[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 183 (Friday, September 22, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65308-65311]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20554]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-1884; Project Identifier MCAI-2023-00482-A;
Amendment 39-22554; AD 2023-19-04]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Aircraft Industries, a.s. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Aircraft Industries, a.s. Model L-420, L 410 UVP-E20, and L 410 UVP-E20
CARGO airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of the pressure plates
within the main landing gear (MLG) wheel brake unit malfunctioning.
This AD requires replacing certain MLG wheel brake units with
serviceable parts and prohibits installing an affected part

on any airplane. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective October 10, 2023.
    The FAA must receive comments on this AD by November 6, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-1884; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this final rule, the mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), any comments received, and other information. The
street address for Docket Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Rudolph, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments
about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under
ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2023-1884; Project Identifier MCAI-
2023-00482-A'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the final rule, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this final rule because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this final rule.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this AD contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Doug
Rudolph, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not
specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for
this rulemaking.

Background

    The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the
Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued
EASA AD 2023-0055, dated March 16, 2023 (referred to after this as the
MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition on Aircraft Industries, a.s.
Model L-410 M Turbolet, L-410 UVP--Turbolet, L-410 UVP-E, L 410 UVP-E9,
L 410 UVP-LW, L 410 UVP-E-LW, L 410 UVP-E20, L 410 UVP-E20 CARGO, and
L-420 airplanes, all variants. The MCAI states there were several
reports of the MLG wheel brake malfunctioning (blocking).
Investigations revealed that all the malfunctions were caused by
fractured brake pressure plates, and further analysis by Aircraft
Industries, a.s. and the brake unit manufacturer showed that the root-
cause of the failure was an improper (re-) design of certain pressure
plates installed on certain serial numbers of MLG wheel brake unit part
number (P/N) K38-1200-7. This condition, if not detected and corrected,
could lead to reduced brake function, resulting in loss of control of
the airplane, especially during taxiing, aborted take-off, or landing.
The MCAI requires replacing all affected parts with serviceable parts,
as defined in the MCAI.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-1884.

FAA's Determination

    These products have been approved by the aviation authority of
another country and are approved for operation in the United States.
Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design
Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in
the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is issuing this AD after determining
that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or
develop on other products of the same type design.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in the MCAI
described previously, except as discussed under ``Differences Between
this AD and the MCAI.'' This AD also prohibits installing on any
airplane an MLG wheel brake unit P/N K38-1200-7 with serial number XXX-
35, XXX-36, XXX-37, or XXX-38, where X represents any numerical value.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI

    The MCAI applicability includes Aircraft Industries a.s. Model L-
410 M Turbolet, L-410 UVP--Turbolet, L-410 UVP-E, L 410 UVP-E9, L 410
UVP-LW, and L 410 UVP-E-LW airplanes and this AD does not because those
airplane models do not have an FAA type certificate.
    The MCAI specifies a compliance time based on an affected part's
number of flight cycles, but this AD requires a compliance time based
on an affected part's hours time-in-service (TIS). When doing the
conversion from flight cycles to hours TIS, the FAA has estimated that
1 flight cycle is equal to 1 hour TIS.

Justification for Immediate Adoption and Determination of the Effective
Date

    Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5
U.S.C. 551 et seq.) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and
comment procedures for rules when the agency, for ``good cause,'' finds
that those procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to
the public interest.'' Under this section, an agency, upon finding good
cause, may issue a final rule without providing notice and seeking
comment prior to issuance. Further, section 553(d) of the APA
authorizes agencies to make rules effective in less than thirty days,
upon a finding of good cause.
    There are no affected airplanes currently on the U.S. registry.
Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are
unnecessary, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). In

addition, for the foregoing reason(s), the FAA finds that good cause
exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective
in less than 30 days.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) do not
apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt
a rule without prior notice and comment. Because the FAA has determined
that it has good cause to adopt this rule without prior notice and
comment, RFA analysis is not required.

Costs of Compliance

    There are no costs of compliance with this AD because there are no
affected airplanes on the U.S. Registry. In the event an affected
product becomes a U.S.-registered product, the following is an estimate
of the costs to comply with this AD.

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replace affected MLG wheel brake unit.  8 work-hours x $85 per            $5,000          $5,680              $0
                                         hour = $680.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2023-19-04 Aircraft Industries, a.s.: Amendment 39-22554; Docket No.
FAA-2023-1884; Project Identifier MCAI-2023-00482-A.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective October 10, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Aircraft Industries, a.s. Model L-420, L 410
UVP-E20, and L 410 UVP-E20 CARGO airplanes, all serial numbers,
certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 3240, Landing Gear
Brake System.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of the pressure plates within
the main landing gear (MLG) wheel brake unit malfunctioning. The FAA
is issuing this AD to address MLG wheel brake failures. The unsafe
condition, if not addressed, could result in reduced brake function,
resulting in loss of control of the airplane, especially during
taxiing, aborted take-off, or landing.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Definitions

    The following definitions apply to this AD:
    (1) An ``affected part'' is an MLG wheel brake unit part number
(P/N) K38-1200-7 having serial number XXX-35, XXX-36, XXX-37, or
XXX-38, where X represents any numerical value and where the MLG
wheel brake unit has not been modified using sections B. and C. of
the Implementation Information in LET Aircraft Industries Service
Bulletin L-410/039a, Revision 1, dated October 25, 2022 (LET SB L-
410/039a, Revision 1).
    (2) A ``serviceable part'' is an MLG wheel brake unit that is
not P/N K38-1200-7 having serial number XXX-35, XXX-36, XXX-37, or
XXX-38, where X represents any numerical value or where the MLG
wheel brake unit P/N K38-1200-7 having serial number XXX-35, XXX-36,
XXX-37, or XXX-38 has been modified using sections B. and C. of the
Implementation Information in LET SB L-410/039a, Revision 1.

(h) Required Actions

    (1) For airplanes with an affected part installed: Before each
affected part accumulates 1,500 hours time-in-service (TIS) since
the affected part's first installation on any airplane or within 10
hours TIS after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs
later, replace each affected part with a serviceable part.
    (2) As of the effective date of this AD, do not install an
affected part on any airplane.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the International Validation Branch, mail
it to the address identified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD or email
to: [email protected]. If mailing information, also submit
information by email. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your
appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office/
certificate holding district office.

(j) Additional Information

    (1) Refer to European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2023-0055, dated March 16, 2023, for related information. This

EASA AD may be found in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-1884.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Doug Rudolph,
Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].
    (3) For service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference, contact Aircraft Industries, a.s., Na
Z[aacute]honech 1177, Kunovice, Czech Republic; phone: +420 572 817
664; email: [email protected]; website: let.cz/en/bulletin. You may view
this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section,
Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust Street, Kansas City, MO 64106.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued on September 18, 2023.
Victor Wicklund,
Deputy Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-20554 Filed 9-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


                       SUPPORTING STATEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Generic Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standards Residual Risk and Technology Review for Carbon Black Production

       IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1(a) Title of the Information Collection
 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Generic Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standards Residual Risk and Technology Review for Carbon Black Production (40 CFR part 63, subpart YY), EPA ICR Number 2677.02 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number 2060-NEW.

      1(b) Short Characterization/Abstract

This supporting statement addresses information collection activities that will be imposed by amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Carbon Black Production source category in the Generic Maximum Achievable Control Technology standards, 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY, referred to as the Carbon Black Production Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards. The Carbon Black Production MACT standards being amended were promulgated on July 12, 2002 (67 FR 46257).

      As part of the residual risk and technology reviews (RTR) for the NESHAP, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing amendments to (1) include new provisions and clarifications/corrections related to emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction; (2) add requirements for electronic reporting of performance test results and other compliance-related reports; (3) include additional requirements for applicability/compliance performance testing; and (4) add annual boiler tune up requirements for specified affected sources. This information collection request documents the recordkeeping and reporting requirements and burden imposed by these amendments.

In general, all NESHAP standards require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners/operators of the affected facilities. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance and are required of all affected facilities subject to NESHAP. This information collection request (ICR) includes the burden for all activities that will be conducted in the first three years following promulgation of the final amendments to the Carbon Black Production MACT standards only as they relate to the changes made as a result of the RTR and "other" actions under the final rule. These activities include reading the rule, conducting and documenting compliance applicability testing/calculations, and completing the recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

Any owner/operator subject to the provisions of this part shall maintain a file of these notifications, reports, and records, and retain the file for at least five years. All reports are sent to the delegated state or local authority. In the event there is no such delegated authority, the reports are sent directly to the EPA regional office. The use of the term "Designated Administrator" throughout this document refers to the U.S. EPA or a delegated authority such as a state agency. The term "Administrator" alone refers to the U.S. EPA Administrator.

Note that there are 15 currently operating carbon black production facilities, and it is assumed that no facilities would be constructed/modified within three years after promulgation of the rule. Therefore, over the next three years, it is estimated that 15 carbon black production facilities will be subject to this standard, and the total average labor, capital, and operations and maintenance costs imposed by the amendments will be approximately $180,000 per year for the first 3 years after the amendments are finalized with most costs being incurred in the first year (an estimated $430,000). The burden to the respondents from each facility is shown in Tables 1 through 4 in Attachment 1.

The total average annual cost to the Designated Administrator during the 3 years of the ICR is estimated to be approximately $10,000 per year after the amendments are finalized with most costs being incurred in the first year (an estimated $20,000). This burden includes labor costs for the Federal EPA and state and local authorities to implement the requirements in the NESHAP after the amendments are finalized. This burden is shown in Tables 5 through 8 of Attachment 2.

       Need for and Use of the Collection

      2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection

 The EPA is charged under Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 112, as amended, to establish standards of performance for each category or subcategory of major sources and area sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP). These standards are applicable to new or existing sources of HAP and require the maximum degree of emission reduction. In addition, CAA section 114(a) states that the Administrator may require any owner/operator subject to any requirement of this Act to:

      (A) Establish and maintain such records; (B) make such reports; (C) install, use, and maintain such monitoring equipment, and use such audit procedures, or methods; (D) sample such emissions (in accordance with such procedures or methods, at such locations, at such intervals, during such periods, and in such manner as the Administrator shall prescribe); (E) keep records on control equipment parameters, production variables or other indirect data when direct monitoring of emissions is impractical; (F) submit compliance certifications in accordance with Section 114(a)(3); and (G) provide such other information as the Administrator may reasonably require.

In the Administrator's judgment, HAP emissions from carbon black production facilities cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Therefore, NESHAP were promulgated for major sources in this source category at 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY.

      Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process to develop standards for emissions of HAP from stationary sources. Generally, the first stage involves establishing technology-based standards and the second stage involves evaluating those standards that are based on MACT to determine whether additional standards are needed to address any remaining risk associated with HAP emissions. This second stage is commonly referred to as the "residual risk review." In addition to the residual risk review, the CAA also requires the EPA to review standards set under CAA section 112 every 8 years and revise the standards as necessary taking into account any "developments in practices, processes, or control technologies." This review is commonly referred to as the "technology review." When the two reviews are combined into a single rulemaking, it is commonly referred to as the "risk and technology review." As part of the RTR for the NESHAP, the EPA is also finalizing amendments to (1) include new provisions and corrections/clarifications related to emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction; (2) add requirements for electronic reporting of performance test results and other compliance-related reports; (3) include additional requirements for applicability/compliance performance testing; and (4) add annual boiler tune up requirements for specified affected sources.

      2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in these standards ensure compliance with the applicable regulation promulgated in accordance with the CAA. The collected information is also used for targeting inspections and as evidence in legal proceedings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Applicability assessment performance tests are required to determine if an affected facility is required to control emissions under the NESHAP and documentation is necessary to confirm/verify these determinations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      The notifications required in these standards are used to inform the Agency or Designated Administrator when a source is conducting applicability and compliance performance tests, and when a source is subject to the requirements of a regulation. In some cases, the Designated Administrator may choose to observe performance tests. The Designated Administrator may also use information to inform an inspection of the source to check if the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated, and the standards are being met.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      The required semiannual (periodic) reports are used to determine periods of excess emissions, identify problems at the facility, verify operation/maintenance procedures and ongoing compliance with standards.

       Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

The requested recordkeeping and reporting will be required under 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY.

      3(a) Nonduplication

If the subject standards have not been delegated, the information is sent directly to the appropriate EPA regional office. Otherwise, the information is sent directly to the delegated state or local agency. If a state or local agency has adopted its own similar standards to implement the Federal standards, a copy of the report submitted to the state or local agency can be sent to the Administrator in lieu of the report required by the Federal standards. Therefore, this ICR does not result in duplication.

      3(b) Public notice prior to ICR submission to OMB

A public notice and solicitation of public comment on this collection was provided in the Federal Register notice of proposed rulemaking published for the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Generic Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standards Residual Risk and Technology Review for Carbon Black Production.

3(c) Consultations

      The public was provided the opportunity to review and comment on the burden estimated in this ICR during the comment period for the proposed rulemaking.

      The Agency has consulted industry experts and internal data sources to project the number of affected facilities and industry growth over the next three years. Industry trade association(s) and other interested parties were provided an opportunity to comment on the burden associated with these standards as they were being developed. In developing this ICR, we also consulted with internal experts at EPA's Office of Air Quality and Planning Standards (OAQPS) and  contacted and confirmed the facility population counts with the International Carbon Black Association (ICBA).

      3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Data Collection

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Less frequent information collection would decrease the margin of assurance that facilities are continuing to meet the standards. Requirements for information gathering and recordkeeping are useful techniques to ensure that good operation and maintenance practices are applied and emission limitations are met. If the information required by these standards was collected less frequently, the proper operation and maintenance of control equipment and the possibility of detecting violations would be less likely.

      3(e) General Guidelines

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      These reporting or recordkeeping requirements do not violate any of the regulations promulgated by OMB under 5 CFR part 1320, section 1320.5.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      These Carbon Black Production MACT standards require the respondents to maintain all records, including reports and notifications for at least five years. The EPA believes that the five-year records retention requirement is consistent with the Part 70 permit program and the five-year statute of limitations on which the permit program is based. The retention of records for five years also allows the EPA to establish the compliance history of a source, any pattern of non-compliance and to determine the appropriate level of enforcement action. The EPA has found that the most flagrant violators have violations extending beyond five years. In addition, without requiring the retention of records, the EPA would be prevented from pursuing the violators due to the destruction or nonexistence of essential records.

3(f) Confidentiality

      All information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in 40 CFR 2, subpart B  - Confidentiality of Business Information (see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976, amended by 43 FR 39999, September 28, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 28, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

3(g) Sensitive Questions

The reporting or recordkeeping requirements in the standard do not include sensitive questions.

       THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATIONREQUESTED
      4(a) Respondents/NAICS Codes
The respondents to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are owners or operators of new or existing major source carbon black production facilities. This includes, but is not limited to, North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code 325182 (carbon black production) facilities/sources.

      4(b) Information Requested

       Data Items

In this ICR, all data that is recorded or reported is required by the Carbon Black Production MACT standards (40 CFR, part 63, subpart YY). The tables below reflect new requirements based on the finalized amendments only.

      A source must make the following reports:

                             Notifications/Reports
 Notification of Intention to Conduct Performance Test Dates
 40 CFR 63.999(a)(1)
 Performance Test Results (including applicability assessments)
 40 CFR 63.1110(a)(9)
 Notification of Compliance Status Reports
 40 CFR 63.1110(d)
 Periodic Reports
 40 CFR 63.1110(e)

      A source must keep the following records:

                                Recordkeeping
 Each notification and report (related to final amendments)
 40 CFR 63.1109(a) (e.g., 40 CFR 63.1103(f)(3)(iii)(F), and 63.999(a)(1))
 Control applicability records
 40 CFR 63.1109(d) (e.g., 40 CFR 63.1103(f)(3)(iv))

      Subsequent Performance Test Requirements (Every 5 Years (60 Months)
      The final RTR amendments add the requirement to conduct performance tests every 5 years after the conduct of the initial performance test (or last performance test conducted to demonstrate compliance with the Carbon Black Production MACT standards) to ensure continued/ongoing compliance with the standards.

      Electronic Reporting
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

	As part of the final RTR amendments, respondents are required to use the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) to develop performance test reports and submit them through the EPA's Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). The ERT is an application rather than a form, and the requirement to use the ERT is applicable to numerous subparts. The splash screen of the ERT contains a link to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) requirements, such as the OMB Control Number, expiration date, and burden estimate for this and other subparts. Under the final amendments, respondents are required to submit notifications and semiannual reports through the EPA's CEDRI. The notification is an upload of their currently required notification in portable document format (PDF) file. The semiannual reports are to be created using Form 5900-484. The template is an Excel spreadsheet which can be partially completed and saved for subsequent semiannual reports to limit some of the repetitive data entry. It reflects the reporting elements required by the rule and does not impose additional reporting elements. The OMB Control Number is displayed on the Welcome page of the template, with a link to an online repository that contains the PRA requirements. For purposes of this ICR, it is assumed that there will be no additional burden associated with the requirement for respondents to submit the notifications and reports electronically.

       Respondent Activities

                             Respondent Activities
 Read instructions.
 Adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instruction and requirements (e.g., due to removal of SSM-related changes).
 Write and submit notifications/reports
 Enter and maintain information required to be recorded based on final amendments (e.g., for boiler tune up reports).

       THE INFORMATION COLLECTED -- AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

      5(a) Agency Activities

The EPA conducts the following activities in connection with the acquisition, analysis, storage, and distribution of the required information.

                             Agency Activities
 Review notifications and reports required to be submitted by industry.
 Prepare annual reports
 Input, analyze, and maintain data in Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) and Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS)

      5(b) Collection Methodology and Management

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Initial compliance applicability test/performance test requirements/documentation is used by the Agency to discern a source's applicability to/compliance with the emission standard. Data and records maintained by the respondents are tabulated and published for use in compliance and enforcement programs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Data and records maintained by the respondents are tabulated and published for use in compliance and enforcement programs. The periodic reports are used for problem identification, as a check on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations.

Information contained in the reports is reported by state and local governments in the ICIS-Air database, which is operated and maintained by EPA's Office of Compliance. ICIS-Air is EPA's database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval of compliance data for industrial and government-owned facilities. The EPA uses ICIS-Air for tracking air pollution compliance and enforcement by local and state regulatory agencies, EPA regional offices and EPA headquarters. EPA and its delegated Authorities can edit, store, retrieve and analyze the data.
      The records required by this regulation must be retained by the owner/operator for five
 years.

      5(c) Small Entity Flexibility

      There are no small entities (i.e., small businesses) affected by this regulation.

      5(d) Collection Schedule

Upon promulgation of the amendments, owners or operators of carbon black production facilities have up to a year to comply with most of the compliance testing/calculations, reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with the amendments. For purposes of burden estimates, it is assumed that facilities will read the rule and perform the required applicability/compliance testing associated with process vents after the main unit filter (MUF) in year 1. For subsequent performance testing requirements (requirement to conduct every 5 years (60 months), it is assumed that 20 percent of existing facilities (3 facilities) will conduct performance tests every year in the first three years (starting in year 1). The specific frequency for each information collection activity within this request is shown in Tables 1 through 3 of Attachment 1.

       ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

Tables 1 through 4 of Attachment 1 present an itemization of the burden on the respondents subject to this NESHAP for the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the first three years following promulgation of the amendments to the Carbon Black Production MACT standards. Tables 5 through 8 of Attachment 2 present a summary of the burden on the Federal EPA and state and local authorities in the first three years following promulgation of the amendments to the Carbon Black Production MACT standards.

The individual burdens are expressed under standardized headings. Where appropriate, specific tasks and major assumptions have been identified. Responses to this information collection are mandatory.

The 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.

      6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden

The average annual burden to industry over the next three years from these recordkeeping and reporting requirements is estimated to be around 289 hours. The average annual recordkeeping hours are estimated at around 154 hours and the reporting requirement hours are estimated at around 135 hours, both of which are shown in Table 4 of Attachment 1. These hours are based on Agency knowledge and experience with the NESHAP program, and related ICRs.

      6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs

 The information collection activities for sources subject to these requirements are presented in Tables 1 through 4 of Attachment 1. The total cost for each respondent activity includes nonlabor costs, capital/startup costs, and operating and maintenance (O&M) costs.

       Estimating Labor Costs

      This ICR uses the following labor rates:

      Managerial	$139.36 ($66.36 + 110%)
      Technical	$101.64 ($48.40 + 110%)
      Clerical	$47.57 ($22.65 + 110%)

These rates are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2019, "National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, Sectors 31, 32, and 33  -  Manufacturing." The rates are from column 8, mean hourly wage for "Management Occupations," "Architecture and Engineering Occupations," and "Office and Administrative Support Occupations." The rates have been increased by 110 percent to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by private industry.

       Estimating Capital/Start-up and Operation and Maintenance Costs

In addition to the labor costs mentioned above, industry costs associated with the information collection activities in the final amendments to the carbon black MACT standards include capital/start-up costs and operation and maintenance costs associated with the cost to conduct/complete applicability/performance testing. For purposes of burden estimates, these tests are assumed to be conducted/completed by off-site contractors.

       Capital/Startup and Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs
Below are the estimated capital and startup costs associated with applicability and performance testing for the respondents that would be subject to the final amendment changes to the Carbon Black Production MACT standards for the first three years after promulgation of the amendments.
                                 (A)
Testing
                              (B)
Cost Per Test
             (C)
Total Number of Respondents Over 3-Year Period
                            (D)
Total Cost
(B X C)
                                   Footnotes
                             Periodic 5-Year Test

                                       a
                                  Method 25A
                                    $15,241
                                       9
                                   $137,169
                                       b
                        New Initial Performance Testing

                                       c
                                  Method 25A
                                   $21,350
                                      15
                                   $320,250
                                       d
                                     TOTAL

                                      24
                                   $457,419

                                    AVERAGE

                                       8
                                   $152,473

   Footnotes:
(a) Assumes 20% (3) of the total source category will annually perform the Periodic 5 -year test. Or 60% (9 facilities) in the 3 years of this ICR
(b) The estimated cost of this test would be $15,241 and is required once every 5 years. We assumed that 20 percent of existing facilities (3 facilities) will need to perform these tests every year.
   (c) The final amendments require all existing facilities (15 facilities) perform initial performance testing on vents after the main unit filter (MUF) to determinate applicability within the first year of the promulgated amendments.
   (d) The estimated cost of this test would be $21,350 but is only required once.

The total estimated capital and startup costs associated with applicability/performance testing for the respondents over the ICR 3-year period are $460,000, at an average estimated cost of $150,000 per year.

6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

The costs to the Agency are those costs associated with analysis of the reported information. The Agency's overall compliance and enforcement program includes activities such as the examination of records maintained by the respondents, periodic inspection of sources of emissions (and attendance during the conduct of performance testing at a facility), and the publication and distribution of collected information.

      The average annual Agency cost during the three years of the ICR based on final amendment changes to the Carbon Black Production MACT standard is estimated to be about $10,000.

      This cost is based on the average hourly labor rates as follows:

      Managerial 	$66.62 (GS-13, Step 5, $41.64+ 60%) Technical	$49.44 (GS-12, Step 1, $30.90+ 60%)
      Clerical	$26.75 (GS-6, Step 3, $16.72 + 60%)

These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), 2019 General Schedule, which excludes locality rates of pay. The rates have been increased by 60 percent to account for the benefit packages available to government employees. Details on the line-item estimates used to calculate these burdens are presented in Tables 5 through 8 of Attachment 2.

      6(d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs

The total number of respondents is also referred to as the respondent universe. Based on research conducted for the RTR of the Carbon Black Production MACT standards, 15 facilities are currently operating and subject to the standards and no new sources are assumed in the first three years after promulgation of the final amendments. It is assumed that all of the facilities will begin complying within one year of promulgation of the final amendments and will be subject to recordkeeping and reporting requirements in each of the three years covered by this ICR.

6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables

 The Respondent Tally
Over the first three years after finalizing the amendments, the total annual labor hours for respondents are estimated to be at 866 hours at a cost of approximately $540,000. The average annual labor hours over those three years are estimated to be 289 hours per year at a cost of approximately $180,000 per year. Furthermore, the total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 9 hours per response. Details regarding these estimates may be found in Tables 1 through 4 of Attachment 1.
The total operation and maintenance costs associated with the finalized additional applicability/performance test requirements assume that an off-site contractor will perform and prepare a report of their test results. These costs are estimated to total approximately $460,000 over the three-year period, at an estimated average cost of a little over $150,000 per year.

        The Agency Tally

 The average annual burden over the first three years for the Agency is estimated to be 213 hours at a cost of approximately $10,000. The Agency burden hours and costs are presented in Tables 5 through 8 of Attachment 2.

6(f) Reasons for change in burden

	The amendments to the NESHAP for Carbon Black Production (40 CFR, Part 63, Subpart YY) addressed in this ICR include (1) new provisions and clarifications/corrections related to emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction; (2) requirements for electronic reporting of performance test results and other compliance-related reports; (3) additional requirements for applicability/compliance performance testing; and (4) annual boiler tune up requirements for specified affected sources.

      The burden estimate for reading and understanding the rule requirements was adjusted to reflect the time it would take industry to review the amended rule. Burden estimates were removed for developing SSM plans and submitting periodic SSM reports. We estimate that the burden associated with the separate recordkeeping requirements for periods of SSM that are being removed to be approximately the same as the burden associated with the recordkeeping requirements for deviations from rule requirements and, therefore, did not adjust burden for recordkeeping and semiannual compliance reporting.
      The final amendments, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3),  broaden the applicability of the existing emission limit for process vents associated with the MUF to include all process vents. This requires facilities to conduct emissions testing on the additional process vents after the MUF, so that sources will be able to determine which vents have concentrations at or above the applicability threshold. In addition, the EPA is also finalizing changes to require annual tune-up requirements for applicable process heaters/boilers. Lastly, the final amendments require owners or operators of carbon black production process vents subject to the rule to conduct performance tests every 5 years to demonstrate continued compliance with the NESHAP. The respondent burden estimates for the final requirements include becoming familiar with and modifying operational plans according to the final amendments, observing a percentage of affected source performance/applicability tests, preparing associated notifications and reports, and conducting the associated recordkeeping requirements. The Delegated Administrator/Agency burden estimates for the final requirements include becoming familiar with the new requirements, reviewing the associated notifications and reports, and preparing annual compliance summary reports.
      6(g) Burden Statement

The annual reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to be 9 hours per response. Burden means total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency.

 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 EPA regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

 To comment on the agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, the EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0505. An electronic version of the public docket is available at http://www.regulations.gov/ which may be used to obtain a copy of the draft collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. When in the system, select "search," then key in the docket ID number identified in this document. The documents are also available for public viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the docket center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0505 and OMB Control Number 2060-0489 in any correspondence.

                       PART B OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT

 This section is not applicable because statistical methods are not used in data collection associated with this regulation.

                                  ATTACHMENT 1

                             TABLES 1, 2, 3, and 4

             Tables 1 - 3:	Annual Respondent Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Carbon Black Production RTR  -  Years 1-3

             Table 4:	Summary of Annual Respondent Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Carbon Black Production RTR

    Table 1 - Annual Respondent Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Carbon Black Production RTR - Year 1

    Table 2 - Annual Respondent Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Carbon Black Production RTR - Year 2

    Table 3 - Annual Respondent Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Carbon Black Production RTR - Year 3

Table 4 - Summary of Annual Respondent Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Carbon Black Production RTR

                                                ATTACHMENT 2

                              TABLES 5, 6, 7, and 8

             Tables 5 - 7:	Annual Agency Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Carbon Black Production RTR - Year 1-3

             Table 8:	Summary of Annual Agency Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Carbon Black Production RTR

    Table 5 - Annual Agency Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Carbon Black Production RTR - Year 1

    Table 6 - Annual Agency Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Carbon Black Production RTR - Year 2

    Table 7 - Annual Agency Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Carbon Black Production RTR - Year 3

                                   Table 8 - Summary of Annual Agency Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Carbon Black Production RTR


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 65 (Tuesday, April 5, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19488-19490]
[FR Doc No: 2016-07541]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2016-0263]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Bayou Teche, Crude Oil Spill; Jeanerette, LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on all
navigable waters of Bayou Teche from Jeanerette, LA to Linwood, LA.
This safety zone is necessary to protect persons, property, and
infrastructure from potential damage and safety hazards associated with
an 11,550 gallon type III crude oil spill and corresponding response
efforts. During the periods of enforcement, entry into and transiting
or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless specifically
authorized by Captain of the Port (COTP) Morgan City or other
designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from April 5, 2016
until April 15, 2016. The rule will be enforced until April 15, 2016,
or until emergency spill response efforts are complete, whichever
occurs earlier. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be
used from March 29, 2016 until April 5, 2016.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2016-0263 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Lieutenant Junior Grade Vanessa Taylor, Chief of
Waterways

Management, U.S. Coast Guard MSU Morgan City 800 David Dr, Morgan City
LA,70380; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because immediate emergency efforts are
required to respond to an oil spill on Bayou Teche. This spill poses an
extremely hazardous condition to the public and environment until it is
contained and cleaned up. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM
because we must establish this safety zone by March 29, 2016.
    We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast
Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30
days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective
date of this rule would be contrary to public interest because
immediate action is needed to provide additional safety measures during
the spill cleanup to ensure safety of the public and environment.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The legal basis and authorities for this rule are found in 33
U.S.C. 1231.
    The purpose of the rule is to establish the necessary temporary
safety zone to protect persons, property, and infrastructure from
potential damage and safety hazards during emergency response efforts
associated with an 11,550 gallon crude oil spill on Bayou Teche.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from March 29, 2016 through
April 15, 2016 or until emergency spill response efforts are complete,
whichever occurs earlier. The safety zone will cover all navigable
waters of Bayou Teche from Jeanerette, LA to Linwood, LA. This safety
zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine
environment in these navigable waters while the pollution response and
cleanup occur. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the
safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated
representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated
a ``significant regulatory action,'' under executive order 12866.
Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and traffic during the time-of-year of the safety
zone. The safety zone only impacts a small designated area of Bayou
Teche Waterway from Jeanerette, LA to Linwood, LA from March 29, 2016
through April 15, 2016 or until emergency spill response efforts are
complete, whichever occurs earlier. Additionally, this is a time of
year when vessel traffic is normally low. Moreover, the Coast Guard
will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16
informing waterway users of the safety zone and any changes in the
schedule. Finally, the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter
the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under executive order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in executive order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under executive
order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments,

because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, 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. If you believe this
rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact
the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in
this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule involves a safety zone lasting less than 20 days that will
prohibit entry in all navigable waters of the Bayou Teche from
Jeanerette, LA to Linwood, LA. It is categorically excluded from
further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant
Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this
determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available
in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (waters), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,
6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T08-1121 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-1121  Safety Zone; Bayou Teche, Crude Oil Spill;
Jeanerette, LA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters of
Bayou Teche from Jeanerette, LA to Linwood, LA.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative
means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain,
petty officer, or other officers operating a Coast Guard vessel and a
Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port (COTP) Morgan City in the enforcement of the safety
zones.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
33 CFR part 165 subpart C, you may not enter the safety zones described
in paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's
representative via VHF-FM channel 16, or through Coast Guard Marine
Safety Unit Morgan City at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Those in the safety zones must
comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP
or the COTP's designated representative.
    (d) Enforcement period. This rule will be enforced from March 29,
2016 through April 15, 2016 or until emergency spill response efforts
are complete, whichever occurs earlier.
    (e) Informational broadcasts. The COTP or a designated
representative will inform the public through broadcasts notice to
mariners of the enforcement period for the emergency safety zones as
well as any changes in the dates and times of enforcement.

    Dated: March 29, 2016.
D.G. McClellan,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Morgan City, Louisiana.
[FR Doc. 2016-07541 Filed 4-4-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 19, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 2731]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00934]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2021-0535; FRL-9444-01-R5]

Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; Wisconsin Nonattainment New Source
Review Certification for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve, as a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision, Wisconsin's
certification that its SIP satisfies the nonattainment new source
review (NNSR) requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2015
ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 18, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2021-0535 at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel Rineheart, Environmental
Engineer, Air Permit Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected]. The
EPA Region 5 office is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays and facility closures due to COVID-
19.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Final Rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in response to this
rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives such
comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public
comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on
this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any
parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this
time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For
additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in
the Rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: January 12, 2022.
Debra Shore,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2022-00934 Filed 1-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 	Patricia A. Larson

	Attorney at Law

	P. O. Box 13921

	Palm Desert, CA 92255

								Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

								Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

								Email:    HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
									SBN: 149047

January 31, 2013

To: Ken Israels–Grants and Program Integration Office

			75 Hawthorne Street

			San Francisco, CA 94105

Re: Docket ID No. EPA-OAR-2012-0936

      Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes;
     California; Morongo Band of Mission Indians

      Comments for the Record on the above Docket

From: Patricia A. Larson

First let me introduce myself: I have lived in the Coachella Valley for
over 59 years.  I served as the 4th District Supervisor for Riverside
County for 3 terms starting in 1983.

I only found out about this special interest proposal yesterday.
Nothing has been in the newspapers that I have seen.  Yet comment period
ends tomorrow.

I have read Barry Wallerstein’s (SCAQMD) letter of 1-25-2013 to you
and wish, for the sake of time, to incorporate his points on the matter
within my comments here.

As well, I support the CVAG points in its comment letter sent to you on
January 28th.

Lastly, I would point out that the proposed district would be small and
would be dominated by a single, major entity which could control the
decision-makers, in effect, regulating its own development interests.
If instead of “Morongo Tribe”, we substituted “XYZ Corporation”,
would this arrangement be tolerated?  The small area has major air
quality impacts in all directions affecting large populations.  It makes
no sense except for the special interest.


[Federal Register: December 10, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 238)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 74928-74930]
[DOCID:fr10de08-2]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 30640; Amdt. No. 3298]

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports.
These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or
revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National
Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational
facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements.
These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the
navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under
instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES: This rule is effective December 10, 2008. The compliance date
for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of December 10, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:
    For Examination--
    1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
    2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located;
    3. The National Flight Procedures Office, 6500 South MacArthur
Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_
federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    Availability--All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available
online free of charge. Visit http://www.nfdc.faa.gov to register.
Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP copies may
be obtained from:
    1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building,
800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; or
    2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harry J. Hodges, Flight Procedure
Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Divisions,
Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma
City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125)
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing,
amending, suspending, or revoking SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPs.
The complete regulators description of each SIAP and its associated
Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form
documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5
U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA
Forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when
required by an entry on 8260-15A.
    The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, in addition
to their complex nature and the need for a special format make
publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical.
Furthermore, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs,
Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their depiction on
charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. The advantages
of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the
complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimum and ODP listed on
FAA forms is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR
sections and specifies the types of SIAPs and the effective dates of
the associated Takeoff Minimums and ODPs. This amendment also
identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the
amendment number.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as contained in the
transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments
may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center
(FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate
flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The
circumstances which created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums
and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30
days. For the remaining SIAPS and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an
effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
    Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this
amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for
Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPS and
Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the
conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of
the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and
public procedures before adopting these SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and
ODPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where
applicable, that good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in
less than 30 days.

Conclusion

    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 DOT
Regulatory 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. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, and
Navigation (air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 28, 2008.
John M. Allen,
Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code
of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by
establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and/or Obstacle Departure
Procedures effective at 0902 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120,
44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

0
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:

Effective 15 Jan 2009

Toksook Bay, AK, Toksook Bay, RNAV (GPS) RWY 34, Amdt 1
Toksook Bay, AK, Toksook Bay, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt
1
Troy, AL, Troy Muni, Radar-1, Amdt 8
Fayetteville, AR, Drake Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 5
Arcata/Eureka, CA, Arcata, VOR RWY 14, Amdt 7B, CANCELLED
Arcata/Eureka, CA, Arcata, VOR/DME RWY 14, Orig
Atwater, CA, Castle, GPS RWY 13, Orig-A, CANCELLED
Atwater, CA, Castle, GPS RWY 31, Orig-A, CANCELLED
Merced, CA, Castle, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 31, Amdt 2
Merced, CA, Castle, RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Orig
Merced, CA, Castle, RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Orig
Merced, CA, Castle, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1
Merced, CA, Castle, VOR/DME RWY 31, Amdt 1
San Diego, CA, Montgomery Field, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 28R, Amdt 3
San Diego, CA, Montgomery Field, NDB OR GPS RWY 28R, Amdt 1C,
CANCELLED
San Diego, CA, Montgomery Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 28R, Orig
Santa Rosa, CA, Charles M. Schulz-Sonoma County, GPS RWY 14, Orig,
CANCELLED
Santa Rosa, CA, Charles M. Schulz-Sonoma County, GPS RWY 32, Orig,
CANCELLED
Santa Rosa, CA, Charles M. Schulz-Sonoma County, ILS OR LOC RWY 32,
Amdt 17
Santa Rosa, CA, Charles M. Schulz-Sonoma County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 14,
Orig
Santa Rosa, CA, Charles M. Schulz-Sonoma County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 32,
Orig
Upland, CA, Cable, VOR RWY 6, Amdt 7A, CANCELLED
Upland, CA, Cable, VOR-A, Orig
Victorville, CA, Southern California Logistics, GPS RWY 17, Orig-B,
CANCELLED
Victorville, CA, Southern California Logistics, ILS OR LOC RWY 17,
Amdt 2
Victorville, CA, Southern California Logistics, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17,
Orig
Victorville, CA, Southern California Logistics, VOR/DME RWY 17, Amdt
1
Watsonville, CA, Watsonville Muni, LOC RWY 2, Amdt 3
Keystone Heights, FL, Keystone Airpark, GPS RWY 4, Orig, CANCELLED
Keystone Heights, FL, Keystone Airpark, RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Orig
Keystone Heights, FL, Keystone Airpark, Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle DP, Orig
Keystone Heights, FL, Keystone Airpark, VOR/DME RWY 5, Amdt 1
Orlando, FL, Orlando Sanford Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 9R, Orig.
Lafayette, GA, Barwick Lafayette, RNAV (GPS) RWY 2, Amdt 1
Lafayette, GA, Barwick Lafayette, RNAV (GPS) RWY 20, Amdt 1
Lafayette, GA, Barwick Lafayette, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 1
Toccoa, GA, Toccoa Rg Letourneau Field, VOR RWY 20, Amdt 13
Toccoa, GA, Toccoa Rg Letourneau Field, VOR/DME RWY 2, Amdt 2
Charles City, IA, Northeast Iowa Rgnl, GPS RWY 30, Orig, CANCELLED
Charles City, IA, Northeast Iowa Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 12, Orig

Charles City, IA, Northeast Iowa Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 30, Orig
Greensboro, NC, Piedmont Triad Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle
DP, Orig
Roxboro, NC, Person County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 24, Orig
Washington, NC, Warren Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Amdt 1
Washington, NC, Warren Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Amdt 1
Washington, NC, Warren Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Amdt 1
Washington, NC, Warren Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Amdt 1
Broken Bow, NE, Broken Bow Muni, NDB RWY 14, Amdt 8, CANCELLED
Batavia, NY, Genesee County, ILS OR LOC RWY 28, Amdt 6
Batavia, NY, Genesee County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 28, Orig
Batavia, NY, Genesee County, VOR/DME-A, Amdt 5B
Cleveland, OH, Cleveland-Hopkins Intl, ILS PRM RWY 24R (Simultaneous
Close Parallel), Orig
Cleveland, OH, Cleveland-Hopkins Intl, LDA/DME RWY 24L, Amdt 1
Cleveland, OH, Cleveland-Hopkins Intl, LDA PRM RWY 6R (Simultaneous
Close Parallel), Amdt 1
Cleveland, OH, Cleveland-Hopkins Intl, LDA PRM RWY 24L (Simultaneous
Close Parallel), Orig
Norman, OK, University of Oklahoma Westheimer, RNAV (GPS) RWY 3,
Amdt 1
Oklahoma City, OK, Will Rogers World, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17R, Amdt 2A
Sparta, TN, Upper Cumberland Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Orig
Sparta, TN, Upper Cumberland Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 22, Orig
Sparta, TN, Upper Cumberland Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Orig
Abilene, TX, Abilene Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 22, Orig
Abilene, TX, Abilene Rgnl, VOR RWY 22, Amdt 4
Childress, TX, Childress Muni, VOR RWY 35, Amdt 10
Midland, TX, Midland Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 10, Amdt 1
Midland, TX, Midland Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig
Port Aransas, TX, Mustang Beach, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 1
Spearman, TX, Spearman Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 2, Orig
Spearman, TX, Spearman Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 20, Orig
Spearman, TX, Spearman Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig
Spearman, TX, Spearman Muni, VOR/DME RWY 2, Amdt 1
Victoria, TX, Victoria Rgnl, ILS OR LOC RWY 12L, Amdt 10
Victoria, TX, Victoria Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 12L, Orig
Victoria, TX, Victoria Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 30R, Orig
Victoria, TX, Victoria Rgnl, VOR RWY 12L, Amdt 16
Victoria, TX, Victoria Rgnl, VOR/DME RWY 30R, Amdt 6
Tangier, VA, Tangier Island, RNAV (GPS)-B, Orig
Tangier, VA, Tangier Island, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig
Tangier, VA, Tangier Island, VOR/DME-A, Orig
Tangier, VA, Tangier Island, VOR/DME OR GPS RWY 2, Orig-C, CANCELLED

 [FR Doc. E8-29006 Filed 12-9-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P