[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 56 (Monday, March 23, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16287-16289]
[FR Doc No: 2020-05858]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0189; Airspace Docket No. 19-AGL-2]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of V-55, V-271, T-215, and T-265, and
Revocation of V-215 and V-450 in the Vicinity of Muskegon, MI

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend two VHF Omnidirectional Range
(VOR) Federal airways, V-55 and V-271; amend two low altitude Area
Navigation (RNAV) routes, T-215 and T-265; and remove two VOR Federal
airways, V-215 and V-450, in the vicinity of Muskegon, MI. The air
traffic service (ATS) route modifications are necessary due to the
planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Muskegon, MI, VOR/
Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) navigation aid (NAVAID). The NAVAID
provides navigation guidance for portions of the affected ATS routes.
This VOR is being decommissioned as part of the FAA's VOR Minimum
Operational Network (MON) program.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 7, 2020.

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:
(800) 647-5527, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2020-0189; Airspace Docket No. 19-AGL-2 at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov. FAA Order 7400.11D, 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:<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Order is also available for inspection
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11D at NARA, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, 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 modify the route structure as necessary to
preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National
Airspace System.

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-2020-0189; Airspace Docket No. 19-AGL-2) 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-2020-0189; Airspace Docket No. 19-AGL-2.'' 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 NPRMs

    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 Operations Support Group, Central
Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Blvd.,
Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective
September 15, 2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11D lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

Background

    The FAA is planning decommissioning activities for the VOR portion
of the Muskegon, MI, VORTAC in September, 2020. The VOR portion of the
Muskegon NAVAID is a candidate VOR identified for discontinuance by the
FAA's VOR MON program and listed in the final policy statement notice,
``Provision of Navigation Services for the Next Generation Air
Transportation System (NextGen) Transition to Performance-Based
Navigation (PBN) (Plan for Establishing a VOR Minimum Operational
Network),'' published in the Federal

Register of July 26, 2016 (81 FR 48694), Docket No. FAA-2011-1082.
    Although the VOR portion of the Muskegon, MI, VORTAC is planned for
decommissioning, the co-located DME portion of the NAVAID is being
retained.
    The ATS route dependencies to the Muskegon VORTAC are VOR Federal
airways V-55, V-215, V-271, and V-450. However, as result of the
proposed amendments to those airways, this action also addresses
proposed amendments to RNAV routes T-217 and T-265.
    With the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Muskegon
VORTAC, the remaining ground-based NAVAID coverage in the area is
insufficient to enable the continuity of the affected VOR Federal
airways. As such, proposed modifications to the affected VOR Federal
airways would result in gaps in two of the airways, V-55 and V-271, and
revocation of the other two airways, V-215 and V-450. To overcome the
airway gaps and revocations, instrument flight rules (IFR) traffic
could use adjacent ATS routes, including V-26, V-30, V-133, V-193, V-
217, V-285, and V-420, to circumnavigate the affected area. IFR traffic
could also file point to point through the affected area using existing
airway fixes that will remain in place, as well as adjacent NAVAIDs, or
receive air traffic control (ATC) radar vectors through the area.
Visual flight rules pilots who elect to navigate via the airways
through the affected area could also take advantage of the adjacent VOR
Federal airways or ATC services listed previously.
    Further, the FAA proposes to extend RNAV routes T-217 and T-265
through the affected area, with minor editorial amendments to the
descriptions, to continue supporting enroute airspace users, as well as
ongoing FAA NextGen efforts to transition the national airspace system
to one of performance-based navigation. The editorial amendments to the
existing T-217 and T-265 descriptions would not change the route
structure, operational use, or charted depiction of the routes.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to modify VOR Federal airways V-55 and V-
271, modify low altitude RNAV routes T-217 and T-265, and remove VOR
Federal airways V-215 and V-450. The planned decommissioning of the VOR
portion of the Muskegon, MI, VORTAC has made this action necessary. The
proposed VOR Federal airway changes are outlined below.
    V-55: V-55 currently extends between the Dayton, OH, VOR/Distance
Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) and the intersection of the Green Bay,
WI, VORTAC 270[deg] and Oshkosh, WI, VORTAC 339[deg] radials (BIPID
fix); between the Eau Claire, WI, VORTAC and the Siren, WI, VOR/DME;
and between the Park Rapids, MN, VOR/DME and the Bismarck, ND, VOR/DME.
The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment between the Pullman, MI,
VOR/DME and the intersection of the Green Bay, WI, VORTAC 270[deg] and
Oshkosh, WI, VORTAC 339[deg] radials (BIPID fix). Additional changes to
other portions of the airway have been proposed in a separate NPRM. The
unaffected portions of the existing airway would remain as charted.
    V-215: V-215 currently extends between the intersection of the
Muskegon, MI, VORTAC 208[deg] and Pullman, MI, VOR/DME 261[deg] radials
(JYBEE fix) and the Gaylord, MI, VOR/DME. The FAA proposes to remove
the airway in its entirety.
    V-271: V-271 currently extends between the Muskegon, MI, VORTAC and
the Escanaba, MI, VOR/DME. The FAA proposes to remove the airway
segment between the Muskegon, MI, VORTAC and the Manistee, MI, VOR/DME.
The unaffected portions of the existing airway would remain as charted.
    V-450: V-450 currently extends between the Escanaba, MI, VOR/DME
and the Flint, MI, VORTAC. The FAA proposes to remove the airway in its
entirety.
    The proposed low altitude RNAV route changes are outlined below.
    T-217: T-217 currently extends between the Lexington, KY, VOR/DME
and the BONEE, OH, fix. The FAA proposes to extend the route
northwestward from the BONEE, OH, fix to the GAYLE, MI, waypoint. The
extension of T-217 would replace the loss of a portion of V-450 west of
the Muskegon VORTAC. Additionally, the type of NAVAID facility for the
Lexington, KY, route point would be corrected from ``VORTAC'' to ``VOR/
DME'' and the geographic coordinates of each of the new route points
would be expressed in degrees, minutes, seconds, and hundredths of a
second.
    T-265: T-265 currently extends between the AHMED, IL, fix and the
VEENA, WI, fix. The FAA proposes to amend the existing route and extend
it eastward and northward so the route would begin at the JAYBE, WI,
fix and end at the PINES, MI, waypoint. The extension of T-265 would
establish enroute low altitude structure to overcome the loss of the V-
55 airway segment south of the Muskegon VORTAC and the loss of the V-
215 airway segments north of the Muskegon VORTAC. Additionally, the
geographic coordinates of each route point would be expressed in
degrees, minutes, seconds, and hundredths of a second.
    The radials listed in the VOR Federal airway V-55 description below
are unchanged and stated in True degrees.
    VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) and low
altitude RNAV T-routes are published in paragraph 6011 of FAA Order
7400.11D dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The ATS routes listed in
this document would be subsequently published in the Order.
    FAA Order 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 7400.11D,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019 and
effective September 15, 2019, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6010(a) Domestic VOR Federal Airways.

* * * * *

V-55 [Amended]

    From Dayton, OH; Fort Wayne, IN; Goshen, IN; Gipper, MI; Keeler,
MI; to Pullman, MI. From Eau Claire, WI; to Siren, WI. From Park
Rapids, MN; Grand Forks, ND; INT Grand Forks 239[deg] and Bismarck,
ND, 067[deg] radials; to Bismarck.
* * * * *

V-215 [Removed]

* * * * *

V-271 [Amended]

    From Manistee, MI; to Escanaba, MI.
* * * * *

V-450 [Removed]

* * * * *

6011. United States Area Navigation Routes

* * * * *

T-217 Lexington, KY (HYK) to
 GAYLE, MI [Amended]

Lexington, KY (HYK)              VOR/DME            (Lat. 37[deg]57'58.86'' N, long. 84[deg]28'21.06'' W)
BOSTR, OH                        FIX                (Lat. 38[deg]53'08.13'' N, long. 84[deg]04'58.02'' W)
HEDEN, OH                        FIX                (Lat. 39[deg]16'44.88'' N, long. 84[deg]02'02.37'' W)
PRUDE, OH                        FIX                (Lat. 39[deg]25'44.92'' N, long. 83[deg]56'58.60'' W)
Springfield, OH (SGH)            DME                (Lat. 39[deg]50'11.55'' N, long. 83[deg]50'41.84'' W)
BONEE, OH                        FIX                (Lat. 40[deg]03'08.85'' N, long. 83[deg]56'56.15'' W)
SJAAY, IN                        WP                 (Lat. 40[deg]58'44.05'' N, long. 85[deg]11'17.17'' W)
DERRF, IN                        WP                 (Lat. 41[deg]39'56.73'' N, long. 85[deg]23'58.59'' W)
GETCH, MI                        WP                 (Lat. 43[deg]10'07.15'' N, long. 86[deg]03'03.06'' W)
GAYLE, MI                        WP                 (Lat. 43[deg]29'37.62'' N, long. 87[deg]00'13.08'' W)

* * * * *

T-265 JAYBE, WI to PINES, MI
 [Amended]

JAYBE, WI                        FIX                (Lat. 42[deg]38'39.36'' N, long. 88[deg]38'19.60'' W)
GRIFT, IL                        WP                 (Lat. 42[deg]17'28.14'' N, long. 88[deg]53'41.42'' W)
START, IL                        WP                 (Lat. 41[deg]45'24.83'' N, long. 89[deg]00'21.81'' W)
MEITZ, IL                        FIX                (Lat. 41[deg]23'30.87'' N, long. 88[deg]38'53.19'' W)
COYAP, IL                        WP                 (Lat. 41[deg]13'26.93'' N, long. 87[deg]41'20.30'' W)
MAPPS, IN                        WP                 (Lat. 41[deg]10'53.94'' N, long. 86[deg]56'32.63'' W)
KLROY, IN                        WP                 (Lat. 41[deg]19'19.37'' N, long. 86[deg]38'57.44'' W)
SMUUV, MI                        WP                 (Lat. 42[deg]27'58.77'' N, long. 86[deg]07'38.37'' W)
GETCH, MI                        WP                 (Lat. 43[deg]10'07.15'' N, long. 86[deg]03'03.06'' W)
LADIN, MI                        WP                 (Lat. 44[deg]22'25.44'' N, long. 85[deg]09'38.61'' W)
CARGA, MI                        WP                 (Lat. 44[deg]38'28.29'' N, long. 84[deg]58'15.15'' W)
BUDHA, MI                        WP                 (Lat. 44[deg]58'24.33'' N, long. 84[deg]45'23.22'' W)
RONDO, MI                        WP                 (Lat. 45[deg]16'43.24'' N, long. 84[deg]31'06.32'' W)
PINES, MI                        WP                 (Lat. 46[deg]01'49.61'' N, long. 84[deg]29'12.25'' W)

* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 11, 2020.
Scott M. Rosenbloom,
Acting Manager, Rules and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2020-05858 Filed 3-20-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 200 (Thursday, October 16, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 62090]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24593]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 573

[Docket No. FDA-2014-F-1509]

DSM Nutritional Products; Filing of Food Additive Petition
(Animal Use)

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of petition.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing
that we have filed a petition, submitted by DSM Nutritional Products,
proposing that the food additive regulations be amended to provide for
the safe use of Schizochytrium sp. dried algae as a source of
docosahexaenoic acid for use in standard pelleted foods for adult dogs.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the petitioner's
request for categorical exclusion from preparing an environmental
assessment or environmental impact statement by November 17, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments to: http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Isabel W. Pocurull, Center for
Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl.,
Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (section 409(b)(5) (21 U.S.C. 348(b)(5))), we are giving notice
that a food additive petition (FAP 2288) has been submitted by DSM
Nutritional Products, 45 Waterview Blvd., Parsippany, NJ 07054. The
petition proposes to amend Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) in part 573 Food Additives Permitted in Feed and Drinking Water
of Animals (21 CFR part 573) to provide for the safe use of
Schizochytrium sp. dried algae as a source of docosahexaenoic acid for
use in standard pelleted foods for adult dogs. The petitioner has
requested a categorical exclusion from preparing an environmental
assessment or environmental impact statement under 21 CFR 25.32(r).
    Interested persons may submit either electronic or written comments
regarding this request for categorical exclusion to the Division of
Dockets Management (see DATES and ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to
send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments
may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: October 10, 2014.
Bernadette Dunham,
Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
[FR Doc. 2014-24593 Filed 10-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 95 (Thursday, May 18, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22869-22870]
[FR Doc No: 2017-10091]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0020; Notice 1]

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Receipt of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (Volkswagen), has determined
that certain model year (MY) 2013-2017 Volkswagen CC and MY 2012-2017
Volkswagen Tiguan motor vehicles do not fully comply with Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 126, Electronic Stability Control
Systems for Light Vehicles. Volkswagen filed a noncompliance report
dated March 1, 2017. Volkswagen also petitioned NHTSA on March 2, 2017,
for a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is June 19, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and be
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. The
Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except
Federal Holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Comments may also be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
    All comments and supporting materials received before the close of
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the
docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the fullest extent possible.
    When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will
also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated at the end of this notice.
    All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the Internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for
accessing the dockets. The docket ID number for this petition is shown
in the heading of this notice.
    DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (Volkswagen), has determined that
certain model year (MY) 2013-2017 Volkswagen CC and MY 2012-2017
Volkswagen Tiguan motor vehicles do not fully comply with paragraph
S5.3.3 of FMVSS No. 126, Electronic Stability Control Systems for Light
Vehicles. Volkswagen filed a noncompliance report dated March 1, 2017,
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility
and Reports. Volkswagen also petitioned NHTSA on March 2, 2017,
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, for an
exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as
it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    This notice of receipt of Volkswagen's petition is published under
49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.

II. Vehicles Involved

    Approximately 230,458 MY 2013-2017 Volkswagen CC motor vehicles,
manufactured between January 19, 2012, and November 28, 2016, and MY
2012-2017 Volkswagen Tiguan motor vehicles, manufactured between
January 9, 2012 and February 28, 2017, are potentially involved.

III. Noncompliance

    Volkswagen explains that during an electronic stability control
(ESC) malfunction in the subject vehicles, the ESC malfunction telltale
illuminates as required by FMVSS No. 126 unless the steering angle
sensor is the source of the malfunction. In the instance of a steering
angle sensor malfunction the indicator telltale does not re-illuminate
immediately after the vehicle ignition is reactivated as required by
paragraph S5.3.3 of FMVSS No. 126. Specifically, the ESC malfunction
telltale will only re-illuminate after the vehicle reaches a speed of
1.2 mph.

IV. Rule Text

    Paragraph S5.3.3 of FMVSS No. 26 provides, in pertinent part:

    S5.3.3 As of September 1, 2011, except as provided in paragraphs
S5.3.4, S5.3.5, S5.3.8, and S5.3.10, the ESC malfunction telltale
must illuminate only when a malfunction(s) of the ESC system exists
and must remain continuously illuminated under the conditions
specified in S5.3 for as long as the malfunction exists (unless the
``ESC malfunction'' and ``ESC off'' telltales are combined in a two-
part telltale and the ``ESC off'' telltale is illuminated), whenever
the ignition locking system is in the ``On'' (``Run'') position . .
.

V. Summary of Volkswagen's Petition

    Volkswagen submits that the condition described above is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety because the
warning (ESC warning lamp) immediately re-illuminates when the vehicle
starts to move and reaches 2 km/h or 1.2 mph.
    Further, the particular condition is limited to an ESC system fault
caused by the steering angle sensor. For all other potential ESC system
faults, the warning lamp illuminates as required with the next ignition
key in the ``On'' (``Run'') position.

    Volkswagen concluded by expressing the belief that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety,
and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    In a supplemental email from Volkswagen dated March 29, 2017,
Volkswagen stated that the ESC warning light illuminates and stays on
for the complete ignition cycle and does not turn off when the vehicle
decelerates below 1.2 mph. However, the steering wheel warning light is
constantly illuminated and is not turned off with ignition key cycle,
which represents a substitutional warning. Volkswagen says that the 1.2
mph (2km/h) threshold was used to prevent triggering of warning lamps
when workshops work on steering components and turn the wheels during
repairs with non-attached components/sensors etc. during the repair and
causing erratic signals during such repairs. This ``repair aid
threshold'' is in conflict with the FMVSS. Volkswagen also says, to
clarify, all Tiguan and CC vehicles are affected that were built since
the updated regulation went into effect (regulation refers to the
specific vehicle production date, i.e. 2011-09-01). All CC and Tiguan's
are fitted with the same ABS/ESC system.
    To view Volkswagen's petition analyses and any supplemental
information in its entirety you can visit https://www.regulations.gov
by following the online instructions for accessing the dockets and by
using the docket ID number for this petition shown in the heading of
this notice.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject vehicles that Volkswagen no
longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance
existed. However, any decision on this petition does not relieve
vehicle distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer
for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after
Volkswagen notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2017-10091 Filed 5-17-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 19, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2725-2728]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00854]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0045; FRL-9331-01-OCSPP]

Ethaboxam; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
ethaboxam in or on Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B and
Vegetable, Brassica, head and stem, group 5-16. The Interregional
Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these tolerance actions
under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective January 19, 2022. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before March 21, 2022, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0045, is available at
https://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs
Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection
Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg.,
Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Due to the public health concerns relating to COVID-19, the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is closed to visitors with
limited exceptions. The staff continues to provide customer service via
email, phone, and webform. For the latest status information on EPA/DC
services, docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marietta Echeverria, Acting Director,
Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460-0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other relatedinformation?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Office of the
Federal Register's e-CFR site at https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file
an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0045 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
March 21, 2022. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0045, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/where-send-comments-epa-dockets.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of March 22, 2021 (86 FR 15162) (FRL-10021-
44) EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
0E8871) by IR-4, North Carolina State University, 1730 Varsity Drive,
Venture IV, Suite 210, Raleigh, NC 27606. The petition requested to
establish tolerances in 40 CFR 180.622 for residues of the fungicide
ethaboxam, (N-(cyano-2-thienylmethyl)-4-ethyl-2-(ethylamino)-5-
thiazolecarboxamide) in or on Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B at
7 parts per million (ppm) and Vegetable, Brassica, head and stem, group
5-16 at 3 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition
prepared by IR-4, the petitioner, which is available in the docket,
https://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in
response to the notice of filing.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
. ''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified therein, EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and
other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has
sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on
aggregate exposure for ethaboxam including exposure resulting from the
tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures
and risks associated with ethaboxam follows.
    In an effort to streamline its publications in the Federal
Register,

EPA is not reprinting sections that repeat what has been previously
published for tolerance rulemakings of the same pesticide chemical.
Where scientific information concerning a particular chemical remains
unchanged, the content of those sections would not vary between
tolerance rulemaking, and EPA considers referral back to those sections
as sufficient to provide an explanation of the information EPA
considered in making its safety determination for the new rulemaking.
    EPA has previously published tolerance rulemakings for ethaboxam,
in which EPA concluded, based on the available information, that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm would result from aggregate
exposure to ethaboxam and established tolerances for residues of that
chemical. EPA is incorporating previously published sections from those
rulemakings that remain unchanged as described further in this
rulemaking.
    Toxicological profile. For a discussion of the Toxicological
Profile of ethaboxam, see Unit III.A. of the ethaboxam tolerance
rulemaking published in the Federal Register of August 3, 2017 (82 FR
36086) (FRL-9961-69).
    Toxicological points of departure/Levels of concern. For a summary
of the Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern for
ethaboxam used for human risk assessment, see Unit III.B. of the August
3, 2017 ethaboxam tolerance rulemaking.
    Exposure assessment. Much of the exposure assessment remains
unchanged from the previous rulemaking, although the exposure
assessment has been updated to include the petitioned-for tolerances
based on the same previous assumptions of tolerance level residues and
100 percent crop treated (PCT). Additionally, the estimated drinking
water concentration is the same as that used in the previous assessment
(7.4 ppb) for the chronic assessment (the only dietary assessment
needed). There are no residential uses for ethaboxam, therefore no
short- or intermediate-term exposure is expected. For a description of
the previous approach to and assumptions for the exposure assessment,
please reference Unit III.C. of the August 3, 2017 rulemaking.
    Safety factor for infants and children. EPA continues to conclude
that there are reliable data to support the reduction of the Food
Quality Protection Act (FQPA) safety factor. See Unit III.D. of the
August 3, 2017 rulemaking for a discussion of the Agency's rationale
for that determination.
    Aggregate risks and Determination of safety. EPA determines whether
acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing
aggregate exposure estimates to the acute population adjusted dose
(aPAD) and chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD). Short-,
intermediate-, and chronic risks are evaluated by comparing the
estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the
appropriate points of departure to ensure that an adequate margin of
exposure (MOE) exists. For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the
lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate
exposure.
    An acute endpoint attributable to a single dose exposure was not
identified; therefore, an acute dietary risk assessment was not
conducted. Chronic dietary risks are below the Agency's level of
concern of 100% of the cPAD; they are 39% of the cPAD for children 1 to
2 years old, the group with the highest estimated exposure. As the
chronic dietary endpoint and dose are protective of potential cancer
effects, ethaboxam is not expected to pose a dietary or aggregate
cancer risk of concern.
    Therefore, based on the risk assessments and information described
above, EPA concludes there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will
result to the general population, or to infants and children, from
aggregate exposure to ethaboxam residues. More detailed information on
this action can be found in the document entitled, ``Ethaboxam. Human
Health Risk Assessment for the Proposed New Uses on Brassica Head and
Stem Vegetable Crop Group 5-16 and Brassica Leafy Greens Crop Subgroup
4-16B'' by going to the docket established by this action, EPA-HQ-OPP-
2021-0045.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    For a discussion of the available analytical enforcement method,
see Unit IV.A. of the August 3, 2017 rulemaking.

B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4).
    Codex does not have established MRLs for ethaboxam in commodities
that are members of subgroup 4-16B or group 5-16.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of ethaboxam in
or on Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B at 7 ppm and Vegetable,
Brassica, head and stem, group 5-16 at 3 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), or to Executive Order 13045,
entitled ``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not
contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it
require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898,
entitled ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16,
1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerances in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or Tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
Tribal Governments, on the relationship between the National Government
and the States or Tribal Governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Thus, the Agency has

determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides, and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 29, 2021.
Daniel Rosenblatt,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending
40 CFR chapter 1 as follows:

PART 180--TOLERANCES AND EXEMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE CHEMICAL RESIDUES
IN FOOD

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. Amend Sec.  180.622, by adding in alphabetical order to table 1 to
paragraph (a) the entries ``Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B''
and ``Vegetable, Brassica, head and stem, group 5-16'' to read as
follows:

Sec.  180.622  Ethaboxam; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

                        Table 1 to Paragraph (a)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Parts per
                          Commodity                              million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B.......................          7

                                * * * * *
Vegetable, Brassica, head and stem, group 5-16...............          3

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

[FR Doc. 2022-00854 Filed 1-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 206 (Thursday, October 28, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59678-59682]
[FR Doc No: 2021-23348]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2020-0452; FRL-9175-01-R4]

Air Plan Approval; NC; Removal of Transportation Facilities Rules
for Mecklenburg County

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision to the Mecklenburg
County portion of the North Carolina SIP, hereinafter referred to as
the Mecklenburg Local Implementation Plan (LIP). The revision was
submitted by the State of North Carolina, through the North Carolina
Division of Air Quality (NCDAQ), on behalf of Mecklenburg County Air
Quality via a letter dated April 24, 2020. The SIP revision seeks to
remove transportation facilities rules from the Mecklenburg County Air
Pollution Control Ordinance (MCAPCO) rules incorporated into the LIP.
EPA is proposing to approve these changes pursuant to the Clean Air Act
(CAA or Act).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 29, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2020-0452 at www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to
its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Sheckler, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is
(404) 562-9222. Ms. Sheckler can also be reached via electronic mail at
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    North Carolina adopted transportation facilities rules at the state
level on November 15, 1973, pursuant to a federal requirement that
existed at that time at 40 CFR 51.18 to provide preconstruction
permitting review of indirect sources.\1\ These sources are known as
indirect sources because they may indirectly increase emissions by
causing increased motor vehicle traffic where they are built. North
Carolina refers to indirect sources as complex sources. The State
identifies transportation facilities in its definition of ``complex
sources'' at North Carolina General Statute (N.C.G.S.) 143-213(22).
This definition includes any facilities that ``will induce or tend to
induce'' increased emissions from motor vehicles.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ To satisfy EPA requirements pursuant to 40 CFR 51.18, SIPs
were required to ``set forth legally enforceable procedures which
shall be adequate to enable the State or a local agency to determine
whether the construction or modification of a facility, building,
structure, or installation, or combination thereof, will . . .
interfere with attainment or maintenance of a national standard
either directly because of emissions from it, or indirectly, because
of emission resulting from mobile source activities associated with
it. . . . Such procedures shall include means by which the State or
local agency responsible for final decision-making on an application
for approval to construct or modify will prevent such construction
or modification if it will . . . interfere with the attainment or
maintenance of a national standard.'' See 40 CFR 51.18(a), (b)
(1973).
    \2\ N.C.G.S. 143-213(22) defines ``complex sources'' as ``any
facility which is or may be an air pollution source or which will
induce or tend to induce development or activities which will or may
be air pollution sources, and which shall include, but not be
limited to, shopping centers; sports complexes; drive-in theaters;
parking lots and garages; residential, commercial, industrial or
institutional developments; amusement parks and recreation areas;
highways; and any other facilities which will result in increased
emissions from motor vehicles or stationary sources.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    North Carolina adopted these rules to address the national ambient
air quality standards (NAAQS or standards). EPA approved North
Carolina's transportation facilities rules and their subsequent
amendments into the North Carolina regulatory portion of the SIP. See
41 FR 8964 (March 2, 1976); 51 FR 41501 (October 11, 1985); 61 FR 3584
(February 1, 1996); 62 FR 41277 (August 1, 1997); and 63 FR 72190
(December 31, 1998). Mecklenburg County adopted analog transportation
facilities rules on February 1, 1976. EPA approved Mecklenburg County's
transportation facilities rules into the LIP on May 2, 1991. See 56 FR
20140.
    In 1974, EPA suspended the indirect source review program. In the
1977 CAA Amendments, Congress modified the CAA to allow states to
include indirect source review regulations in their SIPs but prevented
EPA from requiring them as a condition of SIP approval. See CAA section
110(a)(5)(A)(i).
    In 2013, the North Carolina General Assembly enacted Session Law
2013-413 that sought to streamline the regulatory process and eliminate
unnecessary regulations. NCDAQ recommended repealing the transportation
facilities rules in 15A North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) 02D
.0800--Complex Sources and 02Q .0600--Transportation Facilities
Procedures, as outdated requirements that were not providing
environmental benefits, and the State repealed these rules effective
January 1, 2015. Additionally, NCDAQ stated that the transportation
facilities rules served only an administrative function and that they
constituted a regulatory burden on owners of transportation facilities
who were required to obtain permits prior to construction.
    On May 12, 2017, EPA approved a September 16, 2016, SIP revision
submitted by NCDAQ that removed the State's transportation facilities
rules from the North Carolina regulatory portion of the SIP. See 82 FR
22086. Subsequently, Mecklenburg County repealed its transportation
facilities rules, resulting in the April 24, 2020, SIP revision subject
to this proposed action. This proposed action proposes to approve the
changes to the Mecklenburg LIP to remove Mecklenburg's transportation
facilities rules because these rules are unnecessary and to be
consistent with the previous action that removed the State's
transportation facilities rules from the North Carolina regulatory
portion of the SIP.

II. What action is EPA proposing to take?

    The April 24, 2020,\3\ SIP revision seeks to remove Mecklenburg's
transportation facilities rules from the Mecklenburg LIP. Specifically,
this SIP revision requests EPA to remove the MCAPCO rules in Article
2.0000--Air Pollution Control Regulations and Procedures, Section
2.0800--Transportation Facilities,\4\ comprised of Rules 2.0801--
Purpose and Scope; 2.0802--Definitions; \5\ 2.0803--Highway Projects;
and 2.0804--Airport Facilities.\6\ \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The submittal was received on June 19, 2020.
    \4\ Section 2.0800 is titled ``Complex Sources'' in the MCAPCO,
however, it was erroneously listed in the CFR table as
``Transportation Facilities''. This document will continue to refer
to the rule as ``Transportation Facilities'' as that is the title
currently listed in the CFR.
    \5\ Section 2.0802 was originally titled ``Permits'' in the
MCAPCO, however, it was erroneously listed in the CFR table as
``Definitions''. This document will continue to refer to the rule as
``Definitions'' as that is the title currently listed in the CFR.
    \6\ The April 24, 2020, submittal contains changes to other
Mecklenburg LIP-approved rules that are not addressed in this
document. EPA will be acting on those rules in separate actions.
    \7\ NCDAQ also asked EPA to remove Rules 2.0805--Parking
Facilities and 2.0806--Ambient Monitoring and Modeling Analysis. EPA
is not taking action to remove these two rules because they are not
in the LIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA removed the State's transportation facilities rules from the
North Carolina regulatory portion of the SIP on May 12, 2017. As a part
of that action, EPA approved NCDAQ's September 16, 2016, SIP revision
containing a demonstration showing that the repeal of the State's
transportation facilities rules satisfied CAA section 110(l).\8\
Section 110(l) prohibits EPA from approving a SIP

revision that would interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in
section 171), or any other applicable requirement of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The demonstration submitted by NCDAQ as a part of the action
announced in 82 FR 22086 on May 12, 2017 (hereinafter ``North
Carolina 110(l) Demonstration''), is included in the docket for this
proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    North Carolina's section 110(l) demonstration was a statewide
analysis that included Mecklenburg County. The section 110(l) analysis
associated with the removal of the State's rules from the SIP is
therefore relevant to the proposed removal of Mecklenburg's rules from
the LIP.

III. What is EPA's analysis of the April 24, 2020, SIP revision?

A. Affected Facilities

    As mentioned above, North Carolina provided, and EPA approved, a
statewide section 110(l) demonstration to demonstrate that removal of
the State's transportation facilities rules would not interfere with
any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further
progress, or any other applicable requirement of the Act. See 82 FR
22086 (May 12, 2017). The State's section 110(l) demonstration included
information demonstrating that very few facilities would be affected by
the repeal of the transportation facilities rules. From 2011-2015, both
NCDAQ and Mecklenburg County issued, on average, approximately three
transportation facility permits per year.\9\ Since 2015, a year in
which Mecklenburg County reviewed approximately four transportation
facility permit applications, it has not reviewed or issued any
transportation facility permit applications.\10\ Of the few permits
granted under the transportation facilities rules, none have required
emissions controls.\11\ Furthermore, as discussed below, Mecklenburg
County is in attainment for all NAAQS with air quality values below the
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See North Carolina 110(l) Demonstration.
    \10\ See email from Leslie Rhodes, Mecklenburg County, to
Lynorae Benjamin, EPA Region 4 (September 16, 2021), available in
the docket for this proposed rulemaking.
    \11\ See id. and North Carolina 110(l) Demonstration. The
transportation facilities rules are permitting requirements that do
not expressly require emissions controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Evaluation of Relevant NAAQS Status for Motor Vehicle Emissions
12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ All design values in this notice of proposed rulemaking are
available on EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values#report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are six NAAQS established to protect human health and the
environment. These NAAQS are carbon monoxide (CO), lead, nitrogen
dioxide (NO2), ozone, particulate matter (PM)--including
PM2.5 \13\ and PM10,\14\ and sulfur dioxide
(SO2). Considering modern fuel types and the science and
technology related to emissions from motor vehicles, EPA does not
believe that there would be any changes in emissions for lead \15\ from
removing the transportation facilities rules from the Mecklenburg LIP.
Furthermore, EPA does not believe that SO2 \16\ air quality
would be threatened given the mandatory use of ultra-low sulfur (ULSD)
diesel fuel. Therefore, this section is focused on evaluating air
quality for CO, NO2, ozone, and PM2.5.\17\ North
Carolina in its entirety is in attainment for all NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ PM2.5 refers to particles with an aerodynamic
diameter of less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers, oftentimes
referred to as ``fine'' particles.
    \14\ PM10 refers to particles with an aerodynamic
diameter less than or equal to 10 micrometers, which includes
PM2.5.
    \15\ On November 12, 2008, EPA promulgated a revised lead NAAQS
of 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\). See 73 FR 66964.
EPA designated the entire State of North Carolina, including
Mecklenburg County, as unclassifiable/attainment for the 2008 lead
NAAQS. See 76 FR 72097 (November 22, 2011). As of January 1, 1996,
the sale of leaded fuel for use in on-road motor vehicles was
banned. Therefore, removing the transportation facilities rule from
the Mecklenburg LIP will not have any impact on ambient
concentrations of lead.
    \16\ On June 22, 2010, EPA revised the 1-hour SO2
NAAQS to 75 parts per billion (ppb) which became effective on August
23, 2010. See 75 FR 35520. On February 25, 2019, based on a review
of the full body of currently available scientific evidence and
exposure/risk information, EPA retained the existing 2010 1-hour
SO2 primary NAAQS. See 84 FR 9866. SO2
designations for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS have been
determined in four separate phases. EPA designated Mecklenburg
County as attainment/unclassifiable on April 9, 2018. See 83 FR
1098. In 2006, EPA finalized regulations that began to phase in a
requirement to use ULSD, a diesel fuel with a maximum of 15 ppm
sulfur. Since 2010, EPA's diesel standards have required that all
highway diesel fuel vehicles use ULSD, and all highway diesel fuel
supplied to the market is ULSD. Due to the requirements to use ULSD
under the on-road diesel fuel standards, the amount of
SO2 emitted from on-road vehicles is already low, and
removal of the transportation facilities rules from the Mecklenburg
LIP will therefore not have any appreciable impact on ambient
concentrations of SO2.
    \17\ On March 15, 1991, EPA completed initial designations for
the PM10 NAAQS. See 56 FR 11101. No area in North
Carolina has ever been designated as nonattainment for the
PM10 standard. On-road vehicle emissions would include
direct PM2.5 and precursor emissions for secondary
formation of PM2.5, which constitute the ``fine''
fraction of PM10. The current primary and secondary
PM10 NAAQS are each set at 150 [micro]g/m\3\ over a 24-
hour average, not to be exceeded more than an average of once per
year over a three-year period. The primary and secondary 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS are more stringent, each set at a level of 35
[micro]g/m\3\, determined by an average of the 98th percentile 24-
hour average concentration over three years. Because the
PM2.5 NAAQS are more stringent than the PM10
NAAQS, and because the emissions from on-road vehicles which would
utilize the transportation facilities would generally be
PM2.5, any impacts for particulate matter would be
reflected of PM2.5 issues before issues associated with
PM10. Therefore, focusing on PM2.5 is
appropriate for these purposes and would adequately address
PM10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. CO NAAQS
    EPA promulgated the CO NAAQS in 1971 and has retained the standards
since its last review of the standards in 2011. The primary NAAQS for
CO consist of: (1) An 8-hour standard of 9 parts per million (ppm), not
to be exceeded more than once in a year (i.e., the second highest, non-
overlapping 8-hour average concentration cannot exceed the standard);
and (2) a 1-hour average of 35 ppm, not to be exceeded more than once
in a year.
    In 1978, EPA designated Mecklenburg County as nonattainment for the
CO NAAQS. Subsequently, under the CAA amendments of 1990, Mecklenburg
County was designated as nonattainment with a ``not classified''
classification. As a result of the not classified designation,
Mecklenburg County had five years (i.e., until November 15, 1995) to
attain the CO NAAQS. North Carolina achieved this requirement, and on
August 2, 1995, Mecklenburg County was redesignated to attainment.\18\
See 60 FR 39258. North Carolina has maintained the standard ever since
and is still in compliance with the CO NAAQS. As mentioned above, for
North Carolina's SIP revision requesting removal for the transportation
facilities rule, EPA approved a section 110(l) demonstration. That
action showed that Mecklenburg County had a regional 8-hour CO design
value of 1.3 ppm, or 14 percent of the NAAQS in the 2014-2015.\19\ In
the 2015-2016 period, Mecklenburg County had a regional 8-hour CO
design value of 1.2 ppm, or 13 percent of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ In 2013, EPA approved the State's request to convert the
second 10-year maintenance plan to a limited maintenance plan for
the Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham, and Winston Salem CO maintenance
areas (``Limited Maintenance Plan''). See 78 FR 37118 (June 20,
2013). The transportation facilities rules are not components of the
Limited Maintenance Plan.
    \19\ See Memorandum from William G. Laxton dated June 18, 1990,
``Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value Calculations''--``The
design value is evaluated over a two-year period. Specifically, the
design value is the higher of each year's annual second maximum,
non-overlapping 8-hour average.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The latest complete monitoring data is from 2019-2020 and shows
that Mecklenburg County is still well below the 8-hour CO standard with
a design value of 1.4 ppm.\20\ The data demonstrates that Mecklenburg
County

continues to maintain an 8-hour CO design value well below the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The design value is evaluated over a two-year period.
Specifically, the design value is the higher of each year's annual
second maximum, non-overlapping 8-hour average. The design value
listed for each area is the highest among monitors with valid design
values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the 1-hour CO NAAQS, Mecklenburg County had a regional 1-
hour CO design value of 1.7 ppm, or 5 percent of the NAAQS, in 2014-
2015. For the 2015-2016 period, Mecklenburg County had a regional 1-
hour CO design value of 1.4 ppm, or 4 percent of the NAAQS. The latest
complete monitoring data is from 2019-2020 and shows that Mecklenburg
County is still well below the 1-hour CO standard with a design value
of 1.5 ppm or 4 percent of the NAAQS. The data demonstrates that
Mecklenburg County continues to maintain a 1-hour CO design value well
below the NAAQS.
2. NO2 NAAQS
    In 1971, EPA set an annual standard for NO2 at a level
of 53 parts per billion (ppb) which has since remained unchanged. See
36 FR 8186 (April 30, 1971). On February 9, 2010, EPA established a 1-
hour NO2 standard set at 100 ppb. See 75 FR 6474.
    EPA designated Mecklenburg County as unclassifiable/attainment for
the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS on February 17, 2012. See 77 FR
9532. Further, EPA has never designated Mecklenburg County or any area
in North Carolina as nonattainment for either NO2 NAAQS. The
2020 regional design value for the 1971 annual standard for
NO2 is 9 ppb, well below the NAAQS. The 2018-2020 regional
design value for the 2010 1-hour NO2 standard is 35 ppb,
also well below the NAAQS.
3. Ozone NAAQS
    EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone standard of 0.08 ppm on July
18, 1997. See 62 FR 38856. Subsequently, on March 27, 2008, EPA revised
both the primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone to a level of 0.075 ppm
to provide increased protection of public health and the environment.
See 73 FR 16435. The 2008 ozone NAAQS retain the same general form and
averaging time as the 0.08 ppm NAAQS set in 1997 but are set at a more
protective level. Under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 2008
8-hour ozone NAAQS are attained when the 3-year average of the annual
fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ambient air quality ozone
concentrations is less than or equal to 0.075 ppm. See 40 CFR 50.15. On
October 26, 2015 (80 FR 65292), EPA published a final rule lowering the
level of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS to 0.070 ppm and retaining the same
form and averaging time.
    On April 30, 2004, EPA initially designated Mecklenburg County as
nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard as part of the
Charlotte-Rock Hill, NC-SC area. See 69 FR 23858. EPA redesignated the
North Carolina portion of the Charlotte-Rock Hill NC-SC area to
attainment on December 2, 2013, for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
\21\ See 78 FR 72036. Subsequently, on May 21, 2012, EPA also initially
designated Mecklenburg County as nonattainment for the 2008 ozone
standard as part of the Charlotte-Rock Hill, NC-SC area. See 77 FR
30088. EPA redesignated the North Carolina portion of the Charlotte-
Rock Hill, NC-SC area to attainment on July 28, 2015, for the 2008
ozone standard.\22\ See 80 FR 44873. EPA designated the entire state of
North Carolina (including Mecklenburg County) as attainment/
unclassifiable for the 2015 ozone standard on November 16, 2017. See 82
FR 54232. Currently, Mecklenburg County is designated as attainment or
attainment/unclassifiable for all ozone NAAQS. See 40 CFR 81.334. The
2018-2020 regional design value for the 2015 ozone standard is 0.067
ppm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ As part of that action, EPA also approved the State's
maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The transportation
facilities rules were not part of that maintenance plan.
    \22\ As part of that action, EPA also approved the State's
maintenance plan for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The transportation
facilities rules were not part of that maintenance plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. PM2.5 NAAQS \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See footnote 18 of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Over the course of several years, EPA has reviewed and revised the
PM2.5 NAAQS several times. On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38652),
EPA established an annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15.0 [micro]g/m\3\,
and on January 5, 2005 (70 FR 943), designated Mecklenburg County as
unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
On September 21, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA retained the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS of 15.0 [micro]g/m\3\ but revised the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS from 65 [micro]g/m\3\ to 35 [micro]g/m\3\. On
November 13, 2009, EPA designated Mecklenburg County as unclassifiable/
attainment for the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. See 74 FR 58688. On
August 24, 2016, EPA took final action to revoke the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS for areas designated attainment or in
maintenance for the standard. See 81 FR 58010.
    On December 14, 2012, EPA strengthened the annual primary
PM2.5 NAAQS from 15.0 [micro]g/m\3\ to 12.0 [micro]g/m\3\.
See 78 FR 3086. EPA designated Mecklenburg County as unclassifiable/
attainment for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. See 80 FR 2206
(January 15, 2015). The regional design value for 2018-2020 for the
2012 PM2.5 annual standard is 8.9 [micro]g/m\3\, and the
2018-2020 regional design value for the 2006 PM2.5 24-hour
standard is 17 [micro]g/m\3\.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Based on the science and technology associated with on-road
motor vehicles, EPA would not expect any change (increase or
decrease) in PM emissions resulting from the removal of the
transportation facilities rules from the Mecklenburg LIP.
Furthermore, EPA would not expect any increase in emissions of
PM2.5 as a result of the precursors (i.e., nitrogen
oxides, SO2, ammonia and VOC). PM formation in the
Southeast (including North Carolina) is dominated by sulfates and,
as discussed in footnote 17, the amount of SO2 emitted
from on-road vehicles is low.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Summary of Proposed Conclusions

    EPA proposes to find that removal of the transportation facilities
rules from the Mecklenburg LIP would not interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or
any other applicable requirement of the Act, because, as discussed
above, transportation facilities rules are no longer federally
required, Mecklenburg County issues few transportation facility
permits, the issued permits do not require emissions controls, and the
relevant NAAQS are not threatened.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is proposing to amend regulatory text that
includes incorporation by reference. EPA is proposing to remove the
following MCAPCO rules in Article 2.0000--Air Pollution Control
Regulations and Procedures, Section 2.0800--Transportation Facilities:
Rules 2.0801--Purpose and Scope; 2.0802--Definitions; 2.0803--Highway
Projects; and 2.0804--Airport Facilities from the Mecklenburg County
portion of the North Carolina SIP, which is incorporated by reference
in accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR part 51. EPA has made and
will continue to make the SIP generally available at the EPA Region 4
Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the removal of the transportation
facilities rules from the Mecklenburg LIP because the removal is
consistent with the CAA and the North Carolina regulatory portion of
the SIP.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations.

See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided they meet
the criteria of the CAA. This proposed action merely proposes to
approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: October 21, 2021.
John Blevins,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2021-23348 Filed 10-27-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P