[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 130 (Thursday, July 7, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44212-44220]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16045]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0866; FRL-9948-65-OAR]
RIN 2060-AS43

Standards of Performance for Stationary Compression Ignition
Internal Combustion Engines

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing
amendments to the standards of performance for stationary compression
ignition (CI) internal combustion engines to allow manufacturers to
design the engines so that operators can temporarily override
performance inducements related to the emission control system for
stationary CI internal combustion engines. The amendments apply to
engines operating during emergency situations where the operation of
the engine or equipment is needed to protect human life, and to require
compliance with Tier 1 emission standards during such emergencies. The
EPA is also amending the standards of performance for certain
stationary CI internal combustion engines located in remote areas of
Alaska.

DATES: This final rule is effective on September 6, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Docket: The EPA has established a docket for this action
under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0866. All documents in the docket
are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. The EPA also relies
on materials in Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708, EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-
0295, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-1032, and incorporates those dockets into the
record for this final rule.
    Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available (e.g., confidential business information 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 EPA
Docket Center, EPA WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.
NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/dockets for additional
information about the EPA's public docket.
    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final rule will be available on the World Wide Web (WWW).
Following signature, a copy of this final rule will be posted at the
following address: http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/icengines.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Melanie King, Energy Strategies
Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-01), Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Organization of this document. The information presented in this
preamble is organized as follows:

I. General Background
II. Final Amendments
    A. Temporary Override of Inducements in Emergency Situations
    B. Remote Areas of Alaska
III. Public Comments and Responses
    A. Temporary Override of Inducements in Emergency Situations
    B. Remote Areas of Alaska
IV. Impacts of the Final Action
    A. Economic Impacts
    B. Environmental Impacts
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review, and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Background

    On July 11, 2006, the EPA promulgated standards of performance for
stationary CI internal combustion engines (71 FR 39154). These
standards, known as new source performance standards (NSPS), implement
section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act, and are issued for categories of
sources that cause, or contribute significantly to, air pollution that
may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. The
standards are codified at 40 CFR part 60 subpart IIII. The standards
apply to new stationary sources of emissions, i.e., sources whose
construction, reconstruction, or modification begins after a standard
for those sources is proposed. The NSPS for stationary CI internal
combustion engines established limits on emissions of particulate
matter (PM), nitrogen oxides (NOX), carbon monoxide (CO) and
non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC). The emission standards are generally
modeled after the EPA's standards for nonroad and marine diesel
engines. The nonroad CI engine standards are phased in over several
years and have Tiers with increasing levels of stringency. The engine
model year in which the Tiers take effect varies for different size
ranges of engines. The Tier 4 final standards for new stationary non-
emergency and nonroad CI engines generally begin with either the 2014
or 2015 model year.
    In 2011, the EPA finalized revisions to the NSPS for stationary CI
engines that amended the standards for engines with a displacement
greater than 10 liters per cylinder, and also for engines located in
remote areas of Alaska (76 FR 37954, June 28, 2011). In this action,
the EPA is finalizing amendments to the NSPS regarding performance
inducements for Tier 4 engines and the criteria for defining remote
areas of Alaska. The final amendments are discussed below.

II. Final Amendments

A. Temporary Override of Inducements in Emergency Situations

    Many Tier 4 final engines are equipped by the engine manufacturer
with selective catalytic reduction (SCR) to reduce emissions of
NOX. The consumable reactant in an SCR system is typically
supplied as a solution of urea in water known as diesel exhaust fluid
(DEF). Engines equipped with SCR generally include controls that limit
the function of the engines if they are operated without DEF, or if the
engine's electronic control module cannot otherwise confirm that the
SCR system is properly operating. Such controls are generally called
``inducements'' because they induce the operator to properly maintain
the SCR emission control system. In normal circumstances, if
inducements begin, the engine operator is expected to perform any
necessary maintenance to avoid shutdown. Manufacturers as well as
owners or operators of nonroad and stationary CI Tier 4 certified
engines have raised concerns regarding the inducements being triggered
and engines shutting down during emergency situations. Additional
background on Tier 4 engines and this amendment can be found in the
proposal for this rulemaking (80 FR 68808, November 6, 2015). On August
8, 2014, the EPA promulgated provisions allowing manufacturers of
nonroad engines certified to the emission standards in 40 CFR part 1039
to give operators the means to temporarily override emission control
inducements during qualified emergency situations, such as those where
operation of the engine is needed to protect human life (79 FR 46356,
August 8, 2014). These provisions, which are codified in 40 CFR
1039.665, allow for auxiliary emission control devices (AECDs) that
help to ensure proper function of engines in qualified emergency
situations. AECDs are any element of design that senses temperature,
motive speed, engine revolutions per minute, transmission gear, or any
other parameter for the purpose of activating, modulating, delaying, or
deactivating the operation of any part of the emission control system.
The provisions of 40 CFR 1039.665 allow the engine manufacturer to
include a dormant feature in the engine's control software that could
be activated to override emission control inducements. In this action,
the EPA is adopting those same provisions for stationary CI engines
certified to the standards in 40 CFR part 1039 and used in qualified
emergency situations. It is important to emphasize that the EPA is
confident that Tier 4 engines will function properly in the vast
majority of emergency situations. Thus, the EPA expects that AECDs
allowed under this provision will rarely be activated. The EPA is
adopting this provision merely as a precaution to ensure that
stationary CI engines can continue to operate in emergency situations.
    The final amendments allow engine manufacturers to design into
their stationary CI engines a dormant AECD that can be activated for up
to 120 engine hours per use during a qualified emergency situation to
prevent emission controls from interfering with engine operation. The
EPA is finalizing amendments that allow engine manufacturers to offer,
and operators to request, re-activations of the AECD for additional
time in increments of 120 engine hours in cases of a prolonged
emergency situation. During the emergency situation, the engine must
meet the Tier 1 emission standard in 40 CFR 89.112 that applies to the
engine's rated power. Operators activating the AECD will be required to
report the incident to the engine manufacturers, and engine
manufacturers will submit an annual report to the EPA summarizing the
use of these AECDs during the prior year. These final amendments are
discussed in more detail below.
1. Definition of Qualified Emergency Situation
    The EPA is using the definition of qualified emergency situation
established in the August 8, 2014, amendments for nonroad engines. This
definition is found in the introductory text to 40 CFR 1039.665 and is
cross-referenced in the NSPS for stationary CI internal combustion
engines, specifically in 40 CFR 60.4204(f). The definition specifies
that a qualified emergency situation is one in which the condition of
an engine's emission controls poses a significant direct or indirect
risk to human life. An example

of a direct risk would be an emission control condition that inhibits
the performance of an engine being used to rescue a person from a life-
threatening situation (for example, providing power to a medical
facility during an emergency situation). An example of an indirect risk
would be an emission control condition that inhibits the performance of
an engine being used to provide electrical power to a data center that
routes ``911'' emergency response telecommunications.
2. Basic AECD Criteria
    Section 1039.665 specifies provisions allowing for AECDs that are
necessary to ensure proper function of engines and equipment in
emergency situations. It also includes specific criteria that the
engine manufacturer must meet to ensure that any adverse environmental
impacts are minimized. These criteria are cross-referenced in the NSPS
for stationary CI engines and are as follows:
     The AECD must be designed so that it cannot be activated
more than once without the specific permission of the certificate
holder. Reactivation of the AECD must require the input of a temporary
code or equivalent security feature.
     The AECD must become inactive within 120 engine hours of
becoming active. The engine must also include a feature that allows the
operator to deactivate the AECD once the emergency is over.
     The manufacturer must show that the AECD deactivates
emission controls (such as inducement strategies) only to the extent
necessary to address the expected emergency situation.
     The engine controls must be configured to record in non-
volatile electronic memory the total number of activations of the AECD
for each engine.
     The manufacturer must take appropriate additional steps to
induce operators to report AECD activation and request resetting of the
AECD. The EPA recommends including one or more persistent visible and/
or audible alarms that are active from the point when the AECD is
activated to the point when it is reset.
     The manufacturer must provide purchasers with instructions
on how to activate the AECD in emergency situations, as well as
information about penalties for overuse.
3. Emission Standards During Qualified Emergency Situations
    The EPA is requiring stationary CI engines to meet different
emission standards for the very narrow period of operation where there
is an emergency situation with a risk to human life and the owner or
operator is warned that the inducement is about to occur. The emission
standards that apply when the AECD is activated during the qualified
emergency situation are the Tier 1 standards in 40 CFR 89.112. Engine
manufacturers indicated that meeting the Tier 2 or 3 standards in 40
CFR 89.112 is not feasible because the base engine used in Tier 4
configurations does not have exhaust gas recirculation (EGR), which is
the engine design technology used to meet the Tier 2 and 3 standards.
The EGR is not needed for Tier 4 because NOX is controlled
by the SCR.\1\ The Tier 1 requirement applies only when there is a
qualified emergency situation and bypass of inducements is necessary to
ensure continued operation of the engine. Once the emergency situation
has ended and the AECD is deactivated, the engine must comply with the
otherwise applicable emission standard specified in 40 CFR 60.4202.
Engine manufacturers must demonstrate that the engine complies with the
Tier 1 standard when the AECD is activated when applying for
certification of an engine equipped with an AECD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0866-0010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Approval, Recordkeeping and Reporting for Engine Manufacturers
    Manufacturers may ask for approval of the use of emergency AECDs at
any time; however, the EPA encourages manufacturers to obtain
preliminary approval before submitting an application for
certification. Otherwise, the EPA's review of the AECD, which may
include many unique features, may delay the approval of the application
for certification.
    The manufacturer is required to keep records to document the use of
emergency AECDs until the end of the calendar year 5 years after the
onset of the relevant emergency situation. The manufacturer must submit
an annual compliance report to the EPA within 90 calendar days of the
end of each calendar year in which it authorizes use of an AECD. The
annual report must include a description of each AECD activation and
copies of the reports submitted by owners or operators (or statements
that an owner or operator did not submit a report, to the extent of the
manufacturer's knowledge). If an owner or operator fails to report the
use of an emergency AECD to the manufacturer, the manufacturer, to the
extent it has been made aware of the AECD activation, must send written
notification to the operator that failure to meet the submission
requirements may subject the operator to penalties.
5. Engine Owner or Operator Requirements
    Owners or operators who purchase engines with this dormant feature
will receive instructions from the engine manufacturer on how to
activate the AECD in qualified emergency situations, as well as
information about penalties for overuse. The EPA would consider
appropriate use of this feature to be during a situation where
operation of a stationary CI engine is needed to protect human life (or
where impaired operation poses a significant direct or indirect risk to
human life), and temporarily overriding emission controls enables full
operation of the equipment. The EPA is adopting this provision to give
operators the means to obtain short-term relief one time without the
need to contact the engine manufacturer or the EPA. In a qualified
emergency situation, delaying the activation to obtain approval could
put lives at risk, and would be unacceptable. However, the EPA retains
the authority to evaluate, after the fact, whether it was reasonable to
judge that there was a significant risk to human life to justify the
activation of the AECD. Where the EPA determines that it was not
reasonable to judge (1) that there was a significant risk to human
life; or (2) that the emission control strategy was curtailing the
ability of the engine to perform, the owner or operator may be subject
to penalties for tampering with emission controls. The owner or
operator requirements also include a specific prohibition on operating
the engine with the AECD beyond the time reasonably needed for such
operation. The owner or operator may also be subject to penalties for
tampering if they continue to operate the engine with the AECD once the
emergency situation has ended or the problem causing the emission
control strategy to interfere with the performance of the engine has
been or can reasonably be fixed. Nevertheless, the EPA will consider
the totality of the circumstances when assessing penalties, and retain
discretion to reduce penalties where the EPA determines that an owner
or operator acted in good faith.
    The owner or operator must send a written report to the engine
manufacturer within 60 calendar days after activating an emergency
AECD. If any consecutive reactivations occur, this report is still due
60 calendar days from the first activation. The report must include:

     Contact name, mail and email addresses, and telephone
number for the responsible company or entity.
     A description of the emergency situation, the location of
the engine during the emergency, and the contact information for an
official who can verify the emergency situation (such as a county
sheriff, fire marshal, or hospital administrator).
     The reason for AECD activation during the emergency
situation, such as the lack of DEF, or the failure of an emission-
related sensor when the engine was needed to respond to an emergency
situation.
     The engine's serial number (or equivalent).
     A description of the extent and duration of the engine
operation while the AECD was active, including a statement describing
whether or not the AECD was manually deactivated after the emergency
situation ended.
    Paragraph 40 CFR 1039.665(g) specifies that failure to provide this
information to the engine manufacturer within the deadline is improper
use of the AECD and is prohibited.

B. Remote Areas of Alaska

    The EPA is finalizing an amendment to the NSPS for stationary CI
internal combustion engines that would align the definition of remote
areas of Alaska with the definition currently used in the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Stationary
Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines, which can be found at 40 CFR
part 63, subpart ZZZZ. The amendment specifies that engines in areas
that are accessible by the Federal Aid Highway System (FAHS) can be
considered remote if each of the following conditions is met: (1) The
only connection to the FAHS is through the Alaska Marine Highway
System, or the stationary CI engine operation is within an isolated
grid in Alaska that is not connected to the statewide electrical grid
referred to as the Alaska Railbelt Grid; (2) at least 10 percent of the
power generated by the engine on an annual basis is used for
residential purposes; and (3) the generating capacity of the facility
is less than 12 megawatts, or the engine is used exclusively for backup
power for renewable energy. The Alaska Railbelt Grid is defined as the
service areas of the six regulated public utilities that extend from
Fairbanks to Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula. These utilities are
Golden Valley Electric Association; Chugach Electric Association;
Matanuska Electric Association; Homer Electric Association; Anchorage
Municipal Light & Power; and the City of Seward Electric System.
Background on the provisions related to remote areas of Alaska can be
found in the proposal for this rulemaking (80 FR 68808, November 6,
2015).
    The following NSPS provisions that currently apply to stationary CI
internal combustion engines for engines that are located in areas of
Alaska that are not accessible by the FAHS will be extended to
stationary CI internal combustion engines located in the areas
identified above:
     Exemption for all pre-2014 model year engines from diesel
fuel sulfur requirements (see 40 CFR 60.4216(d));
     Allowance for owners and operators of stationary CI
engines to use engines certified to marine engine standards, rather
than land-based nonroad engine standards (see 40 CFR 60.4216(b));
     No requirement to meet emission standards that would
necessitate the use of aftertreatment devices for NOX, in
particular, SCR (emission standards that are not based on the use of
aftertreatment devices for NOX will apply) (see 40 CFR
60.4216(c));
     No requirement to meet emission standards that would
necessitate the use of aftertreatment devices for PM until the 2014
model year (see 40 CFR 60.4216(c)); and
     Allowance for the blending of used lubricating oil, in
volumes of up to 1.75 percent of the total fuel, if the sulfur content
of the used lubricating oil is less than 200 parts per million and the
used lubricating oil is ``on-spec,'' i.e., it meets the on-
specification levels and properties of 40 CFR 279.11 (see 40 CFR
60.4216(f)).

III. Public Comments and Responses

    This section presents a summary of the public comments that the EPA
received on the proposed amendments and the responses developed. The
EPA received 7 public comments on the proposed rule. The comments can
be obtained online from the Federal Docket Management System at http://www.regulations.gov.

A. Temporary Override of Inducements in Emergency Situations

    Comment: Two commenters supported the proposed amendment to allow
manufacturers of stationary CI engines certified to the emission
standards in 40 CFR part 1039 to give engine operators the means to
temporarily override emission control inducements while operating in
qualified emergency situations. One commenter noted the critical need
for the proposed amendment to ensure that stationary CI engines, when
used in emergency situations, may continue to operate to ameliorate the
emergency and protect human life. The commenter noted that the EPA had
already adopted the proposed provision for nonroad engines, and that it
was essential for stationary engines as well. The commenter also
supported the proposed amendment so that engines could be dual-
certified for both stationary and nonroad use, which reduces the cost
and burden of certification.
    Response: No response necessary.
    Comment: One commenter supported the proposed definition of an
emergency situation. Another commenter stated that the EPA should not
impose any limitations on the operating time of an engine during an
emergency situation, and noted that in the NESHAP for Stationary
Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines, emergencies are excluded
from operating time limitations and should similarly be excluded here.
The commenter stated that it is not necessary to newly incorporate a
definition of a qualified emergency situation because there are
applicable examples of emergency situations already provided in the
definition of an emergency stationary internal combustion engine in the
NSPS for stationary CI internal combustion engines. The commenter
indicated that if the EPA believes it must finalize specific
requirements for emergency operations, then the definition of a
qualified emergency situation should be revised so that it is more
generalized and more applicable to different types of emergency
situations which would necessitate the operation of stationary CI
engines. According to the commenter, the proposed definition of a
qualified emergency situation and the associated examples of indirect
and direct risk to human life apply very specifically to nonroad
engines that are able to be transported. The commenter urged the EPA to
acknowledge that the examples provided in 40 CFR 1039.665 are merely
examples, and do not constitute limits on interpreting the definition
of a qualified emergency situation for stationary CI engines. The
commenter indicated the EPA should clarify that there are other
possible emergency situations that might pose a risk to human life, or
list additional examples.
    Response: The definition of emergency stationary internal
combustion engine in the NSPS for stationary CI internal combustion
engines, and the similar definition in the NESHAP for Stationary
Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines, defines a subcategory of
engines that are subject to different standards, whether operating in
an actual emergency or in other limited

non-emergency circumstances. The definition of a qualified emergency
situation has a different purpose; it defines when the inducement can
be overridden for a non-emergency engine. The definition of a qualified
emergency situation where an inducement can be overridden is intended
to be more limited to emergency situations where there is a significant
direct or indirect risk to human life.
    The EPA does not agree with the commenter that the proposed
definition is not sufficiently generalized and that the examples
provided are not representative of stationary engines. One of the
examples is ``an engine being used to provide electrical power to a
data center that routes `911' emergency response telecommunications,''
which would likely be a stationary generator. The possible scenarios
provided in the definition are merely examples and are not intended to
be the only types of applications and situations that can qualify. The
use of the word ``example'' in the definition is an indication that
they are just examples and not limits on interpreting the definition.
It would not be possible to provide examples of all of the potential
uses of engines in qualified emergency situations.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the initial period for AECD
operation should be 15 days (360 hours) rather than the proposed 120
hours, with follow-on increments of 120 hours activated by
communications with the engine certificate holder. The commenter stated
that the time limit should be designed to address a worst-case
situation, such as a region-wide disaster and a remote area, where
extended communications and/or supply chain disruptions may impact the
engine operator and the certificate holder beyond 120 hours. According
to the commenter, the threat of post-emergency analysis and punishment
by the EPA will likely be sufficient to minimize overuse of the leeway
provided by the proposed amendment.
    Another commenter opposed any hour limit during an emergency
situation. According to the commenter, because emergencies are sudden,
uncontrollable, and unlikely, there is no need to limit the amount of
override time allowable to keep engines running during emergencies. The
commenter also expressed concern about the procedures set forth for
reactivation of the AECD, and urged the EPA to remove the requirements
for resetting of the AECD. The commenter stated that the engine
manufacturer is not the appropriately qualified entity to determine a
facility's qualified emergency, and that there need not be such
stringent requirements for activation of the AECD, since the EPA has
the authority to evaluate after the fact whether or not it was
reasonable to justify the qualified emergency.
    Response: The proposed definition of a qualified emergency
situation specifies emergency situations for which an engine owner or
operator may temporarily override emission control inducements. Should
the engine owner or operator need to extend the override beyond the
initial 120 hour period, it can work with the engine manufacturer to
reset the AECD for additional time. Thus, the engine owner/operator
will be able to override the emission controls throughout the duration
of the qualified emergency situation. The limit on AECD activation
periods and procedures for resetting the AECD are necessary to ensure
that the time of the override is truly limited to the time necessary to
address the emergency situation, and minimize excess emissions, which
would lead to adverse environmental impacts. The commenters that
suggested an initial 360 hour AECD activation period to address a
``worst case scenario'' or an unlimited activation period did not
provide any specific example of a qualified emergency situation of
longer than 120 hours where the procedures for resetting the AECD could
not have been followed, or explain why 360 hours represents a ``worst
case scenario.'' The EPA's approach appropriately balances the need to
provide regulatory relief in emergency circumstances with the need to
deter overuse, and the EPA does not agree that an unlimited period is
necessary or that a period of 360 hours or unlimited hours is
preferable. In order to reactivate the AECD, the engine manufacturer is
only required to have evidence that the emergency situation is
continuing and is not required to judge if the situation is a
qualifying emergency. As indicated in the proposal, it is expected that
AECDs would be activated rarely, if ever, so the provisions are
unlikely to impose a significant burden on engine owners/operators.
    Further, the EPA's decision to adopt requirements concerning
initial AECD activation periods, reactivation and notification that are
identical to such requirements in the nonroad engine rules is
influenced by our desire to allow for dual certification of stationary
and nonroad engines, which reduces the burden of the rule on engine
manufacturers. The Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association noted in
their public comments \2\ that the ability to dual certify nonroad and
stationary engines reduces the number of engine families that a
manufacturer must certify, reduces the number of engine models that
dealers, distributors, and customers must inventory and manage, and
reduces the number of engine families that the EPA must certify.
According to the commenter, if the EPA were to foreclose the ability of
manufacturers to continue to dual certify, significant costs and
burdens would result. Given that the NSPS for stationary CI internal
combustion engines places a great deal of the compliance demonstration
burden on the engine manufacturer, it is reasonable to have the
manufacturer's compliance obligations be as consistent as possible for
stationary and nonroad engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0866-0017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: One commenter supported the recordkeeping process outlined
in the proposed rule. Another commenter disagreed with the proposed
requirements for the engine owner/operator to send a written report to
the engine manufacturer detailing the activation of the emergency AECD.
According to the commenter, the engine manufacturer has no authority to
enforce penalties or regulations promulgated by the EPA, and,
therefore, the commenter did not think it made logical sense for
owners/operators to be required to submit reports to the engine
manufacturers, nor are the engine manufacturers qualified to determine
what constitutes a qualified emergency situation at the affected
facility. The commenter stated that using the engine manufacturers to
collect reports and then report this information to the EPA is
unprecedented and creates an unnecessary middleman. The commenter
recommended that the proposed provisions be revised so that owners/
operators are required to report the information directly to the EPA,
or to the appropriate permitting authority.
    Response: Similar to the limit on AECD activation periods and the
procedures for resetting the AECD, the recordkeeping process is
necessary to ensure the AECD is used in true emergencies only and
prevent adverse environmental impacts. The proposed reporting
provisions do not require engine manufacturers to enforce penalties or
EPA regulations. Rather, they require that, in cases where the
manufacturer is aware of use of the AECD, the manufacturer must make
the engine owner/operator aware that they may be subject to penalties
from the EPA for failing to report the use of the AECD. There are other
situations in the regulations where an engine manufacturer is required
to indicate that an owner/operator may be subject to

penalties, such as the labeling requirement in 40 CFR 1039.20. The
commenter did not provide any information to show that it would be
unreasonable for engine manufacturers to compile information on the use
of AECDs, and the engine manufacturers have not objected to the
requirement. As stated previously, it is expected that AECDs will be
activated rarely, if ever, so the reporting provisions are unlikely to
impose a significant burden on engine owners/operators or engine
manufacturers.
    Comment: One commenter requested that the EPA clarify that
manufacturers are not required to submit actual certification test-
based data to demonstrate that engines equipped with an AECD that helps
to ensure proper function of engines in qualified emergency situations
will meet the Tier 1 emission standards in 40 CFR 89.112 when the AECD
is activated. According to the commenter, submittal of certification
test-based data would be unduly expensive and burdensome for engine
manufacturers and the EPA. The commenter recommended that engine
manufacturers be allowed to demonstrate that an engine complies with
the Tier 1 emission standards when the AECD is activated by submitting
the conversion efficiencies for the Tier 4 engine's emission control
systems and using good engineering judgement to demonstrate that the
engine complies with the Tier 1 standard. Specifically, according to
the commenter, manufacturers could compare the conversion efficiency
with the Tier 4 emission standard for the engine to demonstrate that
the engine would meet the Tier 1 emission standard if the emission
control system is disabled. The commenter noted that the EPA allows the
demonstration of compliance through means other than the generation of
actual certification data for the not-to-exceed standards in part 1039.
The commenter suggested specific edits to 40 CFR 60.4210(j) to help
clarify the required demonstration.
    Response: The proposed rule was not intended to require
certification test-based data to be submitted to demonstrate that the
engines will meet the Tier 1 emission standards. The final rule
includes language in 40 CFR 60.4210(j) to clarify that certification
test-based data are not required for such demonstration. The intent of
the provision is that engine manufacturers would demonstrate
achievement of the Tier 1 emission standards at the time that the
manufacturer applies for certification of the engine equipped with an
AECD. Manufacturers must document that the engine complies with the
Tier 1 emission standards when the AECD is activated and provide any
relevant testing, engineering analysis, or other information in
sufficient detail to support such statement when applying for
certification (or amending an existing certificate) of an engine
equipped with an AECD.

B. Remote Areas of Alaska

    Comment: Four commenters supported the proposed amendment to align
the definition of remote areas of Alaska in the NSPS for stationary CI
engines with the definition currently used in the NESHAP for Stationary
Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines. Commenters indicated that
the proposed amendment would address the unique circumstances of
engines located in remote areas of Alaska. No commenters opposed the
proposed amendment.
    Response: No response necessary.
    Comment: One commenter requested that the EPA reconsider the
effectiveness of, and need for, PM emission control equipment on new
Tier 3 marine engines providing prime power in remote areas of Alaska.
The commenter questioned the benefit of installing PM emission controls
on engines certified to the Tier 3 marine engine standards, which have
lower PM emissions than engines certified to the Tier 3 standards for
nonroad engines. The commenter stated that it believes that the capital
and operating cost, questionable reliability, and additional complexity
resulting from the PM emission control requirement do not appear to be
warranted or economically viable.
    Response: This comment is outside the scope of the proposal, which
did not seek comment on the appropriateness of the PM emission control
requirement in 40 CFR 61.4216(c) for remote areas of Alaska.

IV. Impacts of the Final Action

A. Economic Impacts

    The EPA does not expect any significant economic impacts as a
result of this final rule. A significant economic impact for the
amendment allowing the temporary override of inducements in emergency
situations is not anticipated because AECDs are expected to be
activated rarely (if ever), and, thus, the impacts to affected sources
and consumers of affected output will be minimal.
    The economic impact from the change to the criteria for remote
areas of Alaska will be a cost savings for owners or operators of
engines that are located in the additional areas that will now be
considered remote. The precise savings depends on the number and size
of engines that will be installed each year. Information provided by
the Alaska Energy Authority indicated that one to two new engines are
expected to be installed each year. Information provided by the state
of Alaska indicated that the expected initial capital cost savings per
engine ranges from $28,000 to $163,000, depending on the size of the
engine. There will also be annual operating and maintenance cost
savings due to avoidance of the need to obtain and store DEF.

B. Environmental Impacts

    The EPA does not expect any significant environmental impacts as a
result of the amendment to allow a temporary override of inducements in
emergency situations. The AECDs are expected to be activated rarely (if
ever) and will only affect emissions for a very short period.
    The EPA also does not expect significant environmental impacts as a
result of the amendments to the criteria for remote areas of Alaska. As
an example, allowing the use of a Tier 3 engine instead of a Tier 4
engine would result in less reductions for a 250 horsepower (HP)
stationary CI engine of 5.4 tons per year (tpy) of NOX, 0.1
tpy of NMHC, 1.6 tpy of CO, and 0.3 tpy of PM, assuming the engine
operates full time (8,760 hours per year).\3\ As stated previously, the
state of Alaska estimates that only one to two new engines will be
installed each year in the additional remote areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Estimates are based on Tier 3 and Tier 4 emission factors
for a 175-300 HP engine provided in Table A4 of Exhaust and
Crankcase Emission Factors for Nonroad Engine Modeling--Compression-
Ignition. NR-009d. Assessment and Standards Division, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. EPA-420-R-10-018. July 2010. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/nonrdmdl/nonrdmdl2010/420r10018.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review, and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this rule have been
submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA. The Information
Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been
assigned EPA ICR number 2196.05. The only new information collection
activity in this rule is the reporting by engine owners and operators
and engine manufacturers that would occur if the AECD is activated
during a qualified emergency situation. The EPA expects that it is
unlikely that these AECDs will ever need to be activated. Therefore,
the EPA estimates that there will be no additional burden from this
reporting requirement.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB
approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the
Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to
display the OMB control number for the approved information collection
activities contained in this final rule. The OMB has previously
approved the information collection activities contained in the
existing regulations and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0590.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant
adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no
net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small
entities subject to the rule. As mentioned earlier in this preamble,
the EPA is harmonizing the NSPS for stationary CI engines in this
action with an existing rule issued by the EPA for nonroad CI engines.
Thus, this action is reducing regulatory impacts to small entities as
well as other affected entities. The EPA is also including additional
remote areas of Alaska in the regulatory flexibility provisions already
in the rule for remote areas of Alaska, which further reduces the
burden of the existing rule on small entities and other affected
entities. We have, therefore, concluded that this action will relieve
regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state,
local, or tribal governments or the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects 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.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on
tribal governments, on the relationship between the federal government
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. This final rule would impose compliance costs
primarily on engine manufacturers, depending on the extent to which
they take advantage of the flexibilities offered. The final amendments
to expand the areas that are considered remote areas of Alaska would
reduce the compliance costs for owners and operators of stationary
engines in those areas. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental
health risk or safety risk.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The
provisions being finalized in this action are designed to eliminate
risks to human life and are expected to be used rarely, if at all, and
will only affect emissions for a very short period. Other changes the
EPA is finalizing have minimal effect on emissions.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: June 28, 2016.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
60 of the Code of the Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 60--STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES

0
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart IIII--Standards of Performance for Stationary Compression
Ignition Internal Combustion Engines

0
2. Amend Sec.  60.4201 by revising paragraph (f)(1) and adding
paragraph (h) to read as follows:

Sec.  60.4201  What emission standards must I meet for non-emergency
engines if I am a stationary CI internal combustion engine
manufacturer?

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) Remote areas of Alaska; and
* * * * *
    (h) Stationary CI ICE certified to the standards in 40 CFR part
1039 and equipped with auxiliary emission control devices (AECDs) as
specified in 40 CFR 1039.665 must meet the Tier 1 certification
emission standards for new nonroad CI engines in 40 CFR 89.112 while
the AECD is activated during a qualified emergency situation. A
qualified emergency situation is defined in 40 CFR 1039.665. When the
qualified emergency situation has ended and the AECD is deactivated,
the engine must resume meeting the otherwise applicable emission
standard specified in this section.

0
3. Amend Sec.  60.4202 by revising paragraph (g)(1) to read as follows:

Sec.  60.4202  What emission standards must I meet for emergency
engines if I am a stationary CI internal combustion engine
manufacturer?

* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (1) Remote areas of Alaska; and
* * * * *

0
4. Amend Sec.  60.4204 by adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:

Sec.  60.4204  What emission standards must I meet for non-emergency
engines if I am an owner or operator of a stationary CI internal
combustion engine?

* * * * *
    (f) Owners and operators of stationary CI ICE certified to the
standards in 40 CFR part 1039 and equipped with AECDs as specified in
40 CFR 1039.665 must meet the Tier 1 certification emission standards
for new nonroad CI engines in 40 CFR 89.112 while the AECD is activated
during a qualified emergency situation. A qualified emergency situation
is defined in 40 CFR 1039.665. When the qualified emergency situation
has ended and the AECD is deactivated, the engine must resume meeting
the otherwise applicable emission standard specified in this section.

0
5. Amend Sec.  60.4210 by adding paragraph (j) to read as follows:

Sec.  60.4210  What are my compliance requirements if I am a stationary
CI internal combustion engine manufacturer?

* * * * *
    (j) Stationary CI ICE manufacturers may equip their stationary CI
internal combustion engines certified to the emission standards in 40
CFR part 1039 with AECDs for qualified emergency situations according
to the requirements of 40 CFR 1039.665. Manufacturers of stationary CI
ICE equipped with AECDs as allowed by 40 CFR 1039.665 must meet all of
the requirements in 40 CFR 1039.665 that apply to manufacturers.
Manufacturers must document that the engine complies with the Tier 1
standard in 40 CFR 89.112 when the AECD is activated. Manufacturers
must provide any relevant testing, engineering analysis, or other
information in sufficient detail to support such statement when
applying for certification (including amending an existing certificate)
of an engine equipped with an AECD as allowed by 40 CFR 1039.665.

0
6. Amend Sec.  60.4211 by adding paragraph (h) to read as follows:

Sec.  60.4211  What are my compliance requirements if I am an owner or
operator of a stationary CI internal combustion engine?

* * * * *
    (h) The requirements for operators and prohibited acts specified in
40 CFR 1039.665 apply to owners or operators of stationary CI ICE
equipped with AECDs for qualified emergency situations as allowed by 40
CFR 1039.665.

0
7. Amend Sec.  60.4214 by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:

Sec.  60.4214  What are my notification, reporting, and recordkeeping
requirements if I am an owner or operator of a stationary CI internal
combustion engine?

* * * * *
    (e) Owners or operators of stationary CI ICE equipped with AECDs
pursuant to the requirements of 40 CFR 1039.665 must report the use of
AECDs as required by 40 CFR 1039.665(e).

0
8. Amend Sec.  60.4216 by revising paragraphs (b) through (d) and (f)
to read as follows:

Sec.  60.4216  What requirements must I meet for engines used in
Alaska?

* * * * *
    (b) Except as indicated in paragraph (c) of this section,
manufacturers, owners and operators of stationary CI ICE with a
displacement of less than 10 liters per cylinder located in remote
areas of Alaska may meet the requirements of this subpart by
manufacturing and installing engines meeting the requirements of 40 CFR
parts 94 or 1042, as appropriate, rather than the otherwise applicable
requirements of 40 CFR parts 89 and 1039, as indicated in Sec. Sec.
60.4201(f) and 60.4202(g).
    (c) Manufacturers, owners and operators of stationary CI ICE that
are located in remote areas of Alaska may choose to meet the applicable
emission standards for emergency engines in Sec. Sec.  60.4202 and
60.4205, and not those for non-emergency engines in Sec. Sec.  60.4201
and Sec.  60.4204, except that for 2014 model year and later non-
emergency CI ICE, the owner or operator of any such engine that was not
certified as meeting Tier 4 PM standards, must meet the applicable
requirements for PM in Sec. Sec.  60.4201 and 60.4204 or install a PM
emission control device that achieves PM emission reductions of 85
percent, or 60 percent for engines with a displacement of greater than
or equal to 30 liters per cylinder, compared to engine-out emissions.
    (d) The provisions of Sec.  60.4207 do not apply to owners and
operators of pre-2014 model year stationary CI ICE subject to this
subpart that are located in remote areas of Alaska.
* * * * *
    (f) The provisions of this section and Sec.  60.4207 do not prevent
owners and operators of stationary CI ICE subject to this subpart that
are located in remote areas of Alaska from using fuels mixed with used
lubricating oil, in volumes of up to 1.75 percent of the total fuel.
The sulfur content of the used lubricating oil must be less than 200
parts per million. The used lubricating oil must meet the on-
specification levels and properties for used oil in 40 CFR 279.11.

0
9. Amend Sec.  60.4219 by adding in alphabetical order the definitions
for ``Alaska Railbelt Grid'' and ``Remote areas of Alaska'' to read as
follows:

Sec.  60.4219  What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * *
    Alaska Railbelt Grid means the service areas of the six regulated
public utilities that extend from Fairbanks to Anchorage and the Kenai
Peninsula. These utilities are Golden Valley Electric Association;
Chugach Electric Association; Matanuska Electric Association; Homer
Electric Association; Anchorage Municipal Light & Power; and the City
of Seward Electric System.
* * * * *
    Remote areas of Alaska means areas of Alaska that meet either
paragraph (1) or (2) of this definition.

    (1) Areas of Alaska that are not accessible by the Federal Aid
Highway System (FAHS).
    (2) Areas of Alaska that meet all of the following criteria:
    (i) The only connection to the FAHS is through the Alaska Marine
Highway System, or the stationary CI ICE operation is within an
isolated grid in Alaska that is not connected to the statewide
electrical grid referred to as the Alaska Railbelt Grid.
    (ii) At least 10 percent of the power generated by the stationary
CI ICE on an annual basis is used for residential purposes.
    (iii) The generating capacity of the source is less than 12
megawatts, or the stationary CI ICE is used exclusively for backup
power for renewable energy.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-16045 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 105 (Friday, June 2, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25604-25605]
[FR Doc No: 2017-11464]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9033-5]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or http://www.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs)
Filed 05/22/2017 Through 05/26/2017
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

EIS No. 20170091, Draft, USAF, OH, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base
Housing Program, Comment Period Ends: 07/17/2017, Contact: Mike
Ackerman<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20170092, Draft, USACE, USFWS, CA, South Sacramento Habitat
Conservation Plan, Comment Period Ends: 09/05/2017, Contact: John
Robles<PHONE_NUMBER> (USFWS), Michael Jewell<PHONE_NUMBER> (USACE)

    The U.S. Department of the Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service and
U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers are joint lead agencies on this project.

EIS No. 20170093, Draft Supplement, FTA, CA, Westside Purple Line
Extension, Comment Period Ends: 07/17/2017, Contact: Ray Tellis 213-
202-3950

Amended Notices

EIS No. 20170031, Draft, USFS, ID, Big Creek Hot Springs Geothermal
Leasing, Comment Period Ends: 07/03/2017, Contact: Julie Hopkins 208-
756-5279.
    Revision to FR Notice Published 03/17/2017; Reopening the Comment
Period to End 07/03/2017.

    Dated: May 30, 2017.
Dawn Roberts,
Management Analyst, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal
Activities.
[FR Doc. 2017-11464 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


                EPA Meeting with Petroleum Equipment Institute
                               February 1, 2012

Attendees:
EPA OUST:
Liz McDermott, Linda Gerber, Paul Miller, Tim Roberts, Erin Knighton, Cho Yi Kwan, Dave Hamnett, Tim Smith

Petroleum Equipment Institute (PEI):
Robert Renkes

At this meeting EPA and the PEI discussed the proposed changes to the UST regulations.  The discussion focused on the proposed walk through inspections, industry standards and codes of practice and flow restrictors.


[Federal Register: February 22, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 36)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 9670-9672]
[DOCID:fr22fe08-7]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-0264; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-212-AD;
Amendment 39-15378; AD 2008-04-06]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 707 Airplanes and Model
720 and 720B Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Boeing Model 707 airplanes and Model 720 and 720B series airplanes.
This AD requires repetitive inspections for any cracking of or damage
to the left side and right side flight deck No. 2, No. 4, and No. 5
windows, as necessary, and corrective actions if necessary. This AD
results from reports of in-flight departure and separation of the
flight deck windows. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct
cracking in the vinyl interlayer or damage to the structural inner
glass panes of the flight deck No. 2, No. 4, and No. 5 windows, which
could result in loss of a window and rapid loss of cabin pressure. Loss
of cabin pressure could cause crew communication difficulties or crew
incapacitation.

DATES: This AD is effective March 28, 2008.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 28,
2008.

ADDRESSES: Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,
Washington 98124-2207.

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Berhane Alazar, Aerospace Engineer,

Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
917-6577; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that would apply to
all Boeing Model 707 airplanes and Model 720 and 720B series airplanes.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on December 3, 2007 (72
FR 67866). That NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections for any
cracking of or damage to the left side and right side flight deck No.
2, No. 4, and No. 5 windows, as necessary, and corrective actions if
necessary.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We considered the single comment received. Boeing supports the
NPRM.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and
determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the
AD as proposed.

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 238 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. This AD affects about 83 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The required actions take about 2 work hours per airplane, at an
average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the
estimated cost of the AD for U.S. operators is $13,280, or $160 per
airplane, per inspection cycle.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), 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.
    You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of
compliance in the AD Docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2008-04-06 Boeing: Amendment 39-15378. Docket No. FAA-2007-0264;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-212-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective March 28,
2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all Boeing Model 707-100 long body, -200,
-100B long body, and -100B short body series airplanes; Model 707-
300, -300B, -300C, and -400 series airplanes; and Model 720 and 720B
series airplanes, certificated in any category.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from reports of in-flight departure and
separation of the flight deck windows. We are issuing this AD to
detect and correct cracking in the vinyl interlayer or damage to the
structural inner glass panes of the flight deck No. 2, No. 4, and
No. 5 windows, which could result in loss of a window and rapid loss
of cabin pressure. Loss of cabin pressure could cause crew
communication difficulties or crew incapacitation.

Compliance

    (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Repetitive Inspections and Replacement

    (f) At the applicable times specified in Tables 1, 2, and 3 of
paragraph 1.E. of Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3526, dated
June 4, 2007, except as provided by paragraph (g) of this AD: Do the
internal and external detailed inspections for any cracking of or
damage to the left side and right side flight deck No. 2, No. 4, and
No. 5 windows, as applicable, and do the applicable corrective
actions before further flight, by accomplishing all of the
applicable actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3526, dated June 4, 2007. Repeat
the inspections thereafter at the applicable interval specified in
paragraph 1.E. of Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3526, dated
June 4, 2007.

Exception to Compliance Times

    (g) Where Tables 1, 2, and 3 of paragraph 1.E. of Boeing 707
Alert Service Bulletin A3526, dated June 4, 2007, specify counting
the compliance time from ``* * * the date on this service
bulletin,'' this AD requires counting the compliance time from the
effective date of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (h)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in
accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an
Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes
Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized
by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair
method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis
of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this
AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) You must use Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3526, dated
June 4, 2007, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD
specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington
98124-2207.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information
incorporated by reference at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information
on the availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_
regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 11, 2008.
Stephen P. Boyd,
Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E8-2994 Filed 2-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


The public reporting burden for this collection of information is
estimated to average 15 minutes per response.  Send comments on the
Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden
estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden,
including through the use of automated collection techniques to the
Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460.
Include the OMB control number in any correspondence.  Do not send the
completed form to this address.

EPA Form 5900-20

OMB Control No. 2060-0347


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 219 (Tuesday, November 13, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56318-56319]
[FR Doc No: 2018-24649]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0022; FRL-9983-64-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Acid Rain Program (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), Acid Rain Program (EPA ICR No.
1633.17, OMB Control No. 2060-0258) to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is
currently approved through November 30, 2018. Public comments were
previously requested via the Federal Register on June 6, 2018 during a
60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for
public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below,
including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An agency may
not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before December 13,
2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2009-0022, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by email to [email protected], or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email
to [email protected]. Address comments to OMB Desk Officer
for EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen VanSickle, Clean Air Markets
Division, Office of Air and Radiation, (6204M), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The Acid Rain Program was established under Title IV of
the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments to address acid deposition by
reducing emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen
oxides (NOX). This ICR addresses the

burden and costs associated with developing and modifying permits,
complying with NOX permitting requirements, monitoring
emissions, transferring allowances, participating in the annual
allowance auctions, and participating in the program as an opt-in
source.
    Form Numbers: Agent Notice of Delegation #5900-172; Certificate of
Representation #7610-1; General Account Form #7610-5; Allowance
Transfer Form #7610-6; Retired Unit Exemption #7610-20; Allowance
Deduction #7620-4; Acid Rain Permit Application #7610-16; Acid Rain
NOX Compliance Plan #7610-28; Acid Rain NOX
Averaging Plan #7610-29; New Unit Exemption #7610-19; Opt-In Permit
Application #7610-26; Opt-In Utilization Report #7620-9; Letter of
Credit #7610-7A; EPA Allowance Auctions--Additional Information for
Certified Checks or Wire Transfers #7610-7; SO2 Allowance
Offer Form #7610-8; Thermal Energy Plan #7610-27; Notification For
Distribution of Proceeds From EPA Auctions #7610-11; Opt-In Reduction
from Improved Efficiency Confirmation Report #7620-8; Thermal Energy
Compliance Report #7620-10.
    Respondents/affected entities: Electricity generating plants,
industrial sources, and other persons.
    Respondents' obligation to respond: Voluntary and mandatory (Clean
Air Act sections 403, 407, 408, 410, 412, and 416).
    Estimated number of respondents: 1,234 (total); includes 1,184
sources and 50 non-source entities participating in allowance trading
activities.
    Frequency of response: On occasion, quarterly, and annually.
    Total estimated burden: 1,873,880 hours (per year). Burden is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $276,159,952 (per year), includes
$139,339,770 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in Estimates: There is a decrease of 249,525 hours in the
total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. The decrease is principally due to source retirements,
which have both reduced the estimated overall number of affected
sources and shifted the estimated mix of monitoring methodologies used.
The other factors contributing to the decrease in burden are reductions
in the estimated numbers of allowance transfer and deduction
submissions, expected opt-in sources, and allowance auction bids.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2018-24649 Filed 11-9-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 92 (Tuesday, May 13, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27175-27176]
[FR Doc No: 2014-10848]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0591; Airspace Docket No. 13-AGL-21]

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Amery, WI

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class E airspace at Amery, WI.
Decommissioning of the Ameron non-directional radio beacon (NDB) at
Amery Municipal Airport has made airspace reconfiguration necessary for
standard instrument approach procedures and for the safety and
management of Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) operations at the airport.

DATES: Effective date: 0901 UTC, July 24, 2014. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR Part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone 817-321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On March 3, 2014, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Class E airspace for the
Amery, WI, area, modifying controlled airspace at Amery Municipal
Airport (79 FR 11730) Docket No. FAA-2013-0591. Interested parties were
invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written
comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Class E
airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order
7400.9X dated August 7, 2013, and effective September 15, 2013, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR Part 71.1. The Class E airspace
designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
Part 71 by amending Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface for standard instrument approach procedures at Amery
Municipal Airport, Amery, WI. Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due
to the decommissioning of the Ameron NDB and the cancellation of the
NDB approach, thereby removing the 7.4-mile segment north extending
from the 6.4-mile radius of the airport. Controlled airspace is
necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations at the
airport.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not

a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a
regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since
this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and
air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends controlled airspace at Amery Municipal Airport, Amery, WI.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR Part 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9X, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 7, 2013, and effective September 15,
2013, is amended as follows:

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

* * * * *

AGL WI E5 Amery, WI [Amended]

Amery Municipal Airport, WI
    (Lat. 45[deg]16'52'' N., long. 92[deg]22'31'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of Amery Municipal Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 5, 2014.
Kent M. Wheeler,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2014-10848 Filed 5-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: February 8, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 25)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 6095]
[DOCID:fr08fe10-4]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0885; Airspace Docket No. 09-ASO-17]

Revision of Area Navigation (RNAV) Route Q-108; Florida

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule, correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action corrects an error in the legal description for
RNAV route Q-108 that was published in the Federal Register on Friday,
December 11, 2009, Airspace Docket No. 09-ASO-17.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, February 11, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Airspace and Rules
Group, Office of System Operations Airspace and AIM, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On December 11, 2009, a final rule was published in the Federal
Register (74 FR 65687), Airspace Docket No. 09-ASO-17. This rule
revised Area Navigation (RNAV) Route Q-108 in northern Florida by
realigning the route structure. In the legal description, the function
of the four points that make up the route as a ``waypoint'' (WP) or
``fix'' was inadvertently omitted. This correction adds ``WP'' to
GADAY, IZZEY and FRNKS, and ``fix'' to HKUNA. Area Navigation Q Routes
are published in paragraph 2006 of FAA Order 7400.9T signed August 27,
2009, and effective September 15, 2009, which is incorporated by
reference in 14 CFR 71.1.

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the legal
description for RNAV Route Q-108, as published in the Federal Register
December 11, 2009 (74 FR 65687), page 65688, beginning in column 1, is
corrected as follows:

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

* * * * *

Q-108 GADAY to HKUNA [Corrected]

0
By adding `WP' after GADAY, IZZEY, and FRNKS; and adding `fix' after
HKUNA.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 27, 2010.
Kelly Neubecker,
Acting Manager, Airspace and Rules Group.
[FR Doc. 2010-2467 Filed 2-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER

EPA Registration Division contact:

Ingredion Incorporated

[Insert petition number]

	EPA has received a pesticide petition ([insert petition number]) from Ingredion Incorporated, 5 Westbrook Corporate Center, Westchester, IL 60154, United States requesting, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180

  to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for

      Dextrin, hydrogen 1-octenylbutanedioate (CASRN: 68070-94-0) in or on raw agricultural commodities pre-harvest as a seed treatment (40 CFR 180.920).  EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

	1. Plant metabolism. NA Remove

	2. Analytical method. NA Remove

	3. Magnitude of residues. NA Remove

B. Toxicological Profile

The toxicity data presented in this petition was generated using Dry-Flo(R) (Starch, 1-octenylbutanedioate, aluminum salt (CASRN: 9087-61-0)).  Starch, 1-octenylbutanedioate, aluminum salt is the aluminum salt of dextrin, hydrogen 1-octenylbutanedioate.  The toxicity of dextrin, hydrogen 1-octenylbutanedioate is expected to be lower than that of the aluminum salt.

 Acute toxicity.                   Acute Eye Irritation Study                  The test substance, Dry-Flo(R) (Starch, 1-octenylbutanedioate, aluminum salt (CASRN: 9087-61-0)), batch # ECR-252-B was tested May 1984 for potential eye irritancy by Environmental Safety Laboratory, Unilever Research, Colworth House, Sharnbrook, Bedford, England.  The test method used was "Method of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (Primary Eye Irritation method), August, 1982".                   The test substance powder (0.1 mL volume of compacted powder) was added in a single dose to one eye in 6 rabbits. The degree of irritation was assessed and scored at the following intervals: 1 hour, 24 hours, 48 hours, and 72 hours. The detailed results can be found in the report. The study concluded that 0.1 mL of this powder caused very slight transient irritation to the conjunctivae of the rabbit eye. Under the conditions of the study, the rabbit's cornea is unaffected by this product. Dry-Flo (R) (Starch, 1-octenylbutanedioate, aluminum salt (CASRN: 9087-61-0)) is therefore unlikely to be an eye irritant hazard in humans.             	2. Genotoxicty. NA Remove

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. NA Remove

	4. Subchronic toxicity

	Subchronic Toxicity Study              In a study by Buttolph and Newberne (1980), Fischer 344 rats were fed diets containing 0%, 6%, 12%, or 30% (0, 3, 6, or 15g/kg/day) OS-modified food starch for 30 or 90 days after weaning. The test rats were chosen from the second litters of dams that had been fed the same diets throughout gestation and lactation. The rats were sacrificed at the study conclusion (after 30 or 90 days) and autopsied. No treatment-related effects were observed at any dose level compared to the control diet.                  Mahadevan et al. (2014) added OSA-modified starch to the diets of 24 male and 24 female Domestic Yorkshire Crossbred Swine piglets at concentrations of 2, 4, and 20 g/L (1, 2, and 10g/kg/day) for 3 weeks. All animals were observed twice daily, and a detailed clinical examination was performed twice weekly. Gross necropsies were performed on all animals at termination on Study Day 21. There were no test article-related effects of any diet containing OSA-modified starch on piglet growth and development (clinical observations, body weight, feed consumption), or clinical pathology parameters (hematology, clinical chemistry, coagulation, urinalysis). In addition, there were no adverse effects at terminal necropsy (macro- and microscopic pathology evaluations).               Given that no adverse effects were observed in rats or piglets fed high doses of OS- and OSA- modified starches, Dextrin, hydrogen 1-octenylbutanedioate is unlikely to pose a risk of subchronic toxicity to humans.

	5. Chronic toxicity. NA Remove

	6. Animal metabolism. NA Remove

	7. Metabolite toxicology. NA Remove

	8. Endocrine disruption. NA Remove

C. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure. NA Remove

	i. Food. NA Remove

	ii. Drinking water. NA Remove

	2. Non-dietary exposure. NA Remove

D. Cumulative Effects

	NA Remove

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population. NA Remove

 Infants and children. NA Remove           F. International Tolerances

	NA Remove


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 162 (Wednesday, August 23, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57361-57363]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18110]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2022-0682; FRL-10126-02-R9]

Air Plan Approval; California; San Diego County Air Pollution
Control District; Oxides of Nitrogen

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve a revision to the San Diego County Air Pollution
Control District (SDCAPCD) portion of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). The California Air Resources Board (CARB)
submitted the rule, on behalf of SDCAPCD, to the EPA as part of the
requirement to implement major source reasonable available control
technology (RACT) for emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOX)
for the San Diego County ozone nonattainment area. This revision
concerns NOX emissions from boilers, process heaters, and
steam generators. We are approving a local rule to regulate these
emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the ``Act'').

DATES: This rule is effective September 22, 2023.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2022-0682. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov, or please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section for additional availability information. If you need assistance
in a language other than English or if you are a person with a
disability who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you,
please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: La Kenya Evans-Hopper, EPA Region IX,
75 Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or
by email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action

    On January 30, 2023 (88 FR 5833), the EPA proposed to approve the
following rule into the California SIP.

                                             Table 1--Submitted Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Local agency                Rule No.              Rule title               Adopted        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SDCAPCD...........................          69.2.2  Medium Boilers, Process             09/09/21        03/09/22
                                                     Heaters, and Steam
                                                     Generators.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We proposed to approve this rule because we determined that it
complies with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action
contains more information on the rule and our evaluation.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this period, we received three comments, two of which were
submitted by the same commenter. The full text of all three comments is
available in the docket for this rulemaking. The comments were broadly
supportive of SIPs, in the general sense, as a necessary tool to

address air pollution, particularly NOX emissions, although
they were not specific to this rulemaking action. After stating the
need for the EPA to approve and enforce SIPs to ensure areas meet the
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), one comment contained a
general statement that SIPs could be argued to be overly burdensome
because of their economic impacts on businesses and consumers. After
reviewing this comment, the EPA has determined that the comment does
not raise issues germane to our proposed finding that SDCAPCD Rule
69.2.2 satisfies the requirements of CAA sections 110 and part D, which
focuses the rule evaluation on enforceability, stringency, and
interference with CAA requirements. Therefore, we have determined that
this comment does not necessitate a response, and the EPA will not
provide a specific response to the comment in this document.

III. EPA Action

    No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the rule
as described in our proposed action that this rule meets CAA
requirements and is consistent with relevant guidance regarding
enforceability, RACT, and SIP revisions. Therefore, as authorized in
section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is fully approving this rule into
the California SIP.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of San Diego
County Air Pollution Control District, Rule 69.2.2, ``Medium Boilers,
Process Heaters, and Steam Generators,'' adopted on September 9, 2021,
which regulates NOX emissions from boilers, process heaters,
and steam generators with a heat input rating greater than 2 million
British thermal unit (Btu) per hour to less than 5 million Btu per hour
that are manufactured, sold, offered for sale or distributed, or
installed for use within San Diego County. The EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these documents available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);
     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 subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
     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.
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).
    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
The EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' The EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean
that ``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.''
    The State did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as
part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing
regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. The EPA
did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action.
Due to the nature of the action being taken here, this action is
expected to have a neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the
affected area. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this
action, and there is no information in the record inconsistent with the
stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people
of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.
    This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and the EPA
will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. 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 October 23, 2023. 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, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: August 17, 2023.
Cheree Peterson,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency amends part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(604) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (604) The following regulations were submitted on March 9, 2022, by
the Governor's designee as an attachment to a letter dated March 9,
2022.
    (i) Incorporation by reference. (A) San Diego County Air Pollution
Control District.
    (1) Rule 69.2.2, ``Medium Boilers, Process Heaters, and Steam
Generators,'' adopted on September 9, 2021.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (B) [Reserved]
    (ii) [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 2023-18110 Filed 8-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P