenance costs for technical services. There is no
annual start-up or capital costs. The cost to the Federal Government is
$71,141.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) Evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology,

e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Gary L. Anderson,
Acting Chief Administrative Officer, Mission Support Bureau, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2011-28978 Filed 11-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-45-P


[Federal Register: October 5, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 192)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 61369-61371]
[DOCID:fr05oc10-19]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0743; FRL-9209-9]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan; Sacramento
Metropolitan Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Sacramento
Metropolitan Air Quality Management District's portion of the
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns
emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) from the landfill gas
flare at the Kiefer Landfill in Sacramento, California. We are
proposing to approve portions of a Permit to Operate that limit
NOX emissions from this facility under the Clean Air Act as
amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on this
proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

DATE: Any comments must arrive by November 4, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2010-0743, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through  http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. http://www.regulations.gov is an
``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. 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.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), and some may not be publicly available in either location
(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mae Wang, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-
4124<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

    I. The State's Submittal
    A. What did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of this document?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted document?
    II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the submitted document?
    B. Does the submitted document meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. Public Comment and Final Action

    III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What did the State submit?

    On October 26, 2006, the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality
Management District (SMAQMD) adopted the ``Ozone State Implementation
Plan Revision, Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) as
Applicable to the 8-Hour Ozone Standard.'' The California Air Resources
Board (CARB) submitted this SIP revision to EPA on July 11, 2007. This
SIP submittal included portions of the Permit to Operate for the Kiefer
Landfill, which is a major source of NOX emissions operated
by the County of Sacramento Department of Waste Management and
Recycling. The submitted portions of the Permit to Operate for the
Kiefer Landfill (Permit No. 17359), which was issued by the SMAQMD,
relate to the control of NOX emissions from the air
pollution control landfill gas flare. The SMAQMD originally issued
Permit No. 17359 on August 7, 2006, and later revised it on November
13, 2006. We are proposing to act on the submitted portions of Permit
No. 17359, as revised on November 13, 2006.
    On January 11, 2008, the SIP revision for SMAQMD was deemed by
operation of law to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51
appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of this document?

    There are no previous versions of SMAQMD Permit No. 17359 that have
been submitted or approved into the California SIP.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted document?

    NOX helps produce ground-level ozone, smog and
particulate matter, which harm human health and the environment.
Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States to submit regulations that
control NOX emissions. Additionally, the Sacramento
Metropolitan Area is designated and classified as a severe-15
nonattainment area for the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS). 40 CFR 81.305; 75 FR 24409 (May 5, 2010).\1\
Accordingly, the SMAQMD is required to submit a revision to the SIP
that meets the Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)
requirements for major sources of NOX emissions in CAA
sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f). Permit No. 17359 limits emissions of
NOX from the landfill gas flare at the Kiefer Landfill,
which is a major source of NOX emissions.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Sacramento Metropolitan area was initially classified as
a ``serious'' nonattainment area for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 69 FR
23858 (April 30, 2004). On May 5, 2010, EPA granted California's
request for voluntary reclassification of this area from ``serious''
to ``severe-15,'' and this reclassification became effective June 4,
2010.
    \2\ Although the District adopted these permit conditions to
satisfy the major source RACT requirement in ``serious'' ozone
nonattainment areas (based on a 50 ton per year (tpy) threshold),
the RACT requirement for this source remains unaffected by the
reclassification of the area to ``severe-15.'' This is because a
major source in a serious ozone nonattainment area (based on a 50
tpy threshold) is, by definition, also a major source in a severe-15
ozone nonattainment area (based on a 25 tpy threshold). CAA 182(c),
(d). Thus, under both classifications, the Kiefer Landfill is
subject to the RACT requirement in CAA 182(b)(2) and 182(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the submitted document?

    Generally, SIP obligations must be enforceable (see section 110(a)
of the Act), must require RACT for each category of sources covered by
a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document as well as each
NOX or volatile organic compound (VOC) major source in
nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above (see sections
182(b)(2) and 182(f)), and must not relax existing requirements (see
sections 110(l) and 193). The SMAQMD regulates an ozone nonattainment
area classified as severe-15 for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS (40 CFR 81.305)
and the Kiefer Landfill is a major source of NOX. Therefore,
the Kiefer Landfill must implement RACT.
    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate
enforceability and RACT requirements consistently include the
following:
    1. ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 57
FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
    2. ``State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the
General Preamble; Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 Implementation of
Title I; Proposed Rule,'' (the NOX Supplement), 57 FR 55620,
November 25, 1992.
    3. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook).
    4. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).

B. Does the document meet the evaluation criteria?

    We are proposing to approve the submitted conditions of SMAQMD
Permit No. 17359 into the SMAQMD portion of the California SIP because
they satisfy the applicable CAA requirements for approval.
Specifically, we propose to approve permit conditions 1, 6, 10, 11, 16,
20, 27, 28, and 29, or portions thereof, which together establish an
enforceable NOX limitation satisfying RACT for the air
pollution control landfill gas flare at the Kiefer Landfill. The
NOX limitation contained in the permit is consistent with
the limitations contained in California district rules and emission
factor data related to landfill flares. Because the applicable SIP
currently does not contain NOX limitations for the Kiefer
Landfill gas flare, the approval of these permit conditions strengthens
the SIP. Emissions of volatile organic compounds from the Kiefer
landfill are not addressed by today's action. In sum, the submitted
permit conditions satisfy the applicable requirements and guidance
regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP relaxations and may, therefore,
be approved into the California SIP. Please see the docket for a copy
of the complete submitted document.

C. Public Comment and Final Action

    Because EPA believes the specific conditions of SMAQMD Permit No.
17359, as submitted by CARB on July 11, 2007, fulfill all relevant
requirements, we are proposing to fully approve them as described in
section 110(k)(3) of the Act. We will accept comments from the public
on this proposal for the next 30 days. Unless we receive convincing new
information during the comment period, we intend to publish a final
approval action that will incorporate these permit conditions into the
federally-enforceable SIP.

III. 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 State
law. For that reason, this action:

     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

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

    Dated: September 21, 2010.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2010-24917 Filed 10-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 76 (Friday, April 21, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18810-18811]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08076]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0177]

Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Exemption
Renewal for the Flatbed Carrier Safety Group

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemption; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA renews the Flatbed Carrier Safety Group's (FCSG)
exemption which allows the securement of metal coils on a flatbed
vehicle, in a sided vehicle, or in an intermodal container loaded with
eyes crosswise, grouped in rows, in which the coils are loaded to
contact each other in the longitudinal direction. Motor carriers may
continue to use the pre-January 1, 2004, cargo securement regulations
for the transportation of groups of metal coils with eyes crosswise, as
this loading configuration is not currently covered under the Agency's
commodity-specific rules for securing metal coils in 49 CFR 393.120.
The Agency has concluded that granting this exemption renewal will
maintain a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the
level of safety achieved without the exemption.

DATES: This decision is effective April 21, 2017. Comments on the
decision must be received on or before May 22, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2010-0177 using any of the
following methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the

instructions for submitting comments on the Federal electronic docket
site.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Ground Floor, Room W12-140, DOT Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
e.t., Monday-Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and
docket number for this notice. For detailed instructions on submitting
comments and additional information on the exemption process, see the
``Public Participation'' heading below. Note that all comments received
will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including
any personal information provided. Please see the ``Privacy Act''
heading for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or to Room W12-140,
DOT Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: 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.
    Public participation: The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is
generally available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. You may find
electronic submission and retrieval help and guidelines under the
``help'' section of the http://www.regulations.gov Web site as well as
the DOT's http://docketsinfo.dot.gov Web site. If you would like
notification that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgment
page that appears after submitting comments online.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Luke W. Loy, Vehicle and Roadside
Operations Division, Office of Bus and Truck Standards and Operations,
MC-PSV,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    FMCSA may renew an exemption from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations for a five-year period (49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(2)) if it finds
``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is
equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent
such exemption'' (49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1); see also 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)).
FCSG has requested a five-year extension for the exemption from 49 CFR
393.120 to allow motor carriers to comply with the pre-January 1, 2004,
cargo securement regulations (then at 49 CFR 393.100(c)) for the
transportation of groups of metal coils with eyes crosswise. The
procedures for requesting an exemption (including renewals) are set out
in 49 CFR part 381.

Basis for Renewing Exemption

    FCSG applied for an exemption from 49 CFR 393.120 in 2010 to allow
motor carriers to comply with the pre-January 1, 2004, cargo securement
regulations for the transportation of groups of metal coils with eyes
crosswise. FMCSA granted the exemption on April 14, 2011 (76 FR 20867)
and renewed it on June 11, 2013 (78 FR 35087), and again on June 4,
2015 (80 FR 31956). The renewal outlined in this notice extends the
exemption from April 13, 2017, through April 13, 2022, and requests
public comment.
    FMCSA is not aware of any evidence showing that compliance with the
pre-January 1, 2004 cargo securement regulations for the transportation
of groups of metal coils with eyes crosswise, in accordance with the
conditions of the original exemption, has resulted in any degradation
in safety. The Agency believes that extending the exemption for a
period of five years will likely achieve a level of safety that is
equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety achieved without
the exemption because the metal coils are grouped and secured together
in the longitudinal direction, i.e., ``unitized,'' with the cargo
securement system meeting all of the aggregate working load limit
requirements of 49 CFR 393.106(d).
    The exemption is renewed subject to the following requirements,
provided motor carriers using the exemption continue to meet the
aggregate working load limits of 49 CFR 393.106(d).
    Coils with eyes crosswise: If coils are loaded to contact each
other in the longitudinal direction, and relative motion between coils,
and between coils and the vehicle, is prevented by tiedown assemblies
and timbers:
    (1) Only the foremost and rearmost coils must be secured with
timbers having a nominal cross section of 4 x 4 inches or more and a
length which is at least 75 percent of the width of the coil or row of
coils, tightly placed against both the front and rear sides of the row
of coils and restrained to prevent movement of the coils in the forward
and rearward directions; and
    (2) The first and last coils in a row of coils must be secured with
a tiedown assembly restricting against forward and rearward motion,
respectively. Each additional coil in the row of coils must be secured
to the trailer using a tiedown assembly.
    The exemption will be valid for five years unless rescinded earlier
by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) Motor carriers and/or
commercial motor vehicles fail to comply with the terms and conditions
of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of
safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation
of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives
of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.

Preemption

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31313(d), as implemented by 49 CFR
381.600, during the period this exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation applicable to interstate commerce that
conflicts with or is inconsistent with this exemption with respect to a
firm or person operating under the exemption. States may, but are not
required to, adopt the same exemption with respect to operations in
intrastate commerce.

Request for Comments

    FMCSA requests comments from parties with data concerning the
safety record of motor carriers transporting groups of metal coils with
eyes crosswise, in accordance with the conditions of the exemption. The
Agency will evaluate adverse evidence submitted during the comment
period and at any time during the 5-year period of the exemption. If
safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would
not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315(b)(1), FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the FCSG
exemption.

    Issued on: April 11, 2017.
Daphne Y. Jefferson,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2017-08076 Filed 4-20-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 207 (Thursday, October 27, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65116-65117]
[FR Doc No: 2022-23422]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2007-28952]

Petition for Extension of Waiver of Compliance

    Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this
document provides the public notice that on July 29, 2022, Union
Pacific Railroad Company (UP) petitioned the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) for an extension of a waiver of compliance from
certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained
at 49 CFR parts 215 (Railroad Freight Car Safety Standards) and 232
(Brake System Safety Standards for Freight and Other Non-passenger
Trains and Equipment; End of Train Devices). The relevant FRA Docket
Number is FRA-2007-28952.
    Specifically, UP requests a waiver extension from 49 CFR 232.205,
Class 1 brake test--initial terminal inspection, and certain provisions
of part 215 related to the inspection of trains entering the United
States from Mexico at Eagle Pass, Texas. UP seeks to continue to move
trains received in interchange with Ferrocarriles Nacionales de Mexico
(FXE) approximately 4.8 miles north of Eagle Pass, Texas, to the
facility at Clarks Park, Texas, before an initial terminal air brake
test is performed. UP stated in its 2007 petition \1\ that the relief
would ``expedite train movements and avoid blockages of crossings in
Eagle Pass.'' UP asserts that it has ``been operating under the
requirements set forth in the waiver for the past fourteen years and no
adverse effect on the safety of operations has occurred.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ https://www.regulations.gov/document/FRA-2007-28952-0001.
_____________________________________-

    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
    Communications are requested by December 27, 2022. Comments
received after that date will be considered if practicable. FRA
reserves the right to extend the existing relief subject to subsequent
consideration of any comments submitted to the docket.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)
solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. 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

https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacy-notice for the privacy notice of
regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Carolyn Hayward-Williams,
Director, Office of Railroad Systems and Technology.
[FR Doc. 2022-23422 Filed 10-26-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 84 (Friday, May 1, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24821-24824]
[FR Doc No: 2015-10239]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0087; FRL-9926-77-Region 9]

Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; South
Coast Air Quality Management District; Stationary Source Permits

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve Rule 1325, Federal PM2.5 New Source Review
Program, into the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This action
was proposed in the Federal Register on February 17, 2015. Rule 1325
governs the issuance of permits for major stationary sources and major
modifications located in areas designated as nonattainment for the
PM2.5 NAAQS to meet Clean Air Act Part D requirements for
emissions of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors. EPA is
taking this action under the Clean Air Act obligation to take action on
State submittals for inclusion in state implementation plans. The
intended effect is to update the SIP with nonattainment new source
review (NNSR) rules for major stationary sources and major
modifications emitting PM2.5 and certain PM2.5
precursors.

DATES: This rule is effective on June 1, 2015.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number [EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0087]
for this action. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy
at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-
3901. While all documents in the docket are listed at http://www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly available only at
the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, multi-
volume reports), and some may not be available in either location
(e.g., confidential business information (CBI)). To inspect the hard
copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Yannayon, EPA Region IX, by
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms ``we,''
``us,'' and ``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comment
III. EPA Action and Response to Health Advocates Comment
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action

    On February 17, 2015 (80 FR 8250), EPA proposed approval of South
Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1325, Federal
PM2.5 New Source Review Program, for inclusion in the
California SIP. Rule 1325 was adopted by SCAQMD on December 5, 2014,
and submitted by the California Air Resources Board on December 29,
2014.

II. Public Comment

    EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this time we received two comments. Only one of the comments,
submitted by Earthjustice on behalf of Health Advocates \1\, objected
to our proposed approval of SCAQMD Rule 1325.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Health Advocates consists of Communities for a Better
Environment, Physicians for Social Responsibility-Los Angeles, and
Sierra Club My Generation Campaign.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. EPA Action and Response to Health Advocates Comment

    The letter submitted on behalf of Health Advocates objected to
EPA's proposed approval of Rule 1325 on three grounds. Below we provide
a summary of our response to each of Health Advocates' comments. Please
see the Response to Comments document in the docket for this final
action for our complete response.
    1. Approval of exclusion of ammonia as a precursor.
    CAA subpart 4 includes section 189(e), which requires NNSR controls
for major stationary sources of PM10 precursors, and hence
PM2.5 precursors, ``except where the Administrator
determines that such sources do not contribute significantly to
PM10 levels which exceed the standard in the area.'' CAA
section 189(e) (Emphasis added). EPA has identified ammonia as a
precursor to the formation of PM2.5. See generally 80 FR
15340, 15352 (Mar, 23, 2015) (Proposed PM2.5 Implementation
Rule). EPA proposed to approve Rule 1325 even though it does not
contain NNSR requirements for ammonia emissions because SCAQMD provided
information that demonstrates major stationary sources of ammonia
emissions do not contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels
exceeding the PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS) in the South Coast Air Basin nonattainment area. 80 FR at 8251.
    Health Advocates disagreed with our proposal on three grounds,
asserting that (1) EPA's determination that a contribution of 1.7 tons
per day (tpd) of ammonia emissions to the ammonia inventory is small is
``unjustified''; (2) EPA has not demonstrated that ammonia emissions do
not contribute significantly to PM2.5 NAAQS violations in
the South Coast Air Basin; and (3) it was arbitrary and capricious for
EPA to consider the trends and actual air quality of PM2.5
in the area. Earthjustice Letter at p.3.
    EPA disagrees with these comments. EPA applied a weight of the
evidence approach taking into account several factors to determine if
SCAQMD appropriately determined that major stationary sources of
ammonia emissions do not contribute significantly to PM2.5
nonattainment in the area.
    One factor we considered is that there are only four existing major
stationary sources of ammonia and these four sources' emissions are
only a small percentage (1.7%) of the total ammonia inventory for the
South Coast PM2.5 nonattainment area. Health Advocates did
not submit any information or provide an explanation to show that 1.7%
is not a small percentage. Health Advocates did not indicate what
percentage would be justified as being small. For reasons explained
fully in our Response to Comments, EPA continues to consider the 1.7%
contribution of ammonia emissions from the four existing stationary
sources to be relatively small compared to the rest of the ammonia
inventory.
    A second factor we considered is whether major stationary sources
of ammonia contribute significantly to levels exceeding the
PM2.5 NAAQS in the area, and whether potential new major
stationary sources would be expected to contribute significantly to
levels exceeding the PM2.5 NAAQS in the area. The SCAQMD
provided information showing that a regional increase of 10 tpd of
ammonia (more than five times the amount currently emitted by all major
stationary sources) would result in a 0.22 microgram per cubic meter
([mu]g/m\3\) increase in annual PM2.5 concentrations. This
estimated increase in annual PM2.5 concentration would be
1.5% of the 15 [mu]g/m\3\ 1997 PM2.5 annual standard. SCAQMD
submitted additional information showing that decreasing ammonia
emissions by 2.9 tpd near the Mira Loma monitor would result in a
reduction of 0.16 [mu]g/m\3\ at that monitor.\2\ This estimated
increase in 24-hr PM2.5 concentration would be 0.46% of the
35 [mu]g/m\3\ 1997 PM2.5 24-hr standard. Based on these
data, one can reasonably conclude that the current ambient contribution
(in [mu]g/m\3\) of the four existing major stationary sources (with
emissions of 1.7 tpd) and the ambient contributions from a new major
source, to PM2.5 levels that exceed the standard are likely
to be less than the estimated changes in PM2.5
concentrations indicated in the analyses cited above (which evaluated
emission changes of 10 tpd and 2.9 tpd, respectively). Thus, EPA
determined that existing and new major stationary sources of ammonia
would make a relatively minor contribution to levels exceeding the 1997
or 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Draft Supplement to the 24-Hour PM2.5 State
Implementation Plan for the South Coast Air Basin dated January 2015
at E-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A third factor we considered was the progress the SCAQMD has made
and the overall severity of the PM2.5 nonattainment problem
in the South Coast Air Basin. Health Advocates contends it was
arbitrary and capricious to consider the past progress and current air
quality and asserts that our evaluation of the air quality is flawed.
We disagree with both points. EPA's General Preamble in 1992 noted that
determinations under CAA section 189(e) are case-by-case and depend on
a variety of information that is specific

to the area. See 57 FR 13498, 13538-42 (April 16, 1992). EPA's proposed
PM2.5 Implementation Rule recently reiterated that
application of section 189(e) should be case-specific and focused on
location, including a weight of the evidence approach considering,
among other factors, the severity of the nonattainment problem in the
area. 80 FR at 15359. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider this
factor.
    Health Advocates also asserted that EPA's discussion of the air
quality in the South Coast Air Basin was misleading, contending that
there were violations of both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Earthjustice Letter at p. 3-4. EPA acknowledges one monitor (Mira Loma)
has recorded PM2.5 emissions exceeding the level of the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS based on 2011-2013 air quality data.
However, Health Advocates failed to provide any information to support
its claims that there are any current violations of the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS. The information Health Advocates cited to
support its allegations of additional violations of the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS at the Mira Loma monitor is from a combination
of both federal and non-federal reference method monitors. In in
addition the data is preliminary, uncertified and has not been quality
assured.
    Based on the weight of the evidence, EPA concludes that it was
appropriate for SCAQMD to exclude ammonia as a precursor pursuant to
CAA section 189(e).
    2. Regulation of VOCs by SCAQMD NNSR Rule 1303 rather than Rule
1325.
    Health Advocates also disagreed with EPA's proposal to approve Rule
1325 without requiring VOC emissions to be included in the Rule's
requirements. Id at p. 4. Health Advocates contends our proposal is
inconsistent with CAA section 189(e).
    EPA did not propose to determine that VOCs do not contribute
significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed the
PM2.5 standards and is making no such finding in this final
rule. Instead, consistent with the proposed rule, EPA is determining
that the NNSR control requirements applicable under the SCAQMD SIP for
major stationary sources of PM2.5 also apply to major
stationary sources of VOCs (which are PM2.5 precursors),
because major VOC sources are currently subject to stringent NNSR
control requirements under Rule 1303. The requirements in Rule 1303 \3\
are more stringent than those that would apply under Rule 1325 and
fully satisfy the control requirements of CAA section 189(e) with
respect to VOCs.\4\ Moreover, it is long-standing EPA policy to allow
NNSR regulation of PM precursors via their regulation through other
NNSR programs. 57 FR at 13542 (``The VOC reductions may also be
realized from new or modified major stationary sources due to the
implementation of NSR programs in ozone nonattainment or attainment
areas'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ SCAQMD Regulation XIII establishes the NNSR program
requirements for VOC emissions from stationary sources. Rule 1303
references other SCAQMD rules in Regulation XIII. Our citation to
Rule 1303 also includes any other provisions in Regulation XIII as
applicable.
    \4\ Section 189(e) of the CAA states that ``[t]he control
requirements applicable under plans in effect under this part for
major stationary sources of PM10 shall also apply to
major stationary sources of PM10 precursors,'' except
where the Administrator makes specific findings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We continue to find that the NNSR regulation of VOC emissions
pursuant to Rule 1303 rather than Rule 1325 satisfies the requirements
of section 189(e).
    3. Consideration of attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Finally, Health Advocates contends that EPA cannot approve Rule
1325 because the South Coast Air Basin has not demonstrated the area is
in attainment with the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Earthjustice Letter at p. 5.
    There is no requirement for the area to have attained the
PM2.5 NAAQS as a predicate for EPA to approve a new NNSR
rule for PM2.5. Approval of a new NNSR rule to control
emissions of PM2.5, including NOX, SO2
and VOCs \5\ emissions as precursors, in no way interferes with the
SCAQMD's progress towards attaining the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ As noted above, major stationary sources of VOC emissions
are regulated pursuant to a different, more stringent NNSR rule
(Rule 1303) rather than Rule 1325.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No comments were submitted to change our assessment of Rule 1325 as
described in our proposed action. Pursuant to section 110(k) of the CAA
and for the reasons provided in our proposed action, associated TSD and
detailed Response to Comments document included in the docket, EPA is
finalizing approval of SCAQMD Rule 1325.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the
SCAQMD rules described in the amendments to 40 CFR 52.220 set forth
below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents
available electronically through www.regulations.gov and in hard copy
at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble for more information).

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 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 Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation
land or

in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 30, 2015. 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. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: April 14, 2015.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(458) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (458) New and amended regulations for the following APCDs were
submitted on December 29, 2014 by the Governor's designee.
    (i) Incorporation by Reference.
    (A) South Coast Air Quality Management District.
    (1) Rule 1325, Rule 1325, ``Federal PM2.5 New Source
Review Program'' adopted on December 5, 2014.

[FR Doc. 2015-10239 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P