[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 13, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38588-38590]
[FR Doc No: 2023-12566]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2022-0015; Notice 1]

AGC Automotive Americas Co., Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: AGC Automotive Americas Co., (AGC), has determined that
certain

glass backlites and sidelites manufactured as replacement parts do not
fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
205, Glazing Materials. AGC filed an original noncompliance report
dated March 11, 2020. AGC petitioned NHTSA on April 7, 2020, for a
decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety. This document announces receipt of
AGC's petition.

DATES: Send comments on or before July 13, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and may be
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.
except for Federal Holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Comments may also be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
    All comments and supporting materials received before the close of
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the
docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the fullest extent possible.
    When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will
also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated at the end of this notice.
    All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for
accessing the dockets. The docket ID number for this petition is shown
in the heading of this notice.
    DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack Chern, Safety Compliance
Engineer, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Overview: AGC determined that certain glass backlites and
sidelites manufactured as replacement parts do not fully comply with
paragraph S6.2 of FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205).
    AGC filed an original noncompliance report dated March 11, 2020,
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility
and Reports. AGC petitioned NHTSA on April 7, 2020, for an exemption
from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301
on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates
to motor vehicle safety, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h)
and 49 CFR part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or
Noncompliance.
    This notice of receipt of AGC's petition is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
another exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    II. Equipment Involved: Approximately 1,843 glass backlites and
sidelites manufactured as replacement parts between February 1, 2008,
and July 31, 2018, were reported by the manufacturer.
    III. Noncompliance: AGC explains that the subject replacement glass
does not have the required ``DOT'' certification marking and
manufacturer code, and therefore does not comply with paragraph S6.2 of
FMVSS No. 205. Specifically, the subject equipment is missing the
marking ``DOT 24'' indicating DOT certification and AGC's assigned
manufacturer code.
    IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph S6.2 of FMVSS No. 205 includes the
requirements relevant to this petition. A prime glazing manufacturer
must certify its glazing by adding to the marks required by section 7
of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, in letters and numerals of the same size, the
symbol ``DOT'' and a manufacturer's code mark that is assigned to the
manufacturer. NHTSA will assign a code mark to a manufacturer after the
manufacturer submits a written request that must include the company
name, address, and a statement from the manufacturer certifying its
status as a prime glazing manufacturer.
    V. Summary of AGC's Petition: The following views and arguments
presented in this section, ``V. Summary of AGC's Petition,'' are the
views and arguments provided by AGC. They have not been evaluated by
the Agency and do not reflect the views of the Agency. AGC describes
the subject noncompliance and contends that the noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    AGC explains that the subject replacement glass inadvertently
entered the U.S. market through Automotive Replacement Glass (ARG), a
business unit in Europe. The shipment was made to satisfy a replacement
glass order for the U.S. market. AGC states that the subject
replacement glass was manufactured without the ``DOT'' certification
marking and manufacturer code because they were not intended to be sold
in the U.S.
    After investigating the issue, AGC states that it blocked shipments
of the noncompliant replacement glass, tested the affected replacement
glass to confirm that it met the applicable FMVSS performance
requirements, and destroyed extant stock. AGC believes that the missing
``DOT'' symbol on glazing does not create a risk to motor vehicle
safety and is therefore, inconsequential, based on its finding that no
test indicated any issue with the glass.
    AGC believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety because the subject replacement glass met the
performance requirements as stated in FMVSS No. 205. Furthermore, AGC
states that it has not received ``reports of any noncompliance either
for any of these parts produced during this time including parts
shipped with and without the required DOT number,'' nor have there been
any customer complaints related to the subject replacement glass.
    AGC claims that the following petitions for similar noncompliances
have previously been granted by NHTSA:

     Pilkington North America, Inc., Grant of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance; 78 FR 22942 (April 17, 2003)
     Fuji Heavy Industries USA, Inc., Grant of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance; 78 FR 59088 (September 25,
2013)
     Toyota Motor Corporation., Grant of Petition for Decision
of Inconsequential Noncompliance; 68 FR 10307 (March 4, 2003)
     Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc., Grant of Petition
for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance; 80 FR 72482 (August 27,
2015) \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ AGC included the incorrect date of the cited Federal
Register notice. 80 FR 72482 was published on November 19, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Custom Glass Solutions Upper Sandusky Corp., Grant of
Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance; 80 FR 3737
(January 23, 2015)
     Supreme Corporation, Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance; 81 FR 72850 (October 21, 2016)
     Ford Motor Company, Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance; 78 FR 32531 (May 30, 2013)
     Ford Motor Company, Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance; 80 FR 11259 (March 2, 2015)
     General Motors, LLC, Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance; 79 FR 23402 (September 25, 2015) \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ AGC included the incorrect date of the cited Federal
Register notice. 79 FR 23402 was published on April 28, 2014.

    AGC concludes by stating its belief that the subject noncompliance
is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety and its
petition to be exempted from providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject equipment that AGC no longer
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed.
However, any decision on this petition does not relieve equipment
distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for
sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant equipment under their control after AGC
notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49
CFR 1.95 and 501.8)

Otto G. Matheke, III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2023-12566 Filed 6-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 170 (Friday, August 31, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44498-44500]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18855]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0701; FRL-9983-11--Region 3]

Air Plan Approval; District of Columbia; State Implementation
Plan for the Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2008 Ozone
Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state
implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the District of
Columbia (the District) that pertains to the good neighbor and
interstate transport requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the
2008 ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The CAA's
good neighbor provision requires EPA and states to address the
interstate transport of air pollution that affects the ability of other
states to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Specifically, the good
neighbor provision requires each state in its SIP to prohibit emissions
that will significantly contribute to nonattainment, or interfere with
maintenance, of a NAAQS in another state. The District submitted a SIP
revision on June 13, 2014 that addresses the interstate transport
requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. On July 5, 2018, EPA published a
proposed rule for just the good neighbor provision of the District's
June 13, 2014 submittal. EPA is approving the District's SIP as having
adequate provisions to meet the requirements of the good neighbor
provision for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in accordance with section 110 of
the CAA.

DATES: This final rule is effective on October 1, 2018.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0701. All documents in the docket are listed on
the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through
http://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in
the For Further Information Contact section for additional availability
information.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On June 13, 2014, the District Department of the Environment (DDOE)
on behalf of the District submitted a revision to its SIP to satisfy
the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. On April 13, 2015 (80 FR 19538), EPA approved all parts of the
District's June 13, 2014 submittal with the exception of the portion of
the submittal that addressed section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), also called the good neighbor provision,
consists of two prongs that require that a state's \1\ SIP must contain
adequate provisions to prohibit any source or other type of emissions
activity within the state from emitting air pollutants that
``contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with
maintenance by, any other state with respect to any such national
primary or secondary ambient air quality standard.'' Under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA, EPA gives independent significance to
the matter of nonattainment (prong 1) and to that of maintenance (prong
2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The term state has the same meaning as provided in CAA
section 302(d) which specifically includes the District of Columbia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 5, 2018 (83 FR 31350), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) for the District of Columbia, approving the portion of
the June 13, 2014 District SIP revision addressing prongs 1 and 2 of
the interstate transport requirements for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ All the other infrastructure SIP elements for the District
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS were addressed in a separate rulemaking.
See 80 FR 19538 (April 13, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    In its June 13, 2014 submittal, the District identified the
implemented regulations within its SIP that limit nitrogen dioxide
(NOX) and/or volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from
District sources.\3\ The District indicates that there are no electric
generating units (EGUs) \4\ or other large industrial sources of
NOX emissions within the District. In the submittal, the
District also included information on non-EGUs and mobile sources and
listed the SIP-approved measures that help to reduce NOX and
VOC emissions from non-EGU and mobile sources within the District. In
the submittal, the District points out that it will continue to rely on
federal measures to reduce NOX emissions from onroad and
nonroad engines. The District states its sources are already well
controlled, and states further reductions beyond the District's current
SIP measures are not economically feasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Both NOX and VOCs are precursors to ozone
formation.
    \4\ The District's last remaining EGUs were decommissioned in
2012, in part to meet permit requirements incorporated into the
District's Regional Haze SIP. 77 FR 5191 (February 2, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA evaluated the District's submittal for the 2008 ozone NAAQS,
considering: Ozone precursor emissions; an analysis of District source
sectors; and in-place controls and regulations. Due to the District's
small number of sources and the high cost of further reductions, EPA
proposed in its July 5, 2018 NPR that the District's SIP, as presently
approved, contains adequate measures to prevent District sources from
interfering with maintenance or contributing significantly to
nonattainment in another state for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The rationale
for EPA's proposed action was discussed in greater detail in the NPR
and accompanying technical support document (TSD) and will not be
restated here.

    In this rulemaking action, EPA is approving one portion of the
District's June 13, 2014 submittal--the portion addressing prongs 1 and
2 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA. EPA previously acted on
other portions of Delaware's June 13, 2014 SIP submittal for the 2008
ozone NAAQS.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ On April 13, 2015 (80 FR 19538), EPA approved portions of
the District's June 13, 2014 submittal for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
addressing the following: CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C),
(D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). In
that action, EPA stated it would take later action on the portion of
the June 13, 2014 SIP submittal addressing section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Comments and EPA's Response

    EPA received a total of four anonymous comments on the July 5, 2018
NPR. All of the comments received are included in the docket for this
action. Three of the comments did not concern any of the specific
issues raised in the NPR, nor did they address EPA's rationale for the
proposed approval of the District's submittal. Therefore, EPA is not
responding to those comments. EPA did receive one comment considered to
be relevant to this rulemaking action.
    The commenter indicates that EPA was supposed to take action on the
District's SIP revision within 12 months of receiving the SIP
submittal. The commenter also indicates the length of time (4 years) it
took for EPA to approve the SIP revision from the time of its submittal
and questions if transported pollution could have been eliminated if
SIP revisions like this one were approved in a timely manner. The
commenter asks what air quality and human health impacts the delay of
this action has had on neighboring states.
    EPA acknowledges that it missed the statutory deadline to take
action on the good neighbor portion of the District's June 13, 2014 SIP
submittal.\6\ However, at this time, EPA is taking final action on this
SIP revision, and by doing so it will meet all such outstanding
obligations under the CAA. The commenter provided no analysis of the
statutory consequences, if any, from the action. Further, EPA disagrees
with the commenter's questioning that the delayed action on the good
neighbor portions of the District's SIP revision has impacted air
quality and human health in neighboring states. As explained in the
NPR, EPA believes that the District's SIP, as presently approved,
contains adequate measures to prevent District sources from interfering
with other states' attainment and/or maintenance for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. Thus, EPA's late action on the good neighbor portion of the
District of Columbia's June 13, 2014 SIP submittal did not cause any
delay in air quality and human health protections as the SIP relies on
already in-place regulations and controls that prevent District sources
from significantly contributing to nonattainment, or interfering with
maintenance, of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in another state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For clarification, section 110(k)(2) requires EPA to take
action 12 months after a SIP revision becomes complete, not 12
months after it is submitted, as the commenter indicates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving the portion of the June 13, 2014 District SIP
revision addressing prongs 1 and 2 of the interstate transport
requirements for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA for the 2008
ozone NAAQS.
    On April 13, 2015 (80 FR 19538), EPA approved the following
infrastructure elements or portions thereof from the June 13, 2014
submittal: CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii),
(E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). This action approves the
remaining portions of the June 13, 2014 SIP revision, which address
prongs 1 and 2 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA, also known as
the good neighbor provision. EPA did not take action upon these
elements in the Agency's prior SIP approval action, published on April
13, 2015 (80 FR 19538).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

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

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States

Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 30, 2018.
Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this
final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes
of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the
effectiveness of such rule or action. This action, addressing the
District of Columbia's good neighbor provision for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: August 21, 2018.
Cecil Rodrigues,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart J--District of Columbia

0
2. In Sec.  52.470, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding a
new entry for ``Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the
2008 Ozone NAAQS'' after the existing entry for ``Section 110(a)(2)
Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS'' to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.470  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

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

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure   District of                 6/13/14  8/31/18, [Insert     This action
 Requirements for the 2008 Ozone    Columbia.                            Federal Register     addresses CAA
 NAAQS.                                                                  citation].           element
                                                                                110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
                                                                                .

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

[FR Doc. 2018-18855 Filed 8-30-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 122 (Tuesday, June 25, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29815-29818]
[FR Doc No: 2019-13049]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0440; Product Identifier 2019-NM-032-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for all The Boeing Company Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series
airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by fuel system reviews
conducted by the manufacturer. This proposed AD would require applying
sealant to the fasteners in the fuel tanks, replacing wire bundle
clamps external to the fuel tanks and installing Teflon sleeving under
the clamps. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 9,
2019.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5

p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, 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, Transport Standards 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 http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-0440.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
0440; 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 NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Rothman, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2019-0440;
Product Identifier 2019-NM-032-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
The FAA specifically invites comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. The FAA will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
NPRM because of those comments.
    The FAA will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive
verbal contact we receive about this NPRM.

Discussion

    The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel
tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the
adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes
subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for
fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, the FAA issued a
final rule titled ``Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review,
Flammability Reduction, and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements''
(66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards
for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements that rule
included Amendment 21-78, which established Special Federal Aviation
Regulation No. 88 (``SFAR 88'') to 14 CFR part 21. Subsequently, SFAR
88 was amended by: Amendment 21-82 (67 FR 57490, September 10, 2002;
corrected at 67 FR 70809, November 26, 2002), Amendment 21-83 (67 FR
72830, December 9, 2002; corrected at 68 FR 37735, June 25, 2003, to
change ``21-82'' to ``21-83''), and Amendment 21-101 (83 FR 9162, March
5, 2018).
    Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (i.e.,
type certificate (TC) and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders
to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition
sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design
holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for
subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to
perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance
procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety
standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to
adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary
to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews.
    In evaluating these design reviews, the FAA established four
criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel
tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of
operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable
conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address
the failure types under evaluation: single failures, combination of
failures, and unacceptable (failure) experience. For all three failure
criteria, the evaluations included consideration of previous actions
taken that may mitigate the need for further action.
    This proposed AD was prompted by fuel system reviews conducted by
the manufacturer. Boeing has found that some fuel tank fasteners can be
an ignition source if a fault current or hot short occurs. A detailed
analysis of the fault current threats was done to find the
configuration necessary to safely conduct the fault current threats
without causing sparks in the fuel tanks. Application of sealant on the
fasteners in the fuel tanks at the wing rear spars, front spars and
upper wing rib shear ties decreases the risk of ignition sources at
those fuel tank fastener locations. In addition, external to the fuel
tanks at locations along the wing rear spars, front spars, the forward
cargo compartment station 540 bulkhead and the main wheel well station
663 bulkhead, installation of cushion clamps over Teflon sleeves on
wire bundles decreases metal-to-metal contact between the clamps and
their support brackets and will help prevent hot shorts. The FAA is
proposing this AD to address potential ignition sources inside the fuel
tank, which, in combination with flammable vapors, could result in a
fuel tank fire or explosion, and consequent loss of the airplane.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1321, dated
February 8, 2019. This service information describes procedures for
applying sealant to the fasteners in the fuel tanks at the wing rear
spars, front spars, and upper wing rib shear ties. This service
information also describes procedures for replacing wire bundle clamps
external to the fuel tanks and installing Teflon sleeving under the
clamps at locations along the wing rear spars, front spars, forward
cargo compartment station 540 bulkhead, and main wheel well station 663
bulkhead.
    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.

FAA's Determination

    The FAA is proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously. For information on the

procedures and compliance times, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
0440.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 268 airplanes of
U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this
proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
            Action                    Labor cost            Parts cost      Cost per product       operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apply sealant, replace clamps,  Up to 516               Up to $200.......  Up to $44,060....  Up to $11,808,080.
 install Teflon sleeving.        work[dash]hours x $85
                                 per hour = $43,860.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
    This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated
by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as
authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order,
issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and
Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the
Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable
to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the
Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed
regulation:
    (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.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 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):

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2019-0440; Product Identifier
2019-NM-032-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 9, 2019.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-300, -400,
and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by fuel system reviews conducted by the
manufacturer. The FAA is issuing this AD to address potential
ignition sources inside the fuel tank, which, in combination with
flammable vapors, could result in a fuel tank fire or explosion, and
consequent loss of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Apply Sealant, Replace Clamps, and Install Teflon Sleeving

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: At the
applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
57A1321, dated February 8, 2019, do all applicable actions
identified as ``RC'' (required for compliance) in, and in accordance
with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-57A1321, dated February 8, 2019.

(h) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    (1) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements
of this AD: Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1321, dated
February 8, 2019, uses the phrase ``the original issue date of this
service bulletin,'' this AD requires using ``the effective date of
this AD.''
    (2) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1321, dated
February 8, 2019, specifies contacting Boeing: This AD requires
doing actions 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)(2) 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.
    (4) Except as specified by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD: For
service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required
for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (i)(4)(i) and
(i)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step
and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply
with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled ``RC Exempt,'' then the
RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is
required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and
identified figures.
    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted
methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection
program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC
steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done
as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Jeff Rothman,
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch,
2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-
3558; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For information about AMOCs, contact Serj Harutunian,
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch,
3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-
5254; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (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. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines,
WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on June 10, 2019.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-13049 Filed 6-24-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: April 8, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 66)]
[Notices]
[Page 16017-16018]
[DOCID:fr08ap09-111]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59681; File No. SR-NYSE-2009-37]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Implementing a Cap on Vendors'
Administrative Charges for NYSE OpenBook

April 1, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on March 26, 2009, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange''), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to introduce a cap on the monthly charges
that broker-dealers and vendors are required to pay for their use of
NYSE OpenBook data for the purposes of administering their provision of
NYSE OpenBook product offerings. The text of the proposed rule change
is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room,
and http://www.nyse.com.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    NYSE OpenBook responds to the desire of some market participants
for depth-of-book data. It is a compilation of limit order data that
the Exchange provides to market data vendors through a data feed.
    Recently, the Commission approved the Exchange's proposed rule
change to, among other things, establish a one-year pilot program to
simplify and modernize market data administration (the ``Unit of Count
Filing'').\3\ It proposed to do so by redefining some of the basic
``units of measure'' that vendors are required to report to the
Exchange and on which the Exchange bases its fees for its NYSE OpenBook
product packages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Release No. 34-59544; 74 Federal Register 11162 (March
16, 2009); File No. SR-NYSE-2008-131.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Previously, the Exchange required broker-dealers and vendors to
report and pay for, among other devices, all devices that they use to
administer their provision of NYSE OpenBook services to their external
customers. Under the Unit of Count Filing, in connection with a
vendor's internal distribution of NYSE OpenBook data, the vendor would
be required to count as one fee-liable entitlement each unique
individual (but not devices) that the vendor has entitled to have
access to the Exchange's NYSE OpenBook data. This would include vendor
personnel whose sole function is to administer the vendor's market data
services externally, that is, to the vendor's customers.
    After discussions with vendors, the Exchange seeks to simplify,
limit, and clarify the vendor's payment obligation for administering
NYSE OpenBook services. For that reason, the Exchange proposes to
modify its policy regarding the payment of fees in respect of each
unique individual that is affiliated with the vendor, and to whom the
vendor distributes NYSE OpenBook data internally for administrative
purposes. A person is ``affiliated'' with the vendor if he or she is an
officer, partner, member, or employee of the vendor or an affiliate of
the vendor or enjoys a similar status with the vendor or affiliate.
    Thus, the Exchange proposes to continue its practice of charging
user fees for internal use of data, but proposes to establish a maximum
monthly amount of $1500 (the ``Monthly Maximum'') for entitlements
consisting of unique individuals within a vendor's organization to whom
the vendor distributes NYSE OpenBook data for the sole purpose of
administering the vendor's distribution of NYSE OpenBook services
externally to the vendor's customers. The Monthly Maximum of $1500
means that a vendor would have to pay for no more than 25 NYSE OpenBook
administrative personnel.
    For this purpose, the Exchange deems ``administer'' to mean
monitoring and surveilling the receipt and use of NYSE OpenBook data by
the vendor's customers, marketing NYSE OpenBook data to potential new
customers, performing the Exchange-required reporting function and the
performance of similar functions relating to the vendor's provision of
NYSE OpenBook services to its external customers. It does not include,
among other things, the use of OpenBook data to monitor securities, to
make trading decisions, to value portfolios, in news rooms, or
otherwise to use NYSE OpenBook data to perform any functions not
related to the provision of NYSE OpenBook functions to the vendor's
external customers.
    The purpose of this exception is to permit vendors to cap their
financial exposure in performing their NYSE OpenBook administrative
functions and to simplify the tracking and reporting of devices used in
the administrative function. The vendor need only divide its internal
personnel, using the data, into two categories: Those using the data to
support the vendor's external service, and those using the data for any
other purposes. Alternatively, a vendor that makes no other internal
use of data other than supporting its external service can decide to
pay the monthly maximum without the need to track and report any
internal usage. At the same time, the Exchange must guard against
potential abuse of this exception. Therefore, the Exchange reserves the
rights under its contracts with vendors to monitor its use closely and
to deny application of this exception if it discovers that a vendor is
misusing it, such as by allowing personnel to use NYSE OpenBook for
non-administrative functions.
    Any vendor that distributes NYSE OpenBook data externally to
customers is entitled to take advantage of the Monthly Maximum, though
it anticipates that only the largest vendors devote sufficient
personnel to administrative functions to take advantage of the Monthly
Maximum. In the Exchange's view, limiting the fee exposure of its
largest vendors does not unreasonably discriminate against other

vendors under Section 603(a)(2) of Regulation NMS.
    NYSE OpenBook is subject to significant competitive forces and the
establishment of the Monthly Maximum represents a response to that
competition. As the Exchange stated in the Unit of Count Filing, the
Exchange competes intensely for order flow, competing with the other 10
national securities exchanges, with ECNs, with quotes posted in FINRA's
ADF and TRFs, with alternative trading systems, and with securities
firms that primarily trade as principal with their customer order flow.
The competition is free produce [sic] depth-of-book products, and
Nasdaq, NYSE Arca, and BATS are among those who currently do.
    In addition, the Exchange believes that no substantial
countervailing bases exists to support a finding that the Monthly
Maximum for NYSE OpenBook fails to meet the requirement of the Act.
    In sum, the Exchange believes that the proposed Monthly Maximum is
fair and reasonable.
2. Statutory Basis
    The bases under the Act for this proposed rule change are the
requirement under Section 6(b)(4) \4\ that an exchange have rules that
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other
charges among its members and other persons using its facilities and
the requirements under Section 6(b)(5) \5\ that the rules of an
exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade
and to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and
open market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve the proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-NYSE-2009-37 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2009-37. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, on official business
days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also
will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of
the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NYSE-2009-37 and should be submitted on or before April 29, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-7868 Filed 4-7-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 112 (Friday, June 10, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37494-37496]
[FR Doc No: 2016-13372]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-5284; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-006-AD;
Amendment 39-18550; AD 2016-12-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for PILATUS
AIRCRAFT LTD. Models PC-12, PC-12/45, PC-12/47, and PC-12/47E
airplanes. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country
to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The
MCAI describes the unsafe condition as incorrect installation
instructions of the torlon plates in the airplane maintenance manual
resulting in the incorrect installation of the torlon plates in the
forward wing-to-fuselage attachment. We are issuing this AD to require
actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective July 15, 2016.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of July 15,
2016.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
5284; or in person at Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact PILATUS
AIRCRAFT LTD., Customer Support Manager, CH-6371 STANS, Switzerland;
phone: +41 (0)41 619 33 33; fax: +41 (0)41 619 73 11; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet: http://www.pilatus-
aircraft.com. You may view this referenced service information at the
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri
64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for Docket No. FAA-2016-5284.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD.
Models PC-12, PC-12/45, PC-12/47, and PC-12/47E airplanes. The NPRM was
published in the Federal Register on March 28, 2016 (81 FR 17107). The
NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products
and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
originated by an aviation authority of another country. The MCAI
states:

    Incorrect installations of torlon plates in the forward lower
wing-to-fuselage attachment were reported on aeroplanes in service.
Investigation determined that wrong torlon plate installation
instructions were published in June 2007 in Revision (Rev.) 18 to 27
of the Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) 02049, Data Module (DM) 12-
A-57-00-00A-520A-A and DM 12-A-57-00-00A-720A-A, for the PC-12, PC-
12/45 and PC-12/47 aeroplanes, and in the initial issue to Rev. 10
of AMM 02300, in DM 12-B-57-00-00A-520A-A and DM 12-B-57-00-00A-
720A-A, for PC-12/47E aeroplanes.
    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to additional loads
at the wing-to-fuselage interface, which detrimentally affects the
fatigue life of the structural joint.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Pilatus issued
Service Bulletin (SB) No. 57-007 to provide inspection instructions
to verify the correct installation of torlon plates in the wing-to-
fuselage attachments, and the rectification instructions for
incorrect installed torlon plates.
    For the reason described above, this AD requires a one-time
inspection of the forward lower wing-to-fuselage attachments, both
left hand (LH) and right hand (RH) sides and, depending on findings,
accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s).

The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at: https://

www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2016-5284-0002.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (81 FR 17107, March 28,
2016) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for
minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (81 FR 17107, March 28, 2016) for correcting the unsafe condition;
and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (81 FR 17107, March 28, 2016).

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. PC-12 Service Bulletin No: 57-
007, dated September 29, 2015. The service information describes
procedures for inspection, and if necessary realignment or replacement
of the torlon plates in the forward lower wing-to-fuselage attachments.
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 of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 268 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per wing per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S.
operators to be $45,560, or $170 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 3 work-hours per wing and require parts costing $1,000 per
wing, for a total cost of $2,510 per product. We have no way of
determining the number of products that may need these actions.
    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be
covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected
individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
5284; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received,
and other information. The street address for the Docket Office
(telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

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 AD:

2016-12-01 Pilatus Aircraft LTD.: Amendment 39-18550; Docket No.
FAA-2016-5284; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-006-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective July 15,
2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. PC-12, PC-12/45, PC-12/
47, and PC-12/47E airplanes, all serial numbers delivered before
January 1, 2015, certificated in any category.
    Note 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD: The date of delivery may be
found as the issue date of the EASA Form 52, which is part of the
airplane records.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 57: Wings.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as incorrect
installation instructions of the torlon plates in the airplane
maintenance manual resulting in the incorrect installation of the
torlon plates in the forward wing-to-fuselage attachment. We are
issuing this AD to identify and correct incorrectly installed torlon
plates which could cause additional loads affecting the fatigue life
at the wing-to-fuselage interface.

(f) Actions and Compliance

    Do the actions in paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of this AD. If
paragraphs (f)(1), (2), and (3) of this AD have already been done
before July 15, 2016 (the effective date of this AD), then only
paragraph (f)(4) of this AD applies.

    (1) For any airplane that has had a wing removed and reinstalled
or replaced between June 2007 and July 15, 2016 (the effective date
of this AD): Within the next 12 months after July 15, 2016 (the
effective date of this AD), inspect the torlon plates in the forward
lower wing-to-fuselage attachments (both left hand (LH) and right
hand (RH) sides) for correct installation following the
accomplishment instructions in PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. PC-12 Service
Bulletin No: 57-007, dated September 29, 2015.
    (2) For any airplane that has had a wing removed and reinstalled
or replaced, between June 2007 and July 15, 2016 (the effective date
of this AD): If an incorrect installation of the torlon plates is
found during the inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD,
remove the affected torlon plates, visually inspect the torlon
plates and the affected lugs using a mirror and light source (if
necessary) for any damage, and reinstall the torlon plates in the
correct sequence, following the accomplishment instructions in
paragraph 3.C. of PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. PC-12 Service Bulletin No:
57-007, dated September 29, 2015.
    (3) For any airplane that has had a wing removed and reinstalled
or replaced, between June 2007 and July 15, 2016 (the effective date
of this AD): If any damage is found during the inspection of the
torlon plates and lugs required in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD,
before further flight, contact PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. for FAA-
approved repair instructions and accomplish those instructions
accordingly. You may find contact information for PILATUS AIRCRAFT
LTD. in paragraph (h) of this AD.
    (4) For all airplanes: As of July 15, 2016 (the effective date
of this AD), do not install or re-install a wing on any airplane,
unless concurrent with the wing installation, the torlon plates of
the forward lower wing-to-fuselage attachment (both LH and RH sides)
of the airplane are inspected and found to be installed correctly in
accordance with the accomplishment instructions in paragraph 3.B. of
PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. PC-12 Service Bulletin No: 57-007, dated
September 29, 2015.

    Note 2 to paragraph (f)(4) of this AD: Installation of a wing on
an airplane in accordance with the instructions of PILATUS aircraft
maintenance manual (AMM) 02049, Revision 28 or later, or AMM 02300,
Revision 11 or later, is an acceptable alternative method to comply
with this inspection requirement.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane
to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal
inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO),
or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, a federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person
is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a
penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information
subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless
that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control
Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is
2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is
estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the
time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this
burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to
the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn:
Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

(h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.:
2016-0037, dated February 26, 2016, for related information. The
MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at: https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2016-5284-0002.

(i) 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) PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. PC-12 Service Bulletin No: 57-007,
dated September 29, 2015.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. service information identified in
this AD, contact PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD., Customer Support Manager,
CH-6371 STANS, Switzerland; phone: +41 (0)41 619 33 33; fax: +41
(0)41 619 73 11; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet:
http://www.pilatus-aircraft.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(816) 329-4148. In addition, you can access this service information
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2016-5284.
    (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, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on June 1, 2016.
Pat Mullen,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-13372 Filed 6-9-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 104 (Thursday, May 30, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24980-24983]
[FR Doc No: 2019-11181]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R02-OAR-2018-0817; FRL-9994-39-Region 2]

Approval of Source Specific Air Quality Implementation Plans; New
Jersey

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a
revision to

the New Jersey State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the 2008 8-hour
ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard in relation to a Source
Specific SIP for Gerdau Ameristeel in Sayreville, New Jersey. On
December 5, 2018, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
approved an administrative amendment reflecting new ownership and name
change to Commercial Metals Company. The control options in the Source
Specific SIP that address nitrogen oxide Reasonably Available Control
Technology for the natural gas fired billet reheat furnace remain the
same under the new ownership. The intended effect of this SIP revision
is for the Sayreville facility to continue to operate under their
facility specific maximum allowable nitrogen oxide emission rate. The
affected source will not increase hourly nitrogen oxide emissions,
therefore, the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone is
protected.

DATES: The final rule is effective on July 1, 2019.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID Number EPA-R02-OAR-2018-0817. All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda Longo, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York,
New York 10007-1866,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. The EPA's Evaluation of New Jersey's Submittals
III. Comments Received in Response to EPA's Proposed Action
IV. Summary of EPA Final Action
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the revision
to the New Jersey State Implementation Plan (SIP) for attainment and
maintenance of the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS). Specifically, under New Jersey Administrative Code, Title 7,
Chapter 27, Subchapter 19, ``Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution
from Oxides of Nitrogen'' (N.J.A.C. 7:27-19). The New Jersey Department
of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) reviewed and approved the facility
specific emission limit (FSEL) nitrogen oxide (NOX) control
plan and the associated Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)
for the Gerdau Ameristeel facility located in Sayreville, New Jersey
(Sayreville Facility). The RACT for this SIP revision is the lowest
emission limitation economically feasible for controlling
NOX emissions from the Sayreville Facility's billet reheat
furnace (Sayerville BRF). The Sayreville BRF is used to raise the
temperature of steel billets to the required level for hot rolling.
    Subchapter N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.13(a)(1), ``Alternative and facility
specific NOX emission limits,'' allows owners and operators
of major sources of NOX, upon approval of the NJDEP, to
obtain FSELs for maximum allowable NOX emission rates by
submitting a NOX control plan that meets the requirements of
N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.13(b). Furthermore, Subchapter N.J.A.C. 7:27-
19.13(a)(3) allows facilities that wish to continue to operate under
existing NOX control plans that were approved prior to May
1, 2005 to make the request by submitting an updated proposed
NOX control plan as required in N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.13. The
Sayreville Facility wishes to continue to operate under its existing
NOX control plan that was approved by the State on March 15,
2005. A full summary is included in the technical support document
(TSD) that is contained in EPA's docket assigned to this Federal
Register notice.
    Please note that on December 5, 2018, the NJDEP approved an
administrative amendment reflecting new ownership and name change of
the Sayreville Facility from Gerdau Ameristeel to Commercial Metals
Company. All control options for the Sayreville BRF and CAA permit
limits (as approved by the NJDEP in the March 2005 NOX
control plan) remain the same under the new ownership as were under the
former owner Gerdau Ameristeel.

II. The EPA's Evaluation of New Jersey's Submittals

    N.J.A.C. 19.13(a)(3) sets forth requirements for facilities that
wish to continue to operate under existing NOX control plans
that were approved prior to May 1, 2005. The regulation requires such
facilities to submit updated proposed NOX control plans to
NJDEP for review. Gerdau Ameristeel originally submitted an FSEL
NOX control plan for a BRF (old BRF) at the Sayreville
Facility to NJDEP in 1995. In 2004, the facility submitted to NJDEP a
proposed FSEL NOX control plan for a replacement BRF; the
new unit was designed with 64 ultra-low NOX burners. On
March 15, 2005, the NJDEP approved the NOX control plan by
authorizing Gerdau Ameristeel to replace the old BRF with the ultra-low
NOX burners.
    On October 4, 2016, the Gerdau Ameristeel submitted an updated
proposed NOX control plan to NJDEP requesting to continue to
operate the March 15, 2005 NOX control plan for the
Sayreville BRF that has 64 ultra-low NOX burners and maximum
allowable NOX emission rate of 58.9 tons per year (TPY). On
March 20, 2018, the NJDEP submitted to the EPA a proposal to allow the
continued use of the control options as outlined in the State approved
Gerdau Ameristeel March 15, 2005 NOX control plan.
    The Sayreville BRF has a heat input rating of 172.8 million British
Thermal Units per hour (MMBTU/hr) and is permitted under the facility's
CAA Title V operating permit (i.e., PI 18052, BOP 150001) for no more
than 0.1 MMBTU/hr of NOX as a major source with FSEL not to
exceed 17.3 pounds NOX per hour and 58.9 tons NOX
per year. The Sayreville Facility is required to conduct annual
emission testing to demonstrate compliance with 0.1 lb/MMBtu
NOX emission rate limit. The EPA has determined that the
Sayreville BRF identified in the SIP revision are consistent with New
Jersey's NOX RACT regulation and the EPA's guidance.

III. Comments Received in Response to EPA's Proposed Action

    On March 21, 2019 (84 FR 10458) the EPA proposed approval of the
source-specific revision to the New Jersey SIP for 8-hour ozone for
Gerdau Ameristeel in Sayreville, New Jersey. The EPA received no public
comments during the 30-day public comment period in response to the
March 9, 2019 proposal.

IV. Summary of EPA's Final Action

    Gerdau Ameristeel reached agreement with the NJDEP to continue to
operate under the approved March 15, 2005 NOX control plan
that allowed the Sayreville BRF to operate using 64 ultra-low
NOX burners. The Sayreville Facility underwent a change in
ownership to the Commercial Metals Company without changing its
production process or associated equipment. Moreover, the Sayreville
Facility met the regulatory requirements under N.J.A.C. 19.13(a)(3) to
submit and

obtain NJDEP approval for an updated proposed NOX control
plan requesting to continue to operate under their 2005 NOX
control plan approved prior to May 1, 2005. The updated NOX
control plan demonstrates that the only technically feasible control
technology currently not in use on the Sayreville BRF is the SCR option
and concludes that it is not RACT. Therefore, the EPA is approving the
NJDEP SIP revision for 8-hour ozone for Commercial Metals Company
continuing to operate under the 2005 NOX Control Plan.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that
includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of
1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing incorporate by reference for the
provisions described above in Section IV. Summary of the EPA's Final
Action.
    The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials
generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 2
Office. Copies of the materials incorporated may be inspected at the
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, Air Programs Branch, 290
Broadway, New York, New York 10007. Please contact the person
identified in the For Further Information Contact section of this
preamble for more information.
    Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for
inclusion in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by
reference by the EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable
under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the
final rulemaking of the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by
reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
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 (Public Law 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications
as specified by Executive Order 13175, because the SIP is not approved
to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
action.

List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen Dioxide, Intergovernmental Relations, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: May 15, 2019.
Peter D. Lopez,

Regional Administrator, Region 2.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart FF--New Jersey

0
2. Section 52.1570 (d) is amended by adding the entries for ``Gerdau
Ameristeel Sayreville'' and ``CMC Steel New Jersey'' at the end of the
table. The additions read as follows:

Sec.  52.1570  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

                               EPA-Approved New Jersey Source-Specific Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Name of source            Identifier No.    State effective date   EPA approval date       Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Gerdau Ameristeel Sayreville...  Program Interest   March 26, 2018........  May 30, 2019,      None.
                                  18052; Activity                            [Insert FR
                                  Number BOP                                 citation].
                                  150001; Emission
                                  Unit U2;
                                  Operating
                                  Scenario OS301;
                                  Ref #2.

CMC Steel New Jersey...........  Program Interest   December 5, 2018......  May 30, 2019,      New ownership
                                  18052; Activity                            [Insert FR         from Gerdau
                                  Number BOP                                 citation].         Ameristeel
                                  180001; Emission                                              Sayreville to
                                  Unit U2;                                                      Commercial Metal
                                  Operating                                                     Company (CMC).
                                  Scenario OS301;
                                  Ref #2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2019-11181 Filed 5-29-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P