[Federal Register: July 27, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 142)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 36994-36995]
[DOCID:fr27jy09-20]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0501; FRL-8934-1]

National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan
National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of Intent to Delete the Southern California Edison,
Visalia Pole Yard Superfund Site from the National Priorities List.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region IX is issuing
a Notice of Intent to Delete the Southern California Edison (SCE),
Visalia Pole Yard Superfund Site (Site) located in northeastern
Visalia, Tulare County, California, from the National Priorities List
(NPL), and requests public comments on this action. The NPL,
promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended,
is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the State of California, through
the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), have determined that
all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than operation,
maintenance, and five-year reviews, have been completed. However, this
deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.

DATES: Comments concerning deletion of this Site must be received by
August 26, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2009-0501 by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow online instructions for
submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Jackie Lane, Community Involvement Coordinator, U.S.
EPA Region IX (SFD 6-3), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California
94105.
     Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Hand delivery: U.S. EPA Region IX (SFD 6-3), 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, California 94105. Deliveries are only accepted
during regular office days and hours of operation (Monday through
Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.). Special arrangements will need to be made
with EPA staff for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
2009-0501. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means that EPA will not know
your identity or contact information unless it is provided it in the
body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA
without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address
will be automatically captured and included as part of the publicly
available docket on the Internet. EPA recommends that all submittals
include your name and other contact information (i.e. e-mail and/or
physical address and phone number). Please note that electronic file
submittals should be free of any physical defects and computer viruses
and avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. If
technical difficulties prevent EPA from reading your comment and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment.

Docket

    All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index; however, although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available (e.g. CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by disclosure statute. Certain other
materials, such as copyrighted materials, will be publicly available
only in the hard copy. All other publicly available docket materials
are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in
hard copy at the Site Information repositories below:

U.S. EPA Superfund Records Center, 95 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco,
California 94105-3901,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Tulare County Public Library, 200 West Oak Street, Visalia, CA 93291,
(818) 952-0603.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charnjit Bhullar, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. EPA Region IX (SFD 7-3), 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, California 94105,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of
today's Federal Register, we are publishing a direct final Notice of
Deletion of the Southern California Edison (SCE), Visalia Pole Yard
Superfund Site without prior Notice of Intent to Delete because we view
this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipate no adverse comment.
We have explained our reasons for this deletion in the preamble to the
direct final Notice of Deletion, and those reasons are incorporated
herein. If we

receive no adverse comment(s) on this deletion action, we will not take
further action on this Notice of Intent to Delete. If we receive
adverse comment(s), we will withdraw the direct final Notice of
Deletion, and it will not take effect. We will, as appropriate, address
all public comments in a subsequent final Notice of Deletion based on
this Notice of Intent to Delete. We will not institute a second comment
period on this Notice of Intent to Delete. Any parties interested in
commenting must do so at this time.
    For additional information, see the direct final Notice of Deletion
which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR
2923; 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

    Dated: July 15, 2009.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. E9-17564 Filed 7-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 210 (Tuesday, October 30, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 65679]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26594]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Commissioner and Staff Attendance at North American
Electric Reliability Corporation Meetings

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that
members of the Commission and/or Commission staff may attend the
following meetings:

North American Electric Reliability Corporation
Member Representatives Committee and Board of Trustees Meetings
Board of Trustees Compliance Committee and Standards Oversight and
Technology Committee Meetings

JW Marriott New Orleans Hotel 614 Canal Street New Orleans, La 70130.

Nov. 6 (7:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.) and Nov. 7 (8:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m.), 2012

    Further information regarding these meetings may be found at:
http://www.nerc.com/calendar.php.
    The discussions at the meetings, which are open to the public, may
address matters at issue in the following Commission proceedings:

Docket No. RC08-5, North American Electric Reliability Corporation
Docket No. RC11-5, North American Electric Reliability Corporation
Docket No. RR08-4, North American Electric Reliability Corporation
Docket No. RR12-8, North American Electric Reliability Corporation
Docket No. RR12-10, North American Electric Reliability Corporation
Docket No. RR12-11, North American Electric Reliability Corporation
Docket No. RR12-12, North American Electric Reliability Corporation
Docket No. RR12-13, North American Electric Reliability Corporation

Docket No. RD09-11, North American Electric Reliability Corporation
Docket No. RD10-2, North American Electric Reliability Corporation
Docket No. RD12-3, North American Electric Reliability Corporation
Docket No. RD12-5, North American Electric Reliability Corporation
Docket No. RD12-6, North American Electric Reliability Corporation
Docket No. NP11-238, North American Electric Reliability Corporation

    For further information, please contact Jonathan First, 202-502-
8529, or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: October 23, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-26594 Filed 10-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 173 (Friday, September 6, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47046-47047]
[FR Doc No: 2019-19284]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0033]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and
Seizure Disorders

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments;
correction.

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

SUMMARY: In a notice of applications for exemption; request for
comments published in the Federal Register on August 28, 2019, FMCSA
announced receipt of applications from five individuals for an
exemption from the prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with a clinical diagnosis of
epilepsy or any other condition that is likely to cause a loss of
consciousness or any loss of ability to control a commercial motor
vehicle to drive in interstate commerce. The notice contained an error
in the Addresses and Supplementary Information sections.

DATES: Comments on the August 28, 2019, notice must be received on or
before September 27, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division, Room W64-224,

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001;<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The August 28, 2019 (84 FR 45205), notice
seeking public comment on the applications from five individuals, is
corrected as follows:
    1. On page 45205, in the first column, the docket number reference
``FMCSA-2019-0333'' is corrected to read ``FMCSA-2019-0033.''
    2. On page 45205, in the second column, the docket number reference
``FMCSA-2019-0333'' is corrected to read ``FMCSA-2019-0033.''
    3. On page 45205, in the third column, the docket number reference
``FMCSA-2019-0333'' is corrected to read ``FMCSA-2019-0033.''

    Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87 on: August 29,
2019.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-19284 Filed 9-5-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 205 (Wednesday, October 23, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63233-63235]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24743]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0886]

National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee; Meeting

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee (NOSAC) will
meet on November 13 and 14, 2013, in Houston, TX, to discuss various
issues related to safety of operations and other matters affecting the
oil and gas offshore industry. These meetings are open to the public.

DATES: Subcommittees of NOSAC will meet on Wednesday, November 13, 2013
from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. and the full committee will meet on Thursday,
November 14, 2013, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. Please note that the
meetings may close early if the committee has completed its business or
be extended based on the level of public comments.

ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at the offices of Det Norske
Veritas (DNV), 1400 Ravello Drive, Katy, TX, 77450, 1-504-522-0083. The
November 13th subcommittee meetings will be held in the DNV Conference
space. The November 14th full committee meeting will also be held in
the DNV Conference space. When arriving, please check in with the DNV
receptionist for directions to the Conference space.
    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact
the person listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT as soon as
possible.
    To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment
on the

issues to be considered by the committee prior to the adoption of
recommendations as listed in the ``AGENDA'' section below. Comments
must be submitted in writing no later than November 7, 2013, and must
be identified by USCG-2013-0886 and may be submitted by one of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department
of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     To avoid duplication, please use only one of these
methods.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the words
``Department of Homeland Security'' and the docket number for this
action. Comments received will be posted without alteration at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. You
may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the
January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).
    Docket: For access to the docket to read documents or comments
related to this Notice, go to http://www.regulations.gov, insert USCG-
2013-0886 in the Keyword ID box, press Enter, and then click on the
item you are interested in viewing.
    A public comment period will be held during the meeting on November
14, 2013, and speakers are requested to limit their comments to 5
minutes. Please note that the public comment period may end before the
time indicated, following the last call for comments. Contact one of
the individuals listed below to register as a speaker.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Commander Rob Smith, Designated
Federal Official (DFO) of NOSAC, Commandant (CG-OES-2), U.S. Coast
Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE., Stop 7509, Washington, DC
20593-7509; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Mr. Scott
Hartley, Alternate Designated Federal Official (ADFO) of NOSAC,
Commandant (CG-OES-2), U.S. Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr.
Ave. SE., Stop 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509; telephone (202) 372-
1437, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is given under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (Pub. L. 92-463). NOSAC
provides advice and recommendations to the Department of Homeland
Security on matters and actions concerning activities directly involved
with or in support of the exploration of offshore mineral and energy
resources insofar as they relate to matters within U.S. Coast Guard
jurisdiction.

Agenda

Day 1

    The following NOSAC subcommittees will meet to review, discuss and
formulate recommendations:
    (1) Standards for Accommodation Service Vessels.
    (2) Life Saving and Fire Fighting Voluntary Standards on the Outer
Continental Shelf.
    (3) Electrical Equipment in Hazardous Areas on Foreign Flag Mobile
Offshore Drilling Units.
    (4) Safety Impact of Liftboat Sea Service Limitations.
    (5) Marine Casualty Reporting/Form CG-2692 Revisions.
    (6) Commercial Diving Safety on the OCS.
    Subcommittee task statements and additional information are located
at the following web address: https://homeport.uscg.mil/NOSAC.

Day 2

    The NOSAC will meet on November 14, 2013, to review and discuss
progress and or final reports and recommendations received from the
above listed subcommittees from their deliberations on November 13th.
The Committee will then use this information and consider public
comments in formulating recommendations to the agency. Public comments
or questions will be taken at the discretion of the DFO during the
discussion and recommendation portion of the meeting as well as during
public comment period, see Agenda item (9).
    A complete agenda for November 14th is as follows:
    (1) Presentation and discussion of progress reports and or final
reports and any recommendations from the subcommittees and subsequent
actions on:
    (a) Standards for Accommodation Service Vessels;
    (b) Life Saving and Fire Fighting Voluntary Standards on the Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS);
    (c) Electrical Equipment in Hazardous Areas on Foreign Flag Mobile
Offshore Drilling Units (MODUs);
    (d) Safety Impact of Liftboat Sea Service Limitations;
    (e) Marine Casualty Reporting/Form CG-2692 Revisions; and
    (f) Commercial Diving Safety on the OCS.
    (2) New Business--Introduction of a new Task Statement by the Coast
Guard;
    (a) Safety and Environmental Management System Requirements for
Vessels on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf.
    (3) USCG-Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement Memorandum
of Understanding/Memorandum of Agreements presentation;
    (4) USCG Outer Continental Shelf National Center of Expertise
briefing on OCS safety issues;
    (5) International Association of Drilling Contractors discussion on
important International and National offshore oil exploration
activities;
    (6) Safety and Environmental Management System (SEMS)/Safety
Management System (SMS) implementation and the use of Ultimate Work
Authority presentation;
    (7) Hardware in Loop (HIL)/Integrated Software Dependent Systems
presentation;
    (8) Challenges with using Liquefied Natural Gas as a marine fuel
presentation; and
    (9) Public comment.
    The agenda, new task statements and presentations will be available
approximately 7 days prior to the meeting at the https://www.fido.gov
Web site or by contacting Mr. Scott Hartley. Use ``code 68'' to
identify NOSAC when accessing this material through the Web site. Once
you have accessed the committee page, click on the meetings tab and
then the ``View'' button for the meeting dated November 14, 2013, to
access the information for this meeting. Subcommittee reports will be
available approximately 10 days after this meeting. Minutes will be
available approximately 90 days after this meeting. All of the above
listed information can also be found at an alternative site using the
following web address: https://homeport.uscg.mil/NOSAC.
    The meeting will be transcribed. A transcript of the meeting and
any material presented at the meeting will be made available through
the https://www.fido.gov and https://homeport.uscg.mil/NOSAC Web sites.

    The committee will review the information presented on each issue,
deliberate on any recommendations presented in the subcommittees'
progress reports, and formulate recommendations for the agency's
consideration.

    Dated: October 9, 2013.
J. G. Lantz,
Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2013-24743 Filed 10-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 133 (Friday, July 11, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39961-39963]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16244]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0386; Directorate Identifier 2014-NE-09-AD;
Amendment 39-17897; AD 2014-12-52]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Honeywell International Inc. (Type
Certificate Previously Held by AlliedSignal Inc., Garrett Turbine
Engine Company) Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding emergency airworthiness directive (AD)
2014-12-52 for all Honeywell International Inc. TFE731-4, -4R, -5AR, -
5BR, -5R, -20R, -20AR, -20BR, -40, -40AR, -40R, -40BR, -50R, and -60
turbofan engines. Emergency AD 2014-12-52 was sent previously to all
known U.S. owners and operators of these engines. AD 2014-12-52
required, before further flight, a review of the engine logbook
maintenance records to determine if any affected engines are installed.
AD 2014-12-52 also prohibited operation of an airplane with two or more
affected engines that have 2nd stage low-pressure turbine (LPT2) blades
with less than 250 operating hours since new. This AD retains the
requirements of AD 2014-12-52 and clarifies the intent of the mandatory
requirements. This AD was prompted by reports of LPT2 blade
separations. We are issuing this AD to prevent LPT2 blade failure,
multiple engine in-flight shutdowns, and damage to the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective July 28, 2014.
    We must receive comments on this AD by August 25, 2014.

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 AD, contact Honeywell
International Inc., 111 S. 34th Street, Phoenix, AZ 85034-2802; phone:
(800) 601-3099; Internet: http://www.myaerospace.com. You may view this
service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0386; or in person at the Docket Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for the Docket Operations Office
(phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Costa, Aerospace Engineer, Los
Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-
627-5246; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    On June 10, 2014, we issued Emergency AD 2014-12-52, which
requires, before further flight, a review of the engine logbook
maintenance records to determine if any affected engines are installed.
Emergency AD 2014-12-52 also required for two-engine airplanes or for
three-engine airplanes, that have two or more engines installed with
LPT2 blades installed that have less than 250 operating hours since
new, remove all affected engines before further flight. Emergency AD
2014-12-52 was sent previously to all known U.S. owners and operators
of these TFE731-4, -4R, -5AR, -5BR, -5R, -20R, -20AR, -20BR, -40, -
40AR, -40R, -40BR, -50R, and -60 turbofan engines. This action was
prompted by reports of LPT2 blade separations. Analysis indicates the
presence of casting anomalies at or near the root of the LPT2 blade.
This condition, if not corrected, could result in LPT2 blade failure,
multiple engine in-flight shutdowns, and damage to the airplane. We are
superseding Emergency AD

2014-12-52 to clarify the intent of paragraphs (e) and (f) of this AD.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Honeywell Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. TFE731-72-
A3792, dated June 5, 2014; ASB No. TFE731-72-A5242, dated June 5, 2014;
and ASB No. TFE731-72-A5243, dated June 5, 2014. The service
information describes procedures for identifying affected engines and
follow-on actions.

FAA's Determination

    We are issuing 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.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires, before further flight, a review of the engine
logbook maintenance records to determine if any affected engines are
installed. If any affected engines are installed, then this AD
prohibits operation of an airplane with two or more affected engines
that have LPT2 blades with less than 250 operating hours since new.

Differences Between This AD and the Service Information

    Paragraphs (e)(2) and (e)(3) of this AD require that certain
affected engines be removed before further flight. Honeywell ASB No.
TFE731-72-A3792, dated June 5, 2014; ASB No. TFE731-72-A5242, dated
June 5, 2014; and ASB No. TFE731-72-A5243, dated June 5, 2014, for
airplanes having only one affected engine installed, require no action
at this time and may continue operation.

Interim Action

    We consider this AD to be an interim action. We anticipate that
further AD action will follow.

FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies
waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because of
compliance requirement before further flight. Therefore, we find that
notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and
that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than
30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public
comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or
arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2014-0386; Directorate
Identifier 2014-NE-09-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. We
specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of
those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 50 engines installed on airplanes
of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 18 hours per
engine to comply with this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour.
Required parts cost about $0 per engine. Based on these figures, we
estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $76,500.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2014-12-52 Honeywell International Inc. (Type Certificate previously
held by AlliedSignal Inc., Garrett Turbine Engine Company):
Amendment 39-17897; Docket No. FAA-2014-0386; Directorate Identifier
2014-NE-09-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective July 28, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes Emergency AD 2014-12-52, Directorate
Identifier 2014-NE-09-AD, dated June 10, 2014.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Honeywell International Inc. TFE731-4, -
4R, -5AR, -5BR, -5R, -20R, -20AR, -20BR, -40, -40AR, -40R, -40BR, -
50R, and -60 turbofan engines with 2nd stage low-pressure turbine
(LPT2) blades, part number (P/N) 3075424-1, -2, or -3, installed.

(d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of LPT2 blade separations.
Analysis indicates the presence of casting anomalies at or near the
root of the LPT2 blade. We are issuing this AD to prevent LPT2 blade
failure, multiple engine in-flight shutdowns, and damage to the
airplane.

(e) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.
    (1) Before further flight, review engine logbook maintenance
records to determine if any engine is installed that has LPT2 blade,
P/N 3075424-1, -2, or -3, installed with less than 250 operating
hours since new on the blade.
    (2) For two-engine airplanes that have two engines with LPT2
blades installed that have less than 250 operating hours since new,
remove all affected engines before further flight.
    (3) For three-engine airplanes that have two or more engines
with LPT2 blades installed that have less than 250 operating hours
since new, remove all affected engines before further flight.
    (4) After the effective date of this AD, do not install any
engine that has installed in it LPT2 blades, P/N 3075424-1, -2, or -
3, that have less than 250 operating hours since new.

(f) Special Flight Permit

    Special flight permits are permitted for one over-land ferry
flight to a maintenance facility where engines can be removed.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, may
approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19
to make your request.

(h) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Joseph Costa,
Aerospace Engineer, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA
90712-4137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Honeywell International Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No.
TFE731-72-A3792, dated June 5, 2014; ASB No. TFE731-72-A5242, dated
June 5, 2014; and ASB No. TFE731-72-A5243, dated June 5, 2014, which
are not incorporated by reference in this AD, can be obtained from
Honeywell International Inc., using the contact information in
paragraph (h)(3) of this AD.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Honeywell International Inc., 111 S. 34th Street, Phoenix, AZ 85034-
2802; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: http://www.myaerospace.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington,
MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on July 7, 2014.
Ann C. Mollica,
Acting Assistant Directorate Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-16244 Filed 7-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 25 (Friday, February 6, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6672-6676]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02482]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0910; FRL-9922-43-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Ozone, 2010
Nitrogen Dioxide, 2010 Sulfur Dioxide, and 2012 Fine Particulate Matter
National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve portions of four State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submittals from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania pursuant to the Clean
Air Act (CAA). Whenever new or revised national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) are promulgated, the CAA requires states to submit a
plan for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of such
NAAQS. The plan is required to address basic program elements,
including, but not limited to, regulatory structure, monitoring,
modeling, legal authority, and adequate resources necessary to assure
attainment and maintenance of the standards. These elements are
referred to as infrastructure requirements. Pennsylvania has made four
separate submittals addressing the infrastructure requirements for the
2008 ozone, the 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2), the 2010 sulfur
dioxide (SO2), and the 2012 fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) NAAQS. In this rulemaking action, EPA is proposing
to approve, in accordance with the requirements of the CAA, the four
infrastructure SIP submissions with the exception of some portions of
the submittals addressing visibility protection.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 9, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2014-0910 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0910, Cristina Fernandez, Associate
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2014-0910. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State
submittals are available at the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468,
400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ruth Knapp<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436), EPA promulgated a revised NAAQS
for ozone based on 8-hour average concentrations. EPA revised the level
of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS from 0.08 parts per million (ppm) to 0.075
ppm. On February 9, 2010 (75 FR 6474), EPA established a new 1-hour
primary NAAQS for NO2 at a level of 100 parts per billion
(ppb), based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the yearly
distribution of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. On June 22, 2010
(75 FR 35520), EPA promulgated a revised NAAQS for SO2 at a
level of 75 ppb, based on a 3-year average of the annual 99th
percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. On December 14,
2012, EPA promulgated a revised primary NAAQS for PM2.5 for
the annual standard. The revised standard was set at the level of 12
micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m\3\) calculated as the annual average
which is averaged over a three year period. This specific NAAQS will be
referred to as the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to
submit SIPs meeting the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2)
within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or
within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2)
requires states to address basic SIP elements such as requirements for
monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority that are
designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. Section
110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to
EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may
vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In particular, the
data and analytical tools available at the time the state develops and
submits the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affects the content of the
submission. The content of such SIP submission may also vary depending
upon what provisions the state's existing SIP already contains.
    More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and
timing requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements
that states must meet for ``infrastructure'' SIP requirements related
to a newly

established or revised NAAQS. As mentioned earlier, these requirements
include basic SIP elements such as requirements for monitoring, basic
program requirements, and legal authority that are designed to assure
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.

II. Summary of State Submittals

    The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) submitted four separate
revisions to its SIP to satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)
of the CAA for the different NAAQS. On July 15, 2014, PADEP submitted
SIP revisions addressing the infrastructure requirements for the 2008
ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 as well as the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS. Each of the infrastructure SIP revisions
addressed the following infrastructure elements for the applicable
NAAQS which EPA is proposing to approve: Section 110(a)(2)(A), (B),
(C), (D)(i)(II) (prevention of significant deterioration(PSD)),
(D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). The four
infrastructure SIP submittals do not address section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which pertains to interstate transport of
emissions, nor section 110(a)(2)(I), which pertains to the
nonattainment requirements of part D, Title I of the CAA, because this
element, section 110(a)(2)(I), is not required to be submitted by the 3
year submission deadline of CAA section 110(a)(1) and will be addressed
in a separate process, if necessary for the respective NAAQS. The
Pennsylvania infrastructure SIP submittals included provisions
addressing section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (visibility protection).
However, EPA is not taking action on the portion of the SIP submittals
addressing 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (visibility protection) at this time and
will take later separate action on the portion of the infrastructure
SIP submittals addressing this element for the four NAAQS.

III. EPA's Approach To Review Infrastructure SIPs

    EPA is acting upon the Commonwealth's SIP submissions that address
the infrastructure requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA
for the 2008 ozone, the 2010 NO2, the 2010 SO2,
and the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The requirement for states to make
a SIP submission of this type arises out of section 110(a)(1). Pursuant
to section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP submissions ``within 3 years
(or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the
promulgation of a national primary ambient air quality standard (or any
revision thereof),'' and these SIP submissions are to provide for the
``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The
statute directly imposes on states the duty to make these SIP
submissions, and the requirement to make the submissions is not
conditioned upon EPA's taking any action other than promulgating a new
or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific
elements that ``[e]ach such plan'' submission must address.
    EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the
purpose of satisfying the requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) as
``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Although the term ``infrastructure
SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to distinguish this
particular type of SIP submission from submissions that are intended to
satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as ``nonattainment
SIP'' or ``attainment plan SIP'' submissions to address the
nonattainment planning requirements of part D of Title I of the CAA,
``regional haze SIP'' submissions required by EPA rule to address the
visibility protection requirements of section 169A of the CAA, and
nonattainment new source review permit program submissions to address
the permit requirements of CAA, Title I, part D.
    Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for
infrastructure SIP submissions and section 110(a)(2) provides more
details concerning the required contents of these submissions. The list
of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide
variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required
legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program
provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both
authority and substantive program provisions.\1\ EPA therefore believes
that while the timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) is unambiguous,
some of the other statutory provisions are ambiguous. In particular,
EPA believes that the list of required elements for infrastructure SIP
submissions provided in section 110(a)(2) contains ambiguities
concerning what is required for inclusion in an infrastructure SIP
submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides that states
must provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority
under state and local law to carry out the SIP; Section 110(a)(2)(C)
provides that states must have a SIP-approved program to address
certain sources as required by part C of Title I of the CAA; and
section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have legal authority
to address emergencies as well as contingency plans that are
triggered in the event of such emergencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following examples of ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA
to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) requirements
with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions for a given new or
revised NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is that section 110(a)(2)
requires that ``each'' SIP submission must meet the list of
requirements therein, while EPA has long noted that this literal
reading of the statute is internally inconsistent and would create a
conflict with the nonattainment provisions in part D of Title I of the
CAA, which specifically address nonattainment SIP requirements.\2\
Section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment SIP requirements and
part D addresses when attainment plan SIP submissions to address
nonattainment area requirements are due. For example, section 172(b)
requires EPA to establish a schedule for submission of such plans for
certain pollutants when the Administrator promulgates the designation
of an area as nonattainment, and section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to two
years or in some cases three years, for such designations to be
promulgated.\3\ This ambiguity illustrates that rather than apply all
the stated requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a strict literal sense,
EPA must determine which provisions of section 110(a)(2) are applicable
for a particular infrastructure SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See, e.g., ``Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine
Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions
to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOX SIP Call;
Final Rule,'' 70 FR 25162, at 25163-65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining
relationship between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)
versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).
    \3\ EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 110(a)(2) is
heightened by the fact that various subparts of part D set specific
dates for submission of certain types of SIP submissions in
designated nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, e.g.,
that section 182(a)(1) provides specific dates for submission of
emissions inventories for the ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific
dates are necessarily later than three years after promulgation of
the new or revised NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another example of ambiguity within section 110(a)(1) and (2) with
respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to whether states must meet all
of the infrastructure SIP requirements in a single SIP submission, and
whether EPA must act upon such SIP submission in a single action.
Although section 110(a)(1) directs states to submit ``a plan'' to meet
these requirements, EPA interprets the CAA to allow states to make
multiple SIP submissions separately addressing infrastructure SIP
elements for the same NAAQS. If states elect to make such multiple SIP
submissions to meet the

infrastructure SIP requirements, EPA can elect to act on such
submissions either individually or in a larger combined action.\4\
Similarly, EPA interprets the CAA to allow it to take action on the
individual parts of one larger, comprehensive infrastructure SIP
submission for a given NAAQS without concurrent action on the entire
submission. For example, EPA has sometimes elected to act at different
times on various elements and sub-elements of the same infrastructure
SIP submission.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, e.g., ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation
Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) State
Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,'' 78 FR
4339 (January 22, 2013) (EPA's final action approving the structural
PSD elements of the New Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately
to meet the requirements of EPA's 2008 PM2.5 NSR rule),
and ``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
New Mexico; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport Requirements for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,'' 78 FR 4337 (January 22, 2013)
(EPA's final action on the infrastructure SIP for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS).
    \5\ On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, through the
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, made a SIP
revision to EPA demonstrating that the State meets the requirements
of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). EPA proposed action for
infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on January 23, 2012 (77 FR
3213) and took final action on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On
April 16, 2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 42997), EPA
took separate proposed and final actions on all other section
110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP elements of Tennessee's December 14,
2007 submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ambiguities within section 110(a)(1) and (2) may also arise with
respect to infrastructure SIP submission requirements for different
NAAQS. Thus, EPA notes that not every element of section 110(a)(2)
would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same way, for
each new or revised NAAQS. The states' attendant infrastructure SIP
submissions for each NAAQS therefore could be different. For example,
the monitoring requirements that a state might need to meet in its
infrastructure SIP submission for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(B)
could be very different for different pollutants, because the content
and scope of a state's infrastructure SIP submission to meet this
element might be very different for an entirely new NAAQS than for a
minor revision to an existing NAAQS.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS required the deployment of a system of new monitors to measure
ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also
necessary when EPA reviews other types of SIP submissions required
under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submissions, EPA
also has to identify and interpret the relevant elements of section
110(a)(2) that logically apply to these other types of SIP submissions.
For example, section 172(c)(7) requires attainment plan SIP submissions
required by part D to meet the ``applicable requirements'' of section
110(a)(2); thus, attainment plan SIP submissions must meet the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) regarding enforceable emission
limits and control measures and section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air
agency resources and authority. By contrast, it is clear that
attainment plan SIP submissions required by part D would not need to
meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to the PSD
program required in part C of Title I of the CAA, because PSD does not
apply to a pollutant for which an area is designated nonattainment and
thus subject to part D planning requirements. As this example
illustrates, each type of SIP submission may implicate some elements of
section 110(a)(2) but not others.
    Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory language
of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is
appropriate to interpret the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1)
and section 110(a)(2) in the context of acting on a particular SIP
submission. In other words, EPA assumes that Congress could not have
intended that each and every SIP submission, regardless of the NAAQS in
question or the history of SIP development for the relevant pollutant,
would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in the same
way. Therefore, EPA has adopted an approach under which it reviews
infrastructure SIP submissions against the list of elements in section
110(a)(2), but only to the extent each element applies for that
particular NAAQS.
    Historically, EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make
recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases
conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some
cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and
applied to individual SIP submissions for particular elements.\7\ EPA
most recently issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on September 13,
2013 (2013 Guidance).\8\ EPA developed this document to provide states
with up-to-date guidance for infrastructure SIPs for any new or revised
NAAQS. Within this guidance, EPA describes the duty of states to make
infrastructure SIP submissions to meet basic structural SIP
requirements within three years of promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS. EPA also made recommendations about many specific subsections of
section 110(a)(2) that are relevant in the context of infrastructure
SIP submissions.\9\ The guidance also discusses the substantively
important issues that are germane to certain subsections of section
110(a)(2). EPA interprets section 110(a)(1) and (2) such that
infrastructure SIP submissions need to address certain issues and need
not address others. Accordingly, EPA reviews each infrastructure SIP
submission for compliance with the applicable statutory provisions of
section 110(a)(2), as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA requires EPA to
provide guidance or to promulgate regulations for infrastructure SIP
submissions. The CAA directly applies to states and requires the
submission of infrastructure SIP submissions, regardless of whether
or not EPA provides guidance or regulations pertaining to such
submissions. EPA elects to issue such guidance in order to assist
states, as appropriate.
    \8\ ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),''
Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.
    \9\ EPA's September 13, 2013, guidance did not make
recommendations with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions to
address Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA issued the guidance shortly
after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the DC Circuit
decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) which had
interpreted the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light
of the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, EPA elected not to
provide additional guidance on the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that time. As the guidance is neither binding
nor required by statute, whether EPA elects to provide guidance on a
particular section has no impact on a state's CAA obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of
section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submissions. Under this
element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of section 128,
which pertain to state boards that approve permits or enforcement
orders and heads of executive agencies with similar powers. Thus, EPA
reviews infrastructure SIP submissions to ensure that the state's SIP
appropriately addresses the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
and section 128. The 2013 Guidance explains EPA's interpretation that
there may be a variety of ways by which states can appropriately
address these substantive statutory requirements, depending on the
structure of an individual state's permitting or enforcement program
(e.g., whether permits and enforcement orders are approved by a multi-
member board or by a head of an executive agency). However, they are
addressed by the state, the substantive requirements of

Section 128 are necessarily included in EPA's evaluation of
infrastructure SIP submissions because section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
explicitly requires that the state satisfy the provisions of section
128.
    As another example, EPA's review of infrastructure SIP submissions
with respect to the PSD program requirements in section 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the structural PSD program
requirements contained in part C and EPA's PSD regulations. Structural
PSD program requirements include provisions necessary for the PSD
program to address all regulated sources and NSR pollutants, including
Green House Gases (GHGs). By contrast, structural PSD program
requirements do not include provisions that are not required under
EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 but are merely available as an
option for the state, such as the option to provide grandfathering of
complete permit applications with respect to the PM2.5
NAAQS. Accordingly, the latter optional provisions are types of
provisions EPA considers irrelevant in the context of an infrastructure
SIP action.
    For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, EPA's review of a
state's infrastructure SIP submission focuses on assuring that the
state's SIP meets basic structural requirements. For example, section
110(a)(2)(C) includes, inter alia, the requirement that states have a
program to regulate minor new sources. Thus, EPA evaluates whether the
state has an EPA-approved minor new source review program and whether
the program addresses the pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In the
context of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, however, EPA
does not think it is necessary to conduct a review of each and every
provision of a state's existing minor source program (i.e., already in
the existing SIP) for compliance with the requirements of the CAA and
EPA's regulations that pertain to such programs.
    With respect to certain other issues, EPA does not believe that an
action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the
appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in
a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) Existing provisions
related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) that may be contrary to the CAA and
EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions; (ii) existing
provisions related to ``director's variance'' or ``director's
discretion'' that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to
allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public
process or not requiring further approval by EPA; and (iii) existing
provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current
requirements of EPA's ``Final NSR Improvement Rule,'' 67 FR 80186
(December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (NSR
Reform). Thus, EPA believes it may approve an infrastructure SIP
submission without scrutinizing the totality of the existing SIP for
such potentially deficient provisions and may approve the submission
even if it is aware of such existing provisions.\10\ It is important to
note that EPA's approval of a state's infrastructure SIP submission
should not be construed as explicit or implicit re-approval of any
existing potentially deficient provisions that relate to the three
specific issues just described.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to include a
new provision in an infrastructure SIP submission that contained a
legal deficiency, such as a new exemption for excess emissions
during SSM events, then EPA would need to evaluate that provision
for compliance against the rubric of applicable CAA requirements in
the context of the action on the infrastructure SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's approach to review of infrastructure SIP submissions is to
identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that
submission. EPA believes that this approach to the review of a
particular infrastructure SIP submission is appropriate, because it
would not be reasonable to read the general requirements of section
110(a)(1) and the list of elements in section 110(a)(2) as requiring
review of each and every provision of a state's existing SIP against
all requirements in the CAA and EPA regulations merely for purposes of
assuring that the state in question has the basic structural elements
for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have
grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and regulatory
requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include some outmoded
provisions and historical artifacts. These provisions, while not fully
up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the
purposes of ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of a new
or revised NAAQS when EPA evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure SIP
submission. EPA believes that a better approach is for states and EPA
to focus attention on those elements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA
most likely to warrant a specific SIP revision due to the promulgation
of a new or revised NAAQS or other factors.
    For example, EPA's 2013 Guidance gives simpler recommendations with
respect to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS pollutants to meet the
visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon
monoxide does not affect visibility. As a result, an infrastructure SIP
submission for any future new or revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide need
only state this fact in order to address the visibility prong of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
    Finally, EPA believes that its approach with respect to
infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of
section 110(a)(1) and (2) because the CAA provides other avenues and
mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing
SIPs. These other statutory tools allow EPA to take appropriately
tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged
SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a ``SIP
call'' whenever the Agency determines that a state's SIP is
substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate
interstate transport, or to otherwise comply with the CAA.\11\ Section
110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as
past approvals of SIP submissions.\12\ Significantly, EPA's
determination that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission
is not the appropriate time and place to address all potential existing
SIP deficiencies does not preclude EPA's subsequent reliance on
provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the basis for action to
correct those deficiencies at a later time. For example, although it
may not be appropriate to require a state to eliminate all existing
inappropriate director's discretion provisions in the course of acting
on an infrastructure SIP submission, EPA believes that section
110(a)(2)(A) may be

among the statutory bases that EPA relies upon in the course of
addressing such deficiency in a subsequent action.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to address
specific existing SIP deficiencies related to the treatment of
excess emissions during SSM events. See ``Finding of Substantial
Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State
Implementation Plan Revisions,'' 74 FR 21639 (April 18, 2011).
    \12\ EPA has used this authority to correct errors in past
actions on SIP submissions related to PSD programs. See ``Limitation
of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions
Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation
Plans; Final Rule,'' 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has
previously used its authority under section 110(k)(6) of the CAA to
remove numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it
had approved in error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62
FR 34641 (June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona,
California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062, November 16, 2004
(corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3, 2009)
(corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).
    \13\ See, e.g., EPA's disapproval of a SIP submission from
Colorado on the grounds that it would have included a director's
discretion provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including
section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 (July 21,
2010) (proposed disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76
FR 4540 (January 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Summary of EPA's Rationale for Proposing Approval

    In this rulemaking action, EPA is proposing approval of the
Commonwealth's four infrastructure SIP submittals for the 2008 ozone,
2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS as addressing requirements in section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C),
(D)(i)(II) (prevention of significant deterioration), (D)(ii), (E),
(F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M) of the CAA. A detailed analysis
of EPA's review and rationale for proposing to approve the four
infrastructure SIP submittals as addressing these CAA requirements may
be found in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for this proposed
rulemaking action which is available on line at www.regulations.gov,
Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0910. EPA is not taking rulemaking
action at this time on the portion of the infrastructure SIP submittals
which address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (visibility protection) for
the four NAAQS. EPA will take later rulemaking action on these
submittals regarding section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (visibility
protection).
    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.

V. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the Commonwealth's infrastructure
submittals dated July 15, 2014 for the 2008 ozone, the 2010
NO2, the 2010 SO2, and the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS respectively, as meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of
the CAA, including specifically section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C),
(D)(i)(II) (prevention of significant deterioration), (D)(ii), (E),
(F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M) for the four NAAQS with the
exception of the requirements related to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
(visibility protection). The Commonwealth's infrastructure SIP
submissions for the four NAAQS did not include provisions addressing
CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and therefore EPA is not taking any action on
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for any of the four NAAQS. The
Commonwealth's infrastructure SIP submissions for the four NAAQS also
did not include provisions addressing section 110(a)(2)(I) for any
nonattainment requirements of part D, Title I of the CAA, because this
element is not required to be submitted by the 3 year submission
deadline of CAA section 110(a)(1). EPA is also not taking action at
this time on the portions of the four infrastructure SIP submittals
intended to address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (visibility
protection). EPA will take later separate action on the portion of the
infrastructure SIP submittals addressing CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (visibility protection) for the four NAAQS.

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);
     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 proposed rulemaking action, pertaining to
Pennsylvania's section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements for the
2008 ozone, the 2010 NO2, the 2010 SO2, and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: January 13, 2015.
William C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2015-02482 Filed 2-5-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 209 (Friday, October 28, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75190-75191]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26045]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0104]

Request for Comment on Cybersecurity Best Practices for Modern
Vehicles

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

ACTION: Request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: NHTSA invites public comment on its Cybersecurity Best
Practices for Modern Vehicles. The document is available for a 30 day
comment period at http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nvs/pdf/812333_CybersecurityForModernVehicles.pdf.

DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that
Docket Management receives them no later than November 28, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket number above and be
submitted by one of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting
comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the
Public Participation heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
of this document. Note that all comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided.
     Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form
of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted
on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78). For access to the docket
to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the street address listed above. Follow the
online instructions for accessing the dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues: Mr. Arthur
Carter of NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Crash Avoidance & Electronic
Controls Research at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For legal issues: Mr. Steve Wood of NHTSA's
Office of Chief Counsel at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A top NHTSA priority is enhancing vehicle
cybersecurity to mitigate cyber threats that could present unreasonable
safety risks to the public or compromise sensitive data such as
personally identifiable information. And, the agency is actively
engaged in approaches to improve the cybersecurity of modern vehicles.
The agency has been conducting research and actively engaging
stakeholders to identify effective methods to address the vehicle
cybersecurity challenges. For example, in January 2016, NHTSA convened
a public vehicle cybersecurity roundtable meeting in Washington, DC to
facilitate diverse stakeholder discussion on key vehicle cybersecurity
topics. Over 300 individuals attended this meeting. These attendees
represented over 200 unique organizations that included 17 Original
Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs), 25 government entities, and 13 industry
associations. During the roundtable meeting, the stakeholder groups
identified actionable steps for

the vehicle manufacturing industry to effectively and expeditiously
address vehicle cybersecurity challenges. As a follow up, NHTSA held a
meeting with other government agencies in February 2016 to discuss
possibilities for collaboration among Federal partners to help the
industry improve vehicle cybersecurity.
    As a result of the extensive public and private stakeholder
engagement, NHTSA has developed a set of best practices for the
automotive industry that the agency believes will further automotive
cybersecurity. The agency notes that the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers and the Association of Global Automakers, through the
Auto Information Sharing and Analysis Center (Auto ISAC), released a
``Framework for Automotive Cybersecurity Best Practices'' on July 22,
2016.\1\ The primary goal of the NHTSA best practices, therefore, is to
not supplant the industry-led efforts, but, rather, to support this
effort and provide the agency's views on how the broader automotive
industry (including those who are not members of the Auto ISAC) can
develop and apply sound risk-based cybersecurity management practices
to their product development processes. The document will also help the
automotive sector organizations effectively demonstrate and communicate
their cybersecurity risk management approach to both the public and
internal and external stakeholders. NHTSA intends for the document to
be updated with some frequency as new information, research, and
practices become available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ https://www.automotiveisac.com/best-practices/ practices/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA invites public comments on all aspects of these best
practices, including how to make the best practices more robust, what
gaps remain and whether there is sufficient research and/or practices
to address those gaps.

Public Participation

How do I prepare and submit comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are filed correctly in the docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your comments.
    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long (49 CFR 553.21).
NHTSA established this limit to encourage you to write your primary
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length
of the attachments.
    Please submit one copy (two copies if submitting by mail or hand
delivery) of your comments, including the attachments, to the docket
following the instructions given above under ADDRESSES. Please note, if
you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF (Adobe) file, we
ask that the documents submitted be scanned using an Optical Character
Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing the agency to search and copy
certain portions of your submissions.

How do I submit confidential business information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the
address given above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition,
you may submit a copy (two copies if submitting by mail or hand
delivery), from which you have deleted the claimed confidential
business information, to the docket by one of the methods given above
under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover
letter setting forth the information specified in NHTSA's confidential
business information regulation (49 CFR part 512).

Will the agency consider late comments?

    NHTSA will consider all comments received before the close of
business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To
the extent possible, the agency will also consider comments received
after that date.

How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

    You may read the comments received at the address given above under
Comments. The hours of the docket are indicated above in the same
location. You may also see the comments on the Internet, identified by
the docket number at the heading of this notice, at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Please note that, even after the comment closing date, NHTSA will
continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
the agency recommends that you periodically check the docket for new
material.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

    Authority: Sec. 31402, Pub. L. 112-141.

    Issued in Washington, DC on October 24, 2016 under authority
delegated in 49 CFR part 1.95.
Nathaniel Beuse,
Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety Research.
[FR Doc. 2016-26045 Filed 10-27-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P