[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 57 (Friday, March 23, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12669-12673]
[FR Doc No: 2018-05868]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0408; FRL-9975-85-Region 3]

Air Plan Approval; Delaware; State Implementation Plan for
Interstate Transport for the 2008 Ozone Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state
implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Delaware.
The Clean Air Act's (CAA) Good Neighbor Provision requires EPA and
states to address the interstate transport of air pollution that
affects the ability of downwind states to attain and maintain the
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Specifically, the Good
Neighbor Provision requires each state in its SIP to prohibit emissions
that will significantly contribute to nonattainment, or interfere with
maintenance, of a NAAQS in a downwind state. Delaware submitted a SIP
revision on March 23, 2013 that addresses the interstate transport
requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. On September 27, 2017, EPA
published a proposed rule and a direct final rule approving Delaware's
SIP in regard to the Good Neighbor Provision. However, EPA received
adverse comments on its September 27, 2017 proposed rule, and
subsequently withdrew the accompanying direct final rule. After
considering the comments, EPA is approving Delaware's SIP revision
submittal in regard to the Good Neighbor Provision for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS in accordance with the requirements of the CAA.

DATES: This final rule is effective on April 23, 2018.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0408. All documents in the docket are listed on
the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through
http://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in
the For Further Information Contact section for additional availability
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Schmitt,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 27, 2013, the State of Delaware
through the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental
Control (DNREC) submitted a revision to its SIP to satisfy the
requirements of section 110(a)(2), including 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), of the
CAA as it relates to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. On September 27, 2017, EPA
published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) (82 FR 44984) and an
accompanying direct final rule (DFR) (82 FR 44932) for the State of
Delaware, approving the portion of the March 27, 2013 Delaware SIP
revision addressing prongs 1 and 2 of the interstate transport
requirements for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
EPA received comments on the proposed rulemaking and the Agency
subsequently withdrew the DFR on November 20, 2017 (82 FR 55052). This
action responds to the comments received and finalizes EPA's approval
of the portion of the March 27, 2013 Delaware SIP revision addressing
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

I. Background

    On March 12, 2008, EPA revised the levels of the primary and
secondary ozone standards from 0.08 parts per million (ppm) to 0.075
ppm (73 FR 16436). The CAA requires states to submit, within three
years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, SIP revisions
meeting the applicable elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2).\1\
Several of these applicable elements are delineated within section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) generally requires
SIPs to contain adequate provisions to prohibit in-state emissions
activities from having certain adverse air quality effects on
neighboring states due to interstate transport of air pollution. There
are four prongs within section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA; section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) contains prongs 1 and 2, while section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) includes prongs 3 and 4. This action addresses the
first two prongs, which are also collectively known as the Good
Neighbor Provision. Pursuant to prongs 1 and 2, a state's SIP must
contain adequate provisions to prohibit any source or other type of
emissions activity within the state from emitting air pollutants that
will ``contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with
maintenance by, any other state with respect to any such national
primary or secondary ambient air quality standard.'' Under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA, EPA gives independent significance to
the matter of nonattainment (prong 1) and to that of maintenance (prong
2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ SIP revisions that are intended to meet the requirements of
section 110(a) of the CAA are often referred to as infrastructure
SIPs and the elements under 110(a) are referred to as infrastructure
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 27, 2013, the State of Delaware through DNREC submitted a
SIP revision intended to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)
of the CAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. In this rulemaking action, EPA is
approving one portion of Delaware's March 27, 2013 submittal--the
portion addressing prongs 1 and 2 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the
CAA. EPA previously acted on other portions of Delaware's March 27,
2013 SIP submittal for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ On April 3, 2014 (79 FR 18644), EPA approved portions of
Delaware's March 27, 2013 submittal for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
addressing the following: CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C),
(D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). In
that action, EPA stated it would take later action on the portion of
the March 27, 2013 SIP submittal addressing section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To demonstrate that its SIP adequately addresses interstate
transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, Delaware's March 27, 2013 submittal
identifies measures in its approved SIP that cover stationary, mobile,
and area sources of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen
oxides (NOX), both of which are precursors to ozone.
Delaware's submittal identifies SIP-approved regulations that reduce
VOC and NOX emissions from a variety of stationary sources
within the State, including power plants, industrial boilers, and
peaking units. Delaware states in its submittal that its sources are
generally controlled with best available control technology (BACT) or
lowest achievable emission rate (LAER) level controls. Delaware notes
that sources are generally controlled on a unit-by-unit basis at costs
ranging from $1,300 to $11,000 per ton of NOX reduced.\3\ To

substantiate its control costs and feasibility claims, Delaware
includes an assessment of potential additional control measures on
mobile and stationary sources, including both electric generating unit
(EGU) and non-EGU categories. The assessment evaluates, for each source
or category, the technical and economic feasibility for additional
NOX and VOC reductions. For non-EGUs, Delaware could not
identify any cost-effective controls beyond those already required by
the SIP; estimating that at about $5,000 per ton of pollutant (VOC,
NOX) reduced, only a small amount of additional emission
reductions would be seen.\4\ In its submittal, Delaware identifies the
following Delaware regulations, which are already included in its
approved SIP: 7 DE Admin. Code 1125 (New Source Review); 7 DE Admin.
Code 1112 (NOX Reasonably Available Control Technology
(RACT)); 7 DE Admin. Code 1124 (VOC RACT); 7 DE Admin. Codes 1126 and
1136 (vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) control measures). In
its submittal, Delaware concludes that it has satisfied the
requirements for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA for the 2008
ozone NAAQS because its sources are already well controlled for
NOX and VOCs, and because further reductions beyond the
State's current SIP measures for NOX and VOCs are not
economically feasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See ``Attachment A,'' State Submittal--Delaware Section
110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS,
www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0408.
    \4\ In its March 27, 2013 submittal, Delaware stated that at
about $5,000 per ton, the State could reduce NOX
emissions by about 375 tons per year (tpy) and VOCs by 255 tpy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. EPA Analysis

A. Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update

    The CAA gives EPA a backstop role, as appropriate, in the event
that states fail to submit approvable SIPs. On September 8, 2016, EPA
took steps to effectuate this backstop role with respect to emissions
in 22 eastern states (not including Delaware) by finalizing an update
to the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) ozone season program that
addresses the obligations of the Good Neighbor Provision for the 2008
ozone NAAQS. 81 FR 74504. The CSAPR Update established a federal
trading program for affected EGUs to reduce the interstate transport of
ozone pollution in the May-September ozone season in the eastern United
States, and thereby help downwind states and communities meet and
maintain the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\5\ The CSAPR Update uses the same
framework EPA used when developing the original CSAPR, EPA's transport
rule addressing the 1997 ozone NAAQS as well as the 1997 and 2006 fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS. This framework establishes
the following four-step process to address the requirements of the Good
Neighbor Provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Ground-level ozone is formed when VOCs and NOX
combine in the presence of sunlight. The rate of ozone production
can be limited by the availability of either VOCs or NOX.
In the case of the eastern states, ozone reduction has shown to be
more effective by reducing NOX which is why reducing
NOX emissions is the focus of both the CSAPR Update and
this rulemaking action regarding Delaware.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) identify downwind receptors that are expected to have problems
attaining or maintaining the NAAQS;
    (2) determine which upwind states contribute to these identified
problems in amounts sufficient to link them to the downwind air quality
problems;
    (3) identify and quantify, for states linked to downwind air
quality problems, upwind emissions that significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of a NAAQS; and
    (4) reduce the identified upwind emissions for states that are
found to have emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment
or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS downwind by adopting
permanent and enforceable measures through a SIP or by participating in
a federal trading program.
    This four-step framework is informed by cost-effectiveness and
feasibility of controls, emissions, meteorology, and air quality
factors. Notably, the determination as to whether a linked state
significantly contributes to nonattainment or interferes with
maintenance of the NAAQS in a downwind state is made at step 3 based on
a multi-factor evaluation of control costs, available NOX
emission reductions, and air quality improvements (including
consideration of potential over-control).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ CSAPR Update final rule. 81 FR 74504, 74519 (October 26,
2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. EPA's Assessment of Delaware in the CSAPR Update

    While EPA's CSAPR Update analysis included an assessment of
Delaware, the State was not included in the final CSAPR Update federal
trading program for EGUs. Nonetheless, the CSAPR Update includes
technical information and related analysis that can assist EPA and
states with evaluating the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
of the CAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. In the CSAPR Update, EPA found in
steps 1 and 2 of the four-step framework that Delaware is linked to a
downwind maintenance receptor in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. 81
FR 74538. Accordingly, EPA further evaluated Delaware in step 3 of the
framework to determine whether there were cost-effective NOX
emission reductions available from EGUs in the state.
    In the CSAPR Update, EPA examined emission reductions available at
various levels of control stringency, represented by cost-thresholds of
$0 per ton; $800 per ton; $1,400 per ton; $3,400 per ton; $5,000 per
ton; and $6,400 per ton. This analysis accounted for existing limits on
Delaware EGUs in the State's March 27, 2013 SIP submittal. Notably, for
Delaware, EPA's assessment of EGUs' NOX reduction potential
showed no cost-effective reductions available in Delaware within the
allotted short term implementation timeframe (by 2017 for the 2008
ozone NAAQS) at every cost threshold EPA evaluated because the Delaware
EGUs are already equivalently controlled. 81 FR at 74553. In addition,
Delaware's March 27, 2013 submittal evaluated sources other than EGUs
and the State could not identify any cost-efficient controls for
reducing VOCs or NOX beyond those already required by the
SIP.

C. Air Quality Assessment Tool

    The emission reductions at the various levels of control stringency
analyzed by EPA could result in air quality improvements such that
individual receptors drop below the level of the 2008 ozone NAAQS based
on the cumulative air quality improvement from the states analyzed.
Therefore, in finalizing the CSAPR Update, EPA explicitly evaluated
whether the potential emission budgets evaluated for each state would
result in over-control of upwind state emissions,\7\ as required by
precedents of the Supreme Court and D.C. Circuit.\8\ Specifically, EPA
evaluated whether at each level of NOX emission budget, the
identified downwind ozone problems (i.e., nonattainment or maintenance
problems) are resolved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In this rulemaking action, the term ``over-control''
describes the possibility that a state might be compelled to reduce
emissions beyond the point at which every affected downwind state is
projected to attain and maintain the NAAQS. See EPA v. EME Homer
City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 2014; EME Homer City Generation,
L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 127 (D.C. Cir. July 28, 2015).
    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In examining emissions contribution to nonattainment and
maintenance receptors for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, EPA used the Air
Quality Assessment

Tool (AQAT) to estimate the air quality impacts of the upwind state EGU
NOX emission budgets on downwind ozone pollution levels for
each of the assessed EGU NOX emission budget levels. EPA
assessed the magnitude of air quality improvement at each receptor at
each level of control, examined whether receptors are considered to be
resolved,\9\ and looked at the individual contributions of emissions
from each state to each of that state's linked receptors. EPA also
examined each state's air quality contributions at each potential level
of control stringency, assessing whether a state maintained at least
one linkage to a receptor that was estimated to continue to have
nonattainment or maintenance problems with the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ When the average and maximum design values of a receptor
decrease to values below 76 parts per billion (ppb) or (0.076 ppm),
the nonattainment and maintenance issues of the receptor would be
considered resolved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in section VI.D. in the preamble of the final CSAPR
Update and in the Ozone Transport Policy Analysis Technical Support
Document (TSD) used to support the final CSAPR Update, EPA's AQAT
assessment indicates that an emissions budget reflecting $800 per ton
of NOX reduced would resolve the maintenance problem at the
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania maintenance receptor (monitor ID<PHONE_NUMBER>)
to which Delaware was linked. Thus, EPA estimated that implementation
of the CSAPR Update, along with NOX controls in Delaware's
SIP submittal, are anticipated to resolve the lone downwind receptor to
which Delaware is linked.

D. Conclusion

    In conclusion, when evaluating all the available information, EPA
finds that Delaware has implemented measures that have reduced
statewide VOC and NOX emissions and that should continue to
reduce emissions within the State. The maintenance receptor that
Delaware is linked to in the CSAPR Update is projected by EPA to have
its maintenance issue resolved with CSAPR Update implementation \10\
and existing NOX controls in place in Delaware. EPA further
finds Delaware has no cost-effective EGU NOX emissions
reduction potential by 2017, beyond what is already required in
Delaware's SIP, at or below the maximum $6,400 per ton cost-threshold
evaluated in the CSAPR Update. Additionally, EPA finds that Delaware's
non-EGU sources are also well-controlled and that there is limited VOC
and NOX emissions reduction potential, beyond what it
already required in the State's SIP, at and below a $5,000 per ton
cost-threshold. Thus, EPA finds Delaware has fully satisfied its
obligation with respect to the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and EPA is
approving the portion of the March 27, 2013 Delaware SIP submittal
addressing prongs 1 and 2 of the interstate transport requirements for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ EPA notes that the preliminary 2014-2016 design value for
the identified CSAPR Update Philadelphia maintenance site does not
reflect the air quality improvements anticipated as a result of the
CSAPR Update implementation because sources began compliance with
the rule in May 1, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Public Comments and EPA Responses

    During the comment period, EPA received several anonymous comments
on the rulemaking. EPA provides responses to two of these comments,
below. All other comments received were not specific to this action and
thus are not addressed here.
    Comment #1: The first commenter stated that EPA cannot rely on
federal implementation plans (FIPs) to reduce the downwind contribution
of air pollution to another state and pointed out that section
110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA requires that measures addressing interstate
transport must be approved into the State's SIP. The commenter believes
that EPA stated in its DFRN \11\ that Delaware has been shown to
significantly contribute to the Philadelphia receptor, and subsequently
the commenter states that EPA cannot approve Delaware's plan because
the necessary measures to reduce interstate transport of air pollutants
to other states cannot be met without a FIP. Further, the commenter
states that ``the fact that Delaware is included in the Federal plan
means that EPA has already determined that the state's own plan does
not meet the requirement of 110.'' The commenter asks EPA to reconsider
and disapprove Delaware's plan until ``such time as Delaware is able to
implement its own plan and that plan is approved into the SIP.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ September 27, 2017 (82 FR 44932).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: As an initial matter, EPA disagrees that FIPs are an
inappropriate tool to address the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Pursuant to section 110(c), whenever EPA finds that
a state has failed to make a required submission or disapproves a
state's submission, the Agency has an obligation to promulgate a FIP to
address the deficiencies in a state's plan, including the requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Since 2005, EPA has relied on federal
trading programs, such as the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), its
replacement CSAPR, and the CSAPR Update in order to reduce the downwind
contributions of air pollution to another state via the promulgation of
FIPs. In 2014, the United States Supreme Court upheld CSAPR in EPA v.
EME Homer City Generation, L.P., finding that EPA had the authority to
promulgate a FIP upon a determination that a state had failed to make
an adequate submission. 134 S. Ct. 1584, 1601 (2014). Thus, EPA
disagrees with the commenter's premise that EPA cannot rely on federal
plans to reduce the downwind contribution of air pollution to another
state in addressing section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA.
    Nonetheless, whether or not EPA may rely on a FIP to address the
requirements of the Good Neighbor Provision is irrelevant to EPA's
action on Delaware's SIP because its approval is not contingent on a
FIP. EPA did not promulgate a FIP for Delaware in the CSAPR Update (the
federal plan to which the commenter presumably refers). Accordingly,
contrary to the commenter's assertion, EPA did not already determine in
that rulemaking that the State's submittal does not meet the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA. Rather, EPA
explicitly stated that it would further evaluate the state's compliance
with the Good Neighbor Provision when it evaluated the State's SIP in a
separate action. See 81 FR at 74553.
    EPA also disagrees with the commenter's assertion that EPA stated
in its September 27, 2017 DFR that Delaware was shown to
``significantly contribute'' to the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
receptor. In fact, as EPA stated in its DFR and again in this final
notice, the Agency used a four-step framework to evaluate each state in
order to determine whether the state will significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of downwind air quality.
While EPA's analysis did determine that the Philadelphia monitor/
receptor was expected to have problems attaining or maintaining the
2008 ozone NAAQS (step 1 of four-step framework) and that Delaware was
linked to the downwind air of the Philadelphia receptor (step 2 of the
framework), this is not equivalent to a determination that Delaware
will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance. Rather, this determination is made at step 3 of the
framework and depends on whether EGUs in the linked state have
available cost-effective NOX

emission reductions.\12\ As noted above, EPA determined that Delaware's
sources were already being controlled at levels equivalent to the cost-
threshold applied to linked states in the CSAPR Update, and therefore
had no cost-effective emission reductions available from EGUs in the
State. Thus, EPA did not conclude that Delaware significantly
contributes to nonattainment or interferes with maintenance in the
CSAPR Update and did not involve the State in a FIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The Supreme Court held that it was a permissible
interpretation of the statute to apportion responsibility for states
linked to nonattainment receptors considering ``both the magnitude
of upwind States' contributions and the cost associated with
eliminating them.'' EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S.
Ct. at 1606.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, EPA disagrees with the commenter that Delaware relies on
any FIP to meet section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS, and the Agency thus disagrees that it should disapprove
Delaware's plan until ``such time as Delaware is able to implement its
own plan and that plan is approved into the SIP.'' EPA has discussed in
section II of this notice why EPA agrees with Delaware's determination
in its March 27, 2013 SIP revision submittal that the SIP contains the
necessary measures to address prongs 1 and 2 of the interstate
transport requirements for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008
ozone NAAQS.
    Comment: The second commenter stated that EPA did not address a
March 28, 2017 Executive Order regarding the promotion of energy
independence and economic growth. The Executive Order required federal
agencies to review all regulations to ensure they do not impose
unnecessary burdens on the economy.
    Response: The March 28, 2017 Executive Order (E.O.) \13\ pertains
to reviewing existing regulations, orders, guidance documents,
policies, and any other similar agency actions (collectively, agency
action) that potentially burden the development or use of domestically
produced energy resources, with attention to oil, natural gas, coal,
and nuclear energy. EPA does not believe that EPA's regulatory action
to approve Delaware's SIP submittal is inconsistent with this E.O.
Specifically, EPA is approving Delaware's submission on the grounds
that the controls that it already imposes address interstate transport
of emissions, such that its sources do not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in another state. In any
event, if a SIP submittal from a state meets all the requirements of
section 110(a)(2) of the CAA, including the required emission
limitations, then section 110(k)(3) of the CAA requires that EPA shall
approve the SIP submission. As explained in section II of this action,
the Agency finds that the Delaware SIP meets the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA with respect to the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. Thus, under the plain language of section 110(k)(3), EPA must
approve the SIP submission, and cannot disapprove it based on the March
28, 2017 E.O.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Based on the comment, EPA assumes the E.O. in question is
E.O. 13738, Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth,
signed March 28, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving the portion of the March 27, 2013 Delaware SIP
revision addressing prongs 1 and 2 of the interstate transport
requirements for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA for the 2008
ozone NAAQS for the reasons discussed in this rulemaking.
    On April 3, 2014 (79 FR 18644), EPA finalized approval of the
following infrastructure elements or portions thereof from the March
27, 2013 submittal: CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II),
(D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). This action
approves the remaining portions of the March 27, 2013 SIP revision,
which address prongs 1 and 2 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA,
also known as the Good Neighbor Provision. EPA did not take action upon
these elements in the Agency's prior SIP approval action, published on
April 3, 2014 (79 FR 18644).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register.

This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by May 22, 2018. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action, addressing Delaware's interstate transport for the
2008 ozone NAAQS, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce
its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: March 13, 2018.
Cecil Rodrigues,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart I--Delaware

0
2. In Sec.  52.420, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an
entry for ``Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008
Ozone NAAQS'' after the entry for ``Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure
Requirements for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS'' (with an EPA approval date of
4/3/2014) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.420  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Applicable
   Name of non-regulatory SIP        geographic or     State submittal   EPA approval date        Additional
            revision               nonattainment area        date                                explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure  Statewide..........         3/27/13   3/23/18 [Insert      This action
 Requirements for the 2008 Ozone                                         Federal Register     addresses CAA
 NAAQS.                                                                  citation].           element
                                                                                110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
                                                                                .

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

[FR Doc. 2018-05868 Filed 3-22-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 190 (Tuesday, October 3, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46076-46078]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21171]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2017-N-4918]

Joint Meeting of the Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee
and the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee; Notice of
Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; establishment of a public docket; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) announces a
forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the
Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee and the Drug Safety and
Risk Management Advisory Committee. The general function of the
committee is to provide advice and recommendations to the Agency on
FDA's regulatory issues. The meeting will be open to the public. FDA is
establishing a docket for public comment on this document.

DATES: The public meeting will be held on November 1, 2017, from 8 a.m.
to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31
Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993-
0002. Answers to commonly asked questions including information
regarding special accommodations due to a disability, visitor parking,
and transportation may be accessed at: https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm408555.htm.
    FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this meeting.
The docket number is FDA-2017-N-4918. The docket will close on October
27, 2017. Submit either electronic or written comments on this public
meeting by October 27, 2017. Please note that late, untimely filed
comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted
on or before October 27, 2017. The https://www.regulations.gov
electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern
Time at the end of October 27, 2017. Comments received by mail/hand
delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be considered
timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service acceptance
receipt is on or before that date.
    Comments received on or before October 17, 2017, will be provided
to the committee. Comments received after that date will be taken into
consideration by the Agency.
    You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2017-N-4918 for ``Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee and
the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee; Notice of
Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments.''
Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will
be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as
``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kalyani Bhatt, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-9001, Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA
Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in
the Washington, DC area). A notice in the Federal Register about last
minute modifications that impact a previously announced advisory
committee meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide
timely notice. Therefore, you should always check the Agency's Web site
at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down
to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link, or call the
advisory committee information line to learn about possible
modifications before coming to the meeting.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Agenda: The committee will discuss new drug application (NDA)
210136, buprenorphine subcutaneous injection, submitted by Braeburn
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., for treatment of opioid dependence.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting
link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committees.
All electronic and written submissions submitted to

the docket (see the ADDRESSES section) on or before October 17, 2017,
will be provided to the committees. Oral presentations from the public
will be scheduled between approximately 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. Those
individuals interested in making formal oral presentations should
notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general
nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and
addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the
approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before
October 6, 2017. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If
the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be
reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing
session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the
scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify
interested persons regarding their request to speak by October 10,
2017.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
disabilities. If you require special accommodations due to a
disability, please contact Kalyani Bhatt at least 7 days in advance of
the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: September 27, 2017.
Anna K. Abram,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2017-21171 Filed 10-2-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


                 Section 18 Emergency Exemption Application

                      TYPE OF EXEMPTION BEING REQUESTED

                               SPECIFIC

                                QUARANTINE

                               PUBLIC HEALTH

           CONTACT PERSON(S) AND QUALIFIED EXPERT(S) (166.20(a)(1))

CONTACT PERSON:

Name: David Hickens

Title: Chief, NASA JSC Environmental Office

Organization: NASA JSC

Address:

Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

QUALIFIED EXPERT:

Name:  Mark E. Wilson

Title: Boeing Associate Technical Fellow   Organization:  Boeing

Address: 3100 space Center Blvd., MC HB3-20, Houston TX 77059-3556

Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

              DESCRIPTION OF PESTICIDES REQUESTED (166.2O(a)(2))

Common Chemical Names (Active Ingredients): o-phthalaldehyde (OPA) CAS Number 643-79-8

Trade Names and EPA Reg. Nos.:

Formulations: Immobilization of OPA on a Porous Resin (P/N SV1012327-2) % Active Ingredient: 0.25 g OPA/cm[3] of resin; Resin Loading factor based on 84% elution efficiency = 210 mg OPA/cm[3] resin

Manufacturers: o-phthalaldehyde  -  Sigma Aldrich; OPA Resin (P/N SV1012327-2)  -  Hamilton Sundstrand

                  DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE (166.20(a)(3))

Sites to be Treated: International Space Station Internal Active Thermal Control System (IATCS) coolant including the US Laboratory including Node 1 and Airlock (249 liters), Japanese Experiment Module (213 liters), Columbus (160 liters), and Node 3 (194 liters).

Method of Application:  Elution of OPA from the OPA Resin (P/N SV1012327-2) into the IATCS coolant volume through the use of  an antimicrobial applicator canister (P/N 683-63436) placed in a by-pass line at a payload rack location and initiating flow at 400 lb/hr for 16 hours.

Rate of Application (in terms of a.i. and product): Approximately 250 mg/L OPA added to each loop approximately 1/year.

Maximum Number of Applications: Approximately 1 application/year for each loop, determined by measuring OPA concentration every 90 days and utilization of the quantity of OPA Resin necessary to increase the as circulated in flight hardware OPA concentration to 300 ppm based on degradation of OPA to 50  -  100 ppm.

Total Acreage (or other units) to be Treated: US Laboratory - 272 liters, Japanese Experiment Module  -  213 liters, Columbus  -  150 liters, and Node 3  -  194 liters for a total volume of 829 liters.

Total Amount of Pesticide to be Used (in terms of a.i. and product):  VR = Volume Resin Required; VL = Volume of IATCS (L); [OPA] = Desired OPA Concentration (mg/L); FOPA = OPA Resin Loading factor = 210 mg OPA/cm[3]-Resin; Therefore VR = (VL * [OPA])/ FOPA ; VR = (829 L * 250 mg/L)/210 mg OPA/cm[3] = 987 cm[3] OPA Resin/year.

Use Season (period of time for which use of chemical is requested): As required through the life of the International Space Station to maintain the OPA concentration as circulated in flight hardware between 25  -  500 ppm OPA as specified in Table 4.1-2.8 "Heat transport fluid (IATC)" Revision E of SSP-30573 "Space Station Program Fluid Procurement and Use Control Specification".

Additional Restrictions, User Precautions and Requirements, Qualifications of Applicators, etc.:  The method to deliver OPA to the IATCS coolant was an immobilization of the active biocide to a solid substrate. The immobilization process involved a solvent evaporation technique that allowed the OPA to be physically constrained in a porous methacrylate resin material. Once the resin material was exposed to the coolant fluid, the OPA effectively eluted from the resin material into the aqueous phase. This implementation was selected due to system requirements and the use of pre-existing flight hardware. System requirements included limits on the initial and final OPA concentration observed eluting from the canister (reactor) and compatibility with the coolant loop chemistry (i.e. no leachate, particles, adverse effects to chemistry/system materials). The flight hardware used for the OPA delivery was a stainless steel canister with an approximate volume of 2.0 L with flex hoses and quick disconnects to connect the canister to a payload rack location.

ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF CONTROL (166.20(a)(4)) (Efficacy data and/or other information included as a separate attachment)

Registered Alternative Pesticides:  An extensive evaluation of biocides was conducted to down-select to several candidates for test trials (see Appendix A). Criteria for that down-select included: the need for safe, non-intrusive implementation and operation in a functioning system; the ability to control existing planktonic and biofilm residing micro-organisms; a negligible impact on system wetted materials of construction; and a negligible reactivity with existing coolant additives.  A five-point ordinal rating scale from 5 (excellent) to 1 (unacceptable) was used to score each biocide against 10 weighted assessment criteria: Material Compatibility 4x; Chemical Compatibility 3x; Safety/Toxicity 3x; Disinfection Effectiveness 2x; Stability 2x; Byproduct Acceptability 2x; On-orbit Implementation 1x; Cost 1x; In-Flight Monitoring 1x; and Technology Readiness 1x.  All oxidizing biocides and halogens were eliminated due to increased corrosion of nickel brazes on cold plates and heat exchangers.  Phenols were eliminated due to instability in the coolant.  Quaternary ammoniums were eliminated due to their reduction of surface tension which increases gas trap leakage.  Trade studies and rapid screening assays were used to develop a prioritized list of acceptable antimicrobial agents including glutaraldehyde, ortho-phthalaldehyde (OPA), and methyl isothiazolone.  Glutaraldehyde at greater than 25 ppm was eliminated due to NASA concerns with safety and toxicity and methyl isothiazolone was eliminated from further consideration due to its ineffectiveness against biofilms and toxicity at higher concentrations. Therefore, OPA, an aromatic dialdehyde compound with the formula C6H4(CHO)2 was selected for qualification testing for use as a biocide in the IATCS.

Alternative Control Practices:  Lowering the water activity of the coolant by increasing salt concentration was ruled out due to requirements for surface tension specified in SSP-30573 Revision B, Space Station Program Fluid Procurement and Use Control Specification.  Requirement specifications included chlorides less than 1.0 ppm and a surface tension of 72 - 77 dynes/cm at 20C.

EFFICACY OF USE PROPOSED UNDER SECTION 18 (166.20(a)(5)) (Efficacy data and/or other information included as a separate attachment)

EXPECTED RESIDUE LEVELS IN FOOD (166.20(a)(6)) (Residue data included as separate attachment)  Not Applicable Due to Removal by ISS ECLSS

                 DISCUSSION OF RISK INFORMATION (166.20(1)(7)) (Potential risks to human health, endangered or threatened species, beneficial organisms, and the environment)

Description of application sites, including proximity to residential areas, aquatic systems, endangered or threatened habitats, soil types, etc.:  Elution of OPA from the OPA Resin (P/N SV1012327-2) into the IATCS coolant volume through the use of an antimicrobial applicator canister (P/N 683-63436) placed in a by-pass line at a payload rack location in the U.S. Laboratory Module, Columbus Module, Japanese Experiment Module, and/or Node 3 and initiating flow at 400 lb/hr for 16 hours.

Possible risks posed by use:  Evaluations of the toxicity of OPA were conducted by Martin E. Coleman, Ph.D., Wyle Toxicology Consultant, and the results were reported in Memo 632 dated March 4, 2005, Memorandum TOX-MC-2007-Draft dated August 27, 2007 and Memorandum TOX-MC-2008-Draft dated March 24, 2008. Circulated concentrations of OPA up to 500 ppm were determined to be Toxicity Hazard Level 0 (Nonhazard) defined as slight irritation that lasts <30 minutes and will not require therapy for all toxicology parameters. Initial effluent concentrations of OPA greater than 1000 ppm introduced into a payload by-pass stream from the antimicrobial applicator were determined to be a Toxicity Hazard Level 1 (Critical) defined as slight to moderate irritation that lasts >30 minutes and will require therapy due to irritation of soft tissues such as the eye.  If coolant containing OPA leaks and the water evaporated until OPA became saturated, the resulting concentrate would be a severe eye irritant classified as a Toxicity Hazard Level 2 defined as moderate to severe irritation that has the potential for long-term performance decrement and will require therapy.  Solid OPA was determined to be a Toxicity Hazard Level 2 (Catastrophic) for eye and skin irritancy and a Toxicity Hazard Level 1 (Critical) for inhalational and systemic toxicity.  OPA in rare instances has caused allergic reactions from repeated skin contact with residual liquids or solids.  OPA loaded resin beads containing 0.25 g/cm[2] OPA in the antimicrobial applicator was assessed as a Toxicity Hazard Level 0 (Nonhazard).

JSC Toxicology provided additional assessment of the risk of solid OPA from IATCS fluid in Memo Tox-HG-2009-09 dated April 30, 2009. This memo documents the JSC Toxicology Group's assessment of dry OPA from evaporated ITCS fluid as a Toxicity Hazard Level 0, rather than a Toxicity Hazard Level 2. Although solid OPA could cause catastrophic eye damage if it were to contact the eye, consideration of the behavior of liquids under the specific spaceflight conditions expected on ISS led to the conclusion that contact with the eyes of dry OPA from evaporated ITCS fluid is not credible. Thus, dried OPA films from evaporated ITCS fluid should not be considered Toxicity Hazard Level 2 eye hazards.

JSC Toxicology recommended that leaks from the antimicrobial applicator and the IATCS should be quickly removed before evaporation occurs.  Leakage detection on-orbit is primarily based on thermal control system accumulator quantities.    Proposals to mitigate risks:  A removal resin was developed to be able to remove OPA from the IATCS in the event of a sustained leak to preserve crew health and safety or if adverse system effects were detected from OPA utilization.  Ambersorb 572[(R)] was chosen as the flight candidate since it had approximately twice the capacity for OPA than the activated carbon. The resin material has a much more porous structure, resulting in higher surface area to facilitate organic adsorption.  The resin was also shown to remove greater than 95% of OPA degradation products from IATCS coolant but it has a higher affinity for free OPA.  The removal resin canister may be attached at a payload rack location similar to antimicrobial applicator.

COORDINATION WITH OTHER AFFECTED FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES (166.20( a)(8))

Not Applicable

                   NOTIFICATION OF REGISTRANT (166.20(a)(9))

ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM (166.20(a)(10)) (Explanation of legal authority and program resources for enforcement)

REPEAT USES (166.20(a)(11)) (If use being requested is a repeat use, and final report has not been filed, interim final report included as a separate attachment)

PROGRESS TOWARD REGISTRATION (166.25(b)(2)(ii) (Information from registrant concerning the current status ) (Not Required for Request for a Quarantine Exemption)

NASA is beginning the registration process.

NAME OF PEST (166.20(c)(I))

Scientific Name:  Cupriavidus metallidurans, Variovorax paradoxus, Acidovorax sp., Sphingomonas parapaucimobilis, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, Methylobacterium extorquens, and Unidentified Gram Negative Rods Common Name:  Aerobic/Microaerophilic Water Bacteria

ORIGIN OF INTRODUCED PEST (166.20(c)(2)) Origin of pest, means of its introduction, and spread into the area (if known):   The primary source of bacteria was from the deionized water used to make the coolant for the Internal Active Thermal Control System.  Also, the equipment was chemically cleaned with isopropanol, rinsed with deionized water and dried prior to assembly.  The bacteria may also have been introduced during handling and assembly.   A silver salt biocide, silver sulfate, initially used as an additive in the coolant formulation at a concentration of 0.1  -  3 parts per million (ppm) to control growth and proliferation of microorganisms rapidly decreased below detection limits within a few hours.   Silver ions rapidly underwent an oxidation reduction reaction with nickel.   The rapid reduction of silver ions in the coolant created a favorable environment for the growth and proliferation of microorganisms.  Counts of heterotrophic bacteria increased from <10 colony forming units (CFU)/100 milliliters (ml) to greater than 1.0E+06 CFU/100 ml.

IMPACT OF THE PEST (166.20(C)(3))

Anticipated impact of not controlling the pest, and other information pertinent to economic importance of this pest: Uncontrolled microbiological growth in the IATCS can deteriorate the performance of the system and potentially impact human health if opportunistic pathogens become established in the system.  Microorganisms are capable of degrading the coolant chemistry, attaching to surfaces and forming biofilm, subsequent biofouling of filters, tubing, and pumps, decreasing flow rates, reducing heat transfer, initiation and acceleration of corrosion, and enhanced mineral scale formation.  Disinfection to control microbiological growth and biofilm formation is necessary to maintain tolerable risk levels for the ISS IATCS due to the required operational life of the ISS IATCS for over 15 years without the ability to periodically flush and replace coolant, sterilize the system, and/or replace system equipment.

                    Information Required for a Final Report SAMPLE SECTION 18 EMERGENCY EXEMPTION FINAL REPORT FORMAT (40 CFR 166.32)

(1) Total acreage, number of structures or other units treated, and the total quantity of the pesticide used (either actual or estimated); (2) A discussion of the effectiveness of the pesticide in dealing with the emergency condition; the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) for OPA against the bacteria in the IATCS is 10  -  20 ppm.  The minimum lethal concentration (MLC) for OPA against most of the identified bacteria in the IATCS is 30  -  50 ppm.  However, the MLC of OPA against Methylobacterium extorquens was determined to be 150  -  200 ppm.  Expected use concentration of 300 ppm OPA is more than ten times higher than the MIC. And provides effective disinfection and microbiological growth control.  (3) A description of any unexpected adverse effects which resulted from use of the pesticide under the exemption;  (4) The results of any monitoring required and/or carried out under the exemption;  (5) A discussion of any enforcement actions taken in connection with the exemption; (6) Method(s) of disposition of a food or animal feed, if required to be destroyed under an exemption; and (7) Any other information requested by the Administrator, such as the type of PPE worn by applicators.


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 122 (Monday, June 25, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29449-29450]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13451]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2016-0590; FRL-9979-87--Region 10]

Air Plan Approval; AK; Interstate Transport Requirements for the
2010 Nitrogen Dioxide and Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality
Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the
State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal from the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation (Alaska DEC) demonstrating that the SIP
meets certain interstate transport requirements of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
promulgated in 2010 for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and sulfur
dioxide (SO2). The EPA has determined that Alaska's SIP
contains adequate provisions to ensure that air emissions in Alaska do
not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with the
maintenance of the 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS in any
other state.

DATES: This final rule is effective July 25, 2018.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2016-0590. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the For
Further Information Contact section for additional availability
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Chi at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.
Information is organized as follows:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On April 23, 2018, the EPA proposed to approve Alaska's March 10,
2016, SIP submission as meeting CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
interstate transport provisions for the 2010 NO2 and 2010
SO2 NAAQS (83 FR 17627). Please see our proposed rulemaking
for further explanation and the basis for our finding (April 23, 2018,
83 FR 17627).
    The public comment period for the EPA's proposed action ended on
May 23, 2018. We received no adverse comments. There were four
electronic comments submitted through https://www.regulations.gov. We
reviewed the comments and we have determined that none are germane to
this action. Therefore, we are finalizing our action as proposed.

II. Final Action

    The EPA is approving Alaska's March 10, 2016, SIP submission as
demonstrating sources in Alaska do not significantly contribute to
nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the 2010
NO2 and SO2 NAAQS in any other state. Based on
our review, we find the Alaska SIP meets the CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport requirements for the 2010
NO2 and SO2 NAAQS.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 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 CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);

     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in
any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications and it 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).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 24, 2018. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide.

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

    Dated: June 14, 2018.
Chris Hladick,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart C--Alaska

0
2. In Sec.  52.70, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an
entry for ``Interstate Transport Requirements--2010 NO2 and
2010 SO2 NAAQS'' after the entry for ``Infrastructure
Requirements--2010 SO2 NAAQS'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.70  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                   EPA-Approved Alaska Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Applicable  geographic
      Name of SIP provision         or  non-attainment         State       EPA approval date     Explanations
                                           area           submittal date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        State of Alaska Air Quality Control Plan: Volume III. Appendices
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Infrastructure and Interstate Transport
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Interstate Transport              Statewide.............       3/10/2016  6/25/2018, [Insert  Approves SIP for
 Requirements--2010 NO2 and 2010                                           Federal Register    purposes of CAA
 SO2 NAAQS.                                                                citation].          section
                                                                                110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I
                                                                                ) for the 2010
                                                                                NO2 and 2010 SO2
                                                                                NAAQS.

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-13451 Filed 6-22-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: July 17, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 138)]
[Notices]
[Page 41067]
[DOCID:fr17jy08-64]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13220-000]

Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comment, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

July 10, 2008.
    On May 7, 2008, Pacific Gas and Electric Company filed an
application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA),
proposing to study the feasibility of the Kings River Pumped Storage
Project to be located in Fresno County, California on private and
federal land managed by the U.S. Forest Service.
    The proposed project would consist of one of the following two
possible designs: (1) (i) A dam in the Lost Canyon area 200 ft high and
700 ft long; (ii) a reservoir with a surface elevation of 7,720 ft and
an estimated storage capacity of 15,695 acre-feet, (iii) an 8,000 foot
long power tunnel including intake structure, penstock, and tailrace;
(2) (i) A dam in the Lower Short Hair Creek area with a height of 175
ft high and length of 1,700 ft; (ii) a reservoir with full pool
elevation of 8,245 ft and storage capacity of 16,290 acre-feet; (iii) a
14,000 foot long power tunnel including intake structure, penstock, and
tailrace; (3) the existing Wishon reservoir, with a surface area of
1,025 acres, storage capacity of 128,639, and a normal water surface
elevation of 6,550 feet, would act as the lower reservoir for either
proposed plan; (4) a powerhouse with a total installed capacity from
380-1140 MW; (5) a transmission line between 2,000 and 5,000 feet long
and of 230 or 500 kV and; (6) appurtenant facilities. The proposed
project would have an annual production between 304 and 912 GWh.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Randal S. Livingston, 245 Market Street,
N11E-1137, San Francisco, CA 94105,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Steven Sachs,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
    Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    For more information on how to submit these types of filings please
go to the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the Commission's Web site at http:/
/www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13220) in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-16294 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 90 (Thursday, May 9, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27001-27005]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10005]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-1161; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-277-AD;
Amendment 39-17442; AD 2013-09-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain The Boeing Company Model 737-200, -200C, -300, -400, and -
500 series airplanes. That AD currently requires a one-time mid-
frequency eddy current (MFEC) inspection, a low-frequency eddy current
(LFEC) inspection, and a detailed inspection for damage or cracking of
stringer S-4L and S-4R lap joints and stringer clips between body
station (BS) 540 and BS 727, and follow-on inspections and repair if
necessary. This new AD instead requires repetitive external eddy
current inspections for cracking of certain fuselage crown lap joints,
and corrective actions if necessary; internal eddy current and detailed
inspections for cracking of certain fuselage crown lap joints, and
repair if necessary; and detailed inspections of certain stringer
clips, and replacement with new stringer clips if necessary. This AD
also adds airplanes to the applicability. This AD was prompted by
reports of cracking of the lap joint lower row. We are issuing this AD
to detect and correct cracking of the fuselage lap joints, which could
result in sudden decompression of the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective June 13, 2013.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publication listed in the AD as of June 13, 2013.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of May
17, 2002 (67 FR 17917, April 12, 2002).

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data

& Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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 (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is 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: Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
425-917-6590; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to supersede AD 2003-08-15, Amendment 39-13128 (68 FR 20341,
April 25, 2003). That AD applies to the specified products. The NPRM
published in the Federal Register on November 7, 2012 (77 FR 66757).
That NPRM proposed to require repetitive external eddy current
inspections for cracking of certain fuselage crown lap joints and
corrective actions; internal eddy current and detailed inspections for
cracking of certain fuselage crown lap joints, and repair if necessary;
and detailed inspections of certain stringer clips, and replacement
with new stringer clips if necessary.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal
(77 FR 66757, November 7, 2012) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Support of NPRM (77 FR 66757, November 7, 2012)

    Ann Harrison stated that she supports the NPRM (77 FR 66757,
November 7, 2012).

Request for Clarification of Inspection Requirements

    Boeing and Lufthansa requested clarification that the repetitive
inspections referred to in paragraph (i)(3) of the NPRM (77 FR 66757,
November 7, 2012) are external inspections. The commenters noted that
the internal inspection specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1255, Revision 2, dated August 7, 2012, is a one-time inspection.
Lufthansa suggested we delete paragraph (i)(3) from the NPRM. Boeing
suggested we revise paragraph (i)(3) of the NPRM to state that the
repetitive inspection is external.
    We agree that clarification is needed. The internal inspection is
required only once prior to the accomplishment of the lap splice
modification. Since the external inspection specified in paragraph (g)
of this AD is repetitive, we have deleted paragraph (i)(3) of this AD.

Request To Use Previous Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    Alaska Airlines requested that we change the NPRM (77 FR 66757,
November 7, 2012) to state that ``AMOCs approved previously in
accordance with AD 2003-08-15 [(68 FR 20341, April 25, 2003)] and AD
2004-18-06 [(69 FR 54206, September 8, 2004)] are approved as AMOCs for
the corresponding provisions of this AD.'' Alaska Airlines stated that
there is a global AMOC for the PEMCO main deck cargo door installation
in accordance with supplemental type certificate (STC) SA2969SO (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/2A10F5D4090A534686257A79006F0F97?OpenDocument&Highlight=stcsa2969so).
The commenter stated that since the STC is not a repair, this global
AMOC should be specified in paragraph (n) of the NPRM.
    We agree with the request to include in the AD previously approved
AMOCs for the corresponding requirements of this AD. Installation of
the PEMCO main deck cargo door done in accordance with STC SA2969SO
(http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/2A10F5D4090A534686257A79006F0F97?OpenDocument&Highlight=stcsa2969so)
involves installation of an external doubler onto the existing skin and
lap splices from stringer S-3R to S-23L between body station (BS) 312
and BS 500B. We have added new paragraph (n)(6) to this AD to state
that installation of STC SA2969SO is approved as an AMOC to the
corresponding requirements of paragraphs (g) and (i) of this AD from
stringer S-3R to S-23L between BS 312 and BS 500B only.
    Boeing requested that we revise paragraph (n)(4) of the NPRM (77 FR
66757, November 7, 2012) to add references to paragraphs (g) and (h) of
AD 2002-07-08, Amendment 39-12702 (67 FR 17917, April 12, 2002), in
order to provide approval for lap joint modifications that have been
approved as AMOCs to paragraphs (g) and (h) of AD 2002-07-08.
    We agree with the request. Lap joints modified prior to the
effective date of this AD that have been approved as an AMOC for
paragraphs (g) and (h) of AD 2002-07-08, Amendment 39-12702 (67 FR
17917, April 12, 2002), should not be subject to the lap joint
inspections required by this AD. We have added references to paragraphs
(g) and (h) of AD 2002-07-08 to paragraph (n)(4) of this AD.

STC Winglet Comment

    Aviation Partners Boeing stated that the installation of winglets
per STC ST01219SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/2C6E3DBDDD36F91C862576A4005D64E2?OpenDocument&Highlight=st01219se) does
not affect the accomplishment of the manufacturer's service
instructions.
    We have added paragraph (c)(2) to this AD to state that
installation of STC ST01219SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/2C6E3DBDDD36F91C862576A4005D64E2?OpenDocument&Highlight=st01219se) does
not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD.
Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01219SE is installed, a
``change in product'' AMOC approval request is not necessary to comply
with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17. For all other AMOC requests, the
operator must request approval for an AMOC in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (n) of this AD.

Request To Clarify Locations of Optional Internal Inspections

    Boeing requested that we include further clarification in paragraph
(h) of the NPRM (77 FR 66757, November 7, 2012) indicating that the
optional internal inspections are for cracks between tear straps only.
Boeing stated that paragraph (g) of the NPRM inspects for cracking at
tear strap locations and

between tear straps. Boeing also stated that paragraph (h) of the NPRM
provides an optional inspection for the inspections required by
paragraph (g), but only for cracking between tear straps. Boeing added
that it is important to clarify that the inspections required by
paragraph (h) of the NPRM are only applicable at locations between tear
straps.
    We agree that the requested wording will further clarify the
location for the optional internal inspections specified in paragraph
(h) of this AD. We have added the phrase ``between tear straps'' to the
beginning of the first sentence of paragraph (h) of this AD.
    Boeing also requested that we clarify paragraph (j) of the NPRM (77
FR 66757, November 7, 2012) to indicate that the optional internal
inspections are for cracks at tear strap locations. Boeing added that
the wording in the NPRM only allows this confirmation when
accomplishing the internal inspections specified in paragraph (i) of
the NPRM. Boeing stated that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1255,
Revision 2, dated August 7, 2012, specifies that this optional
inspection at tear strap locations is for cracks found during either
the external inspection specified in paragraph (g) of the NPRM, or the
internal inspections specified in paragraph (i) of the NPRM.
    We agree that adding a reference to the tear strap location near
the beginning of the first sentence of paragraph (j) of this AD will
clarify the requirement. We have revised paragraph (j) of this AD
accordingly. We have also added a reference to paragraph (g) of this
AD, as requested by the commenter.

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 changes described previously and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (77 FR 66757, November 7, 2012) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 66757, November 7, 2012).
    We also determined that these changes 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 307 airplanes of U.S. registry. We
estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                                     Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per        Number of     Cost on U.S.
                     Action                                     Labor cost                  Parts cost        product        airplanes       operators
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal inspection............................  Up to 303 work-hours x $85 per hour =                $0         $25,755             307      $7,906,785
                                                  $25,755.
External inspection............................  Up to 10 work-hours x $85 per hour =                  0             850             307         260,950
                                                  $850.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
a cost estimate for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    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

    We have determined that 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),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of 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 removing airworthiness directive (AD)
2003-08-15, Amendment 39-13128 (68 FR 20341, April 25, 2003), and
adding the following new AD:

2013-09-01 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-17442; Docket No. FAA-
2012-1161; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-277-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective June 13, 2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2003-08-15, Amendment 39-13128 (68 FR
20341, April 25, 2003).

(c) Applicability

    (1) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-200, -200C,
-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes; certificated in any category;
as specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1255, Revision
2, dated August 7, 2012.
    (2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC)
ST01219SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/2C6E3DBDDD36F91C862576A4005D64E2?OpenDocument&Highlight=st01219se)
does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by
this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01219SE is
installed, a ``change in product'' alternative method of compliance
(AMOC) approval

request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR
39.17.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracking of the lap joint
lower row. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of
the fuselage lap joints, which could result in sudden decompression
of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) External Crown Lap Joint Inspection and Repair

    For airplanes on which the lap splice modification specified in
AD 2002-07-08, Amendment 39-12702 (67 FR 17917, April 12, 2002), has
not been accomplished, except as required by paragraphs (l)(1) and
(l)(2) of this AD: At the applicable times specified in paragraph
1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1255,
Revision 2, dated August 7, 2012, do an external eddy current
inspection for cracking in the crown lap joints, except as provided
by paragraphs (h) and (j) of this AD, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1255, Revision 2, dated August 7, 2012. At the intervals
specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-53A1255, Revision 2, dated August 7, 2012, repeat the
inspections, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1255, Revision 2, dated August
7, 2012. If any cracking is found in a lap joint, before further
flight, repair, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions
of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1255, Revision 2, dated
August 7, 2012.

(h) Optional Internal Inspections for Mid-bay Fastener Locations

    As an option to confirm cracks found between tear straps during
the inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD, do an internal
mid-frequency eddy current (MFEC) inspection for cracking in the lap
joint fastener row between tear straps of the crown lap and do a
detailed inspection of the lap joint lower fastener row for
cracking, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1255, Revision 2, dated August
7, 2012.

(i) Internal Crown Lap Joint Inspection and Repair

    For airplanes on which the lap splice modification specified in
AD 2002-07-08, Amendment 39-12702 (67 FR 17917, April 12, 2002), has
not been accomplished: At the times specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1255,
Revision 2, dated August 7, 2012, except as required by paragraphs
(l)(1) and (l)(2) of this AD, do an internal MFEC, low frequency
eddy current (LFEC), and detailed inspection for cracking in the
crown lap joints and stringer clips, except as provided by paragraph
(j) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions
of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1255, Revision 2, dated
August 7, 2012.
    (1) If any cracking is found in any lap joint, before further
flight, repair, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions
of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1255, Revision 2, dated
August 7, 2012.
    (2) If any cracking is found in any stringer clip, before
further flight, replace the stringer clip with a new stringer clip,
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-53A1255, Revision 2, dated August 7, 2012.

(j) Optional Inspections for Tear Strap Locations Only

    As an option to confirm cracks found at tear strap locations
while doing the inspections required by paragraph (g) or (i) of this
AD, do an open-hole inspection for cracking at the tear strap
locations, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1255, Revision 2, dated August
7, 2012.

(k) Terminating Action

    (1) Accomplishing a repair of a crown lap joint in accordance
with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1255, Revision 2, dated
August 7, 2012, terminates the inspections required by paragraphs
(g) and (i) of this AD for the repaired area only.
    (2) Accomplishing the modification of the crown lap joints in
accordance with any of the service bulletins specified in paragraphs
(k)(2)(i), (k)(2)(ii), and (k)(2)(iii) of this AD terminates the
inspections required by paragraphs (g) and (i) of this AD for the
modified area only.
    (i) Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 4, dated
September 2, 1999.
    (ii) Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 5, dated
February 15, 2001.
    (iii) Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 6, dated May
31, 2001.

(l) Exceptions to Service Information

    (1) Where paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-53A1255, Revision 2, dated August 7, 2012,
specifies a compliance time ``from the Revision 1 date of this
service bulletin,'' this AD requires a compliance time ``after the
effective date of this AD.''
    (2) Where the ``Condition'' column, in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1255,
Revision 2, dated August 7, 2012, specifies airplanes with certain
flight cycles ``at the Revision 1 date of this service bulletin,''
for this AD the condition is for airplanes with corresponding flight
cycles ``as of the effective date of this AD.''

(m) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (j) of this AD, if those actions were
performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-53A1255, Revision 1, dated November 7, 2011,
which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(n) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (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. 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 ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) 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.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make
those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) AMOCs approved for paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (g),
and (h) of AD 2002-07-08, Amendment 39-12702 (67 FR 17917, April 12,
2002), before the effective date of this AD, are approved for the
corresponding requirements of paragraphs (g), (i), and (k) of this
AD.
    (5) As of the effective date of this AD, any AMOCs approved for
paragraphs (g) and (i) of this AD are approved as AMOCs for the
corresponding requirements of paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e)
of AD 2002-07-08, Amendment 39-12702 (67 FR 17917, April 12, 2002).
    (6) As of the effective date of this AD, installation of STC
SA2969SO (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/2A10F5D4090A534686257A79006F0F97?OpenDocument&Highlight=stc
sa2969so) is approved as an AMOC for the corresponding requirements
of paragraphs (g) and (i) of this AD from stringer S-3R to S-23L
between body station (BS) 312 and BS 500B only.

(o) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Wayne Lockett,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.

(p) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference

(IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
June 13, 2013.
    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1255, Revision 2, dated
August 7, 2012.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on
May 17, 2002 (67 FR 17917, April 12, 2002).
    (i) Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 4, dated
September 2, 1999.
    (ii) Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 5, dated
February 15, 2001.
    (iii) Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, Revision 6, dated May
31, 2001.
    (5) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (6) You may review copies of the referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (7) You may view this 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/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 18, 2013.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-10005 Filed 5-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P