[Federal Register: December 30, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 249)]
[Notices]
[Page 69186-69189]
[DOCID:fr30de09-139]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Environmental Impact Statement for the California High-Speed
Train Project from Merced to Sacramento, CA

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

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

SUMMARY: This notice is to advise the public that FRA and the
California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority) will jointly prepare a
project Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and a project
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Merced to Sacramento Section
of the Authority's proposed California High-Speed Train (HST) System in
compliance with relevant State and Federal laws, in particular the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The San Joaquin Regional Rail
Commission (SJRRC) is interested in providing intercity and commuter
regional rail passenger services within this section of the HST System
connecting to the Altamont Corridor Rail Project. FRA is issuing this
Notice to alert interested parties and solicit public and agency input
into the development of the scope of the EIS and to advise the public
that outreach activities conducted by the Authority and their
representatives will be considered in the preparation of the combined
EIR/EIS. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers may serve as a cooperating
agency for the preparation of the EIR/EIS.

    In 2001, the Authority and FRA started a tiered environmental
review process for the HST System and in 2005, completed the first tier
California High-Speed Train Program EIR/EIS (Statewide Program EIR/EIS)
and approved the statewide HST System for intercity travel in
California between the major metropolitan centers of Sacramento and the
San Francisco Bay Area in the north, through the Central Valley, to Los
Angeles and San Diego in the south. The approved HST System would be
about 800-miles long, with electric propulsion and steel-wheel-on-
steel-rail trains capable of maximum operating speeds of 220 miles per
hour (mph) on a mostly dedicated system of fully grade-separated,
access-controlled steel track with state-of-the-art safety, signaling,
communication, and automated train control systems. In approving the
HST System, the Authority and FRA also selected corridors/general
alignments and station location options throughout most of the system.
The Statewide Program EIR/EIS selected the Union Pacific Railroad
Company (UPRR) corridor for the high-speed train route from Sacramento
south to Stockton and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad
corridor from Stockton south to Merced. Consistent with the Clean Water
Act implementing regulations and because the UPRR alignment option may
have more potential impacts to waters and biological resources, the
Central California Traction (CCT) alignment between Sacramento and
Stockton will also be evaluated as part of the Project EIR/EIS.
    In 2008, the Authority and FRA completed a second program EIR/EIS
to evaluate and select general alignments and station locations within
the broad corridor between and including the Altamont Pass and the
Pacheco Pass to connect the Bay Area and Central Valley portions of the
HST System. The Authority and FRA selected the Pacheco Pass with the
San Francisco and San Jose termini network alternative, as well as
preferred corridor alignments and station location options. The UPRR
corridor was selected as the preferred alignment through the portion of
the Central Valley from south of Stockton to Merced and the BNSF
corridor was recommended for further study in this area for the Project
EIR/EIS.
    The preparation of the Merced to Sacramento HST Project EIR/EIS
will involve the development of preliminary engineering designs and the
assessment of potential environmental effects associated with the
construction, operation, and maintenance of the HST System, including
track, ancillary facilities, and stations along the preferred
alternative corridors from Merced to Sacramento.

DATES: Written comments on the scope of the Merced to Sacramento HST
Project EIR/EIS should be provided to the Authority by 5 p.m., Friday,
February 26, 2010. Public scoping meetings are scheduled from January
20, 2010 to January 28, 2010, at the times, dates, and locations listed
below.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the scope of this EIR/EIS should be sent
to Mr. Dan Leavitt, Deputy Director, ATTN: Merced to Sacramento HST
Project EIR/EIS, California High-Speed Rail Authority, 925 L Street,
Suite 1425, Sacramento, CA 95814, or via e-mail with subject line
``Merced to Sacramento Section'' to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments may
also be provided orally or in writing at the scoping meetings scheduled
at the following locations:
     Stockton, CA, January 20, 2010, from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m., San
Joaquin Council of Governments, 555 E. Weber Avenue, Stockton, CA.
     Merced, CA, January 21, 2010, from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m.,
Merced Senior Center, 755 W. 15th Street, Merced, CA.
     Sacramento, CA, January 27, 2010, from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m.,
Amtrak Depot, Model Room, 301 I Street, Sacramento, CA.
     Modesto, CA, January 28, 2010, from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m.,
Modesto Center Plaza, 1000 L Street, Modesto, CA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David Valenstein, Environmental
Program Manager, Office of Railroad Development, Federal Railroad
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE (Mail Stop 20), Washington,
DC 20590 (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>); or Mr. Dan Leavitt, Deputy
Director, ATTN: Merced to Sacramento HST Project EIR/EIS, California
High-Speed Rail Authority, 925 L Street, Suite 1425, Sacramento, CA
95814 (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Scoping

    The FRA, the Authority, and SJRRC invite all interested
individuals, organizations, public agencies, and Native American Tribes
to comment on the scope of the EIS, including the project's purpose and
need, the alternatives to be studied, the impacts to be evaluated, and
the evaluation methods to be used. Comments should focus on:
Alternatives that may be less costly or have fewer environmental or
community impacts while achieving similar transportation objectives and
the identification of any significant social, economic, or
environmental issues related to potential alternatives.

Agency Responsibilities

    The Authority was established in 1996 and is authorized and
directed by statute to undertake the planning and development of a
proposed statewide HST network that is fully coordinated with other
public transportation services. The Authority adopted a Final Business
Plan in June 2000, which reviewed the economic feasibility of an 800-
mile-long HST capable of operating speeds in excess of 200 mph on a
mostly dedicated, fully grade-separated state-of-the-art track. The
Authority released updated business plans in November 2008, and on
December 14, 2009.
    The FRA has responsibility for overseeing the safety of railroad
operations, including the safety of any proposed high-speed ground
transportation system. For the proposed project, FRA may need to take
certain regulatory actions prior to operation. The FRA is also
authorized to provide Federal funding for intercity passenger rail
capital investments through high-speed and intercity passenger rail
grant programs created in the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement
Act of 2008.
    The SJRRC manages and operates the current Altamont Commuter
Express (ACE) service between Stockton and San Jose. The SJRRC and the
Authority have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which
recognizes their mutual interest in the development of this section of
the HST System and that establishes SJRRC as a local partner for the
development of the Merced to Sacramento HST Project.

Background

    In 2005, the Authority and FRA completed the Statewide Program EIR/
EIS for the Proposed California High-Speed Train System High-Speed as
the first phase of a tiered environmental review process. The Authority
certified the Statewide Program EIR under CEQA and approved the
proposed HST System. FRA issued a Record of Decision on the Statewide
Program EIR/EIS as required under NEPA. The Statewide Program EIR/EIS
established the purpose and need for the HST System and compared the
proposed HST System with both a No Project/No Action Alternative and a
Modal Alternative. In approving the Statewide Program EIR/EIS, the
Authority and FRA selected the HST Alternative, selected certain
corridors/general alignments and general station locations for further
study, incorporated mitigation strategies and design

practices, and specified further measures to guide the development of
the HST System during the site-specific project environmental review to
avoid and minimize potential adverse environmental impacts. Additional
consideration will be given to the potential operation of a regional
passenger rail service in this section of the Authority's HST System
infrastructure by SJRRC, who may potentially develop additional
regional stations for such a service.
    The Merced to Sacramento HST Project EIR/EIS will tier from the
Statewide Program EIR/EIS and the Bay Area to Central Valley HST
Program EIR/EIS in accordance with Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) regulations, (40 CFR 1508.28), the State CEQA Guidelines (14
California Code of Regulations 15168(b)) and FRA's Procedures for
Considering Environmental Impacts (64 FR 28545 (May 26, 1999)). Tiering
ensures that the Merced to Sacramento HST Project EIR/EIS builds upon
program analysis and decisions made with the Statewide Program EIR/EIS
and the Bay Area to Central Valley HST Program EIR/EIS.

The Merced to Sacramento HST Project EIS

    The Project EIR/EIS will describe site-specific environmental
impacts, identify specific mitigation measures to address those
impacts, and will incorporate design features to avoid and minimize
potential adverse environmental impacts. The FRA and the Authority will
assess the site characteristics, size, nature, and timing of the
proposed project to determine whether the impacts are potentially
significant and whether impacts can be avoided or mitigated. This
Project EIR/EIS will identify and evaluate reasonable and feasible
site-specific alignment alternatives, and evaluate the impacts of
construction, operation, and maintenance of the HST System. Information
and documents regarding this HST environmental review process will be
made available through the Authority's Internet site: http://
www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/.
    Purpose and Need of the Proposed Project: The purpose of Merced to
Sacramento HST Project is to implement the statewide HST System along
the corridors selected in program-level documents that will: (1) Link
Southern California cities, the Central Valley, Sacramento, and Bay
Area; (2) provide a new transportation option that increases mobility
throughout California; (3) provide reliable HST service that delivers
predictable and consistent travel times using electric powered steel
wheel trains; and (4) provide a transportation system that is
commercially viable. The need for an HST System is directly related to
the expected growth in population, and increases in intercity travel
demand in California over the next twenty years and beyond. With the
growth in travel demand, there will be an increase in travel delays
arising from the growing congestion on California's highways and at its
airports. In addition, there will be negative effects on the economy,
quality of life, and air quality in and around California's
metropolitan areas from an increasingly congested transportation system
that will become less reliable as travel demand increases. The
intercity highway system, commercial airports, and conventional
passenger rail serving the intercity travel market are currently
operating at or near capacity, and will require large public
investments for maintenance and expansion to meet existing demand and
future growth. The proposed HST System is designed to address some of
the social, economic and environmental problems associated with
transportation congestion in California. In addition to serving a
statewide need, the project will consider the viability of sharing
track with regionally operated services which may serve additional
regional stations (that would not be used by HST trains) located
between the HST stations identified on the statewide HST System.
    Alternatives: The Merced to Sacramento HST Project EIR/EIS will
consider a No Action or No Project Alternative and an HST Alternative
for the Merced to Sacramento section.
    No Action Alternative: The No Action Alternative (No Project or No
Build) represents the conditions in the corridor as it existed in 2009,
and as it would exist based on programmed and funded improvements to
the intercity transportation system and other reasonably foreseeable
projects through 2035, taking into account the following sources of
information: the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and
Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs) for all modes of travel, airport
plans, intercity passenger rail plans, as well as city and county
plans.
    HST Alternative: The Authority proposes to construct, operate and
maintain an electric-powered steel-wheel-on-steel-rail HST System,
about 800 miles long, capable of operating speeds of 220 mph on mostly
dedicated, fully grade-separated, access controlled tracks, with state-
of-the-art safety, signaling, and automated train control systems. As
part of the Bay Area to Central Valley HST Program EIR/EIS, the
Authority and FRA selected the UPRR railroad alignment through the
portion of the Central Valley from Merced to south of Stockton as the
preferred alternative. This Project EIR/EIS will also evaluate the BNSF
railroad alignment in this part of the Central Valley because of the
uncertainty of negotiating with the UPRR for some of their right-of-
way. In the Statewide Program EIR/EIS, the Authority and FRA selected
the UPRR alignment as the preferred alternative from Stockton to
Sacramento. However, because the Statewide Program EIR/EIS concluded
that the UPRR alignment has more potential impacts to waters and
biological resources than the CCT alignment option, the CCT alignment
will also be evaluated in this Project EIR/EIS between Stockton and
Sacramento. In the Central Valley, the HST System would operate at
speeds up to 220 mph on tracks separate from the existing BNSF and UPRR
tracks. Further engineering studies to be undertaken as part of this
EIR/EIS process will examine and refine alignments in the BNSF and UPRR
corridors. The entire alignment would be grade-separated. In addition,
alternative sites for right-of-way maintenance, train storage
facilities, and a fleet storage/service and inspection/light
maintenance facility in Sacramento will be evaluated. Finally, features
necessary to accommodate connections to the Altamont Rail Corridor
Project between Stockton and Modesto will be identified and evaluated.
    Preferred station locations selected by the Authority and FRA
through the Statewide Program EIR/EIS will be evaluated for Sacramento
and Stockton. These stations are downtown Sacramento, and downtown
Stockton. In addition, the preferred downtown Modesto station location
selected by the Authority and FRA through the Bay Area to Central
Valley HST Program EIR/EIS on the UPRR alignment and the ``Amtrak
Briggsmore'' site on the BNSF alignment will also be evaluated in the
Merced to Sacramento HST Project EIR/EIS to serve the Modesto area. The
station in Merced will be analyzed in the separate EIR/EIS for the
Merced to Fresno section of the HST System. Alternative station sites
at or near the selected station locations may be identified and
evaluated. Additional regional stations which potentially could be
served by regional trains (but not HST services) may also be identified
and evaluated.

The EIS Process

    The purpose of the EIR/EIS process is to explore in a public
setting the potentially significant effects of

implementing the proposed action on the physical, human, and natural
environment. The FRA and the Authority will continue the tiered
evaluation of all significant environmental, social, and economic
impacts of the construction and operation of the Merced to Sacramento
Section of the HST System. Areas of investigation will be developed
during the scoping process and may include, but not be limited to,
transportation impacts; safety and security; land use and zoning;
indirect and cumulative impacts; land acquisition, displacements, and
relocations; cultural resource impacts, including impacts on historical
and archaeological resources and parklands/recreation areas;
neighborhood compatibility and environmental justice; natural resource
impacts including air quality, wetlands, water resources, noise,
vibration, energy, wildlife; and ecosystems, including endangered
species and temporary construction impacts. Measures to avoid,
minimize, and mitigate adverse impacts will be identified and
evaluated.
    FRA and the Authority will comply with all environmental laws,
regulations, and executive orders applicable to the proposed project
during the environmental review process to the maximum extent
practicable. These requirements include, but are not limited to, the
regulations of the CEQ implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508),
State CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations 15168(b)) and
FRA's Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 FR 28545,
May 26, 1999), project-level air quality conformity regulation of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (40 CFR part 93(b)), Section
404(b)(1) EPA guidelines (40 CFR part 230), Executive Orders 11988,
11990, and 12898 regarding floodplains, wetlands, and environmental
justice, respectively, Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (36 CFR part 800), Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act (50 CFR part 402), and Section 4(f) of the Department of
Transportation Act (49 USC 303). Measures to avoid, minimize, and
mitigate all adverse impacts will be identified and evaluated.
    This EIR/EIS process will also continue the NEPA/Clean Water Act
Section 404 integration process established through the Statewide
Program EIR/EIS process. The EIR/EIS will evaluate project alignment
alternatives and station and maintenance facility locations to support
a determination of the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable
Alternative (LEDPA) by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
    In concert with the spirit of the CEQ's NEPA regulations, FRA will
encourage incorporation by reference (40 CFR 1502.21) of preceding
planning and environmental documents. Also, it is one of the mandates
of the CEQ regulations that Federal agency's reduce paperwork (Sec.
1500.4), produce a reasonable number of pages without being
overwhelming (Sec.  1502.7) and create environmental documents that are
written in plain language and are highly accessible to the reader
(Sec.  1502.8). The NEPA document will emphasize graphics, virtual
simulation, and an accessible narrative format. Technical documentation
will be established in appendices.
    Scoping and Comments: FRA encourages broad participation in the EIS
process during scoping and review of the resulting environmental
documents. Comments are invited from all interested agencies and the
public to ensure the full range of issues related to the proposed
action and reasonable alternatives are addressed and all significant
issues are identified. In particular, FRA is interested in learning
whether there are areas of environmental concern where there might be a
potential for significant site-specific impacts from the Merced-
Sacramento Section of the HST System. Public agencies with jurisdiction
are requested to advise FRA and the Authority of the applicable permit
and environmental review requirements of each agency, and the scope and
content of the environmental information germane to the agency's
statutory responsibilities relevant to the proposed project. Public
agencies are requested to advise FRA if they anticipate taking a major
action in connection with the proposed project and if they wish to
cooperate in the preparation of the Project EIR/EIS. Public scoping
meetings have been scheduled as an important component of the scoping
process for both the State and Federal environmental review. The
scoping meetings described in this Notice will also be the subject of
additional public notification.
    FRA is seeking participation and input of all interested Federal,
State, and local agencies, Native American groups, and other concerned
private organizations or individuals on the scope of the EIR/EIS.
Implementation of the Merced to Sacramento Section of the HST System is
a Federal undertaking with the potential to affect historic properties.
As such, it is subject to the requirements of Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470f). In
accordance with regulations issued by the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, 36 CFR part 800, FRA intends to coordinate compliance
with Section 106 of this Act with the preparation of the EIR/EIS,
beginning with the identification of consulting parties through the
scoping process, in a manner consistent with the standards set out in
36 CFR 800.8.

    Issued in Washington, DC on December 23, 2009.
Paul Nissenbaum,
Director, Office of Passenger and Freight Programs, Federal Railroad
Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-30963 Filed 12-29-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 220 (Friday, November 13, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 72555-72558]
[FR Doc No: 2020-25013]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0779; Product Identifier 2020-NM-092-AD; Amendment
39-21311; AD 2020-22-15]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; the Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
The Boeing Company Model DC-10-10 and DC-10-10F airplanes, Model DC-10-
15 airplanes, Model DC-10-30 and DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10)
airplanes, Model DC-10-40 and DC-10-40F airplanes, Model MD-10-10F and
MD-10-30F airplanes, and Model MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes. This AD was
prompted by reports of cracked floor beams and floor beam supports in
the area of the overwing exit doors located at certain stations (STA).
This AD requires an inspection of the overwing floor beams for any
repair, repetitive inspections of the overwing floor beams and floor
beam supports at certain STA on the left and right sides for any crack,
and applicable on-condition actions. The FAA is issuing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective December 18, 2020.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of December 18,
2020.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data
Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA
90740-5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

It is also available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0779.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0779; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, any comments received, and other information. The
address for Docket Operations is 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: Manuel Hernandez, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960
Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
562-627-5210; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company
Model DC-10-10 and DC-10-10F airplanes, Model DC-10-15 airplanes, Model
DC-10-30 and DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10) airplanes, Model DC-10-40
and DC-10-40F airplanes, Model MD-10-10F and MD-10-30F airplanes, and
Model MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on August 25, 2020 (85 FR 52287). The NPRM was prompted by
reports of cracked floor beams and floor beam supports in the area of
the overwing exit doors located at certain STA. The NPRM proposed to
require an inspection of the overwing floor beams for any repair,
repetitive inspections of the overwing floor beams and floor beam
supports at certain STA on the left and right sides for any crack, and
applicable on-condition actions.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to address potential undetected overwing
floor beam cracks that could grow in length until the floor beam
severs, and, if limit load is applied with two adjacent severed floor
beams, could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane,
which could result in the loss of primary control systems and lead to
reduced controllability of the airplane.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The FAA has considered the comments
received. Boeing and Shawn Darr indicated support for the NPRM.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments
received, and determined that air safety and the public interest
require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor
editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin DC10-53A184 RB,
dated February 6, 2020; and Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin MD11-
53A088 RB, dated March 6, 2020. The service information describes
procedures for a general visual inspection of the overwing floor beams
for any repair; repetitive eddy current high frequency (ETHF)
inspections of the overwing floor beams and floor beam supports for
cracks, or repetitive ETHF inspections of the overwing floor beams and
detailed inspections of the overwing floor beam supports at certain
stations on the left and right sides for any crack, depending on
configuration; and applicable on-condition actions. On-condition
actions include repair. These documents are distinct since they apply
to different airplane models. This service information is reasonably
available because the interested parties have access to it through
their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 224 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost        Parts cost      Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General visual inspection........  1 work-hour x $85                $0  $85................  $19,040.
                                    per hour = $85.
ETHF and detailed inspections....  Up to 70 work-hours               0  Up to $5,950 per     Up to $1,332,800
                                    x $85 per hour =                     inspection cycle.    per inspection
                                    Up to $5,950 per                                          cycle.
                                    inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-
condition actions that would be required. The FAA has no way of
determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition
actions:

                                     Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Labor cost                          Parts cost                       Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 375 work-hours x $85 per hour = Up  Up to $190,576.............  Up to $222,451.
 to $31,875.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing

regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

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 adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2020-22-15 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-21311; Docket No. FAA-
2020-0779; Product Identifier 2020-NM-092-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective December 18, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company airplanes specified in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this AD, certificated in any
category.
    (1) Model DC-10-10 and DC-10-10F airplanes.
    (2) Model DC-10-15 airplanes.
    (3) Model DC-10-30 and DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10) airplanes.
    (4) Model DC-10-40 and DC-10-40F airplanes.
    (5) Model MD-10-10F and MD-10-30F airplanes.
    (6) Model MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracked floor beams and floor
beam supports in the area of the overwing exit doors located at
certain stations. The FAA is issuing this AD to address potential
undetected overwing floor beam cracks that could grow in length
until the floor beam severs, and, if limit load is applied with two
adjacent severed floor beams, could adversely affect the structural
integrity of the airplane, which could result in the loss of primary
control systems and lead to reduced controllability of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    Except as specified by paragraph (h) of this AD: At the
applicable times specified in the ``Compliance'' paragraph of Boeing
Alert Requirements Bulletin DC10-53A184 RB, dated February 6, 2020;
or Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin MD11-53A088 RB, dated March 6,
2020; as applicable, do all applicable actions identified in, and in
accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Requirements Bulletin DC10-53A184 RB, dated February 6, 2020; or
Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin MD11-53A088 RB, dated March 6,
2020; as applicable.

    Note 1 to paragraph (g):  Guidance for accomplishing the actions
required by this AD can be found in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
DC10-53A184, dated February 6, 2020; or Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin MD11-53A088, dated March 6, 2020; as applicable, which are
referred to in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin DC10-53A184 RB,
dated February 6, 2020; and Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin MD11-
53A088 RB, dated March 6, 2020; respectively.

(h) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    (1) Where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin DC10-53A184 RB,
dated February 6, 2020, uses the phrase ``the original issue date of
Requirements Bulletin DC10-53A184 RB,'' this AD requires using ``the
effective date of this AD,'' except where Boeing Alert Requirements
Bulletin DC10-53A184 RB, dated February 6, 2020, uses the phrase
``the original issue date of Requirements Bulletin DC10-53A184 RB''
in a note or flag note.
    (2) Where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin MD11-53A088 RB,
dated March 6, 2020, uses the phrase ``the original issue date of
Requirements Bulletin MD11-53A088 RB,'' this AD requires using ``the
effective date of this AD,'' except where Boeing Alert Requirements
Bulletin MD11-53A088 RB, dated March 6, 2020, uses the phrase ``the
original issue date of Requirements Bulletin MD11-53A088 RB'' in a
note or flag note.
    (3) Where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin DC10-53A184 RB,
dated February 6, 2020, specifies contacting Boeing for repair
instructions or for alternative inspections: This AD requires doing
the repair, or doing the alternative inspections and applicable on-
condition actions before further flight using a method approved in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this
AD.
    (4) Where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin MD11-53A088 RB,
dated March 6, 2020, specifies contacting Boeing for repair
instructions or for alternative inspections: This AD requires doing
the repair, or doing the alternative inspections and applicable on-
condition actions before further flight using a method approved in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this
AD.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority
to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures
found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your
request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards
District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to
the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) 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, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by The Boeing Company Organization Designation
Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los
Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the
repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Manuel
Hernandez, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Section, FAA,
Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA
90712-4137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (k)(3) and (4) of this AD.

(k) 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.
    (i) Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin DC10-53A184 RB, dated
February 6, 2020.
    (ii) Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin MD11-53A088 RB, dated
March 6, 2020.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-
5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) 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, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on October 21, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-25013 Filed 11-12-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 202 (Friday, October 20, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48769-48770]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22701]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0271; FRL-9969-85-Region 9]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Nevada; Rescission of Visibility Protection Federal Implementation Plan
for the Mohave Generating Station

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the
Nevada Division of Environmental Protection's (NDEP) request to rescind
the visibility protection Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) that we
promulgated on February 8, 2002, to regulate air pollutant emissions
from the Mohave Generating Station (MGS), located in Clark County,
Nevada. The EPA is approving the NDEP's request because MGS has been
decommissioned and demolished.

DATES: This rule is effective November 20, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0271. All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. 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: Krishna Viswanathan, EPA, Region IX,
Air Division, Air Planning Office,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Proposed Action and Public Comment Period
II. Final Action
III. Environmental Justice Considerations
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action and Public Comment Period

    On June 22, 2017, the EPA proposed to rescind the MGS FIP because
MGS had been decommissioned and demolished, as demonstrated by the
supporting documentation provided by the NDEP.\1\ The EPA's proposed
action provided a 45-day public comment period. The EPA did not receive
any comments on the proposal to rescind the MGS FIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For details on the EPA's original FIP and additional
background, see proposal at 82 FR 28433.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Final Action

    For the reasons explained in our proposal, we are approving the
NDEP's request to rescind the MGS FIP.

III. Environmental Justice Considerations

    The EPA believes that this action will not have potential
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority, low-income, or indigenous populations because it
merely rescinds a FIP that is no longer applicable because the subject
facility has been decommissioned and demolished.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

    This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action
because actions such as the Rescission of Visibility Protection Federal
Implementation Plan for the Mohave Generating Station that apply to
only one source is a Rule of Particular Applicability that are exempted
under Executive Order 12866.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on
any Indian tribes, on the relationship between the federal government
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the federal government and Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks that the EPA has
reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the
definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in section 2-202 of the
Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045
because it merely rescinds a FIP covering a generating station that has
been decommissioned and demolished.

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

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

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. The EPA is
not revising any technical standards or imposing any new technical
standards in this action.

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The
documentation for this decision is contained in section III above.

L. Determination Under Section 307(d)

    Pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(1)(B), the EPA has determined that
this action is subject to the provisions of section 307(d). Section
307(d) establishes procedural requirements specific to certain
rulemaking actions under the CAA. Pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(1)(B),
the rescission of the MGS FIP is subject to the requirements of CAA
section 307(d), as it constitutes a revision to a FIP under CAA section
110(c). Furthermore, CAA section 307(d)(1)(V) provides that the
provisions of section 307(d) apply to ``such other actions as the
Administrator may determine.'' The EPA determines that the provisions
of 307(d) apply to the EPA's action on the MGS FIP rescission.

M. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This rule is exempt from the CRA because it is a rule of particular
applicability. The EPA is not required to submit a rule report
regarding this action under section 801 because this is a rule of
particular applicability that only applies to a single, decommissioned
facility.

N. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under CAA section 307(b)(1), petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by December 19, 2017. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Sulfur oxides.

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

    Dated: October 13, 2017.
E. Scott Pruitt,
Administrator, EPA.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part
52 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 DD--Nevada

Sec.  52.1488  [Amended]

0
2. Section 52.1488 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (d).

[FR Doc. 2017-22701 Filed 10-19-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 13, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6195-6196]
[FR Doc No: 2018-02871]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2018-D-0342]

Bacillus Calmette-Gu[eacute]rin-Unresponsive Nonmuscle Invasive
Bladder Cancer: Developing Drugs and Biologics for Treatment; Guidance
for Industry; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the availability of a guidance for industry entitled ``Bacillus
Calmette-Gu[eacute]rin (BCG)-Unresponsive Nonmuscle Invasive Bladder
Cancer: Developing Drugs and Biologics for Treatment.'' This guidance
was developed to assist in the development of drugs and biologics for
patients with a form of bladder cancer that is not amenable to
currently available medical therapy and remains an unmet medical need.
This guidance finalizes the draft guidance of the same name issued on
November 18, 2016.

DATES: The announcement of the guidance is published in the Federal
Register on February 13, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit either electronic or written comments on
Agency guidances at any time 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-2018-D-0342 for ``BCG-Unresponsive Nonmuscle Invasive Bladder
Cancer: Developing Drugs and Biologics for Treatment; Guidance for
Industry.'' Received comments 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.
    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)).
    Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the
Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research,
Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale
Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, or Office of
Communication, Outreach, and Development, Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send
one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing
your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the guidance document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  V. Ellen Maher, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration,10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 2352, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-5017; or Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry
entitled ``BCG-Unresponsive Nonmuscle Invasive Bladder Cancer:
Developing Drugs and Biologics for Treatment.'' This guidance was
developed to assist in the development of drugs and biologics for
patients with a form of bladder cancer that is not amenable to
currently available medical therapy and remains an unmet medical need.
This guidance finalizes the draft guidance of the same name issued on
November 18, 2016 (81 FR 81778). Changes made to the guidance took into
consideration written and verbal comments received. In addition to
editorial changes made primarily for clarification, noteworthy
substantive changes are as follows: Clarification of the definition of
BCG-unresponsive disease and detailed

information concerning the definition of complete response.
    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance
practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the
current thinking of FDA on BCG-unresponsive nonmuscle invasive bladder
cancer. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not
binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it
satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

II. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information that are subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR parts 312 and 314 have
been approved under OMB control numbers 0910-0014 and 0910-0001,
respectively.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at
either https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm, https://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/default.htm, or https://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: February 7, 2018.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-02871 Filed 2-12-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 43 (Tuesday, March 5, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7854-7858]
[FR Doc No: 2019-03940]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2018-0801; FRL-9990-23-Region 10]

Air Plan Approval; OR; 2015 Ozone NAAQS Interstate Transport
Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires each State Implementation
Plan (SIP) to contain adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that
will have certain adverse air quality effects in other states. On
September 25, 2018, the State of Oregon made a submission to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address these requirements for
the 2015 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The EPA
is proposing to approve the submission as meeting the requirement that
each SIP contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions that will
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other state.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 4, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2018-0801 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not electronically submit any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Claudia Vaupel at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA. This
supplementary information section is arranged as follows:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. State Submission
III. EPA Evaluation
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On October 1, 2015, the EPA promulgated a revision to the ozone
NAAQS (2015 ozone NAAQS), lowering the level of both the primary and
secondary standards to 0.070 parts per million (ppm).\1\ Section
110(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to submit, within 3 years after
promulgation of a new or revised standard, SIPs meeting the applicable
requirements of section 110(a)(2).\2\ One of these applicable
requirements is found in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), otherwise known as
the good neighbor provision, which

generally requires SIPs to contain adequate provisions to prohibit in-
state emissions activities from having certain adverse air quality
effects on other states due to interstate transport of pollution. There
are four so-called ``prongs'' within CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i):
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 under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Under prongs 1 and 2
of the good neighbor provision, a SIP for a new or revised NAAQS must
contain adequate provisions prohibiting any source or other type of
emissions activity within the state from emitting air pollutants in
amounts that will significantly contribute to nonattainment of the
NAAQS in another state (prong 1) or from interfering with maintenance
of the NAAQS in another state (prong 2). Under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA, the EPA and states must give independent
significance to prong 1 and prong 2 when evaluating downwind air
quality problems under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(i)(I).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, Final
Rule, 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015). Although the level of the
standard is specified in the units of ppm, ozone concentrations are
also described in parts per billion (ppb). For example, 0.070 ppm is
equivalent to 70 ppb.
    \2\ SIP revisions that are intended to meet the applicable
requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA are often
referred to as infrastructure SIPs and the applicable elements under
110(a)(2) are referred to as infrastructure requirements.
    \3\ See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 909-911 (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that the EPA has addressed the interstate transport
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to prior
ozone NAAQS in several regional regulatory actions, including the
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), which addressed interstate
transport with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS as well as the 1997 and
2006 fine particulate matter standards, and the Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (CSAPR Update).\4\ These
actions only addressed interstate transport in the eastern United
States \5\ and did not address the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (i.e., CSAPR) and 81 FR
74504 (October 26, 2016) (i.e., CSAPR Update).
    \5\ For purposes of CSAPR and the CSAPR Update action, the
Western U.S. (or the West) was considered to consist of the 11
western contiguous states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho,
Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
The Eastern U.S. (or the East) was considered to consist of the 37
states east of the 11 Western states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Through the development and implementation of CSAPR, the CSAPR
Update and previous regional rulemakings pursuant to the good neighbor
provision,\6\ the EPA, working in partnership with states, developed
the following four-step interstate transport framework to address the
requirements of the good neighbor provision for the ozone NAAQS: \7\
(1) Identify downwind air quality problems; (2) identify upwind states
that impact those downwind air quality problems sufficiently such that
they are considered ``linked'' and therefore warrant further review and
analysis; (3) identify the emissions reductions necessary (if any),
considering cost and air quality factors, to prevent linked upwind
states identified in step 2 from contributing significantly to
nonattainment or interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS at the
locations of the downwind air quality problems; and (4) adopt permanent
and enforceable measures needed to achieve those emissions reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Other regional rulemakings addressing ozone transport
include the NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57356 (October 27, 1998),
and the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25162 (May 12,
2005).
    \7\ The four-step interstate framework has also been used to
address requirements of the good neighbor provision for some
previous particulate matter and ozone NAAQS, including in the
Western United States. See, e.g., 83 FR 30380 (June 28, 2018) and 83
FR 5375, 5376-77 (February 7, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA has released several documents containing information
relevant to evaluating interstate transport with respect to the 2015
ozone NAAQS. First, on January 6, 2017, the EPA published a notice of
data availability (NODA) with preliminary interstate ozone transport
modeling with projected ozone design values for 2023, on which we
requested comment.\8\ The year 2023 was used as the analytic year for
this preliminary modeling because that year aligns with the expected
attainment year for Moderate ozone nonattainment areas.\9\ On October
27, 2017, we released a memorandum (2017 memorandum) containing updated
modeling data for 2023, which incorporated changes made in response to
comments on the NODA.\10\ Although the 2017 memorandum also released
data for a 2023 modeling year, we specifically stated that the modeling
may be useful for states developing SIPs to address remaining good
neighbor obligations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS but did not address the
2015 ozone NAAQS. And, on March 27, 2018, we issued a memorandum (March
2018 memorandum) indicating the same 2023 modeling data released in the
2017 memorandum would also be useful for evaluating potential downwind
air quality problems with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS (step 1 of
the four-step framework). The March 2018 memorandum included newly
available contribution modeling results to assist states in evaluating
their impact on potential downwind air quality problems (step 2 of the
four-step framework) in their efforts to develop good neighbor SIPs for
the 2015 ozone NAAQS to address their interstate transport
obligations.\11\ The EPA subsequently issued two more memoranda in
August and October 2018, providing guidance to states developing good
neighbor SIPs for the 2015 ozone NAAQS concerning, respectively,
potential contribution thresholds that may be appropriate to apply in
step 2 and considerations for identifying downwind areas that may have
problems maintaining the standard (under prong 2 of the good neighbor
provision) at step 1 of the framework.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Notice of Availability of the Environmental Protection
Agency's Preliminary Interstate Ozone Transport Modeling Data for
the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), 82 FR
1733 (January 6, 2017).
    \9\ 82 FR 1735 (January 6, 2017).
    \10\ See Information on the Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), October 27, 2017, available in the docket for
this action or at https://www.epa.gov/interstate-air-pollution-transport/interstate-air-pollution-transport-memos-and-notices.
    \11\ See Information on the Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), March 27, 2018, available in the docket for this
action or at https://www.epa.gov/interstate-air-pollution-transport/interstate-air-pollution-transport-memos-and-notices.
    \12\ See Analysis of Contribution Thresholds for Use in Clean
Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards, August 31, 2018) (``August 2018
memorandum''), and Considerations for Identifying Maintenance
Receptors for Use in Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan Submissions for the
2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, October 19, 2018,
available in the docket for this action or at https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/memo-and-supplemental-information-regarding-interstate-transport-sips-2015-ozone-naaqs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The March 2018 memorandum describes the process and results of the
updated photochemical and source-apportionment modeling used to project
ambient ozone concentrations for the year 2023 and the state-by state
impacts on those concentrations. The March 2018 memorandum also
explains that the selection of the 2023 analytic year aligns with the
2015 ozone NAAQS attainment year for Moderate nonattainment areas. As
described in more detail in the 2017 and March 2018 memoranda, the EPA
used the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx version
6.40) to model average and maximum design values in 2023 to identify
potential nonattainment and maintenance receptors (i.e., monitoring
sites that are projected to have problems attaining or maintaining the
2015 ozone NAAQS). The March 2018 memorandum presents

design values calculated in two ways: First, following the EPA's
historic ``3 x 3'' approach \13\ to evaluating all sites, and second,
following a modified approach for coastal monitoring sites in which
``overwater'' modeling data were not included in the calculation of
future year design values (referred to as the ``no water'' approach).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See March 2018 memorandum, p. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For purposes of identifying potential nonattainment and maintenance
receptors in 2023, the EPA applied the same approach used in the CSAPR
Update, wherein the EPA considered a combination of monitoring data and
modeling projections to identify monitoring sites that are projected to
have problems attaining or maintaining the NAAQS. Specifically, the EPA
identified nonattainment receptors as those monitoring sites with
measured values \14\ exceeding the NAAQS that also have projected
(i.e., in 2023) average design values exceeding the NAAQS. The EPA
identified maintenance receptors as those monitoring sites with
projected maximum design values exceeding the NAAQS. This included
sites with measured values below the NAAQS but with projected average
and maximum design values exceeding the NAAQS, and monitoring sites
with projected average design values below the NAAQS but with projected
maximum design values exceeding the NAAQS. The EPA included the design
values and monitoring data for all monitoring sites projected to be
potential nonattainment or maintenance receptors based on the updated
2023 modeling in Attachment B to the March 2018 memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The EPA used 2016 ozone design values, based on 2014-2016
measured data, which were the most current data at the time of the
analysis. See attachment B of the March 2018 memorandum, p. B-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After identifying potential downwind nonattainment and maintenance
receptors, the EPA next performed nationwide, state-level ozone source-
apportionment modeling to estimate the expected impact from each state
to each nonattainment and maintenance receptor.\15\ The EPA included
contribution information resulting from the source-apportionment
modeling in Attachment C to the March 2018 memorandum. For more
specific information on the modeling and analysis, please see the 2017
and March 2018 memoranda, the NODA for the preliminary interstate
transport assessment, and the supporting technical documents included
in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ As discussed in the March 2018 memorandum, the EPA
performed source-apportionment model runs for a modeling domain that
covers the 48 contiguous United States and the District of Columbia,
and adjacent portions of Canada and Mexico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the CSAPR and the CSAPR Update, the EPA used a threshold of one
percent of the NAAQS to determine whether a given upwind state was
``linked'' at step 2 of the four-step framework and would therefore
contribute to downwind nonattainment and maintenance sites identified
in step 1. If a state's impact did not exceed the one percent
threshold, the upwind state was not ``linked'' to a downwind air
quality problem, and the EPA therefore concluded the state will not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the NAAQS in the downwind states. However, if a state's impact
exceeded the one percent threshold, the state's emissions were further
evaluated in step 3, taking into account both air quality and cost
considerations, to determine what, if any, emissions reductions might
be necessary to address the good neighbor provision.
    As noted previously, on August 31, 2018, the EPA issued a
memorandum (the August 2018 memorandum) providing guidance concerning
potential contribution thresholds that may be appropriate to apply with
respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS in step 2. Consistent with the process
for selecting the one percent threshold in CSAPR and the CSAPR Update,
the memorandum included analytical information regarding the degree to
which potential air quality thresholds would capture the collective
amount of upwind contribution from upwind states to downwind receptors
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The August 2018 memorandum indicated that,
based on the EPA's analysis of its most recent modeling data, the
amount of upwind collective contribution captured using a 1 ppb
threshold is generally comparable, overall, to the amount captured
using a threshold equivalent to one percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
Accordingly, the EPA indicated that it may be reasonable and
appropriate for states to use a 1 ppb contribution threshold, as an
alternative to the one percent threshold, at step 2 of the four-step
framework in developing their SIP revisions addressing the good
neighbor provision for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See August 2018 memorandum, p. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the March 2018 memorandum presented information regarding the
EPA's latest analysis of ozone transport following the approaches the
EPA has taken in prior regional rulemaking actions, the EPA has not
made any final determinations regarding how states should identify
downwind receptors with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS at step 1 of
the four-step framework. Rather, the EPA noted that states have
flexibility in developing their own SIPs to follow different analytical
approaches than the EPA's, so long as their chosen approach has an
adequate technical justification and is consistent with the
requirements of the CAA.

II. State Submission

    On September 25, 2018, Oregon submitted a SIP revision addressing
the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport requirements
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Oregon relied on the results of EPA's
modeling for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, contained in the March 2018
memorandum, to identify downwind nonattainment and maintenance
receptors that may be impacted by emissions from sources in Oregon.
Based on Oregon's review of EPA's modeling assumptions, model
performance evaluation, and the modifications made in response to
public comments, Oregon determined that EPA's future year projections
were appropriate for purposes of evaluating Oregon's impact on
attainment and maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in other states. For
example, Oregon found that EPA's modeling used emissions inventory
projections that accounted for state rules, announced shut downs of
electric generating units such as the 2020 shutdown of the Boardman
power plant, and included Oregon's adoption of California's Low
Emission Vehicles III program.\17\ Thus, Oregon concurred with the
EPA's photochemical modeling results that indicate Oregon's greatest
impact on any potential downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptor
would be 0.57 ppb. Oregon compared these values to a screening
threshold of 0.70 ppb, representing one percent of the 2015 ozone
NAAQS, and concluded that because none of Oregon's impacts exceed this
threshold, emissions from Oregon sources will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2015
ozone NAAQS in any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See ``Oregon State Implementation Plan Revision Addressing
the Interstate Transport of Ozone (O3),'' p. 5, October
2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. EPA Evaluation

    As previously discussed, the March 2018 memorandum identifies
potential downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors, using the
definitions applied in the CSAPR Update and using both the ``3 x 3''
and

the ``no water'' approaches to calculating future year design values.
The March 2018 memorandum identifies 57 potential nonattainment and
maintenance receptors in the West in Arizona (2), California (49), and
Colorado (6).\18\ The March 2018 memorandum also provides contribution
data regarding the impact of other states on the potential receptors.
For purposes of evaluating Oregon's 2015 ozone NAAQS interstate
transport SIP submission, we propose that, at least where a state's
impacts are less than one percent to downwind nonattainment and
maintenance sites, it is reasonable to conclude that the state's impact
will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS in any other state. This is consistent with
our prior action on Oregon's SIP with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS
\19\ and with the EPA's approach to both the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS
in CSAPR and the CSAPR Update. The EPA notes, nonetheless, that
consistent with the August 2018 memorandum, it may be reasonable and
appropriate for states to use a 1 ppb contribution threshold, as an
alternative to a one percent threshold, at step 2 of the four-step
framework in developing their SIP revisions addressing the good
neighbor provision for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. However, for the reasons
discussed below, it is unnecessary for the EPA to determine whether it
may be appropriate to apply a 1 ppb threshold for purposes of this
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The number of receptors in the identified western states is
57, irrespective of whether the ``3 x 3'' or ``no water'' approach
is used. Further, although the EPA has indicated that states may
have flexibilities to apply a different analytic approach to
evaluating interstate transport, including identifying downwind air
quality problems, because the EPA is also concluding in this
proposed action that Oregon will have an insignificant impact on any
potential receptors identified in its analysis, Oregon need not
definitively determine whether the identified monitoring sites
should be treated as receptors for the 2015 ozone standard.
    \19\ 80 FR 79266 (December 21, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA's updated 2023 modeling discussed in the March 2018
memorandum indicates that Oregon's largest impact on any potential
downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptor in the West are 0.57
ppb and 0.45 ppb, respectively.\20\ These values are less than 0.70 ppb
(one percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS),\21\ and as a result, demonstrate
that emissions from Oregon are not linked to any 2023 downwind
potential nonattainment and maintenance receptors identified in the
March 2018 memorandum. The projected impacts from Oregon to potential
receptors in the East is even lower. Accordingly, we propose to
conclude that emissions from Oregon will not contribute to any
potential receptors, and thus, the state will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS
in any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The EPA's analysis indicates that Oregon will have a 0.57
ppb impact at the potential nonattainment receptor in Sacramento,
California (Site ID 60670012), which has a 2023 projected average
design value of 74.5 ppb, a 2023 projected maximum design value of
75.9 ppb, and had a 2014-2016 design value of 83 ppb. The EPA's
analysis further indicates that Oregon will have a 0.45 ppb impact
at a potential maintenance receptor in Sacramento, California (Site
ID 60675003), which has which has a projected 2023 average design
value of 69.9 ppb, a 2023 projected maximum design value of 88 ppb,
and had a 2014-2016 design value of 80 ppb. See the March 2018
memorandum, attachment C.
    \21\ Because none of Oregon's impacts exceed 0.70 ppb, they
necessarily also do not exceed the 1 ppb contribution threshold
discussed in the August 2018 memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also note that the EPA has assessed potential transport to the
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation in southeast
Idaho, which the EPA approved to be treated as an affected downwind
state for CAA sections 110(a)(2)(D) and 126. While the Shoshone-Bannock
Tribes do not operate an ozone monitor, the nearest ozone monitors to
the Fort Hall Reservation are in Ada County, Idaho, in the Boise area
and in Butte County, Idaho, in the Idaho Falls area. As discussed
previously, the EPA's modeling did not identify receptors in Idaho and
the ozone monitoring sites nearest to the Fort Hall Reservation were
projected to remain below the current standard. For the Idaho Falls
area monitoring site (Site ID 160230101), which had a 2014-2016 design
value of 60 ppb, the EPA's modeling projects a 2023 maximum design
value of 60.2 ppb and a 2023 average design value of 59.6 ppb, both
below the 70 ppb standard. For the Boise area monitoring site with the
highest projected ozone concentrations (Site ID 160010017), which had a
2014-2016 design value of 67 ppb, the EPA's modeling projects a 2023
maximum design value of 59.8 ppb and a 2023 average design value of
59.4 ppb.\22\ We therefore propose to find that emissions from Oregon
will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS at the Fort Hall Reservation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ In attachment A of the 2017 memorandum, the EPA provided
the projected ozone design values at individual monitoring sites
nationwide. The data for the Idaho monitors is presented on page A-
10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proposed Action

    As discussed in section II, Oregon concluded that emissions from
sources in the state will not significantly contribute to nonattainment
or interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other
state. The EPA's evaluation of Oregon's submission, discussed in
section III, confirms this finding. We are proposing to approve the
Oregon submission as meeting CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The EPA is requesting comments
on the proposed approval.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed 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 proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) 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 it does not involve technical standards; 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 proposed SIP would not be approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: February 8, 2019.
Chris Hladick,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2019-03940 Filed 3-4-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 129 (Friday, July 5, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32196-32197]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14330]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2019-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1941]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard
determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any
Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the
supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities
listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek
general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and
where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and
FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the
community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in
effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS
report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to
calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings
and the contents of those buildings.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before October 3, 2019.

ADDRESSES: The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report
for each community are available for inspection at both the online
location https://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata and the
respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below.
Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each
community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1941, to
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA proposes to make flood hazard
determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with
section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the
floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any
time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood
hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP and are used to calculate the appropriate
flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM
and FIS report become effective.
    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are
provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the
revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS
report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b)
is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard
determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report
become effective.
    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to
communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are
independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other
pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and
technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the
SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been
engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days
without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional
information regarding the SRP process can be found online at https://www.floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_overview.pdf.
    The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables
below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each
community are available for inspection at both the online location
https://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata and the respective
Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities
with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be
identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date
listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS
report for each community are accessible online

through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for
comparison.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

Michael M. Grimm,
Assistant Administrator for Risk Management, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Matagorda County, Texas and Incorporated Areas
          Project: 06-06-BB84S Preliminary Date: March 26, 2019
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Bay City.......................  City Hall, 1901 5th Street, Bay
                                          City, TX 77414.
Unincorporated Areas of Matagorda        Matagorda County Courthouse,
 County.                                  1700 7th Street, Bay City, TX
                                          77414.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2019-14330 Filed 7-3-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-12-P