83 I IMPORTANT NOTE TO USER:

This OMB form has been recreated in WP6.0 by OPPTS staff. The margins and lines are NOT block protected, so you must fill the form with caution, paying attention to any shifting of the existing text. The following tips should make this a simple task:

 Fill in the spaces by using the type over command. Otherwise you'll have to delete a space for each letter you add.

 Use the same font ( Times New Roman 8pt).

 Do not change table lines ( although you can delete an extra space line to provide more space elsewhere.

 It is not recommended that you convert this form to WP5.1, some of these features are not available in WP5.1, so the text will scramble.

If you have any problems or questions, please call your RID Desk Officer @ 260 2706.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR OC STAFF:

The 83  I is signed by the Division Director in the box labeled " program official" These are the usual answers for OC's ICRs. They have already been marked on the form.

Block 3 c Block 4 a Block 6 a Block 11 b Block 12 c Block 15 g Block 17 no BLOCK 13  Numbers are drawn directly from your tables and supporting statement.

Example: 10 existing sources, 3 new a year ( 9 new over the life of the ICR), semiannual reports 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 478 b. Total annual responses 1912 ( 3 new X 6 # of initial reports ( this example assumes 6. Count them for your particular ICR)) + ( 10 existing x 2 for semiannual reports)

1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 0 % c. Total annual hours requested Total hours from industry burden table d. Current OMB inventory Total requested & approved from previously approved ICR e. Difference d minus c ( can be + or ) This is a number f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change Do not use this line unless there has been a change to the recordkeeping and/ or reporting in the regulation!

2. Adjustment # in e BLOCK 14  This is a relatively new one Does this standard require continuous monitoring? If no then zero out block 14 and explain in burden section of the supporting statement. This is probably only the case in a few old NSPS regulations and in LDAR regulations. If yes then what type of monitoring? PM, VOC and what is the cost of the monitoring device alone, not the control equipment! How much is yearly maintenance on the monitor?

14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 3 ( 3 new per year X $ 1,000 ( example # only)

initial capital cost per monitor) Remember it is in thousands b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 5 ( 10 existing X $ 500 ( example # only) operation &

maintenance cost per monitor) Remember it is in thousands c. Total annualized cost requested 8,000 ( a + b)

d. Current OMB inventory From previously approved ICR. If the OMB cover form had no block 14 use 0.

e. Difference d minus c ( can be + or )

f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change Do not use this line unless there has been a change to the monitoring device in the regulation!

2. Adjustment # in e PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request U. S. EPA 2. OMB control number b. G None a 2 0 6 0  0 2 0 2 __ __ __ __

3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. X Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes X No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. X Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title NSPS Subpart Dc Standards of Performance for Small Industrial Commercial Institutional Steam Generating Units 8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) EPA ICR No. 1564 9. Keywords Small steam generating units, boilers, NSPS Dc,

10. Abstract Owners or operators of effected facilities must 1) make one time notifications of construction/ reconstruction and start up; 2) submit reports containing information such as monitoring results and excess emission; and 3) maintain records of occurrences such as startups and sh utdowns.

Responses to this information collection are deemed to be mandatory, per Section 114 ( a) of the clean Air Act.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. X Business or other for profit e. Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. X Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 478 b. Total annual responses 1912 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 0 % c. Total annual hours requested 306,727 d. Current OMB inventory 229,673 e. Difference 77,054 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 2. Adjustment 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 8,400 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 4,785 c. Total annualized cost requested 13,185 d. Current OMB inventory 9,940 e. Difference 3,245 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 2. Adjustment 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. P Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. X Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. Q Reporting 1. Q On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. X Quarterly 5. X Semi annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. Q Other ( describe)

17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes X No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Chris Oh Phone: ( 202) 564 7004 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

© It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( I) Why the information is being collected; ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( I) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Office Official John B. Rasnic, Director, Manufacturing, Energy and Transportation Division Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Joseph Retzer, Director Regulatory Information Division Office of Regulatory Management and Information ( OPPE) Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95


[Federal Register: October 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 208)]
[Notices]
[Page 63057-63058]
[DOCID:fr27oc06-111]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54631; File No. SR-CBOE-2006-81]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1
Thereto Relating to Minor Rule Violations in Connection With Trade
Reporting

October 20, 2006.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 4, 2006, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. (``CBOE''
or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which items have been prepared by CBOE. On October 17,
2006, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule
change.\3\ The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ In Amendment No. 1, CBOE replaced the statutory basis
section of the original proposal.

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

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend CBOE Rule 17.50--Imposition of Fines
for Minor Rule Violations, particularly the provisions of CBOE Rule
17.50(g)(4) for Failure to Submit Trade Information on Time and Failure
to Submit Trade Information to the Price Reporter.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on CBOE's Web
site at http://www.cboe.com, at CBOE's principal office, and at the

Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change, as
amended, and discussed any comments it received on the proposal. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange represents that the purpose of this proposal is to
increase and strengthen the sanctions imposed pursuant to its Minor
Rule Violation Plan in connection with the failure to submit timely
trade information. Additionally, the Exchange also proposes to amend
the surveillance ``look-back'' period for the aforementioned conduct
from a rolling 18-month period to a rolling 24-month period. CBOE Rule
6.51 provides, in relevant part, that a participant in each transaction
to be designated by the Exchange must report or ensure the transaction
is reported to the Exchange within 90 seconds of the execution in a
form and manner prescribed by the Exchange so that the trade
information may be disseminated. Transactions not reported within 90
seconds after execution in accordance with CBOE Rule 6.51(a)(i) are
designated as late. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule
change, by increasing fine levels and lengthening the rolling
surveillance period to a 24-month period, would serve as an effective
deterrent to such violative conduct.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would
strengthen its ability to carry out its oversight responsibilities as a
self-regulatory organization and reinforce its surveillance and
enforcement functions. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule
change, as amended, is consistent with section 6(b) of the Act,\4\ in
general, and furthers the objectives of section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\5\
in particular, in that it would promote just and equitable principles
of trade, facilitate transactions in securities, remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national
market system, and protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as amended, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be
submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-CBOE-2006-81 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2006-81. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of CBOE. All comments received will be posted without
change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information
from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to
make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number
SR-CBOE-2006-81 and should be submitted on or before November 17, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-17994 Filed 10-26-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: April 22, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 77)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 20922-20925]
[DOCID:fr22ap10-10]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2005-NM-0007; FRL-9140-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
New Mexico; Transportation Conformity Requirement for Bernalillo County

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Governor of New
Mexico on December 4, 2008 on behalf of the Albuquerque Environmental
Health Department (AEHD). This revision serves to incorporate recent
changes to the Federal conformity rule into the state conformity SIP
for Bernalillo County, and supersedes previous revisions submitted by
the Governor of New Mexico on May 15, 2003 and August 4, 2005. EPA is
approving the December 4, 2008 revision in accordance with the
requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This rule is effective on June 21, 2010 without further notice,
unless EPA receives relevant adverse comment by May 24, 2010. If EPA
receives such comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register informing the public that this rule will not take
effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2005-NM-0007, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     EPA Region 6 ``Contact Us'' Web site: http://epa.gov/
region6/r6coment.htm. Please click on ``6PD'' (Multimedia) and select
``Air'' before submitting comments.
     E-mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
also send a copy by e-mail to the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section below.
     Fax: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), at fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
     Hand or Courier Delivery: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air
Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Such deliveries are
accepted only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays except
for legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries
of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2005-NM-0007. EPA's policy is that all comments received 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 information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Planning
Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made available by
appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review Room
between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal
holidays. Contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at<PHONE_NUMBER> to make an
appointment. If possible, please make the appointment at least two
working days in advance of your visit. There will be a 15 cent per page
fee for making photocopies of documents. On the day of the visit,
please check in at the EPA Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas.
    The State submittal is also available for public inspection at the
State Air Agency listed below during official business hours by
appointment:
    City of Albuquerque Environmental Health Department, Air Quality

Division, Office of Air Quality, One Civic Plaza Northwest,
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Riley, Air Planning Section
(6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number
214-665-7263; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we''
``us'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

Outline

I. What Is Transportation Conformity?
II. What Is the Background for This Action?
III. What Did the State Submit and How Did We Evaluate It?
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Is Transportation Conformity?

    Transportation conformity is required under section 176(c) of the
Clean Air Act to ensure that Federally supported highway, transit
projects, and other activities are consistent with (conform to) the
purpose of the approved SIP. Conformity currently applies to areas that
are designated nonattainment, and those areas redesignated to
attainment after 1990 (maintenance areas), with plans developed under
section 175A of the Clean Air Act for the following transportation
related criteria pollutants: Ozone, particulate matter
(PM2.5 and PM10), carbon monoxide (CO), and
nitrogen dioxide (NO2). Conformity with the purpose of the
SIP means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality
violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of
the relevant National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The
Federal transportation conformity regulations (Federal Rule) are found
in 40 CFR part 93 and provisions related to conformity SIPs are found
in 40 CFR 51.390.

II. What Is the Background for This Action?

    The transportation conformity SIP enables the area to implement and
enforce the Federal transportation conformity requirements per 40 CFR
51 subpart T and 40 CFR 93 subpart A. The AEHD initially complied with
this requirement by submitting a SIP to EPA on December 19, 1994; we
approved this SIP on November 8, 1995 (60 FR 56241). A revision to the
conformity SIP was submitted on December 9, 1998 and approved by EPA on
July 8, 1999 (64 FR 36786). Since the July 8, 1999 approval, the
Governor of New Mexico has submitted three further revisions to the
conformity SIP. The most recent of these, the December 4, 2008
submittal, supersedes the previous revisions submitted on May 15, 2003
and August 4, 2005. These previous revisions were also made to
incorporate Federal conformity rule changes into the state conformity
SIP for Bernalillo County, but contained language that was in conflict
with the Federal rules that were in effect at the time of EPA's review
of the conformity SIP. Therefore, EPA could not approve the language in
question. EPA and AEHD agreed that rather than EPA acting to partially
approve the submittals, AEHD would develop a subsequent submittal to
supersede the previous submittal, address the conflicting language, and
capture any revisions made to the Federal rules in the elapsed time
since state adoption of revisions to the Bernalillo County
transportation conformity SIP. This approach was taken on both the
August 4, 2005 submittal (to supersede the May 15, 2003 submittal) and
the December 4, 2008 submittal (to supersede the August 4, 2005
submittal) to keep pace with necessary revisions to the Bernalillo
County transportation conformity SIP.
    On January 9, 2002, the AEHD adopted changes to the conformity SIP
to include a definition for Land Use Measures (LUM) along with
requirements for using LUMs as air quality credits in conformity
determinations. This revision also incorporated language regarding an
acceptable Transportation Control Measure (TCM) substitution process
and provided clarity on when emission reduction credits for TCMs may be
used in the conformity process. These revisions were approved by the
AEHD on January 9, 2002 and they were submitted to EPA by the Governor
of New Mexico on May 15, 2003. EPA did not take action on these
revisions, and the December 4, 2008 submittal is intended to supersede
these revisions.
    On July 1, 2004, EPA published significant revisions to our
conformity regulations (69 FR 4004) to address criteria and procedures
for the new 8-hour ozone and fine particulate (PM2.5)
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). In the same Federal
Register notice, EPA also addressed a March 2, 1999 ruling by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (Environmental Defense
Fund v. EPA, et al., 167 F. 3d 641 D.C. Cir. 1999); the July 1
revisions served to bring our regulatory language in line with this
court decision. The SIP revision package adopted by the AEHD on May 11,
2005, and submitted by the Governor of New Mexico on August 4, 2005,
addressed these mandatory revisions, as well as EPA's August 6, 2002
revision to the Federal conformity rule (67 FR 50808). EPA did not take
action on these revisions, and the December 4, 2008 submittal is
intended to supersede these revisions.
    On August 10, 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) was signed
into law. SAFETEA-LU revised certain provisions of section 176(c) of
the Clean Air Act, related to transportation conformity. Prior to
SAFETEA-LU, states were required to address all of the Federal Rule's
provisions in their conformity SIPs. After SAFETEA-LU, state's SIPs
were required to contain all or portions of only the following three
sections of the Federal Rule, modified as appropriate to each state's
circumstances: 40 CFR 93.105 (consultation procedures); 40 CFR
93.122(a)(4)(ii) (written commitments to implement certain kinds of
control measures); and 40 CFR 93.125(c) (written commitments to
implement certain kinds of mitigation measures). Pursuant to SAFETEA-
LU, states are no longer required to submit conformity SIP revisions
that address the other sections of the Federal conformity rule.
However, as with previous SIP revisions, the AEHD has maintained its
practice of incorporating federal language into local rules and
customizing such rules to meet the standard required by the New Mexico
Administrative Code (NMAC) style guidance, rather than incorporating by
reference the federal rules.
    EPA promulgated amendments to the Federal conformity rule on
January 24, 2008 (73 FR 4420). The December 4, 2008 revision serves to
update Albuquerque's regulations and bring them in line with these most
recent changes to the Federal conformity rule, as well as EPA's May 6,
2005 (70 FR 24279) and March 10, 2006 (71 FR 12467) revisions to the
Federal conformity rule.

III. What Did the State Submit, and How Did We Evaluate It?

    On December 4th, 2008, the Governor of New Mexico submitted a
revision to the Bernalillo County, New Mexico State Implementation Plan
(SIP) for Transportation Conformity purposes. The SIP revision consists
of language to address the three provisions of the EPA Conformity Rule
required under SAFETEA-LU: 40 CFR 93.105 (consultation procedures); 40
CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii) (certain control measures), and 40 CFR 93.125(c)

(mitigation measures). As previously stated, the AEHD did not
incorporate the Federal conformity rule by reference, but submitted
language intended to mirror the content of the Federal conformity rule,
while placing greater specificity on the roles and expectations of
state and local agencies/entities which have responsibility for
undertaking transportation conformity in conjunction with
transportation planning activities along with the three Federal
Agencies (EPA, Federal Highway Administration, and Federal Transit
Administration) who are participating members in the conformity
consultation process.
    We reviewed the submittal to assure consistency with the January
2009, ``Guidance for Developing Transportation Conformity State
Implementation Plans''. The guidance document can be found at http://
www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/policy/420b09001.pdf. The
guidance document states that each state is only required to address
and tailor the afore-mentioned three sections of the Federal Conformity
Rule in their state conformity SIPs.
    EPA's review of New Mexico's Bernalillo County Transportation
Conformity SIP revision indicates that it is consistent with EPA's
guidance in that it included the three elements specified by SAFETEA-LU
and EPA's guidance. Consistent with the EPA Conformity Rule at 40 CFR
93.105 (consultation procedures), NMAC <IP_ADDRESS> establishes the
requirements for the appropriate agencies, procedures and allocation of
responsibilities as required under 40 CFR 93.105 for consultation
procedures. In addition, this chapter provides for appropriate public
consultation/public involvement consistent with 40 CFR 93.105. With
respect to 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii) and 40 CFR 93.125(c), NMAC
<IP_ADDRESS>(A)(4)(b) and NMAC <IP_ADDRESS>(C) of the executed MOUs
specifies that written commitments for control measures and mitigation
measures for meeting these requirements will be provided as needed.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is hereby approving the Bernalillo County SIP revision for
Transportation Conformity, which was submitted on December 4, 2008. We
have evaluated the State's submittal and have determined that it meets
the applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act and EPA regulations,
and is consistent with EPA policy. The December 4, 2008 submission
supersedes the May 15, 2003 and August 4, 2005 submissions, so no
action is necessary on these earlier submissions.
    EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because we view
this as a non-controversial amendment and anticipate no adverse
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if relevant adverse
comments are received. This rule will be effective on June 21, 2010
without further notice unless we receive adverse comment by May 24,
2010. If we receive adverse comments, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule
will not take effect. We will address all public comments in a
subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. We will not institute
a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in
commenting must do so now. Please note that if we receive adverse
comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that
provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt
as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an
adverse comment.

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 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.
    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 21, 2010. 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, Ozone, Nitrogen dioxides,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation conformity, Transportation--air quality planning,
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: April 9, 2010.
Lawrence E. Starfield,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart GG--New Mexico

0
2. The second table in Sec.  52.1620(c) entitled ``EPA Approved
Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, NM Regulations'' is amended by revising
the entry for Part 3 (20.11.3 NMAC), Transportation Conformity, to read
as follows:

Sec.  52.1620  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                           EPA-Approved Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, NM Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       State approval/
         State citation              Title/subject     effective date   EPA approval date        Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Mexico Administrative Code (NMAC) Title 20--Environment Protection Chapter 11--Albuquerque/Bernalillo County
                                            Air Quality Control Board
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Part 3 (20.11.3 NMAC)...........  Transportation           12/17/2008  April 22, 2010       ....................
                                   Conformity.                          [Insert FR page
                                                                        number where
                                                                        document begins].

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

[FR Doc. 2010-9196 Filed 4-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: September 3, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 171)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 51357-51358]
[DOCID:fr03se08-6]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0457; Airspace Docket No. 08-AAL-16]

Revision of Class E Airspace; Red Dog, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action corrects two errors in the airspace description
contained in a Final Rule that was published in the Federal Register on
Friday, July 25, 2008 (73 FR 43351), Airspace Docket No. 08-AAL-16.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, September 25, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Rolf, AAL-538G, Federal Aviation
Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587;
telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail. Internet
address: http://www.alaska.faa.gov/at.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    Federal Register Document E8-16962, Airspace Docket No. 08-AAL-16,
published on Friday, July 25, 2008 (73 FR 43351), revised Class E
airspace at Red Dog, AK. An error was discovered in the airspace
description that misidentified the airfield location. A

typographical error in the description was also identified. This action
corrects these two errors.

Correction to Final Rule

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the airspace
description of the Class E airspace published in the Federal Register,
Friday, July 25, 2008 (73 FR 43351), (FR Doc E8-16962, page 43351,
column 3) is corrected as follows:

Sec.  71.1  [Corrected]

* * * * *

AAL AK E5 Red Dog, AK [Corrected]

Red Dog, AK
    (Lat. 68[deg]01'56'' N., Long. 162[deg]53'57'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within an 11-mile radius of the Red Dog Airport, AK, and within 4
miles either side of the 219[deg] bearing from the Red Dog Airport,
AK, extending from the 11-mile radius to 14.5 miles southwest of the
Red Dog Airport, AK; and that airspace extending upward from 1,200
feet above the surface within a 72.5-mile radius of the Red Dog
Airport, AK.
* * * * *

    Issued in Anchorage, AK, on August 22, 2008.
James Miller,
Acting Manager, Alaska Flight Service Information Area Group.
[FR Doc. E8-20313 Filed 9-2-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 145)]
[Notices]
[Page 43736]
[DOCID:fr28jy08-47]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2145-089]

Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County, Washington;
Notice of Application for Approval of Contract for the Sale of Power
for a Period Extending Beyond the Term of the License

July 18, 2008.
    Take notice that on July 17, 2008, Public Utility District No. 1 of
Chelan County, Washington (Chelan PUD) filed with the Commission an
application for approval of a contract for the sale of power from its
licensed Rocky Reach Project No. 2145 for a period from June 30, 2011,
through October 31, 2028.\1\ The Project is located on the Columbia
River in Washington.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The license for the Rocky Reach Project expired in 2006 and
the project is operating under annual license.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 22 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 815, provides that
contracts for the sale and delivery of power for periods extending
beyond the termination date of a license may be entered into upon the
joint approval of the Commission and the appropriate state public
service commission or other similar authority in the state in which the
sale or delivery of power is made. Chelan PUD asserts that approval of
the submitted contract is in the public interest.
    Comments on the request for approval of the power sales contract or
motions to intervene may be filed with the Commission no later than
August 18, 2008, and replies to comments no later than August 26, 2008.
The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    All documents (an original and eight copies) must be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please put the name Rocky
Reach, Project No. 2145-089 on the first page of all documents.
    Comments may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of
paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site http://www.ferc.gov under the ``e-Filing'' link.
    A copy of the application is available for review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's
Web site http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the
docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to these projects or other pending projects. For
assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-17177 Filed 7-25-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


The empirical literature on environmental regulatory employment impacts focuses primarily on labor demand. However, there is a nascent literature focusing on regulation-induced effects on labor supply. Although this literature is limited by empirical challenges, researchers have found that air quality improvements lead to reductions in lost work days (e.g., Ostro, 1987). Limited evidence suggests worker productivity may also improve when pollution is reduced. Graff Zivin and Neidell (2012) used detailed worker-level productivity data from 2009 and 2010, paired with local ozone air quality monitoring data for one large California farm growing multiple crops, with a piece-rate payment structure. Their quasi-experimental structure identifies an effect of daily variation in monitored ozone levels on productivity. They find "ozone levels well below federal air quality standards have a significant impact on productivity: a 10 parts per billion (ppb) decreases in ozone concentrations increases worker productivity by 5.5 percent." (Graff Zivin and Neidell, 2012, p. 3654).
<IP_ADDRESS> Conclusion
This section has outlined the challenges associated with estimating regulatory effects on both labor demand and supply for specific sectors. These challenges make it difficult to estimate net national employment estimates that would appropriately capture the way in which costs, compliance spending, and environmental improvements propagate through the macro-economy.
6.3.2	Recent Employment Trends
The U.S. electricity system includes employees that support electric power generation, transmission and distribution; the extraction of fossil fuels; and supply-side and demand-side energy efficiency. This section describes recent employment trends in the electricity system.
<IP_ADDRESS>	Electric Power Generation
In 2014, the electric power generation, transmission and distribution sector (NAICS 2211) employed about 390,000 workers (U.S. BLS, 2015) in the U.S. Installation, maintenance, and repair occupations accounted for the largest share of workers (25 percent) (U.S. BLS, 2014). These categories include inspection, testing, repairing and maintaining of electrical equipment and/or installation and repair of cables used in electrical power and distribution systems. Other major occupation categories include office and administrative support (18 percent), production occupations (16 percent), architecture and engineering (10 percent), business and financial operations (7 percent) and management (7 percent). Asd shown in Figure 6-1, employment in the electric power industry averaged about 420,000 workers from 2000 to 2005, declining to an average of about 400,000 workers for the rest of the decade, and then declining to about 390,000 workers in 2014.
Figure 6-1. Electric Power Industry Employment

<IP_ADDRESS>	Fossil Fuel Extraction
Coal Mining. The coal mining sector (NAICS 2121) is primarily engaged in coal mining and coal mine site development, excluding metal ore mining and nonmetallic mineral mining and quarrying. In 2014, BLS reported about 74,000 coal mining employees (Figure 6-2). During the 2000 to 2014 period, coal mining employment peaked in 2011 at about 87,000 employees.
Figure 6-2.  Coal Production Employment
 Source: BLS (2014a)

Oil and Gas Extraction. In 2014, there were close to 200,000 employees in the oil and gas extraction sector (NAICS 211). This sector includes production of crude petroleum, oil from oil shale and oil sands, production of natural gas, sulfur recovery from natural gas, and recovery of hydrocarbon liquids. Activities include the development of gas and oil fields, exploration activities for crude petroleum and natural gas, drilling, completing, and equipping wells, and other production activities. In contrast with coal, Figure 6-3 shows there has been a sharp increase in employment in this sector over the past decade.

Figure 6-3 Oil and Gas Extraction Employment

Source: BLS (2014b)

6.3.3	Power and Fuels Sector Direct Employment Impacts
As described above, affected EGUs may respond to the CSAPR Update by upgrading or improving performance of existing combustion controls, or by upgrading, improving, or utilizing post-combustion NOX systems already in place. In addition, some generation may shift from higher NOX-emitting EGUs to units with lower or zero NOX emission rates. All of these NOx-related changes will likely result in changes in the amount of the various types of amount of labor needed in different parts of the fuels and utility power sectors. There also may be other labor impacts in sectors that provide products and materials used in reducing NOX emissions at EGUs, such as catalysts used in SCR control systems. These direct labor impacts will likely include both increased demand for certain types of labor in some portions of the affected sectors, and reduced demand for labor in other portions of the affected sectors.
Installing and operating new equipment could change labor demand in the electricity generating sector itself, as well as associated equipment and services sectors. Specifically, the direct employment effects in the power sector that could occur because of actions taken by the 2017 ozone season include:
Optimizing NOX removal from existing and operational SCR systems;
Turning on and optimizing idled SCR and SNCR systems;
Installing, optimizing or upgrading combustion-side improvements resulting in reduced NOX emissions;
Shifting generation from units with higher NOX emission rates to units with lower or zero emission rates.
In addition, there could be directly induced employment impacts (both positive and negative) in the labor demand in the industries supplying fossil fuels to the power sector and industries supplying materials used by the NOX reduction systems. Once implemented, both the potential increases in operating efficiency of NOX reductions, as well as shifting generation to lower NOX-emitting or zero-emitting EGUs, could impact the utility power sector's demand for fossil fuels, and hence the demand for labor needed in the coal mining and gas extraction sectors.
The direct net employment impacts of the final rule, in terms of the power sector and fuels sector, however, are anticipated to be relatively small. This is consistent with the relatively small estimated changes in the power sector's overall cost of generation, as well as relatively small changes in generation, fuel use, capacity, and the percent of total generation produced by each type of fuel.
For example, for the final rule in 2017, the estimated impacts relevant to changes in labor demand include:
The overall total national cost of generation in 2017 decreases by 0.01 percent;
Total net generation increases by 0.001 percent (coal generation decreases by 0.17 percent, and natural gas generation increases by 0.18 percent);
The power sector's total tons of coal used for electricity generation decreases by 0.25 percent (or 0.19 percent decrease in BTUs);
Total natural gas use increases by 0.20 percent.
      The results of the power sector modeling suggest that because of the very small changes in the power and fuels sector, the direction and magnitude of the potential labor impacts are very small in all three regulatory alternatives analyzed. To illustrate this point, the direct labor impacts are quantified for the final regulation for 2017 and 2020. The labor impacts for the more and less stringent alternatives have not been quantified.
      Affected EGUs may respond to the requirement for EGUs in 22 eastern states to reduce NOX emissions during the ozone season by installing, improving and optimizing existing NOX emission control systems or to shift generation to lower NOX-emitting or zero-emitting EGUs. Meeting the new EGU ozone season NOX budget limits will result in changes in the amount of labor needed in different parts of the utility power sector. Installing and operating new equipment, upgrading combustion control operations to reduce NOX emissions, and shifting generation to other sources could affect labor demand in the electricity generating sector itself, as well as associated equipment and services sectors. Specifically, the direct employment effects of initiatives at existing fossil EGUs would include increases in labor demand during the implementation phase for manufacturing, installing, and operating the NOX emissions controls at existing fossil units. Once implemented, reductions in NOX emissions from existing EGUs and shifting generation to existing generation resources will impact the utility power sector's demand for fossil fuels and potentially plans for EGU retirement.
      The employment analysis uses the cost projections from IPM to project labor demand impacts of the final CSAPR Update on affected EGUs in the electricity power sector and the fuel production sector (coal and natural gas). These projections include effects attributable to installing and improving the NOX control performance of combustion control systems, optimizing the operation of post-combustion NOx control systems, generation shifts, and changes in fuel use. The following section presents the EPA's quantitative projections of potential employment impacts in the electricity generation sector, as well as the impacts in the coal and natural gas fuel sectors.
<IP_ADDRESS> Methods Used to Estimate Changes in Employment in Electricity Generation and Fuel Supply
      The analytical approach used in this analysis is a bottom-up engineering method combining the EPA's cost analysis of compliance with the NOX emissions budgets with data on labor productivity, engineering estimates of the amount and types of labor needed to manufacture, construct, and operate different types of NOX control systems, and prevailing wage rates for skilled and general labor categories. Lacking robust peer-reviewed methods to estimate economy-wide impacts, the engineering-based analysis focuses on the supply-side direct impact on labor demand in industries closely involved with electricity generation. The engineering approach projects labor changes measured as the change in each analysis year in job-years employed in the utility power sector and directly related sectors (e.g., emission control equipment manufacturing and fuel supply). Some of the quantified employment impacts in this analysis are one-time impacts, such as changes associated with upgrading the combustion controls. Other labor impacts will continue, such as changes associated with operating and maintaining generating units that will be constructed or retired, shifting generation to lower emitting generating units, and changes in the demand for labor providing the fuels supplied to the affected fossil-fired EGUs. All of these continuing labor impacts are estimated as annual impacts on employment.
      The methods the EPA uses to estimate the labor impacts are based on the analytical methods used in many previous EPA regulatory analyses. The methods used in this analysis to estimate many of the labor impacts (e.g., labor associated with changes in operating and maintaining generating units, as well as labor needed to mine coal and natural gas) are the same as we used in the Clean Power Plan (CPP) (U.S. EPA, 2015) and CSAPR (U.S. EPA, 2011), with updated data where available.  In addition, a central feature of the labor analysis for this RIA, involves the labor needs of upgrading and optimizing NOx control systems on existing EGUs in the affected 22-state region. In addition to the changes at EGUs within the 22-state region, there are also estimated changes in the utilization of existing generating units in other states, as well as changes in the gas and coal supply sectors.
      The methods and data used to estimate the labor associated with upgrading combustion control systems to reduce NOx emissions rely on three critical components:
 The mix of labor categories needed to implement the NOX combustion control upgrades (i.e., the share of the labor cost of the upgrades apportioned to general construction, boilermaker, engineering and management labor) is the same as was used for heat rate improvement combustion control upgrades needed in the final CPP RIA analysis.
 The fully loaded labor cost of each labor category is the same as was used for the NOX control upgrades and is the same labor cost assumed for heat rate improvements in the CPP final RIA.
 The amount of labor needed to implement the NOX combustion control upgrades is derived from the total costs of the NOX combustion upgrades estimated by IPM. The labor analysis relies on an estimate (McAdams et al., 2001) that the labor needed to install the combustion upgrades accounts for 30% of the total cost, and the remaining 70% of the total cost is for capital expenditures on equipment.
<IP_ADDRESS> Estimates of the Changes in Employment in Electricity Generation and Fuel Supply
The estimated labor impacts of the revisions to the NOX budgets from EGUs in the 22-state region are presented in Table 6-7. Given the methods the EPA uses to estimate labor impacts, it is not possible to directly separate the labor impacts that occur within the 22-state region from the labor impacts in the states not in the region. However, all the labor changes associated with combustion control upgrades, and optimization of existing post-combustion NOx control systems, will occur within the 22-state region.  The fuel supply labor impacts, however, will occur both within the 22-state region and in other states. This occurs for two reasons. First, coal and natural gas used at EGUs throughout the United States are both extracted within the 22-state region and in other states. Second, the shifts in fossil-fired generation will also occur both within the 22-state region and in other states.

Table 6-7. Annual Net Employment Impacts for Power and Fuels Sectors in 2017 & 2020

                                     2017
                                     2020
Upgrades and Optimization

SCR

                                      11
                                      14
SNCR*

                                       0
                                       0
Combustion Control

                                      55
                                      66
Upgrades & Optimization Sub-Total

                                      65
                                      80
Plant Retirement

Coal

                                       0
                                     -366
Fuel Use Change

Coal

                                      -95
                                     -339
Natural Gas

                                      87
                                      128
Fuel Use Sub-Total

                                      -8
                                     -211
Net Employment Impact
                                        58
                                     -497
*All results in this table are those for the CSAPR Update alternative only.  Turning on idled SNCR takes place only in the more stringent alternative. Job-year estimates are derived from IPM investment and upgrade estimates, as well as IPM fuel use estimates (tons coals or MMBtu gas). Employment impacts in the upgrades and optimization category includes both employment on-site (e.g., installing improved combustion control systems) and employment involved in manufacturing the improved combustion control systems. All job-year estimates are full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs.

6.4	References
Arrow, K. J.; M. L. Cropper; G. C. Eads; R. W. Hahn; L. B. Lave; R. G. Noll; Paul R. Portney; M. Russell; R. Schmalensee; V. K. Smith and R. N. Stavins. 1996. "Benefit-Cost Analysis in Environmental, Health, and Safety Regulation: A Statement of Principles." American Enterprise Institute, the Annapolis Center, and Resources for the Future; AEI Press. Available at: <http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/rstavins/Papers/Benefit Cost Analysis in Environmental.AEI.1996.pdf>. Accessed June 5, 2015.
Berman, E. and L. T. M. Bui. 2001. "Environmental Regulation and Labor Demand: Evidence from the South Coast Air Basin." Journal of Public Economics. 79(2): 265-295.
Congressional Budget Office (2011), Statement of Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director, before the Senate Budget Committee, "Policies for Increasing Economic Growth and Employment in 2012 and 2013" (November 15)<http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/11-15-Outlook_Stimulus_Testimony.pdf>
Ehrenberg, R. G. and R. S. Smith. 2000. Modern Labor Economics: Theory and Public Policy. Addison Wesley Longman, Inc., Chapter 4.
Executive Order 13563 (January 21, 2011). "Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review. Section 1. General Principles of Regulation." Federal Register 76(14): 3821-3823.
Ferris, A. E., R. J. Shadbegian, A. Wolverton. 2014. "The Effect of Environmental Regulation on Power Sector Employment: Phase I of the Title IV SO2 Trading Program." Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists. 1(4): 521-553.
Graff Zivin J. and M. Neidell. 2012. "The Impact of Pollution on Worker Productivity." American Economic Review. 102(7):3652-73.
Gray, W., R. J. Shadbegian, C. Wang and M. Meral. 2014 "Do EPA Regulations Affect Labor Demand? Evidence from the Pulp and Paper Industry", Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 68: 188-202.
Greenstone, M. 2002. "The Impacts of Environmental Regulations on Industrial Activity: Evidence from the 1970 and 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments and the Census of Manufactures." Journal of Political Economy. 110(6): 1175-1219.
Hamermesh, D. S. 1993. Labor Demand. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Chapter 2.
Layard, P.R.G. and A. A. Walters. 1978. Microeconomic Theory. McGraw-Hill, Inc. Chapter 9.
List, J. A.; D. L. Millimet; P. G. Fredriksson and W. W. McHone. 2003. "Effects of Environmental Regulations on Manufacturing Plant Births: Evidence from a Propensity Score Matching Estimator." The Review of Economics and Statistics. 85(4): 944-952.
McAdams, J. D., S. D. Reed and D.C. Itse. 2001. "Minimize NOx Emissions Cost-Effectively." Hydrocarbon Processing. June, 2001. Pgs. 51-58. Available at: <http://www.johnzink.com/wp-content/uploads/mimimize-nox-emissions.pdf>. Accessed June 14, 2016.
Ostro, B.D. 1987. "Air Pollution and Morbidity Revisited: A Specification Test." Journal of Environmental Economics Management. 14:87-98.
Schmalansee, R. and R. Stavins (2011). "A Guide to Economic and Policy Analysis for the Transport Rule." White Paper. Boston, MA. Exelon Corp.
Walker, W. R. 2011."Environmental Regulation and Labor Reallocation." American Economic Review. 101(2): 442-47.
Walker, W. R. 2013."The Transitional Costs of Sectoral Reallocation: Evidence From the Clean Air Act and the Workforce." The Quarterly Journal of Economics 128 (4): 1787-1835.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2014. "Occupational Employment Statistics, May 2014 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution (NAICS 2211)". Available at: <http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_221100.htm>.  Accessed June 9, 2015.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2014a. "May 2014 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates: NAICS 212100 - Coal Mining". Available at: < http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_212100.htm#00-0000>.  Accessed June 9, 2015.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2014b. "May 2014 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates: NAICS 212100  -  Oil and Gas Extraction". Available at: < http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_212100.htm>.  Accessed June 9, 2015.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2015. "Current Employment Survey Seasonally Adjusted Employment for Electric Power Generation (national)" and "Current Employment Survey Seasonally Adjusted Employment for Transmission, and Distribution (national)." Series ID: CES4422110001. Available at <http://www.bls.gov/data/>. Accessed June 9, 2015.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER 7: COMPARISON OF BENEFITS AND COSTS
Overview
      The EPA performed an illustrative analysis to estimate the costs, human health benefits, and climate co-benefits of compliance with the proposed and more and less stringent alternatives and is finalizing EGU NOx ozone season emissions budgets for 22 states. The emissions reductions evaluated in the CSAPR update reflect EGU NOX reduction strategies that are achievable for the 2017 ozone season. The EPA has quantified EGU NOX ozone-season emissions budgets reflecting EGU NOX reduction strategies that are widely available at a uniform annualized cost of $1,400 per ton (2011$). For the RIA, in order to implement the OMB Circular A-4 requirement to assess at least one less stringent and one more stringent alternative to the CSAPR update, the EPA has also analyzed EGU NOX ozone season emissions budgets reflecting NOX reduction strategies that are widely available at a uniform annualized cost of $800 per ton (2011$) and strategies that are widely available at a uniform annualized cost of $3,400 per ton (2011$). This chapter summarizes these results.
7.1 	Results
      As shown in Chapter 4, the estimated annualized costs to implement the CSAPR update, are approximately $68 million (2011 dollars, rounded to two significant figures).   As shown in Chapter 5, the total estimated combined benefits from implementation of the CSAPR update are approximately $530 million to $880 million in 2017 (2011 dollars, rounded to two significant figures). EPA can thus calculate the net benefits of the CSAPR update by subtracting the estimated annualized costs from the estimated benefits in 2017.   The net benefits of the CSAPR update are approximately $460 to $810 million (based on air quality benefits discounted at 3 percent, the central estimate of CO2 co-benefits, and annualized cost estimates).  Therefore, the EPA expects that implementation of this rule, based solely on economic efficiency criteria, will provide society with a significant net gain in social welfare, notwithstanding the expansive set of health and environmental effects we were unable to quantify.  Further quantification of directly emitted PM2.5-, mercury-, acidification-, and eutrophication-related impacts would increase the estimated net benefits of the rule.  Table 7-1 presents a summary of the benefits, costs, and net benefits of the CSAPR update and also the more and less stringent alternatives.

Table 7-1.	Total Costs, Total Monetized Benefits, and Net Benefits of the CSAPR Update and More and Less Stringent Alternatives in 2017 for U.S. (millions of 2011$)[a][,b,c,d]

                                 CSAPR Update
                          More Stringent Alternative
                                  Alternative
                          Less Stringent Alternative
Climate Co-Benefits
                                      $66
                                      $87
                                      $54
Air Quality Health Benefits
                                 $450 to $790
                                 $490 to $850
                                 $190 to $330
Total Benefits
                                 $520 to $860
                                 $580 to $940
                                 $240 to $390
Annualized Compliance Costs
                                      $68

                                      $82
                                      $8
Net Benefits
                                 $450 to $790
                                 $490 to $850
                                 $240 to $380
Non-Monetized Benefits[e]
Non-monetized climate benefits

Reductions in exposure to ambient NO2

Ecosystem benefits and visibility improvments assoc. with reductions in emissions of NOx

[a] Estimating multiple years of costs and benefits is limited for this RIA by data and resource limitations.  As a result, we provide compliance costs and social benefits in 2017, using the best available information to approximate compliance costs and social benefits recognizing uncertainties and limitations in those estimates.
[b] Benefits ranges represent discounting of health benefits and climate co-benefits at a discount rate of 7 percent. See Chapter 5 for additional detail and explanation. The costs presented in this table reflect compliance costs annualized at a 4.77 percent discount rate and do not include monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting costs, which are reported separately. See Chapter 4 for additional detail and explanation.
c All costs and benefits are rounded to two significant figures; columns may not appear to add correctly.
[d] Ozone and PM2.5 benefits from NOX emission reductions are for the 22-state region only.
 [e] Non-monetized benefits descriptions are for all three alternatives and are qualitative.

      In accordance with Circular A-4 Guidance (OMB, 2003), the EPA also analyzed the costs and benefits of two regulatory control alternatives that impose relatively more stringent and relatively less stringent EGU NOx emissions budgets, compared to the CSAPR Update. They are designed to show the effects of more stringent and less stringent NOx reduction requirements in a regulatory structure that is otherwise the same as the final NOx emissions budgets. Table 7-2 presents the projected emissions reductions for ozone season NOx, as well as reductions in co-pollutant annual NOX, annual SO2, and annual CO2, in 2017 under the CSAPR update and the more and less stringent alternatives.
Table 7-2. 	Projected 2017* Changes in Emissions of NOxand CO2 with the proposed NOx Emissions Budgets and More or Less Stringent Alternatives (Tons)

                                 CSAPR update
                          More Stringent Alternative
                          Less Stringent Alternative
NOx (annual)
                                    -75,000
                                    -79,000
                                    -27,000
NOx (ozone season)
                                    -61,000
                                    -66,000
                                    -27,000

CO2 (annual short tons)
                                  -1,600,000
                                  -2,000,000
                                  -1,300,000
*Annual reductions are based on 2018 IPM direct model outputs relied upon in this RIA to represent 2017 co-pollutant reductions
	In this RIA, we quantify an array of adverse health impacts attributable to ozone and PM2.5. The Integrated Science Assessment for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants ("Ozone ISA") (U.S. EPA, 2013a) identifies the human health effects associated with ozone exposure, which include premature death and a variety of illnesses associated with acute (days-long) and chronic (months to years-long) exposures. Similarly, the Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter ("PM ISA") (U.S. EPA, 2009) identifies the human health effects associated with ambient particles, which include premature death and a variety of illnesses associated with acute and chronic exposures.
      The EPA believes that providing comparisons of social costs and social benefits at discount rates of 3 and 7 percent is appropriate to the extent this is possible given available models and techniques.  The four different uses of discounting in the RIA  -  (i) construction of annualized costs, (ii) adjusting the value of mortality risk for lags in mortality risk decreases, (iii) adjusting the cost of illness for non-fatal heart attacks to adjust for lags in follow up costs, and (iv) discounting climate co-benefits -- are all appropriate.  We explain our discounting of benefits in Chapter 5 of the RIA, specifically the application of 3 and 7 percent to air quality benefits and 2.5, 3, and 5 percent to climate co-benefits; we explain our discounting of costs, in which we use a single discount rate of 4.77 percent, in Chapter 4. Our estimates of net benefits are the approximations of the net value (in 2017) of benefits attributable to emissions reductions needed to attain just for the year 2017.
The EPA presents annualized costs and benefits in a single year for comparison in this RIA because there are a number of methodological complexities associated with calculating the net present value (NPV) of a stream of costs and benefits for a NAAQS.  While NPV analysis allows evaluation of alternatives by summing the present value of all future costs and benefits, insights into how costs will occur over time, necessary for a NPV calculation, are limited by underlying assumptions and data.  Calculating a present value (PV) of the stream of future benefits also poses special challenges, which we describe below. In addition, calculating NPV requires definition of the length of the future time period considered, which is not straightforward for this analysis and subject to uncertainty.  We provide annualized costs of compliance instead of using NPV or alternatives in this RIA, and our explanation for this is in Chapter 4.

The theoretically appropriate approach for characterizing the PV of benefits is the life table approach. The life table, or dynamic population, approach explicitly models the year-to-year influence of air pollution on baseline mortality risk, population growth and the birth rate -- typically for each year over the course of a 50-to-100 year period (U.S. EPA SAB, 2010; Miller, 2003).  In contrast to the pulse approach, a life table models these variables endogenously by following a population cohort over time. For example, a life table will "pass" the air pollution-modified baseline death rate and population from year to year; impacts estimated in year 50 will account for the influence of air pollution on death rates and population growth in the preceding 49 years.
      Calculating year-to-year changes in mortality risk in a life table requires some estimate of the annual change in air quality levels. It is both impractical and challenging to model air quality levels for each year and to account for changes in federal, state and local policies that will affect the annual level and distribution of pollutants. For each of these reasons, the EPA has not generally reported the PV of benefits for air rules but has instead pursued a pulse approach. While we agree that providing the NPV of a stream of costs and benefits could be informative, based on the challenges with calculating NPV outlined above, we are not able to provide the NPV of a stream of costs and benefits in this RIA.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 1, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54286-54288]
[FR Doc No: 2020-19099]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 1, 2020 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0788; Product Identifier 2020-NM-091-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for all Airbus SAS Model A300 series airplanes, and Airbus SAS Model
A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-
605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series
airplanes). This proposed AD was prompted by reports of cracking at a
certain hole location on the left-hand (LH) side of a certain frame
(FR). This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections for
discrepancies of certain areas in and around the fuselage, as specified
in two European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) ADs, which will be
incorporated by reference. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 16,
2020.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: 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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For material that will be incorporated by reference (IBR) in this
AD, contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany;
telephone +49 221 8999 000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet
www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this IBR material on the EASA website
at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this IBR material at the
FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in
the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0788.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0788; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this NPRM, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for Docket Operations is listed above. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, Large
Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2020-0788;
Product Identifier 2020-NM-091-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal,
explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting
data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date
and may amend this NPRM based on those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments it receives, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive
verbal contact the FAA receives about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial
information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by
its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552),
CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to
this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is
customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and
that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you
clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page
of your submission containing CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat
such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will
not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing
CBI should be sent to the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. Any commentary that the FAA receives which
is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public
docket for this rulemaking.

Discussion

    The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2020-0110R1, dated May 27, 2020; and
EASA AD 2020-0111R2, dated June 16, 2020 (``EASA AD 2020-0110R1'' and
``EASA AD 2020-0111R2'') (also referred to as ``the Mandatory
Continuing Airworthiness Information,'' or ``the MCAI''); to correct an
unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A300 series airplanes and
Airbus SAS Model A300-600 series airplanes.

    This proposed AD was prompted by reports of cracking at hole
location #10 on the LH side of FR4. The FAA is proposing this AD to
address fatigue cracking, which could result in reduced structural
integrity of the fuselage. See the MCAI for additional background
information.

Related IBR Material Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2020-0110R1 describes procedures for repetitive special
detailed inspections for discrepancies (i.e., cracking) of the fuselage
internal structure at certain frames, windshield frame lower section
and closing panel, fuselage skin lap joint, and center wing bottom skin
internal angle; and applicable corrective actions (repairing
discrepancies).
    EASA AD 2020-0111R2 describes procedures for repetitive special
detailed inspection for discrepancies of the outer wing bottom skin
internal joint plate, outer wing bottom skin, fuselage internal
structure at certain frames, and windshield frame lower section and
closing panel; and applicable corrective actions (repairing
discrepancies).
    This material is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, the FAA
has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD because the FAA has
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require, accomplishing the actions specified
in EASA AD 2020-0110R1 and EASA AD 2020-0111R2 described previously, as
incorporated by reference. Any differences with EASA AD 2020-0110R1 and
EASA AD 2020-0111R2 are identified as exceptions in the regulatory text
of this AD.
    For the action specified in paragraph (4) of EASA AD 2020-0110R1,
the compliance times vary depending on airplane configuration,
inspection type, and inspection results. The initial compliance times
for the inspections vary between before the accumulation of 18,500
flight cycles and 24,500 flight cycles since the first flight of the
airplane. The repetitive intervals for the inspections vary between
1,500 flight cycles and 12,600 flight cycles, depending on inspection
results. See Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0265, Revision 6, dated
July 2, 2012, for more information.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA initially worked with Airbus and EASA to develop a
process to use certain EASA ADs as the primary source of information
for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has
since coordinated with other manufacturers and civil aviation
authorities (CAAs) to use this process. As a result, EASA AD 2020-
0110R1 and EASA AD 2020-0111R2 will be incorporated by reference in the
FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance
with EASA AD 2020-0110R1 and EASA AD 2020-0111R2 in its entirety,
through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as
exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common
terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in the
EASA AD does not mean that operators need comply only with that
section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to ``all required
actions and compliance times,'' compliance with this AD requirement is
not limited to the section titled ``Required Action(s) and Compliance
Time(s)'' in the EASA AD.
    Service information specified in EASA AD 2020-0110R1 and EASA AD
2020-0111R2 that is required for compliance with EASA AD 2020-0110R1
and EASA AD 2020-0111R2 will be available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0788 after the FAA final rule is published.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 118 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this proposed AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
90 work-hours x $85 per hour = $7,650........................              $0           $7,650         $902,700
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has received no definitive data that would enable us to
provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this
proposed AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA has determined that this proposed AD would not have
federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD
would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,

    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) 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.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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):

Airbus SAS: Docket No. FAA-2020-0788; Product Identifier 2020-NM-
091-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by October 16, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Airbus SAS airplanes identified in
paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this AD, certificated in any category.
    (1) Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, B2-203, B4-2C, B4-103, and
B4-203 airplanes.
    (2) Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes;
Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes; Model A300 F4-605R and F4-
622R airplanes; and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage; 57
Wings.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracking at hole location #10
on the left-hand side of frame 4. The FAA is issuing this AD to
address fatigue cracking, which could result in reduced structural
integrity of the fuselage.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    (1) For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(1) of this AD:
Except as specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (3) of this AD, comply
with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2020-0110R1, dated May 27, 2020 (``EASA AD 2020-0110R1'').
    (2) For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(2) of this AD:
Except as specified in paragraphs (h)(2) and (3) of this AD, comply
with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, EASA AD 2020-0111R2, dated June 16, 2020 (``EASA AD
2020-0111R2'').

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2020-0110R1 and EASA AD 2020-0111R2

    (1) Where EASA AD 2020-0110R1 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) Where paragraph (4) of EASA AD 2020-0111R2 refers to June 3,
2020 (``the effective date of this AD at original issue''), this AD
requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (3) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2020-0110R1 and EASA AD
2020-0111R2 does not apply to this AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, has
the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the Large Aircraft Section, International Validation
Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in
paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC, notify
your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal
inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district
office/certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, Large Aircraft
Section, International Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus
SAS's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the
DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): For any service information
referenced in EASA AD 2020-0110R1 and EASA AD 2020-0111R2 that
contains RC procedures and tests: Except as required by paragraph
(i)(2) of this AD, RC procedures and tests must be done to comply
with this AD; any procedures or tests that are not identified as RC
are recommended. Those procedures and tests that are not identified
as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with
the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as
RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests
identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For information about EASA AD 2020-0110R1 and EASA AD 2020-
0111R2, contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne,
Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this EASA AD on the EASA
website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this material at
the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch,
2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This
material may be found in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2020-0788.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina,
Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Issued on August 25, 2020.
Ross Landes,
Deputy Director for Regulatory Operations, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 2020-19099 Filed 8-31-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REGION 8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1595 Wynkoop Street
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Denver, CO   80202-1129
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
		www.epa.gov/region8

Ref: 8ARD-PM

Mr. Mike Natchees
Air Quality Program Director
Ute Indian Tribe
P.O. Box 70
Fort Duchesne, Utah  84026

Re:	Transmittal of Draft Title V Permit to Operate on the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation

Mr. Natchees:

In accordance with 40 CFR 71.8 and 71.11(d)(2), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 8 is hereby providing notification to all affected states and tribes of the issuance of the draft Clean Air Act renewed Title V Permit to Operate for the following source located on Indian country lands within the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation:

      Utah Gas Corp  -  Tap 5 Compressor Station

Region 8 is providing a 30-day period, from December 22, 2022 to January 23, 2023, for public comment. Online electronic copies of the draft permit, Statement of Basis and supporting materials may be viewed at: http://www.epa.gov/caa-permitting/caa-permit-public-comment-opportunities-region-8.

Please submit any written recommendations you may have concerning the terms and conditions of the draft permit to Adam Eisele, of my staff, at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Suman Kunwar is the permanent contact on this permit action, but he is out of the office until March 2023.

Comments may also be submitted via email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or through the docket at https://www.regulations.gov (Docket ID # EPA-R08-OAR-2021-0770).

Should the EPA not accept any such recommendations, you will be notified in writing and will be provided with the reasons for not accepting them. Comments must be received by 5:00 p.m. MT on Monday, January 23, 2023, to be considered in the issuance of the final renewal permit for this facility. If a public hearing is held regarding this permit, you will be sent a copy of the public hearing notice at least 30 days in advance of the hearing date.

						Sincerely,

						Monica Morales
                              Acting Director
						Air and Radiation Division