[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 212 (Friday, November 3, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 75483-75484]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24024]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2023-1119; Airspace Docket No. 22-AAL-76]
RIN 2120-AA66

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Tununak Airport, Tununak, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface at Tununak Airport, Tununak, AK, in support
of the airport's transition from visual flight rules (VFR) to
instrument flight rules (IFR) operations.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, July 11, 2024. 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 JO 7400.11,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and publication of
conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), all
comments received, this final rule, and all background material may be
viewed online at www.regulations.gov using the FAA Docket number.
Electronic retrieval help and guidelines are available on the website.
It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11H, and subsequent amendments can be viewed
online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. You may also contact
the Rules and Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Drasin, Federal Aviation
Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200
S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code (U.S.C.). Subtitle I,
Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle
VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the
agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority
described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that
section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the
use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it establishes Class E airspace to support IFR operations
at Tununak Airport, Tununak, AK.

History

    The FAA published an NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2023-1119 in the
Federal Register (88 FR 37484; June 8, 2023), proposing to establish
Class E airspace at Tununak Airport, AK. Interested parties were
invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written
comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Incorporation by Reference

    The Class E5 airspace designation is published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order JO 7400.11, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1
on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that
order, FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective
September 15, 2023. FAA Order JO 7400.11H is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. These amendments will
be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11H lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas,
air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The Rule

    This action amends 14 CFR part 71 to establish Class E airspace at
Tununak Airport, Tununak, AK, in support of the airport's transition
from VFR to IFR operations.
    The Class E airspace will extend upward from 700 feet above the
surface and extends 7.4 miles from the airport reference point to both
the north and south with a 3.4-mile western extension. This
configuration is designed to fully contain arriving IFR operations
below 1,500 feet above the surface on the Area Navigation (RNAV) Global
Positioning System (GPS) RWY 34 approach, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 16 approach,
and the RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 16 approach, as well as departing IFR
operations until they reach 1,200 feet above the surface on the EZEPU
ONE (OBSTACLE) (RNAV) departure.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    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.
It, therefore: (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order (E.O.) 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.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for a categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,
paragraph 5-6.5.a. 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.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the FAA 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(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p.389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 11,
2023, and effective September 15, 2023, is amended as follows:

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

* * * * *

AAL AK E5 Tununak, AK [New]

Tununak Airport, AK
    (Lat. 60[deg]34'10'' N, long. 165[deg]14'47'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 3.4-mile radius of the airport between the 258[deg] bearing
clockwise to the 306[deg] bearing, and within 2.5 miles east and 2.8
miles west of the 168[deg] bearing extending from the airport to 7.4
miles south, and within 1.9 miles east and 2.3 miles west of the
348[deg] bearing extending from the airport to 7.4 miles north.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October, 25, 2023.
B.G. Chew,
Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2023-24024 Filed 11-2-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Notes from discussion with Phil Oakes and Jim Narva, International Association of Fire Marshalls, concerning Contingency Planning and Emergency Response Regulations, July 2012.
Also results of discussion with Mark Howard  -  Arizona Emergency Response
In reciting their experience and positions, it's clear they all have expertise in this area.
Phil thought the subpart C and D rules were vague and generic.
265.37- Rule fails to mention the frequency by which the generator is supposed to reach out to emergency responders. Phil (and Mark) both emphasized the importance and need to reach out and establish relationships and face-to-face contact with emergency responders. See reg text below.
 (a) The owner or operator must attempt to make the following arrangements, as appropriate for the type of waste handled at his facility and the potential need for the services of these organizations:
Jessica pointed out that there is no requirement in 265.37 to familiarize emergency responders with the quantities of HW generated. See below.
(a)(1) Arrangements to familiarize police, fire departments, and emergency response teams with the layout of the facility, properties of hazardous waste handled at the facility and associated hazards, places where facility personnel would normally be working, entrances to roads inside the facility, and possible evacuation routes;
265.52  -  Size of contingency plan determines level of use with fire department. Both Phil and Mark mentioned that the fire chief will review the contingency plan, with underlings as needed. Both mentioned the need for an executive summary or Cliff Notes that fire department could use to address the first few minutes of the incident. Once nature and extent of emergency was determined, then emergency responders could revert back to detailed contingency plan.
Note: I put in a request to both Jim and Phil to see whether they could send us a template or example of what they were talking about.
Both Phil and Mark mentioned the need to exercise their contingency plan. However, as we all know, incorporating that into a regulatory requirement would be very expensive and a logistical nightmare.
 Phil mentioned the need to have a hard copy of the contingency plan always available. Despite all the technology available to everyone, there are still many emergency responders, particularly in rural areas, where a computer is not available.
If computers were available, emergency or first responders would still need a slim version of contingency plan to quickly review and plan course of action before actually responding.
Phil also mentioned that hospitals may need copies, particularly if they need to prepare for unique situations in responding. He used the example of a local petroleum refinery that would need a specific type of medication should a fire or accident occur.
Besides hospitals and fire departments, the local planning emergency commissions would also need copies to prepare for area wide emergency response situations.
 I raised the issue of the emergency responder having to "walk on water" to do his/her job effectively. Phil mentioned that the operations manager would most likely be that person. He also mentioned that he thought the operations manager should familiarize himself with local response capabilities.
I mentioned the discussion I had with Mark Arnold who thought facilities subject to EPCRA reporting should also provide hazardous waste information, particularly if they were using Extremely Hazardous Substances (EHS). I have an email into Craig Mattihisen in the Office of emergency Management to follow-up on this idea.
Kristin brought up the issue of Hazardous Waste Label and how we could improve upon the existing requirement.
Discussion got into the use of DOT placarding, concerns about redundancy with DOT requirements, whether the ERG book was better than the NIOSH Book in terms of chemical names, whether a Life Safety Code would help, and the role of local enforcement in determining what might be an appropriate label. (Could use some help here.)
Phil mentioned that SQGs also need to reach out to local responders and let them know what stuff they have on site. Phil emphasized the need for emergency responders to be aware of the hazards posed as well as generators.
Phil thought that the contingency planning process is already there, facilities and emergency responders just have to apply/test out those plans.


the general conformity budgets included in the 2020 Plan. If the EPA
finalizes this action as proposed, criterion 7 will be satisfied.

I. Other Clean Air Act Requirements Applicable to Severe Ozone
Nonattainment Areas

    In addition to the SIP requirements discussed in Sections III.A--
III.H, of this document, the CAA includes certain other SIP
requirements applicable to Severe ozone nonattainment areas, such as
the San Diego County area. In Section III.I., we identify these other
requirements and evaluate the compliance by the State and District with
respect to them for the San Diego County area.
1. Enhanced Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Programs
    Section 182(b)(4) of the CAA requires states with ozone
nonattainment areas classified under subpart 2 as Moderate to submit
SIP revisions that provide for the implementation of a ``Basic''
vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program in those areas.
Section 182(c)(3) of the CAA requires states with ozone nonattainment
areas classified under subpart 2 as Serious or above to submit SIP
revisions that provide for the implementation of an ``Enhanced'' I/M
program in certain urbanized portions of those areas.\204\ As a Severe
ozone nonattainment area for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS, the State
of California must implement an Enhanced I/M program in the urbanized
portions of the San Diego County area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \204\ The CAA I/M SIP requirements apply to Moderate and above
nonattainment areas for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS pursuant to 40
CFR 51.1102 (for the 2008 ozone NAAQS) and 40 CFR 51.1302 (for the
2015 ozone NAAQS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a general matter, Basic and Enhanced I/M programs both achieve
their objective by identifying vehicles that have high emissions as a
result of one or more malfunctions and requiring them to be repaired.
An Enhanced I/M program covers more of the vehicles in operation,
employs inspection methods that are better at finding high emitting
vehicles, and has additional features to better assure that all
vehicles are tested properly and effectively repaired. The EPA has
established specific requirements for Basic and Enhanced I/M programs
in 40 CFR part 51, subpart S (``The EPA's I/M regulation''). The EPA's
I/M regulation establishes minimum performance standards for Basic and
Enhanced I/M programs as well as requirements for certain elements of
the programs, including, among other elements, test frequency, vehicle
coverage, test procedures and standards, stations and inspectors, and
data collection, analysis and reporting.\205\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \205\ 40 CFR part 51, subpart S, sections 350-373.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under 40 CFR 51.351(i), areas required to implement an Enhanced I/M
program because of being designated and classified under the 8-hour
ozone standard must meet or exceed the VOC and NOX emissions
reductions (i.e., performance standard) achieved by the EPA's model
program for Enhanced I/M. An I/M performance standard is a collection
of program design elements that defines a benchmark program to which a
state's proposed program is compared in terms of its potential to
reduce emissions of the ozone precursors, VOC and NOX. The
performance standard is expressed as emission levels in area-wide
average grams per mile (grams/mile), achieved from on-road motor
vehicles as a result of a specified model I/M program design. The
emissions levels achieved by the state's program design must be
calculated using the most current version of the EPA mobile source
emissions factor model and must meet or exceed the emissions reductions
achieved by the performance standard program both in operation and for
SIP approval. The current version of the EPA mobile source emissions
factor model at the time of CARB's evaluation of the California I/M
program for compliance with 40 CFR 51.351(i) was the Motor Vehicle
Emission Simulator model, version 3 (MOVES3).\206\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \206\ 86 FR 1106 (January 7, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For subject ozone nonattainment areas, the performance standard
must be met for both VOC and NOX unless a NOX
waiver has been approved for the area. Enhanced I/M program areas must
be shown to obtain the same or lower emissions levels as the model
program described in section 51.351(i) to within +/-0.02 grams/mile and
must demonstrate through modeling the ability to maintain this level of

emissions reduction (or better) through their attainment deadline for
the applicable NAAQS. See 40 CFR 51.351(i)(13).
    The California Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR) implements the I/M
program in California. BAR was required to implement an Enhanced I/M
program in the urbanized portions of San Diego County due to the
County's classification as a Serious nonattainment area for the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS.\207\ In 1997, the EPA issued an interim approval of the
program as meeting the Enhanced I/M requirements for the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS in California.\208\ Currently, BAR implements an Enhanced I/M
program in the urbanized areas of the County, a Basic I/M program in
certain parts of central San Diego County, and a change of ownership I/
M program in the eastern half of the County.\209\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \207\ In 1995, the EPA corrected the design value for San Diego
County used to establish San Diego County's original nonattainment
classification for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and changed the
classification from Severe to Serious. 60 FR 3771 (January 19,
1995).
    \208\ 62 FR 1150 (January 8, 1997); see also 74 FR 41818, at
41820 (August 19, 2009).
    \209\ California Bureau of Automotive Repair, Smog Check
Reference Guide, revised August 2012, appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA's most recent approval of California's I/M program occurred
in 2010, and in that action, the EPA approved the program as meeting
the applicable I/M requirements for the various nonattainment areas in
the State.\210\ However, at that time, because San Diego County had
been redesignated to attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and had not
yet been classified for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, San Diego County was no
longer subject to the Enhanced I/M requirement, and the EPA did not
review the program as it applies to San Diego County for compliance
with Enhanced I/M program requirements.\211\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \210\ 75 FR 38023 (July 1, 2010).
    \211\ The EPA did not classify San Diego County for the 1997
ozone NAAQS until 2012, and, in that rulemaking, classified San
Diego County as ``Subpart 2/Moderate.'' 77 FR 28424 (May 14, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The statutory and regulatory foundation for the approved California
I/M program is set forth in California Health & Safety Code (CH&SC),
Division 26, Part 5, Chapter 5 (Motor Vehicle Inspection Program),
Articles 1 through 9 and in Title 16 of the California Code of
Regulations (16 CCR), Division 33, Chapter 1, Article 5.5 (Motor
Vehicle Inspection Program).\212\ Additional I/M-related statutory and
regulatory provisions in the California SIP include CH&SC section
39032.5; California Business and Professions Code sections 9886 and
9886.1-9886.4; California Vehicle Code sections 4000.1, 4000.2, 4000.3
and 4000.6; and 16 CCR sections 3303.1, 3303.2, 3392.1-3392.6 and
3394.1-3394.6.\213\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \212\ 75 FR 38023, 38025-38026 (July 1, 2010).
    \213\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the 2020 San Diego County Ozone SIP, the District reviewed the
existing I/M program as implemented in the San Diego County area and
concluded, in light of the EPA's approval of the program with respect
to the 1-hour and 1997 ozone NAAQS, that the area met all applicable I/
M requirements for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS.\214\ For this
proposed action, we reviewed the existing I/M program and confirmed
that the State implements and enforces an Enhanced I/M program in the
urbanized areas of San Diego County as required in Severe ozone
nonattainment areas.\215\ We also note that, since the EPA's most
recent approval of the California I/M program in 2010, the State has
taken steps to improve the effectiveness of the Smog Check program by
requiring the BAR to direct older vehicles to high-performing auto
technicians and test stations for inspection and certification.\216\
Further changes to State law have required the BAR to implement an
updated protocol for testing 2000 and newer model-year vehicles that
collects more complete On-Board Diagnostic (OBD) information than had
been collected under the existing protocol.\217\ The State publishes an
annual report summarizing the performance of the California smog check
program.\218\ The State also publishes periodic reports to the
Legislature on the resources allocated to smog check program
administration and enforcement.\219\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \214\ 2020 Plan, Section 3.1, pp. 33-34 (2008 ozone NAAQS) and
Section 4.1, pp. 53-54 (2015 ozone NAAQS).
    \215\ CH&SC section 44003(a)(1) provides: ``An enhanced motor
vehicle inspection and maintenance program is established in each
urbanized area of the state, any part of which is classified by the
Environmental Protection Agency as a serious, severe, or extreme
nonattainment area for ozone or a moderate or serious nonattainment
area for carbon monoxide with a design value greater than 12.7 ppm,
and in other areas of the state as provided in this chapter.'' In
addition, we used BAR's Smog Check Program Area Lookup tool and a
list of zip codes for San Diego County to confirm the implementation
of the Enhanced I/M program in the urbanized areas of San Diego
County.
    \216\ CARB, Progress Report on Implementation of
PM2.5 State Implementation Plans (SIP) for the South
Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins and Proposed SIP Revisions
(Release Date: March 29, 2011), Table 1.
    \217\ CARB, Revised Proposed 2016 State Strategy for the State
Implementation Plan (March 7, 2017), pp. 52-53.
    \218\ The most recent performance report is BAR's Smog Check
Performance Report 2023, July 1, 2023.
    \219\ The most recent periodic report is BAR's Sunset Review
Report 2022: presented to the Senate Committee on Business,
Professions and Economic Development and the Assembly Committee on
Business and Professions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, in April 2023, in response to the EPA's clarification
of I/M SIP requirements for areas designated nonattainment for the
eight-hour ozone NAAQS,\220\ CARB supplemented the motor vehicle I/M
portion of the 2020 Plan with the submission of the Smog Check
Certification as a revision to the California SIP. CARB's Smog Check
Certification includes Enhanced I/M performance standard evaluations
for the urbanized areas within certain ozone nonattainment areas,
including the San Diego County area, for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS.
For the Smog Check Certification, CARB relied upon the EPA's MOVES3
emissions model and the EPA's most recent guidance for I/M performance
standard modeling \221\ in preparing the Enhanced I/M performance
standard evaluations for the various nonattainment areas addressed in
the Smog Check Certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \220\ See 87 FR 21842, at 21853 (April 13, 2022) (proposed
determinations and reclassifications for Marginal areas for 2015
ozone NAAQS), finalized at 87 FR 60897 (October 7, 2022).
    \221\ EPA, Performance Standard Modeling for New and Existing
Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Programs Using the MOVES
Mobile Source Emissions Model, EPA-420-B-22-034, October 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the San Diego County area, the Smog Check Certification
presents a comparison of July weekday emissions rates (in grams/mile)
for VOC and NOX based on the existing California smog check
program and the Enhanced I/M model program benchmark. The model program
benchmark ultimately includes a 0.02 grams/mile buffer. The analysis
was performed for the years 2017, 2026 and 2032. Table 18 of this
document summarizes the results of the performance standard
modeling.\222\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \222\ Smog Check Certification, Table 8, p. 20.

  Table 18--Summary of July Weekday Emission Rates for San Diego County
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Scenario                        NOX             VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Calendar Year 2017 July Weekday Emission Rates (grams/mile)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA Existing Program.....................          0.2604          0.2292
Enhanced Performance Standard Benchmark.          0.2831          0.2357
Enhanced Performance Standard Benchmark           0.3031          0.2557
 with 0.02 g/mile Buffer................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Calendar Year 2026 July Weekday Emission Rates (grams/mile)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA Existing Program.....................          0.0863          0.1284
Enhanced Performance Standard Benchmark.          0.0902          0.1255
Enhanced Performance Standard Benchmark           0.1102          0.1455
 with 0.02 g/mile Buffer................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Calendar Year 2032 July Weekday Emission Rates (grams/mile)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA Existing Program.....................          0.0374          0.0960
Enhanced Performance Standard Benchmark.          0.0367          0.0921
Enhanced Performance Standard Benchmark           0.0567          0.1121
 with 0.02 g/mile Buffer................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: CARB, Smog Check Certification, Table 8.

    For both VOC and NOX in all analysis years, CARB's
MOVES3 modeling results indicate that the California Enhanced I/M
program meets or exceeds the federal Enhanced I/M performance standard
benchmark program with the 0.02 g/mile buffer in San Diego County.
    We find that CARB used appropriate methods and input data to
perform the I/M performance standard evaluations for San Diego County,
analyzed appropriate years consistent with 40 CFR 351(i)(13), and
included sufficient documentation to support the results. We also find
that, based on our review of the District's and CARB's certification
and the results presented in the Smog Check Certification, the
California smog check program meets the Enhanced I/M program SIP
requirements under CAA section 182(c)(3), 40 CFR 51.1102 and 40 CFR
51.1302 for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS in the San Diego County area.
Therefore, the EPA proposes to approve the I/M portion of the 2020
Plan, as supplemented by the San Diego County portion of the Smog Check
Certification, as revisions to the California SIP.
2. New Source Review Rules
    Section 182(a)(2)(C) of the CAA requires states to submit SIP
revisions containing permit programs for each of their ozone
nonattainment areas. The SIP revisions are to include requirements for
permits in accordance with CAA sections 172(c)(5) and 173 for the
construction and operation of each new or modified major stationary
source for VOC or NOX anywhere in the nonattainment
area.\223\ The 2008 Ozone SRR and 2015 Ozone SRR include provisions and
guidance for nonattainment new source review (NSR) programs.\224\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \223\ See also CAA section 182(d).
    \224\ 40 CFR 51.1114 and 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015) (2008 ozone
NAAQS); and 40 CFR 51.1314 and 83 FR 62998 (December 6, 2018) (2015
ozone NAAQS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 2020 San Diego County Ozone SIP, the District certifies
compliance with NSR requirements for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS
through amendments to the District's NSR rules (Rules 20.1-20.4) in
June 2019.\225\ In 2020, the EPA issued a final limited approval/
limited disapproval of Rule 20.1 and a full approval of Rules 20.2,
20.3 and 20.4.\226\ In that rulemaking, we found that the rules, with
one exception not directly related to the ozone NAAQS, met the
applicable NSR requirements for San Diego County as a Serious
nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and as a Moderate
nonattainment area for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \225\ 2020 Plan, section 2.3, pp. 25-26.
    \226\ 85 FR 57727 (September 16, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since our NSR rulemaking in 2020, the San Diego County area has
been reclassified to Severe for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS. However,
the approved NSR rules already include NOX and VOC
applicability thresholds and offset ratios applicable to Severe ozone
nonattainment areas that automatically applied upon the July 2, 2021
effective date of the area's reclassification to Severe.\227\ In
addition, in 2022, the EPA issued a final full approval of four amended
District rules, including Rule 20.1.\228\ In our 2022 rulemaking, we
found that the submitted NSR rules satisfy the applicable NSR
requirements for both the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS.\229\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \227\ 86 FR 29522 (June 2, 2021).
    \228\ 87 FR 58729 (September 28, 2022).
    \229\ 87 FR 29105, at 29107 (May 12, 2022) (proposed approval of
amended District NSR rules); finalized at 87 FR 58729 (September 28,
2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the recent approval of the NSR program as meeting the
applicable NSR requirements for the two relevant ozone NAAQS, including
the applicability of the Severe area applicability threshold and offset
ratio, we propose to approve the NSR certification in the 2020 Plan
that the EPA-approved District NSR rules comply with the applicable NSR
requirements under CAA sections 172(c)(5), 173 and 182(a)(2)(C), and 40
CFR 51.1114 and 51.1314 for the San Diego County area for the 2008 and
2015 ozone NAAQS.
3. Clean Fuels Fleet Program
    Sections 182(c)(4)(A) and 246 of the CAA require states to submit
SIP revisions that establish a clean-fuel vehicle program for fleets
(referred to herein as a Clean Fuels Fleets Program (CFFP)) in certain
of their ozone nonattainment areas classified as Serious and above. The
federal CFFP is specified in part C of title II of the CAA. Section
182(c)(4)(B) of the CAA allows states to opt out of the federal CFFP by
submitting a SIP revision consisting of a program or programs that will
result in at least equivalent long-term reductions in ozone precursors
and toxic air emissions. The CFFP SIP requirement applies to the San
Diego County area as an ozone nonattainment area with a 1980 population
of 200,000 or more and classified as Severe for the 2008 and 2015 ozone
NAAQS.\230\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \230\ See the definition of ``covered areas'' in CAA section
246(a)(2). The CFFP SIP requirement applies to the 2008 and 2015
ozone NAAQS pursuant to 40 CFR 51.1102 and 40 CFR 51.1302.

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

    In 1994, CARB submitted a SIP revision to the EPA to opt out of the
federal CFFP. The submittal included a demonstration that California's
low-emissions vehicle program (now referred to as the low-emissions
vehicle (LEV I) regulation) achieved emissions reductions at least as
large as would be achieved by the federal program. The EPA approved the
SIP revision to opt out of the federal program on August 27, 1999.\231\
There have been no changes to the federal CFFP since the EPA approved
the California SIP revision to opt out of the federal program, and
thus, no corresponding changes to the SIP are required. In addition,
California continues to implement its low-emissions vehicle program and
has tightened the low-emissions vehicle emissions standards through
adoption of the LEV II and LEV III regulations. The EPA approved the
LEV II and LEV III regulations as part of the California SIP in
2016.\232\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \231\ 64 FR 46849 (August 27, 1999).
    \232\ 81 FR 39424 (June 16, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 2020 San Diego County Ozone SIP, the District certified
that, in light of the EPA's approval of the SIP revision to opt out of
the federal program, the San Diego County area continues to meet the
requirements of CAA sections 182(c)(4) and 246 for the 2008 and 2015
ozone NAAQS.\233\ We agree with the District's conclusion and find that
the California SIP revision to opt out of the federal program, as
approved in 1999, continues to meet the requirements of CAA sections
182(c)(4) and 246, and 40 CFR 51.1102 and 51.1302, for the San Diego
County area for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS. For that reason, we
propose to approve the certification in the 2020 San Diego County Ozone
SIP that the San Diego County area continues to meet the CFFP SIP
requirements for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \233\ 2020 San Diego County Ozone SIP, Section 3.1, pp. 33-34
and endnote 78 (2008 ozone NAAQS) and Section 4.1, pp. 53-54 and
endnote 126 (2015 ozone NAAQS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Gasoline Vapor Recovery
    Section 182(b)(3) of the CAA requires states to submit SIP
revisions by November 15, 1992, that require owners or operators of
gasoline dispensing systems to install and operate gasoline vehicle
refueling vapor recovery (``Stage II'') systems in ozone nonattainment
areas classified as Moderate and above. California's ozone
nonattainment areas implemented Stage II vapor recovery well before the
passage of the CAA Amendments of 1990.\234\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \234\ General Preamble, 57 FR 13498, 13514 (April 16, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 202(a)(6) of the CAA requires the EPA to promulgate
standards requiring motor vehicles to be equipped with onboard
refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) systems. The EPA promulgated the first
set of ORVR system regulations in 1994 for phased implementation by
vehicle manufacturers, and since the end of 2006, essentially all new
gasoline-powered light and medium-duty vehicles are ORVR-equipped.\235\
Section 202(a)(6) also authorizes the EPA to waive the SIP requirement
under CAA section 182(b)(3) for installation of Stage II vapor recovery
systems after such time as the EPA determines that ORVR systems are in
widespread use throughout the motor vehicle fleet. Effective May 16,
2012, the EPA waived the requirement of CAA section 182(b)(3) for Stage
II vapor recovery systems in ozone nonattainment areas regardless of
classification.\236\ Thus, a SIP submittal meeting CAA section
182(b)(3) is not required for the 2008 ozone NAAQS or the 2015 ozone
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \235\ 77 FR 28772, at 28774 (May 16, 2012).
    \236\ 40 CFR 51.126(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While a SIP submittal meeting CAA section 182(b)(3) is not required
for the 2008 or 2015 ozone NAAQS, under California state law (i.e.,
Health and Safety Code section 41954), CARB is required to adopt
procedures and performance standards for controlling gasoline emissions
from gasoline marketing operations, including transfer and storage
operations. State law also authorizes CARB, in cooperation with local
air districts, to certify vapor recovery systems, to identify defective
equipment and to develop test methods. CARB has adopted numerous
revisions to its vapor recovery program regulations and continues to
rely on its vapor recovery program to achieve emissions reductions in
ozone nonattainment areas in California.
    In the San Diego County area, the installation and operation of
CARB-certified vapor recovery equipment is required and enforced by
SDCAPCD Rule 61.4 (``Transfer of Volatile Organic Compounds into
Vehicle Fuel Tanks''). This rule was most recently approved into the
SIP on January 7, 2013.\237\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \237\ 78 FR 897.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Enhanced Ambient Air Monitoring
    Section 182(c)(1) of the CAA requires states to submit SIP
revisions for all ozone nonattainment areas classified as Serious or
above that contain measures to enhance and improve monitoring for
ambient concentrations of ozone, NOX, and VOC, and to
improve monitoring of emissions of NOX and VOC in those
areas. The enhanced monitoring network for ozone is referred to as the
photochemical assessment monitoring station (PAMS) network. The EPA
promulgated final PAMS regulations on February 12, 1993.\238\ San Diego
County is subject to the CAA PAMS network SIP requirement as a Severe
nonattainment area for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS pursuant to 40 CFR
51.1102 and 51.1302.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \238\ 58 FR 8452 (February 12, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 10, 1993, CARB submitted to the EPA a SIP revision
addressing the PAMS network for six ozone nonattainment areas,
including San Diego County, to meet the enhanced monitoring
requirements of CAA section 182(c)(1) and the PAMS regulations for the
1-hour ozone NAAQS. At the time, San Diego County was classified as a
``Severe-15'' ozone nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS but
that classification was later corrected to be ``Serious.'' The EPA
determined that the PAMS SIP revision met all applicable requirements
for enhanced monitoring and approved the PAMS submittal into the
California SIP.\239\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \239\ 82 FR 45191 (September 28, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to 2006, the EPA's ambient air monitoring regulations in 40
CFR part 58 (``Ambient Air Quality Surveillance'') set forth specific
SIP requirements (see former 40 CFR 52.20). In 2006, the EPA
significantly revised and reorganized 40 CFR part 58.\240\ Under
revised 40 CFR part 58, SIP revisions are no longer required; rather,
compliance with EPA monitoring regulations is established through
review of required annual monitoring network plans.\241\ The 2008 Ozone
SRR and 2015 Ozone SRR made no changes to these requirements.\242\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \240\ 71 FR 61236 (October 17, 2006).
    \241\ 40 CFR 58.2(b) now provides that ``[t]he requirements
pertaining to provisions for an air quality surveillance system in
the SIP are contained in this part.''
    \242\ The 2008 and 2015 ozone SRRs address PAMS-related
requirements. For the 2008 ozone NAAQS, see 80 FR 12264, at 12291
(March 6, 2015); for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, see 83 FR 62998, at 63008
(December 6, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The most recent annual monitoring plan for San Diego County that
the EPA has reviewed is the District's ``Annual Air Quality Monitoring
Network Report 2021'' (2021 ANP).\243\ The District's 2021 ANP
describes the steps taken to address the requirements of section
182(c)(1), includes descriptions of the PAMS program and provides
additional details about the PAMS network.\244\ The

EPA approved the District's current PAMS network as part of our
approval of the District's ANP.\245\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \243\ SDCAPCD, Annual Air Quality Monitoring Report 2021,
submitted for EPA review on June 29, 2022.
    \244\ 2021 ANP, chapter 11 (``Photochemical Assessment
Monitoring Stations (PAMS)''). Starting in 2007, the EPA's
monitoring rules at 71 FR 61236 (October 17, 2006) required the
submittal and EPA action on ANPs. SDCAPCD's 2021 ANP can be found in
the docket for this action.
    \245\ Letter dated October 31, 2022, from Gwen Yoshimura, EPA
Region IX to David Sodeman, Chief, Monitoring and Technical
Services, SDCAPCD, approving the 2021 San Diego ANP with certain
exceptions unrelated to the PAMS requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2020 Plan certifies compliance with the CAA section 182(c)(1)
enhanced ambient monitoring requirement for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and
2015 ozone NAAQS by reference to the area's approved PAMS SIP revision
for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.\246\ We agree that the San Diego County
area meets the CAA section 182(c)(1) enhanced ambient monitoring
requirement for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS based on the District's
compliance with the EPA's monitoring regulations in 40 CFR part 58 for
PAMS networks. On that basis, we propose to approve the 2020 Plan's
certification of compliance with the enhanced monitoring requirements
for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS for the San Diego County area under
CAA section 182(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1102 and 51.1302.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \246\ 2020 Plan, pp. 33-34 and endnote 80 (2008 ozone NAAQS) and
pp. 53-54 and endnote 128 (2015 ozone NAAQS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. CAA Section 185 Fee Program
    Sections 182(d)(3) and 185 of the CAA require that the SIP for each
Severe and Extreme ozone nonattainment area provide that, if the area
fails to attain by its applicable attainment date, each major
stationary source of VOC and NOX located in the area shall
pay a fee to the state as a penalty for such failure for each calendar
year beginning after the attainment date, until the area is
redesignated as an attainment area for ozone. These requirements apply
to the San Diego County area as a Severe nonattainment area for both
the 2008 and the 2015 ozone NAAQS. States were required to submit to
the EPA by July 20, 2022, a SIP revision that meets the requirements of
CAA section 185 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The District adopted Rule 45
to meet those requirements and the state submitted it to the EPA on
July 20, 2022. The EPA plans to take action on that submittal
separately from this action. States are not yet required to submit a
SIP revision that meets the requirements of CAA section 185 for the
2015 ozone NAAQS.\247\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \247\ See 40 CFR 51.1117 (2008 ozone NAAQS) and 51.1317 (2015
ozone NAAQS). The deadline for submittal to the EPA for the area's
CAA section 185 SIP revision for the 2015 ozone NAAQS is August 3,
2028.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Emissions Statement
    Section 182(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act requires states to submit a SIP
revision requiring owners or operators of stationary sources of VOC or
NOX to provide the state with statements of actual emissions
from such sources. Statements must be submitted at least every year and
must contain a certification that the information contained in the
statement is accurate to the best knowledge of the individual
certifying the statement. Section 182(a)(3)(B)(ii) of the Act allows
states to waive the emissions statement requirement for any class or
category of stationary sources that emit less than 25 tpy of VOC or
NOX, if the state provides an inventory of emissions from
such class or category of sources as part of the base year or periodic
inventories required under CAA sections 182(a)(1) and 182(a)(3)(A),
based on the use of emissions factors established by the EPA or other
methods acceptable to the EPA.
    The preamble of the 2008 Ozone SRR states that if an area has a
previously approved emissions statement rule for the 1997 ozone NAAQS
or the 1-hour ozone NAAQS that covers all portions of the nonattainment
area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, such rule should be sufficient for
purposes of the emissions statement requirement for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. The state should review the existing rule to ensure it is
adequate and, if so, may rely on it to meet the emissions statement
requirement for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\248\ The same approach was
included in the 2015 Ozone SRR.\249\ Where an existing emissions
statement requirement is still adequate to meet the requirements of
these rules, states can provide the rationale for that determination to
the EPA in a written statement in the SIP to meet this requirement.
States should identify the various requirements and how each is met by
the existing emissions statement program. Where an emissions statement
requirement is modified for any reason, states must provide the
revision to the emissions statement as part of its SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \248\ See 80 FR 12264, at 12291 (March 6, 2015).
    \249\ See 83 FR 62998, at 63023 (December 6, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2020 Plan addresses compliance with the emissions statement
requirement in CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) for the San Diego County area
for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS in Section 2.2 (``Emissions Statement
Rule Certification'') of the plan.\250\ In Section 2.2 of the 2020
Plan, the District evaluates compliance with CAA section 182(a)(3)(B)
by reference to District Rule 19.3 that, among other things, requires
emissions reporting from stationary sources of NOX and VOC
greater than or equal to 5 tpy, as deemed appropriate by the District's
Air Pollution Control Officer (APCO). In addition, the District reports
emissions of VOC and NOX from sources that emit less than 25
tpy via CARB's California Emission Inventory Development and Reporting
System (CEIDARS). All sources with emissions of VOC or NOX
greater than or equal to 25 tpy must provide an emissions statement to
the District. District Rule 19.3 applies throughout the San Diego
County area. On April 6, 1993, the District adopted District Rule 19.3
to meet the requirements in CAA section 182(a)(3)(B). The District
amended District Rule 19.3 on May 15, 1996, and the EPA approved the
rule into the California SIP, effective May 8, 2000.\251\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \250\ 2020 Plan, at 23-25.
    \251\ 65 FR 12472 (March 9, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a separate action, the EPA approved the ``Emissions Statement
Rule Certification'' portion of the 2020 Plan that certifies District
Rule 19.3 as meeting the emissions statement requirement under CAA
section 182(a)(3)(B) for the San Diego County area for the 2008 and
2015 ozone NAAQS.\252\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \252\ 87 FR 45657 (July 29, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Environmental Justice Considerations

    This document proposes to approve certain SIP elements included in
the 2020 Plan and the San Diego County area portion of the Smog Check
Certification. Information on ozone and its relationship to negative
health impacts can be found on the EPA's website.\253\ We expect that
this proposed action, once approved, will generally be neutral or
contribute to reduced environmental and health impacts on all
populations in the San Diego County area, including people of color and
low-income populations in the area. At a minimum, the approved action
would not worsen any existing air quality and is expected to ensure the
area is meeting requirements to attain air quality standards. Further,
there is no information in the record indicating that this action is
expected to have disproportionately high or adverse human health or
environmental effects on a particular group of people. Lastly,

although the District did not perform an environmental justice review
specifically for the 2020 Plan, the District does implement the State's
``Community Air Protection Program'' in San Diego County.\254\ This
program identifies specific communities based on environmental, health
and socioeconomic information in order to reduce their pollution
exposure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \253\ Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS):
https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozone-pollution/ozone-national-ambient-air-quality-standards-naaqs; Health Effects of Ozone
Pollution: https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozone-pollution/health-effects-ozone-pollution.
    \254\ See email dated March 2, 2023, from Nick Cormier, SDCAPCD,
to John J. Kelly, EPA, regarding environmental justice information
on San Diego County communities. The State's Community Air
Protection Program was created by passage of the State's Assembly
Bill (AB) 617. At the time of the email, the District had developed
a plan to address emissions of air pollutants in one community
(Portside) that was identified by the program and another community
(the ``International Border Community,'' that is, the San Ysidro-
Otay Mesa area) had also been identified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Proposed Action

    For the reasons discussed in this document, under CAA section
110(k)(3), the EPA is proposing to approve all of the ``2020 Plan for
Attaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone in San
Diego County,'' submitted on January 12, 2021, with two exceptions, and
the San Diego County area I/M SIP revision for the 2008 and 2015 ozone
NAAQS, i.e., the San Diego County portion of the ``Smog Check
Performance Standing Modeling and Certification,'' submitted on April
26, 2023. The portions of the 2020 Plan on that we are not proposing
action are the portion addressing the emissions statement requirement,
which we already approved in a separate rulemaking, and the portion
addressing the contingency measures requirement, for which we are
deferring action.\255\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \255\ Regarding other applicable requirements for the 2008 and
2015 ozone NAAQS in San Diego County, the EPA has previously
approved the portion of the 2020 Plan that addresses the emissions
statement requirement and will be taking action on the San Diego
RACT submittal in separate rulemakings. See 87 FR 45657 (July 29,
2022) (approval of emissions statement certification); and 88 FR
57361(August 23, 2023) (final approval of District Rule 69.2.2), and
88 FR 48150 (July 26, 2023) (proposed approval of District Rule
69.2.1). A SIP revision for San Diego County addressing the penalty
fee requirements under CAA sections 182(d)(3) and 185 for the 2008
ozone NAAQS was submitted by CARB to the EPA on July 20, 2022, and
EPA will take action on the July 20, 2022 SIP revision in a separate
rulemaking. The area's penalty fee SIP revision is not due for the
2015 ozone NAAQS until August 3, 2028.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More specifically, we are proposing approval of the following
portions of the 2020 Plan, as supplemented by the Smog Check
Certification, as meeting the following requirements:
     Base year emissions inventory element as meeting the
requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1) for the 2008 and
2015 ozone NAAQS, 40 CFR 51.1115 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and 40 CFR
51.1315 for the 2015 ozone NAAQS;
     RACM demonstration element as meeting the requirements of
CAA section 172(c)(1) for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS, 40 CFR
51.1112(c) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and 40 CFR 51.1312(c) for the 2015
ozone NAAQS;
     Attainment demonstration element for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
as meeting the requirements of CAA section 182(c)(2)(A) and 40 CFR
51.1108;
     Attainment demonstration element for the 2015 ozone NAAQS
as meeting the requirements of CAA section 182(c)(2)(A) and 40 CFR
51.1308, and the related commitments by CARB (through CARB Resolution
20-29) to achieve an aggregate emissions reduction of 4 tpd of
NOX by 2032 in the San Diego County area and by the District
(through District Resolution 20-166) to achieve emissions reductions of
1.7 tpd by 2032;
     ROP demonstration element as meeting the requirements of
CAA section 182(b)(1) for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS, 40 CFR
51.1110(a)(2) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and 40 CFR 51.1310(a)(2) for
the 2015 ozone NAAQS;
     RFP demonstration element as meeting the requirements of
CAA sections 172(c)(2), 182(b)(1), and 182(c)(2)(B) for the 2008 and
2015 ozone NAAQS, 40 CFR 51.1110(a)(2)(i) and (ii) for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS, and 40 CFR 51.1310(a)(2)(ii) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS;
     VMT emissions offset demonstration element as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) for the 2008 and 2015 ozone
NAAQS, 40 CFR 51.1102 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and 40 CFR 51.1302 for
the 2015 ozone NAAQS;
     Motor vehicle emissions budgets for the 2020 and 2023 RFP
milestone years and the 2026 attainment year (see Table 15) because
they are consistent with the RFP and attainment demonstrations for the
2008 ozone NAAQS proposed for approval herein and meet the other
criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4);
     Motor vehicle emissions budgets for the 2023, 2026 and
2029 RFP milestone years and the 2032 attainment year (see Table 16)
because they are consistent with the RFP and attainment demonstrations
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS proposed for approval herein and meet the
other criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4);
     General conformity budgets (or growth increments, in this
case) for the Department of the Navy and United States Marine Corps,
and for the San Diego International Airport (see Table 17) as meeting
the requirements of CAA section 176(c) and 40 CFR 93.161;
     Enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance program
element in the 2020 Plan, as supplemented by the San Diego County area
portion of the Smog Check Certification, as meeting the requirements of
CAA section 182(c)(3) for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS, 40 CFR 51.1102
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and 40 CFR 51.1302 for the 2015 ozone NAAQS;
     Clean fuels fleet program element as meeting the
requirements of CAA sections 182(c)(4)(A) and 246 for the 2008 and 2015
ozone NAAQS, 40 CFR 51.1102 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and 40 CFR
51.1302 for the 2015 ozone NAAQS;
     New Source Review program element as meeting the
requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(5), 173 and 182(a)(2)(C) for the
2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS, 40 CFR 51.1114 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and
40 CFR 51.1314 for the 2015 ozone NAAQS; and
     Enhanced monitoring element as meeting the requirements of
CAA section 182(c)(1) for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS, 40 CFR 51.1102
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and 40 CFR 51.1302 for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
    The EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in
this document. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal
for the next 30 days and will consider comments before taking final
action.

VI. 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 proposed action merely proposes to approve state law
as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011) 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 an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 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 proposed action 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).
    Furthermore, Executive Order 12898, ``Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations,'' (59 FR 7629, February 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. However,
as described in Section IV (Environmental Justice Considerations) of
this document, the District does participate in the State's
environmental justice program. The EPA did not perform an EJ analysis
and did not consider EJ in this proposed action. Due to the nature of
this proposed action, if finalized, this action is expected to have a
neutral to positive impact on the air quality of San Diego County.
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
Executive Order 12898, to achieve environmental justice for people of
color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: December 8, 2023.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2023-27513 Filed 12-18-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: July 31, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 146)]
[Notices]
[Page 38180-38181]
[DOCID:fr31jy09-49]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[RT01-99-000, RT01-99-001, et al.]

Regional Transmission Organizations, Bangor Hydro-Electric
Company, et al.

Regional Transmission Organizations.....  RT01-99-000, RT01-99-001, RT01-
                                           99-002 and RT01-99-003.
Bangor Hydro-Electric Company, et al....  RT01-86-000, RT01-86-001 and
                                           RT01-86-002.

New York Independent System Operator,     RT01-95-000, RT01-95-001 and
 Inc., et al.                              RT01-95-002.
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., et al......  RT01-2-000, RT01-2-001, RT01-2-
                                           002 and RT01-2-003.
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C..............  RT01-98-000.
ISO New England, Inc. New York            RT02-3-000.
 Independent System Operator, Inc.

Notice

July 27, 2009.

    Take notice that PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., New York Independent
System Operator, Inc. and ISO New England, Inc. have posted on their
Internet Web sites information updating their progress on the
resolution of RTO seams.
    Any person desiring to file comments on this information should
file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). All such comments should be filed on or before the comment
date. Comments may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of
paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the
Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission
strongly encourages electronic filings.
    Comment Date: August 18, 2009.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-18306 Filed 7-30-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 135 (Tuesday, July 15, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 41267]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16554]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER02-2001-000; ER10-1304-002.
    Applicants: DownEast Power Company, LLC.
    Description: Request for Waiver of Downeast Power Company, LLC
requires time to learn and submit the EQR's.
    Filed Date: 7/8/14.
    Accession Number: 20140708-5017.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/29/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1485-001.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Deficiency Filing ER14-1485-000 to be effective 6/11/
2014.
    Filed Date: 7/7/14.
    Accession Number: 20140707-5181.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/28/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1772-001.
    Applicants: Oklahoma Cogeneration, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Oklahoma
Cogeneration, LLC.
    Filed Date: 7/8/14.
    Accession Number: 20140708-5048.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/29/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2158-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: 2014-07-08--SA 2669 NIPSCO-Zimmerman GIA Supplement to
be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 7/8/14.
    Accession Number: 20140708-5072.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/29/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2187-002.
    Applicants: Grand Ridge Energy Storage LLC.
    Description: Second Supplement to Market-Based Rate Application to
be effective 8/16/2014.
    Filed Date: 7/8/14.
    Accession Number: 20140708-5036.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/29/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2363-000.
    Applicants: Southwestern Public Service Company.
    Description: Request for Waiver of Southwestern Public Service
Company.
    Filed Date: 7/3/14.
    Accession Number: 20140703-5110.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/24/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2372-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: 2014-05-29--OMS to be effective 9/22/2014.
    Filed Date: 7/7/14.
    Accession Number: 20140707-5170.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/28/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2373-000.
    Applicants: Avista Corporation.
    Description: Avista Corp OATT Order 792 Compliance Filing to be
effective 8/3/2014.
    Filed Date: 7/8/14.
    Accession Number: 20140708-5000.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/29/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2375-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Queue Position Y3-037; First Revised Service Agreement
No. 3629 to be effective 6/6/2014.
    Filed Date: 7/8/14.
    Accession Number: 20140708-5037.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/29/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2376-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., New England Power Pool
Participants Committee.
    Description: MR 1 Offer Flexibility Conforming Changes to be
effective 12/3/2014.
    Filed Date: 7/8/14.
    Accession Number: 20140708-5038.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/29/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2377-000.
    Applicants: Consumers Energy Company.
    Description: Consumers Energy Company submits Notice of
Cancellation of Rate Schedule Nos. 105 and 106.
    Filed Date: 7/8/14.
    Accession Number: 20140708-5061.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/29/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2378-000.
    Applicants: The Connecticut Light and Power Company.
    Description: Amendement to CLP and CMEEC WDS Agreement--Electric
Rate Schedule FERC NO. WD-1 to be effective 9/6/2014.
    Filed Date: 7/8/14.
    Accession Number: 20140708-5074.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/29/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2379-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Rev to OATT Att K-Appx Sec 1.3 and OA Sched 1 Sec
1.3--Def of Zonal Base Load to be effective 9/8/2014.
    Filed Date: 7/8/14.
    Accession Number: 20140708-5081.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/29/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2380-000.
    Applicants: Seminole Retail Energy Services, L.L.C.
    Description: MBR Tariff Filing to be effective 6/12/2014.
    Filed Date: 7/8/14.
    Accession Number: 20140708-5082.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/29/14.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 8, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-16554 Filed 7-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 29, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 208)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 55763-55765]
[DOCID:fr29oc09-6]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-1326; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-141-AD;
Amendment 39-16059; AD 2009-22-08]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747 Airplanes; and Boeing
Model 757-200, -200PF, and -300 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Boeing Model 747 airplanes and certain Boeing Model 757-200, -200PF,
and -300 series airplanes. This AD requires replacing the control
switches of the forward, aft, and nose cargo doors of Model 747
airplanes; and requires replacing the control switches of cargo doors 1
and 2 of Model 757 series airplanes. This AD results from reports of
problems associated with the uncommanded operation of cargo doors. We
are issuing this AD to prevent injuries to persons and damage to the
airplane and equipment.

DATES: This AD is effective December 3, 2009.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of December 3,
2009.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-
544-5000, extension 1, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.

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: Patrick Gillespie, Aerospace Engineer,
Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; 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
certain Boeing Model 747 airplanes and certain Boeing Model 757-200, -
200PF, and -300 series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the
Federal Register on December 23, 2008 (73 FR 78672). That NPRM proposed
to require replacing the control switches of the forward, aft, and nose
cargo doors of Model 747 airplanes; and replacing the control switches
of cargo doors 1 and 2 of Model 757 series airplanes.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We considered the comments received from the four commenters.

Support for the NPRM

    Boeing concurs with the content of the NPRM.

Request for Inclusion of Airplane Maintenance Manual (AMM) 52-34-30

    American Airlines (AA) requests that we revise paragraph (f)(2) of
the NPRM to allow another method to comply with the AD for Model 757
series airplanes. As proposed, the NPRM would require replacing the
control switches of cargo doors 1 and 2 of Model 757 series airplanes,
in accordance with Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-52-
0090, dated September 21, 2007, which specifies a brush coat to the
switch terminals with BMS5-37 or BMS5-45 Class A sealant after all
wires are connected. Since AA uses the AMM for instructions for
replacement, and the AMM does not specify the brush coat to the switch
terminals with BMS5-37 or BMS5-45 Class A sealant after all wires are
connected, AA requests that we revise the NPRM to state that the
control switches of cargo doors 1 and 2 can be replaced in accordance
with either the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 757-52-0090, dated September 21, 2007, or the removal
and installation steps found in the AMM.
    AA states that it initiated a replacement program for the cargo
switches mentioned in the previous paragraph in accordance with the
AMM. Approximately one year after the initiation of the replacement
program, Boeing released Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-
52-0090, dated September 21, 2007, which introduced the requirement to
``[b]rush coat the switch terminals with BMS5-37 or BMS5-45 Class A
sealant after all wires are connected.'' AA notes that this requirement
was not and is not presently found in the AMM procedure.
    We disagree with the request to allow doing the removal and
installation procedures in the AMM as a method of compliance with
paragraph (f)(2) of this AD. In order to address the identified unsafe
condition, operators will have to do additional actions that are not
found in the AMM, including the brush coat to the switch terminals with
BMS5-37 or BMS5-45 Class A sealant after all wires are connected.
Paragraph (g) of this AD provides operators the opportunity to request
an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) for the requirements of
paragraph (f)(2), if data are presented that justify the request. We
have not changed the AD in this regard.

Request for Documentation

    FedEx requests that we revise the NPRM to identify the maintenance
document that will be the appropriate source of service information for
the immediate replacement of a toggle switch in the event an
``uncommanded operation'' is found prior to the next 6-year mark (the
proposed repetitive interval specified in the NPRM).
    We partially agree. We agree that operators should replace the
switch in the event of an uncommanded operation and note that Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletins 747-52-2286, dated September 28,
2007; and 757-52-0090, dated September 21, 2007; provide adequate
information to accomplish switch replacement. We disagree with the
request to revise this AD because

this AD does not mandate replacement in the event of an uncommanded
operation; this AD requires repetitive replacements within specified
intervals. If operators replace the switch using another method, they
may ask for approval of an AMOC if they also submit data that justify a
different method and provide an adequate level of safety. We have not
changed the AD in this regard.

Request for Determination of Reliability

    FedEx questions whether cargo toggle switch part number (P/N)
8837K2 or P/N MS25307-272, which is specified in paragraphs 2.C.2. of
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-52-0090, dated September
21, 2007, paragraphs 2.C.2., is more reliable.
    We infer that the commenter would like us to permit installation of
P/N 8837K2 so that it is not necessary for an operator to request
approval of an AMOC in order to install P/N 8837K2. We disagree. The
operator did not provide justification that P/N 8837K2 provides an
equivalent level of safety. However, according to the provisions of
paragraph (g) of the final rule, we may approve a request to allow a
different compliance method if the request includes data that prove
that the new method would provide an acceptable level of safety.

Request for Credit

    Continental Airlines requests that we revise the NPRM to provide
credit for accomplishment of the AD when replacement of the affected
cargo door switches is incorporated into a carrier's routine
maintenance program. The commenter notes that its replacement schedule
coincides with that specified in the NPRM.
    We acknowledge the commenter's request. A replacement done in
accordance with Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-52-2286,
dated September 28, 2007; or 757-52-0090, dated September 21, 2007; as
applicable; before the effective date of this AD is acceptable for
compliance with the AD, as indicated by the phrase ``unless already
done'' in paragraph (e) of this AD. However, the commenter does not
identify the service information used in the routine maintenance
program to do the replacement.
    If actions done previously align with the applicable Boeing service
bulletin, the operator will be given credit. In addition, we may
approve a request for an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) for
replacement of the control switches if the request includes data that
prove that the new method would provide an acceptable level of safety.
We have not changed the AD in this regard.

Explanation of Change to NPRM

    We have changed the phrase ``6 years'' to 72 months in paragraph
(f) of this AD to provide a time frame that specifies the compliance
with greater detail.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD with the change described previously. We also determined that
the change will not increase the economic burden on any operator or
increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 765 airplanes of U.S. registry. We
also estimate that it takes about 2 to 3 work-hours per product to
comply with this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour.
Required parts cost about $130 to $195 per airplane. Based on these
figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to U.S. operators to be up to
$332,775, or between $290 and $435 per product.

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:

2009-22-08 Boeing: Amendment 39-16059. Docket No. FAA-2008-1326;
Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-141-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective December 3,
2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B
SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-
400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes, certificated in any
category, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin
747-52-2286, dated September 28, 2007; and Boeing Model 757-200, -
200PF, and -300 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as
identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-52-0090,
dated September 21, 2007.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from reports of problems associated with the
uncommanded operation of cargo doors. We are issuing this AD to
prevent injuries to persons and damage to the airplane and
equipment.

Compliance

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

Replacement

    (f) Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD,
replace the control switches as specified in paragraph (f)(1) or
(f)(2) of this AD, as applicable. Repeat the replacements thereafter
at intervals not to exceed 72 months.
    (1) For Model 747 airplanes: Replace the control switches of the
forward, aft, and nose cargo doors, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 747-52-2286, dated September 28, 2007.
    (2) For Model 757 series airplanes: Replace the control switches
of cargo doors 1 and 2, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-52-
0090, dated September 21, 2007.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (g)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to
Attn: ATTN: Patrick Gillespie, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and
Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.
    (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 principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.
The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (h) You must use Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-
52-2286, dated September 28, 2007; or Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 757-52-0090, dated September 21, 2007; as
applicable; 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, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone
206-544-5000, extension 1, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://
www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 19, 2009.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E9-25666 Filed 10-28-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 67 (Friday, April 6, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 20749]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8348]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Parts 230 and 270

[Release Nos. 33-9309; 34-66720; IC-30026; File No. S7-12-10]
RIN 3235-AK50

Investment Company Advertising: Target Date Retirement Fund Names
and Marketing

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission is reopening the period
for public comment on amendments it originally proposed in Securities
Act Release No. 9126 to allow interested persons to submit comments on
the results of investor testing regarding target date retirement funds.
The rule proposal would, if adopted, require a target date retirement
fund that includes the target date in its name to disclose the fund's
asset allocation at the target date immediately adjacent to the first
use of the fund's name in marketing materials; require marketing
materials for target date retirement funds to include a table, chart,
or graph depicting the fund's asset allocation over time, together with
a statement that would highlight the fund's final asset allocation;
require a statement in marketing materials to the effect that a target
date retirement fund should not be selected based solely on age or
retirement date, is not a guaranteed investment, and the stated asset
allocations may be subject to change; and provide additional guidance
regarding statements in marketing materials for target date retirement
funds and other investment companies that could be misleading.

DATES: The comment period for the proposed rule published June 23,
2010, at 75 FR 35920, is reopened. Comments should be received on or
before May 21, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml);
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. S7-12-10 on the subject line; or
     Use the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov). Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number S7-12-10. This file number
should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help us
process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one
method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's
Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml). Comments
are also available for Web site viewing and printing in the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3
p.m. All comments received will be posted without change; we do not
edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: J. Matthew DeLesDernier, Attorney-
Adviser, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office of Regulatory Policy, Division of
Investment Management, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street
NE., Washington, DC 20549-8549.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') is reopening the period for public comment on proposed
rule amendments that are intended to provide enhanced information to
investors concerning target date retirement funds and reduce the
potential for investors to be confused or misled regarding these and
other investment companies. These amendments were proposed on June 16,
2010,\1\ and the comment period initially closed on August 23, 2010.
The Commission's proposal would, if adopted, amend rule 482 under the
Securities Act of 1933 and rule 34b-1 under the Investment Company Act
of 1940 to require a target date retirement fund that includes the
target date in its name to disclose the fund's asset allocation at the
target date immediately adjacent to the first use of the fund's name in
marketing materials. The proposal also would amend rule 482 and rule
34b-1 to require marketing materials for target date retirement funds
to include a table, chart, or graph depicting the fund's asset
allocation over time, together with a statement that would highlight
the fund's final asset allocation. In addition, the proposal would
amend rule 482 and rule 34b-1 to require a statement in marketing
materials to the effect that a target date retirement fund should not
be selected based solely on age or retirement date, is not a guaranteed
investment, and the stated asset allocations may be subject to change.
Finally, the proposal would amend rule 156 under the Securities Act to
provide additional guidance regarding statements in marketing materials
for target date retirement funds and other investment companies that
could be misleading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Investment Company Advertising: Target Date Retirement Fund
Names and Marketing, Securities Act Release No. 9126 (June 16, 2010)
[75 FR 35920 (June 23, 2010)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission recently engaged a consultant to conduct empirical
research on individual investors' understanding of target date
retirement funds and marketing materials related to those funds.
Investors participating in an online survey were asked questions about,
among other things, documents containing information about a
hypothetical target date retirement fund, including information that
would be required by the proposed amendments, if adopted. We have
placed in the comment file for the proposed rule amendments the
consultant's report concerning the online survey.\2\ In order to
provide all persons who are interested in this matter an opportunity to
comment on this additional material, we believe that it is appropriate
to reopen the comment period before we take action on the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Comment File No. S7-12-10, available at http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-12-10/s71210.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We invite additional comment on the proposal in light of this
material, and on any other matters that may have an effect on the
proposal.
    Accordingly, we will extend the comment period until May 21, 2012.

    Dated: April 3, 2012.

    By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-8348 Filed 4-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P