[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 201 (Thursday, October 19, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48743-48744]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22657]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard; Toyota Motor North America, Inc.

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

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.

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

SUMMARY: This document grants in full the Toyota Motor North America,
Inc.'s, (Toyota) petition for an exemption of the Avalon vehicle line.
This petition is granted because the agency has determined that the
antitheft device to be placed on the line as standard equipment is
likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft
as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Federal Motor
Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard (Theft Prevention Standard).

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is applicable beginning
with the 2019 model year (MY).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hisham Mohamed, International Policy,
Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, W43-437, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Mohamed's phone number is (202)
366-0307. His fax number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated June 19, 2017, Toyota
requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard for the Avalon vehicle line beginning with MY 2019.
The petition requested an exemption from parts-marking pursuant to 49
CFR part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, based
on the installation of an antitheft device as standard equipment for
the entire vehicle line.
    Under 49 CFR part 543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to
grant an exemption for one vehicle line per model year. In its
petition, Toyota provided a detailed description and diagram of the
identity, design, and location of the components of the antitheft
device for the Avalon vehicle line. Toyota stated that its MY 2019
Avalon vehicle line will be installed with a ``smart entry and start''
system and an engine immobilizer as standard equipment. Key components
of the ``smart entry and start'' system device on the Avalon vehicle
line will include, a certification electronic control unit (ECU),
engine switch, steering lock ECU, security indicator, door control
receiver, electrical key, an engine immobilizer and an electronic
control module (ECM). Toyota stated that there will also be position
switches installed on the vehicle to protect the hood and doors from
unauthorized tampering/opening. Toyota further explained that locking
the doors can be accomplished through use of a key, wireless switch or
its smart entry system, and that unauthorized tampering with the hood
or door without using one of these methods will cause the position
switches to trigger its antitheft device to operate. Toyota stated that
it will not incorporate an audible and visual alarm system as standard
equipment on its trim-line vehicles.
    Toyota's submission is considered a complete petition as required
by 49 CFR 543.7 in that it meets the general requirements contained in
Sec.  543.5 and the specific content requirements of Sec.  543.6.
    In addressing the specific content requirements of Sec.  543.6,
Toyota provided information on the reliability and durability of its
proposed device. To ensure reliability and durability of the device,
Toyota conducted tests based on its own specified standards. Toyota
provided a detailed list of the tests conducted (i.e., high and low
temperature operation, overvoltage, strength, impact, vibration,
electro-magnetic interference, etc.). Toyota stated that it believes
that its device is reliable and durable because it complied with its
own specific design standards and the antitheft device is installed on
other vehicle lines for which the agency has granted a parts-marking
exemption. As an additional measure of reliability and durability,
Toyota stated that its vehicle key cylinders are covered with casting
cases to prevent the key cylinder from easily being broken. Toyota
further explained that there are approximately 10,000 combinations for
inner cut keys which makes it difficult to unlock the doors without
using a valid key because the key cylinders would spin out and cause
the locks to not operate.
    Toyota stated that its ``smart entry and start system'' device is
activated when the engine switch is pushed from the

``ON'' ignition status to any other status. The certification ECU then
performs the calculation for the immobilizer and the immobilizer
signals the ECM to activate the device. Toyota also stated that key
verification is also performed after the driver pushes the engine
switch. Specifically, after the driver pushes the engine switch, the
certification ECU and steering lock ECU receive confirmation of a valid
key, and the certification ECU allows the ECM to start the engine.
Toyota also stated that in the ``smart entry and start system''
installed vehicle, a security indicator notifies the users and others
inside and outside the vehicle with the status of the immobilizer.
Toyota further explained that the security indicator flashes
continuously when the immobilizer is activated, and turns off when it
is deactivated.
    Toyota stated that the proposed antitheft device has also been
installed as standard equipment on its Avalon vehicle line beginning
with its MY 2015 vehicles. The theft rate for the MY 2015 Avalon
vehicle line is not available. However, Toyota compared its proposed
device to other devices NHTSA has determined to be as effective in
reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as would compliance with the
parts-marking requirements. Toyota compared its proposed device to that
which has been installed on the Nissan Altima and granted a parts-
marking exemption from 49 CFR part 541 by the agency beginning with its
MY 2000 vehicles. Toyota also referenced the NHTSA theft rate data
published for several years before and after the Nissan Altima was
equipped with a standard immobilizer device. Specifically, Toyota
stated that the publication showed that the average theft rate for the
Nissan Altima dropped to 3.0 per 1,000 cars produced between MY's 2000-
2006 compared to 5.3 per 1,000 cars produced between MY's 1996-1999.
This represents approximately a 43% decrease in the theft rate for the
Nissan Altima vehicle line installed with an immobilizer between MY's
2000-2006 as compared to the Nissan Altima vehicle line without an
immobilizer between MY's 1996-1999. The theft rates for the Nissan
Altima vehicle line using an average of three model years' data (2012-
2014) are 2.4207, 1.7598 and 2.1212 respectively, all well below the
median theft rate of 3.5826. Therefore, Toyota has concluded that the
antitheft device proposed for its Avalon vehicle line is no less
effective than those devices on the lines for which NHTSA has already
granted full exemption from the parts-marking requirements. Toyota
stated that it believes that installing the immobilizer device as
standard equipment reduces the theft rate for the Avalon vehicle line
and expects it to experience comparable effectiveness and ultimately be
more effective than parts-marking labels.
    Based on the supporting evidence submitted by Toyota on its device,
the agency believes that the antitheft device for the Avalon vehicle
line is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor
vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the
Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR 541). The agency concludes that the
device will provide four of the five types of performance listed in
Sec.  543.6(a)(3): Promoting activation; preventing defeat or
circumvention of the device by unauthorized persons; preventing
operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the
reliability and durability of the device.
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.7 (b), the agency grants
a petition for exemption from the parts-marking requirements of Part
541, either in whole or in part, if it determines that, based upon
substantial evidence, the standard equipment antitheft device is likely
to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of Part 541. The agency
finds that Toyota has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the
antitheft device for the Avalon vehicle line is likely to be as
effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance
with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard
(49 CFR part 541). This conclusion is based on the information Toyota
provided about its device.
    For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full
Toyota's petition for exemption for the Avalon vehicle line from the
parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541. The agency notes that 49
CFR part 541, Appendix A-1, identifies those lines that are exempted
from the Theft Prevention Standard for a given model year. 49 CFR part
543.7(f) contains publication requirements incident to the disposition
of all Part 543 petitions. Advanced listing, including the release of
future product nameplates, the beginning model year for which the
petition is granted and a general description of the antitheft device
is necessary in order to notify law enforcement agencies of new vehicle
lines exempted from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard.
    If Toyota decides not to use the exemption for this line, it should
formally notify the agency. If such a decision is made, the line must
be fully marked according to the requirements under 49 CFR parts 541.5
and 541.6 (marking of major component parts and replacement parts).
    NHTSA notes that if Toyota wishes in the future to modify the
device on which this exemption is based, the company may have to submit
a petition to modify the exemption. Part 543.7(d) states that a Part
543 exemption applies only to vehicles that belong to a line exempted
under this part and equipped with the antitheft device on which the
line's exemption is based. Further, Part 543.9(c)(2) provides for the
submission of petitions ``to modify an exemption to permit the use of
an antitheft device similar to but differing from the one specified in
that exemption.''
    The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that Part
543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and itself.
The agency did not intend in drafting part 543 to require the
submission of a modification petition for every change to the
components or design of an antitheft device. The significance of many
such changes could be de minimis. Therefore, NHTSA suggests that if the
manufacturer contemplates making any changes, the effects of which
might be characterized as de minimis, it should consult the agency
before preparing and submitting a petition to modify.

    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
1.95.
Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2017-22657 Filed 10-18-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements 1. Applications 2. Surveys and Studies 3. Reporting Requirements A. Read instructions B. Required activities Initial performance test Repeat performance test Install CMS Develop CMS QC program and test plan Conduct CMS performance evaluation Maintain, adjust, calibrate CMS C. Create information D. Gather existing information E. Write reports Initial notification and HAP usage Compliance status notification Performance test notification Performance test report Startup/ shutdown/ malfunction report Excess emissions and CMS performance report 4. Recordkeeping requirements A. Read Instructions B. Plan activities C. Implement activities D. Develop record system E. Time to enter information Records of maintenance Records of startup, shutdown, malfunction Records of malfunctioning or inoperative CMS Records of applicability determination Records of CMS operation Records of liquid liquid material balances; HAP, volatile material, solids and materials applied; operating parameters Records of materials used by incidental printers F. Time to train personnel G. Time for audits TOTAL BURDEN AND COST ( SALARY) person hours per occurrence ( A)

NA( a)

NA( a)

4 240 ( d) 240 ( d) 100 100 300 6 see 3B see 3E 4 4 2 40 2 16 see3A NA NA 40 4 ( f) 2 2 2 2 2 40 NA annual occurrences per respondent ( B)

1 1 1 1 1 1 52 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 52 52 2 1 52 12 1 annual person hours per respondent ( AxB)

4 240 240 100 100 300 312 4 4 2 40 4 32 40 208 104 4 2 104 24 40 total number of respondents per year ( D)

3( c)

1( e) .3( f) .3( g) .3( g) .3( g) 44( h)

1( e) 1( e) 1( e) 1( e) 20( k) 68( i)

1( e)

96( j) 20( k) 20( k) 1( e) 44( h)

96( j)

3( c) annual technical person hours ( hr/ r) ( CxD)

12 240 80 33 33 100 13728 4 4 2 40 80 2176 40 19968 2080 27 2 4576 2304 120 total annual cost ($/ yr)( b)

744.84 14896.80 4965.60 2048.31 2048.31 6207 852096.96 248.28 248.28 124.14 2482.80 4965.60 135064.32 2482.80 1239413.70 129105.60 1675.89 124.14 284032.32 143009.28 7448.40


[Federal Register: August 4, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 148)]
[Notices]
[Page 38681]
[DOCID:fr04au09-89]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Fuel Drain Valves

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of cancellation of Technical Standard Order (TSO) C76a,
Fuel Drain Valves.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the cancellation of TSO-C76a, Fuel Drain
Valves. If you have reason to believe that this proposed action will
negatively impact aviation safety, we would like to solicit your
comments.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 3, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Send all comments regarding the cancelling of the Fuel Drain
Valve TSO-C76a to: Federal Aviation Administration, Aircraft
Certification Service, Aircraft Engineering Division, Technical
Programs and Continued Airworthiness Branch, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, SW.,
5th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. ATTN.: Jim Kabbara, AIR-120. You may
hand deliver comments to: Federal Aviation Administration, Aircraft
Certification Service, Aircraft Engineering Division, AIR-100, 950
L'Enfant Plaza, SW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Kabbara, AIR-120, Federal Aviation
Administration, Aircraft Certification Service, Aircraft Engineering
Division, AIR-100, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC
20024. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>: or via e-mail
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Comments Invited:
    Interested persons are invited to comment on the cancellation of
TSO-C76a by submitting written data, views, or arguments to the above-
specified address. Your comments should stipulate ``Comments,
cancellation of TSO-C76a.'' Comments received on or before the closing
date may be examined by visiting Federal Aviation Administration,
Aircraft Certification Service, Aircraft Engineering Division, AIR-100,
950 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20024, weekdays
except Federal holidays, between 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. The Director,
Aircraft Certification Service, will consider all comments received on
or before the closing date before issuing the final notice of
cancellation.

Background

    Note 3 attachment to Table 2, Fuel Resistance and Extreme
Temperature Test Schedule, is located in Appendix 1 of TSO-C76a, only
appears in the ``a'' version. A subsequent review of the ``a'' revision
of TSO-C76 determined that the revised temperature values contained in
Note 3 were arbitrary and provides no technical value to the
qualification of fuel drain valves, nor will the testing to those
temperature values provide an increase in the operational safety of the
fuel drain valve. Therefore, we are taking this opportunity to cancel
TSO-C76a.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 30, 2009.
Susan J.M. Cabler,
Assistant Manager, Aircraft Engineering Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E9-18576 Filed 8-3-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 27, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38191-38199]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15470]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2009-0784; FRL-9691-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
Mississippi; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing a limited approval of revisions to the
Mississippi State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of
Mississippi through the Mississippi Department of Environmental
Management (MDEQ) on September 22, 2008, and May 9, 2011. Mississippi's
SIP revisions address regional haze for the first implementation
period. Specifically, these SIP revisions address the requirements of
the Clean Air Act (CAA

or Act) and EPA's rules that require states to prevent any future and
remedy any existing anthropogenic impairment of visibility in mandatory
Class I areas (national parks and wilderness areas) caused by emissions
of air pollutants from numerous sources located over a wide geographic
area (also referred to as the ``regional haze program''). States are
required to assure reasonable progress toward the national goal of
achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I areas. EPA is
finalizing a limited approval of Mississippi's SIP revisions to
implement the regional haze requirements for Mississippi on the basis
that these SIP revisions, as a whole, strengthen the Mississippi SIP.
In a separate action published on June 7, 2012, EPA finalized a limited
disapproval of this same SIP revision because of the deficiencies in
the State's regional haze SIP revision arising from the remand by the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C.
Circuit) to EPA of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR).

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will be effective July 27, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2009-0784. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential
Business Information 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 through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for
further information. The Regional Office's official hours of business
are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michele Notarianni, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Michele Notarianni can
be reached at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> and by electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What is the background for this final action?
II. What is EPA's response to comments received on this action?
III. What is the effect of this final action?
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background for this final action?

    Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a
multitude of sources and activities which are located across a broad
geographic area and emit fine particles (e.g., sulfates, nitrates,
organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust), and their precursors
(e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides
(NOX), and in some cases, ammonia and volatile organic
compounds. Fine particle precursors react in the atmosphere to form
fine particulate matter (PM2.5) which impairs visibility by
scattering and absorbing light. Visibility impairment reduces the
clarity, color, and visible distance that one can see. PM2.5
can also cause serious health effects and mortality in humans and
contributes to environmental effects such as acid deposition and
eutrophication.
    In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national
goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing,
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas which impairment
results from manmade air pollution.'' On December 2, 1980, EPA
promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I
areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small
group of sources, i.e., ``reasonably attributable visibility
impairment.'' See 45 FR 80084. These regulations represented the first
phase in addressing visibility impairment. EPA deferred action on
regional haze that emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring,
modeling, and scientific knowledge about the relationships between
pollutants and visibility impairment were improved.
    Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional
haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1,
1999 (64 FR 35713), the Regional Haze Rule (RHR). The RHR revised the
existing visibility regulations to integrate into the regulation
provisions addressing regional haze impairment and established a
comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I areas. The
requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are
included in EPA's visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-
309. The requirement to submit a regional haze SIP applies to all 50
states, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands. 40 CFR
51.308(b) requires states to submit the first implementation plan
addressing regional haze visibility impairment no later than December
17, 2007.
    On September 22, 2008, and May 9, 2011, MDEQ submitted revisions to
Mississippi's SIP to address regional haze in the State's and other
states' Class I areas. On February 28, 2012, EPA published an action
proposing a limited approval of Mississippi's SIP revisions to address
the first implementation period for regional haze.\1\ See 77 FR 11879.
EPA proposed a limited approval of Mississippi's SIP revisions to
implement the regional haze requirements for Mississippi on the basis
that this revision, as a whole, strengthens the Mississippi SIP. See
section II of this rulemaking for a summary of the comments received on
the proposed actions and EPA's responses to these comments. Detailed
background information and EPA's rationale for the proposed action is
provided in EPA's February 28, 2012, proposed rulemaking. See 77 FR
11879.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In a separate action, published June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33642),
EPA finalized a limited disapproval of the Mississippi regional haze
SIP because of deficiencies in the State's regional haze SIP
submittal arising from the State's reliance on CAIR to meet certain
regional haze requirements. This final limited disapproval triggers
a 24-month clock by which a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) or
EPA-approved SIP must be in place to address the deficiencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the remand of CAIR, EPA issued a new rule in 2011 to
address the interstate transport of NOX and SO2
in the eastern United States. See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (``the
Transport Rule,'' also known as the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
(CSAPR)). On December 30, 2011, EPA proposed to find that the trading
programs in the Transport Rule would achieve greater reasonable
progress towards the national goal of achieving natural visibility
conditions than would Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) in the
states in which the Transport Rule applies. See 76 FR 82219. Based on
this proposed finding, EPA also proposed to revise the RHR to allow
states to substitute participation in the trading programs under the
Transport Rule for source-

specific BART. EPA finalized this finding and RHR revision on June 7,
2012 (77 FR 33642).
    Also on December 30, 2011, the D.C. Circuit stayed the Transport
Rule (including the provisions that would have sunset CAIR and the CAIR
FIPs) and instructed the EPA to continue to administer CAIR pending the
outcome of the court's decision on the petitions for review challenging
the Transport Rule. EME Homer City v. EPA, No. 11-1302.

II. What is EPA's response to comments received on this action?

    EPA received three sets of comments on the February 28, 2012,
rulemaking proposing a limited approval of Mississippi's regional haze
SIP revisions. Specifically, the comments were received from the
National Park Service, Sierra Club, and the Chevron Products Company.
Full sets of the comments provided by all of the aforementioned
entities (hereinafter referred to as ``the Commenter'') are provided in
the docket for today's final action. A summary of the comments and
EPA's responses are provided below.
    Comment 1: The Commenter believes that Mississippi's regional haze
SIP is inadequate because it does not properly identify sources that
should be subject to a reasonable progress analysis and disagrees with
MDEQ's decision to not subject Mississippi Power Company--Plant Watson
(Plant Watson) and the DuPont Delisle facility to a reasonable progress
control evaluation on the basis that Louisiana did not identify these
plants as potentially impacting the Breton Wilderness Area (Breton).
The Commenter recognizes that it should be the responsibility of the
state in which a federal Class I area is located to determine which
sources should be evaluated for reasonable progress but also states its
belief that, when a state fails to adequately address the federal Class
I areas within its borders, the responsibility for protecting
visibility at that federal Class I area shifts to those states who have
identified sources within their boundaries that impact that federal
Class I area. Therefore, the Commenter contends that MDEQ should
consider applying some level of control to the two aforementioned
facilities even though the Louisiana regional haze SIP submittal did
not specifically identify them in its control strategy for Breton. The
Commenter also states that there is no evidence that Mississippi
consulted or corresponded with Louisiana regarding the potential
visibility impacts from these two facilities.
    Response 1: EPA disagrees with the Commenter's conclusion that the
responsibility for developing an adequate long-term strategy (LTS)
shifts from states with federal Class I areas within their boundaries
to neighboring states. EPA's regulations are clear that ``[w]here the
State has emissions that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to
visibility impairment in any mandatory Class I Federal area located in
another State or States, the State must consult with the other State(s)
in order to develop coordinated emission management strategies.'' 40
CFR 52.308(d)(3)(i).
    MDEQ has met its obligation to consult with Louisiana. In December
2006 and in May 2007, the State Air Directors from the Visibility
Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS)
states held formal interstate consultation meetings to discuss the
methodology proposed by VISTAS for identifying sources to evaluate for
reasonable progress. The states invited Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
and EPA representatives to participate and to provide additional
feedback, and the State Air Directors discussed the results of analyses
showing contributions to visibility impairment from states to each of
the federal Class I areas in the VISTAS region. Mississippi received
letters from Louisiana and Alabama transmitting prehearing drafts of
their regional haze SIPs and provided documentation of this
correspondence and summaries of formal consultation meetings in
Appendix J of the September 2008 Mississippi SIP submittal. MDEQ
concurred on the reasonable progress goals (RPGs) for Breton and the
Sipsey Wilderness Area and committed to continue collaboration with
these states in the preparation of future VISTAS studies and analyses
and in addressing regional haze issues in future implementation
periods.
    In addition, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii) requires each state that
causes or contributes to impairment in a mandatory federal Class I area
to demonstrate that it has included in its implementation plan all
measures necessary to obtain its share of the emissions reductions
needed to meet the progress goals for the area. MDEQ has met its
obligations with regard to obtaining emissions reductions since no
additional control measures specific to Mississippi were identified by
the Louisiana reasonable progress analysis. As noted in the proposal,
after the time of Mississippi's original 2008 SIP submittal, Louisiana
completed and submitted a regional haze SIP to address visibility at
Breton. Neither Plant Watson nor the DuPont DeLisle facility were
identified by Louisiana, either through consultations with Mississippi
or in the Louisiana regional haze SIP, as sources potentially impacting
Breton for which a reasonable progress control evaluation would be
needed. Thus, EPA believes it is appropriate for Mississippi to
determine that no further control analysis was necessary at these
facilities at this time. Since Breton is in Louisiana, EPA believes
that Mississippi appropriately relied on Louisiana's determination of
which sources to prioritize for reasonable progress control evaluation
during this implementation period. Mississippi has committed to
continue to consult with Louisiana to assess the potential impact of
facilities in Mississippi to help meet the visibility goals for Breton
for future implementation periods.
    Comment 2: The Commenter states that MDEQ improperly estimated
emissions reductions for 2018 and that Mississippi's projection of
future visibility conditions for 2018 is based on ``uncertain federal
and state pollution control projects, including, in large part, on the
emissions reductions anticipated from CAIR.'' The Commenter also
believes that anticipated emissions reductions resulting from the other
control programs considered by Mississippi (e.g., Industrial Boiler
Maximum Achievable Control Technology, the Atlanta/Birmingham/Northern
Kentucky 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area SIP) are just as
uncertain as those resulting under CAIR and the Transport Rule, and
that Mississippi ``need[s] to base its LTS on concrete, definite
emissions reductions.'' The Commenter requests that, at a minimum, EPA
should ensure that MDEQ follows through on its commitment to re-
evaluate its ability to meet its RPGs in the five-year progress review.
    Response 2: The technical information provided in the record
demonstrates that the emissions inventory in the SIP adequately
reflects projected 2018 conditions and that the LTS meets the
requirements of the RHR and is approvable. Mississippi's 2018
projections are based on the State's technical analysis of the
anticipated emissions rates and level of activity for electric
generating units (EGUs), other point sources, nonpoint sources, on-road
sources, and off-road sources based on their emissions in the 2002 base
year, considering growth and additional emissions controls to be in
place and federally enforceable by 2018. The emissions inventory used
in the regional

haze technical analyses that was developed by VISTAS with assistance
from Mississippi projected 2002 emissions (the latest region-wide
inventory available at the time the submittal was being developed) and
applied reductions expected from federal and state regulations
affecting the emissions of volatile organic compounds and the
visibility impairing pollutants NOX, PM, and SO2.
    To minimize the differences between the 2018 projected emissions
used in the Mississippi regional haze submittal and what actually
occurs in 2018, the RHR requires that the five-year review address any
expected significant differences due to changed circumstances from the
initial 2018 projected emissions, provide updated expectations
regarding emissions for the implementation period, and evaluate the
impact of these differences on RPGs. It is expected that individual
projections within a statewide inventory will vary from actual
emissions over a 16-year period. For example, some facilities may shut
down whereas others may expand operations. Furthermore, economic
projections and population changes used to estimate growth often differ
from actual events; new rules are modified, changing their expected
effectiveness; and methodologies to estimate emissions improve,
modifying emissions estimates. The five-year review is a mechanism to
assure that these expected differences from projected emissions are
considered and their impact on the 2018 RPGs is evaluated. In the
regional haze program, uncertainties associated with modeled emissions
projections into the future are addressed through the requirement under
the RHR to submit periodic progress reports in the form of a SIP
revision. Specifically, 40 CFR 51.308(g) requires each state to submit
a report every five years evaluating progress toward the RPGs for each
mandatory federal Class I area located in the state and for each
federal Class I area outside the state that may be affected by
emissions from the state. Since this five-year progress re-evaluation
is a mandatory requirement, it is unnecessary for EPA to take
additional measures to ``ensure'' that the State meets its reporting
obligation. In the specific instances of uncertainty of future
reductions cited by the Commenter, the State's analysis of projected
emissions and its reliance on these projections to address its share of
the emissions reductions needed to meet the RPGs for Breton in
accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii) satisfy EPA guidance and the
requirements of the regional haze regulations.
    Comment 3: The Commenter does not believe that MDEQ can rely on
CAIR or the Transport Rule to exempt the seven power plants with BART-
eligible EGUs from an SO2 and NOX BART analysis.
The Commenter enclosed letters that it submitted to EPA on February 28,
2012, with its comments on the Agency's proposed December 30, 2011,
rulemaking to find that the Transport Rule is ``Better than BART'' and
to use the Transport Rule as an alternative to BART for Mississippi and
other states subject to the Transport Rule. See 76 FR 82219. The
Commenter incorporates the comments in these letters by reference and
repeats a subset of those comments, including the following: The
Transport Rule cannot serve as the BART-alternative for the regional
haze SIP process in Mississippi; EPA has not demonstrated that the
Transport Rule assures greater reasonable progress than source-specific
BART; EPA failed to account for the geographical and temporal
uncertainties in emissions reductions inherent in a cap-and-trade
program such as the Transport Rule; EPA underestimated the visibility
improvements from BART using ``presumptive BART rather than actual
BART;'' EPA did not consider subsequent revisions to the Transport Rule
budget that increase emission allocations for EGUs in Mississippi; and
EPA has not accounted for the differences in averaging time under BART,
the Transport Rule, and in measuring visibility impacts.
    Response 3: These comments are beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
In today's action, EPA is finalizing a limited approval of
Mississippi's regional haze SIP. EPA did not propose to find that
participation in the Transport Rule is an alternative to BART in this
action nor did EPA reopen discussions on the CAIR provisions as they
relate to BART.\2\ As noted above, EPA proposed to find that the
Transport Rule is ``Better than BART'' and to use the Transport Rule as
an alternative to BART for certain states in a separate action on
December 30, 2011, and the Commenter is merely reiterating and
incorporating comments submitted on that separate action. EPA addressed
the Commenter's February 28, 2012, comments concerning the Transport
Rule as a BART alternative in a final action that was published on June
7, 2012, and has determined that they do not affect the Agency's
ability to finalize a limited approval of Mississippi's regional haze
SIP. EPA's response to these comments can be found in Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729 at www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In a final action published on July 6, 2005, EPA addressed
similar comments related to CAIR and determined that CAIR makes
greater reasonable progress than BART for certain EGUs and
pollutants (70 FR 39138). EPA did not reopen comment on that issue
through this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 4: The Commenter asserts that because ``the BART component
of Mississippi's RH SIP is an essential element to the state's LTS for
achieving its RPGs, Mississippi's treatment of CAIR (and now EPA's
proposed substitution of CSAPR for CAIR) as an acceptable BART-
alternative must be addressed in this present comment process.
Separating the BART analysis from the remaining portion of the RH SIP
would result in an inadequate SIP.'' The Commenter supports its
position by repeating statements made in its February 28, 2012,
comments on the Agency's proposed December 30, 2011, rulemaking to find
that the Transport Rule is ``Better than BART'' and to use the
Transport Rule as an alternative to BART for Mississippi and other
states subject to the Transport Rule. For example, the Commenter states
that ``EPA cannot exempt sources from the RHR's BART requirements
without full consideration of how that exemption would affect the
overarching reasonable progress mandate.''
    Response 4: As discussed in the response to Comment 3, today's
action does not address reliance on CAIR or CSAPR to satisfy BART
requirements. Comments related to the approvability of CAIR or CSAPR
for the Mississippi regional haze SIP are therefore beyond the scope of
this rulemaking and were addressed by EPA in a separate action
published on June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33642). EPA addressed the Commenter's
repeated statements regarding the interrelatedness of BART, the LTS,
and RPGs in that final rulemaking action and those responses support
this limited approval action.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See EPA, Response to Comments Document, Regional Haze:
Revisions to Provisions Governing Alternatives to Source-Specific
Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations, Limited
SIP Disapprovals, and Federal Implementation Plans (76 FR 82219;
December 30, 2011), Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729 (May 30,
2012), pages 49-51 (noting that EPA ``disagree[s] with comments that
we cannot evaluate the BART requirements in isolation from the
reasonable progress requirements. We have on several occasions
undertaken evaluations of a state's BART determination or
promulgated a FIP separately from our evaluation of whether the SIP
as a whole will ensure reasonable progress.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA believes the Commenter overstates the overarching nature of the
changes due to CAIR or CSAPR. The reliance on CAIR in the Mississippi
submittal was consistent with EPA policy at the time the submittal was

prepared. CSAPR is a replacement for CAIR, addressing the same regional
EGU emissions, with many similar regulatory attributes. The need to
address changes to the LTS resulting from the replacement of CAIR with
CSAPR was acknowledged in the proposal, and as stated in the proposal,
EPA believes that the five-year progress report is the appropriate time
to address any changes to the RPG demonstration and, if necessary, the
LTS. EPA expects that this demonstration will address the impacts on
the RPG due to the replacement of CAIR with CSAPR as well as other
adjustments to the projected 2018 emissions due to updated information
on the emissions for other sources and source categories. If this
assessment determines an adjustment to the regional haze plan is
necessary, EPA regulations require a SIP revision within a year of the
five-year progress report.
    Comment 5: The Commenter believes that EPA's December 30, 2011,
proposed substitution of CSAPR for source-specific BART is uniquely
problematic in Mississippi since CSAPR only covers ozone season
NOX emissions in the State. According to the Commenter, EPA
should require year-round NOX controls since any controls
that might be installed to meet CSAPR will not protect Breton, the
Sipsey Wilderness Area, or other nearby federal Class I areas during
the seven months outside of the ozone season. The Commenter reiterates
that Mississippi must address BART for SO2 and PM since the
State is no longer included in a trading program for SO2.
One of the Commenters also expressed concern with EPA's statement that
the disapproval of the BART provisions for SO2 will trigger
a 24-month clock for EPA to either implement a FIP to address those
requirements or approve a revised SIP from the State that addresses
SO2 BART. The Commenter believes that this approach allows
the State to further delay conducting SO2 BART analyses for
its BART-eligible EGUs and that these analyses must be conducted
immediately.
    Response 5: As discussed in the response to Comment 3, today's rule
takes final action on the limited approval of Mississippi's regional
haze SIP revisions. EPA did not propose to find that participation in
the Transport Rule is an alternative to BART in this rulemaking. As
noted above, EPA made this proposed finding in a separate action on
December 30, 2011. These comments are therefore beyond the scope of
this rulemaking and were addressed, as appropriate, by EPA in its final
action (published on June 7, 2012) on the December 30, 2011, proposed
rule. EPA has determined that the comments do not affect the Agency's
ability to finalize a limited approval of Mississippi's regional haze
SIP. Regarding the timing of a FIP, the EPA statement identified by the
Commenter is a summary of the statutory requirements in section 110(c)
of the CAA.
    Comment 6: According to the Commenter, Mississippi should have
considered the cumulative impacts of the PM emissions from the Moselle
and D Morrow facilities when performing BART determinations and should
not have modeled these sources in isolation of one another or without
regard to PM emissions from sources in other states impacting any
federal Class I area. The Commenter also believes that MDEQ should have
considered both filterable and condensable PM when conducting its
modeling.
    Response 6: As discussed in the proposal, (see section IV.C.6.B.2,
February 28, 2012, 77 FR 11889), Mississippi adequately justified its
contribution threshold of 0.5 deciview. While states have the
discretion to set an appropriate contribution threshold considering the
number of emissions sources affecting the federal Class I area at issue
and the magnitude of the individual sources' impacts, the states'
analysis must be consistent with the CAA, the Regional Haze regulations
and EPA's Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze
Rule at Appendix Y to 40 CFR Part 51 (BART Guidelines). Consistent with
the regulations and EPA's guidance, ``the contribution threshold should
be used to determine whether an individual source is reasonably
anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment. You should not
aggregate the visibility effects of multiple sources and compare their
collective effects against your contribution threshold because this
would inappropriately create a `contribution to contribution' test.''
See also 70 FR 39121. Mississippi's analyses in its regional haze SIP
revisions were consistent with EPA's regulations and guidance on the
issue of cumulative analyses.
    It is unclear what condensable PM emissions the Commenter believes
that the State should have included in its visibility modeling. Each of
the units evaluated for BART in Mississippi's regional haze SIP
submittal followed the VISTAS modeling protocol and considered the
contribution of total PM10 and PM2.5 (as a subset
of the total PM10) as well as condensable PM (primarily
sulfuric acid mist) (see Appendix L of Mississippi's regional haze SIP
submittal). Regarding modeling in Mississippi's submittal that uses PM
only for its BART-eligible EGUs, EPA previously determined that this
approach is appropriate for EGUs where the State proposed to rely on
CAIR to satisfy the BART requirements for SO2 and
NOX.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Regional Haze Regulations and Guidelines for Best Available
Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations, EPA Memorandum from
Joseph Paisie, Group Leader, Geographic Strategies Group, OAQPS, to
Kay Prince, Branch Chief, EPA Region 4, July 19, 2006, located at
http://www.epa.gov/visibility/pdfs/memo_2006_07_19.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 7: The Commenter states that Mississippi's BART analyses
for Chevron Products' Pascagoula refinery (Chevron) and Mississippi
Phosphates Corporation (MPC) are insufficient, and therefore, EPA
cannot approve the State's regional haze SIP. Regarding Chevron, the
Commenter disagrees with MDEQ's determination that significant
visibility improvement could not be gained at reasonable cost over the
improvements already attained through the facility's air permits and a
June 7, 2005, consent decree. The Commenter contends that a more robust
cost analysis is necessary to assure that the costs outweigh the
visibility benefits from the evaluated pollution controls and that
Mississippi should have considered additional pollution control
technologies in its analysis such as selective catalytic reduction and
selective non-catalytic reduction for NOX. Regarding MPC,
the Commenter believes that the best available control technology
(BACT) emissions limits for SO2 (determined to be BART) are
not sufficiently stringent because it believes that emissions limits
determined to be BACT for sulfuric acid plants at other facilities have
been set at lower levels. The Commenter does not believe that
Mississippi provided an adequate explanation as to why it did not set
its BACT level as low as those set for similar facilities. The
Commenter is also concerned that Mississippi's regional haze SIP does
not discuss enforceable limits for NOX, particulates, or
sulfuric acid mist at the facility and states that MDEQ should have
analyzed emissions limits at other facilities when evaluating BART.
    Response 7: As stated in Appendix Y of 40 CFR part 51, available
retrofit control options are those air pollution control technologies
with a practical potential for application to the emissions unit and
the regulated pollutant under evaluation. In identifying ``all''
options, a state must identify the most stringent option and a
reasonable set of options for analysis that reflects a comprehensive
list of available technologies. It is not

necessary to list all permutations of available control levels that
exist for a given technology; the list is complete if it includes the
maximum level of control that each technology is capable of
achieving.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ EPA's BART Guidelines at 70 FR 39164.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Chevron, MDEQ concluded that all the planned controls in the
aforementioned consent decree for the Chevron facility were BART. The
State then evaluated additional control options for BART for the most
significant units that remain uncontrolled after the planned emissions
controls were installed. The costs and visibility impacts were assessed
in accordance with EPA guidance. Emissions reductions from the
evaluated control options are projected to provide limited visibility
improvements ranging from 0.043 deciview to 0.16 deciview, which are
beyond those expected from the already planned emissions reductions.
For each option, the total cost effectiveness and incremental cost
effectiveness exceed $29 million per deciview; therefore, Mississippi
determined that these options are not BART. A detailed analysis is
provided in Appendix L10 of Mississippi's regional haze SIP submittal.
    Regarding MPC, BACT and BART are both case-specific determinations.
MDEQ determined BACT to be the replacement of vanadium catalyst with
cesium catalyst in the third and fourth converter passes, yielding
emissions of 3.0 pounds of SO2 per ton of sulfuric acid
produced. MDEQ believes that this BACT determination is sufficient
because sulfuric acid plants with more stringent limits had a 3/1
converter design as compared to MPC's current 2/2 converter design.
Even though the technology being applied is identical to that applied
to other facilities, the 3/1 design achieves a higher conversion rate
resulting in approximately a 50 percent reduction of SO2 in
the exhaust compared to the exhaust from a 2/2 converter design. MPC
identified mist eliminators as the most effective sulfuric acid mist
control technology, and MDEQ determined BART to be vertical tube mist
eliminators in the interpass absorption tower. The final absorption
tower already has these mist eliminators installed. MPC also proposed
to replace the economizer prior to the final absorption tower with a
larger one which will have the effect of lowering the exhaust gas
temperature and thus reducing sulfuric acid mist emissions. Since the
vertical tube mist eliminators are the most efficient add-on control
technology, no additional control technologies were considered. MPC has
determined a sulfuric acid mist limit of 0.10 pound sulfuric acid mist
per ton of sulfuric acid produced, and MDEQ considers this limit
consistent with recent BACT determinations since it is among the most
stringent achieved in practice. Concerning NOX and
particulates, sulfuric acid plants are not a primary source of
NOX or PM emissions. See Mississippi's May 9, 2011, regional
haze SIP submittal for a detailed discussion of the determination and
the permit to construct.
    EPA has reviewed MDEQ's analyses and concluded they were conducted
in a manner that is consistent with EPA's BART Guidelines and reflect a
reasonable application of EPA's guidance to these sources.
    Comment 8: The Commenter contends that Mississippi's regional haze
SIP must be revised to address Reasonably Attributable Visibility
Impairment (RAVI) within three years of a FLM certifying visibility
impairment and that the State's commitment to address RAVI, should a
FLM certify visibility impairment, is not enough.
    Response 8: The State's regional haze SIP revisions do not address
RAVI requirements since RAVI is addressed by a different regulation
than the RHR. EPA's visibility regulations direct states to coordinate
their RAVI LTS provisions with those for regional haze and require the
RAVI portion of a SIP to address any integral vistas identified by the
FLMs. However, as stated in the March 28, 2012, proposed rulemaking,
there are no federal Class I areas in Mississippi. There are no
integral vistas in Mississippi or nearby federal Class I areas, no
federal Class I areas near Mississippi are experiencing RAVI, nor are
any Mississippi sources affected by the RAVI provisions. Thus, the
Mississippi regional haze SIP revisions did not explicitly address the
coordination of the regional haze with the RAVI LTS, although
Mississippi did commit to ongoing consultation with the FLMs throughout
the implementation process. EPA finds that Mississippi's regional haze
SIP appropriately addresses the RAVI visibility provisions in its LTS.
The commitments in Mississippi's SIP are consistent with the regulatory
requirements for this provision.
    Comment 9a: The Commenter claims that EPA must disapprove
Mississippi's regional haze SIP because the SIP does not explain how
monitoring data and other information will be used to determine the
contribution of emissions from within the State to regional haze
visibility impairment at Class I areas (see combined response below for
comments 9a and 9b).
    Comment 9b: The Commenter states that the SIP must clearly identify
the method by which the State intends to report visibility monitoring
to the EPA. If Mississippi plans to rely on the referenced Visibility
Information Exchange Web System (VIEWS) Web site for reporting, the
Commenter believes that the SIP must clearly state that Mississippi
intends to use the Web site as its way of reporting visibility
monitoring data and that ``it is not sufficient for Mississippi to
`encourage' VISTAS to maintain the web site.'' The Commenter also
believes that Mississippi's SIP needs to have an enforceable mechanism
to transmit the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments
(IMPROVE) data to EPA as well as an enforceable mechanism to ensure
that the IMPROVE data is continually gathered by Mississippi ``unless
it is gathered by other entities such as VISTAS and the National Park
Service'' or EPA ``must disapprove the SIP submittal in this regard.''
    Responses 9a, b: As noted by the Commenter, the primary monitoring
network for federal Class I areas potentially affected by sources in
Mississippi is the IMPROVE network. The responsibility for assuring
that there is adequate monitoring and reporting of this data is with
the state where the federal Class I area is located, and there are no
IMPROVE sites in Mississippi since it has no federal Class I areas. In
the SIP submittal, Mississippi states its intention to continue to
consult with the FLMs annually on monitoring data from the IMPROVE
network for federal Class I areas in adjacent states that might be
affected by Mississippi sources. Monitoring data is different from
emissions data or analyses conducted to attribute contribution, and
these analyses are therefore part of the ten-year implementation period
updates conducted by the states.
    In its SIP revisions, Mississippi states its intention to rely on
the IMPROVE network for complying with the regional haze monitoring
requirement in EPA's RHR for the current and future regional haze
implementation periods. Data produced by the IMPROVE monitoring network
will be used nearly continuously for preparing the five-year progress
reports and the 10-year SIP revisions, each of which relies on analysis
of the preceding five years of data. The VIEWS Web site has been
maintained by VISTAS and the other regional planning organizations
(RPOs) to provide ready access to the IMPROVE

data and data analysis tools. Mississippi is encouraging VISTAS and the
other RPOs to maintain the VIEWS or a similar data management system to
facilitate analysis of the IMPROVE data. Mississippi cannot legally
bind federal and state legislatures to continue to fund the monitoring
program for regional haze. Mississippi's SIP adequately addresses this
provision and explains how monitoring data and other information has
been and will be used to determine the contribution of emissions from
within the State to regional haze visibility impairment at federal
Class I areas.

III. What is the effect of this final action?

    Under CAA sections 301(a) and 110(k)(6) and EPA's long-standing
guidance, a limited approval results in approval of the entire SIP
revision, even of those parts that are deficient and prevent EPA from
granting a full approval of the SIP revision.\6\ Today, EPA is
finalizing a limited approval of Mississippi's regional haze SIP
revisions. This limited approval results in approval of Mississippi's
entire regional haze SIP and all its elements. EPA is taking this
approach because Mississippi's SIP will be stronger and more protective
of the environment with the implementation of those measures by the
State and having federal approval and enforceability than it would
without those measures being included in its SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Processing of State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revisions, EPA
Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management
Division, OAQPS, to Air Division Directors, EPA Regional Offices I-
X, September 7, 1992, (``1992 Calcagni Memorandum'') located at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/siproc.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Final Action

    EPA is finalizing a limited approval of revisions to the
Mississippi SIP submitted by the State of Mississippi on September 22,
2008, and May 9, 2011, as meeting some of the applicable regional haze
requirements as set forth in sections 169A and 169B of the CAA and in
40 CFR 51.300-308.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.''

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., OMB must
approve all ``collections of information'' by EPA. The Act defines
``collection of information'' as a requirement for answers to ``* * *
identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or
more persons * * *''. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). The Paperwork Reduction Act
does not apply to this action.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The RFA generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit
enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and
subchapter I, part D of the CAA do not create any new requirements but
simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing.
Therefore, because the federal SIP approval does not create any new
requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    Moreover, due to the nature of the federal-state relationship under
the CAA, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute federal
inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The CAA
forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union
Electric Co., v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.
7410(a)(2).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    Under sections 202 of the UMRA of 1995 (``Unfunded Mandates Act''),
signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact
statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a
federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to state, local, or
tribal governments in the aggregate; or to the private sector, of $100
million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-
effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203
requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small
governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that today's action does not include a federal
mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to
either state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the
private sector. This federal action approves pre-existing requirements
under state or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly,
no additional costs to state, local, or tribal governments, or to the
private sector, result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have Federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has Federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by state and local governments, or EPA
consults with state and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has Federalism implications and that preempts state law unless the
Agency consults with state and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
    This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the states,
on the relationship between the national government and the states, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it
merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does
not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA. Thus, the requirements of
section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under
Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible
alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does
not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or
safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    Section 12 of the NTTAA of 1995 requires federal agencies to
evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new regulation.
To comply with NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus
standards'' (VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs
and policies unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law
or otherwise impractical.
    EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to
the use of VCS.

J. Congressional Review Act

    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 rule 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).

K. 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 August 27, 2012. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: June 13, 2012.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart Z--Mississippi

0
2. Section 52.1270 is amended by adding two entries for Regional Haze
Plan and Regional Haze Plan Update--E. I. Dupont Reasonable Progress
and Mississippi Phosphates BART Determinations at the end of the table
in paragraph (e) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1270  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                               EPA-Approved Mississippi Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Applicable            State
   Name of non-regulatory SIP         geographic or     submittal date/  EPA approval date       Explanation
            provision              nonattainment area   effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Regional Haze Plan..............  Statewide...........       9/22/2008  6/27/2012 [Insert
                                                                         citation of
                                                                         publication].
Regional Haze Plan Update--E. I.  Statewide...........        5/9/2011  6/27/2012 [Insert
 Dupont Reasonable Progress and                                          citation of
 Mississippi Phosphates BART                                             publication].
 Determinations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2012-15470 Filed 6-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 31 (Friday, February 14, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8520-8521]
[FR Doc No: 2020-02226]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2020-0029; FRL-10005-07-Region 1]

Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire; Approval of Single Source Order

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency(EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of New Hampshire. The revision approves a single source order for
PSI Molded Plastics. The intended effect of this action is to propose
approval of this item into the New Hampshire SIP. This action is being
taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 16, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2020-0029 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to

make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents
located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please
contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact
section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI
or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
Region 1 Regional Office, Air and Radiation Division, 5 Post Office
Square--Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible,
you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob McConnell, Environmental Engineer,
Air and Radiation Division (Mail Code 05-2), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston,
Massachusetts 02109-3912;<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Final Rules Section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action
rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse
comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public
comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on
this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any
parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this
time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
    For additional information, see the direct final rule which is
located in the Rules Section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: January 30, 2020.
Dennis Deziel,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2020-02226 Filed 2-13-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: February 8, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 26)]
[Notices]
[Page 6463-6464]
[DOCID:fr08fe06-69]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-185-000]

Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC
Gas Tariff

January 31, 2006.

    Take notice that on January 25, 2006, Northern Natural Gas Company
(Northern), tendered for filing as part its FERC Gas Tariffs, Fifth
Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed on the filing, proposed
to be effective on the dates shown on the tariff sheets.
    Northern further states that copies of the filing have been
provided to each of its customers and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Sec.  154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone
filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on
the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before
the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call

(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-1661 Filed 2-7-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 172 (Thursday, September 9, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50451-50453]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19389]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0459; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00129-T;
Amendment 39-21697; AD 2021-17-14]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream Aerospace LP Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Gulfstream Aerospace LP Model Gulfstream G280 airplanes. This
AD was prompted by a report that during full-scale fatigue testing, a
crack was found in the area of the attachment of the wing rib 0 to the
front spar. This AD requires non-destructive testing on the forward
(front) spar vertical stiffener and rib 0 for any cracking,
installation of a doubler to the forward (front) spar and rib 0
attachment, and repair if necessary, as specified in a Civil Aviation
Authority of Israel (CAAI) AD, which is incorporated by reference. The
FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: This AD is effective October 14, 2021.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 14,
2021.

ADDRESSES: For material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this AD,
contact the CAAI, P.O. Box 1101, Golan Street, Airport City, 70100,
Israel; telephone 972-3-9774665; fax 972-3-9774592; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may find this IBR material on the CAAI website at
https://www.caa.gov.il. You may view this material at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in the AD
docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2021-0459.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0459; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, the
mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI), any comments
received, and other information. The address for Docket Operations is
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The CAAI, which is the aviation authority for Israel, has issued
CAAI AD I-57-2020-06-01, dated January 27, 2021 (CAAI AD I-57-2020-06-
01) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for
certain Gulfstream Aerospace LP Model Gulfstream G280 airplanes.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Gulfstream
Aerospace LP Model Gulfstream G280 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Federal Register on June 10, 2021 (86 FR 30819). The NPRM was prompted
by a report that during full-scale fatigue testing, a crack was found
in the area of the attachment of the wing rib 0 to the front spar. The
NPRM proposed to require non-destructive testing on the forward (front)
spar vertical stiffener and rib 0 for any cracking, installation of a
doubler to the forward (front) spar and rib 0 attachment, and repair if
necessary, as specified in CAAI AD I-57-2020-06-01.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to address any cracking at the area of
the wing rib 0 to the front spar, which could affect the structural
integrity of the wing. See the MCAI for additional background
information.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive Comments

    The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety
requires adopting this AD as proposed. Except for minor editorial
changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the
changes will increase the economic burden on any operator. Accordingly,
the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    CAAI AD I-57-2020-06-01 specifies procedures for non-destructive
testing (high frequency, mid frequency, and bolt hole eddy current
inspections; and a liquid (dye) penetrant inspection) for cracking on
the forward (front) spar vertical stiffener and rib 0, installation of
a doubler to the forward (front) spar and rib 0 attachment, and repair
if necessary. This material is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 23 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
80 work-hours x $85 per hour = $6,800*.......................            $400         $7,200 *       $165,600 *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* If the actions are accomplished during 4C Check.

    The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost
estimates for the repair specified in this AD.
    According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this AD
may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected operators. The FAA does not control warranty coverage for
affected operators. As a result, the FAA has included all known costs
in the 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.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

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:

2021-17-14 Gulfstream Aerospace LP: Amendment 39-21697; Docket No.
FAA-2021-0459; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00129-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective October 14, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Gulfstream Aerospace LP Model Gulfstream G280
airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in The Civil
Aviation Authority of Israel (CAAI) AD I-57-2020-06-01, dated
January 27, 2021 (CAAI AD I-57-2020-06-01).

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report that during full-scale fatigue
testing, a crack was found in the area of the attachment of the wing
rib 0 to the front spar. The FAA is issuing this AD to address any
cracking at the area of the wing rib 0 to the front spar, which
could affect the structural integrity of the wing.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, CAAI AD I-57-2020-06-01.

(h) Exception to CAAI AD I-57-2020-06-01

    Where CAAI AD I-57-2020-06-01 requires compliance ``not later
than 5,000 flight cycles,'' this AD requires compliance before the
accumulation of 5,000 total flight cycles since the date of issuance
of the original Israeli airworthiness certificate or the date of
issuance of the original Israeli export certificate of
airworthiness.

(i) No Reporting Requirement

    Although the service information referenced in CAAI AD I-57-
2020-06-01 specifies to submit certain information to the
manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.

(j) Additional AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, has
the authority to approve AMOCs

for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the Large Aircraft
Section, International Validation Branch, send it to the attention
of the person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the responsible Flight
Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, Large Aircraft
Section, International Validation Branch, FAA; or CAAI; or CAAI's
authorized Designee. If approved by the CAAI Designee, the approval
must include the Designee's authorized signature.

(k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez,
Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St. Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference 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 this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) The Civil Aviation Authority of Israel (CAAI) AD I-57-2020-
06-01, dated January 27, 2021.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For CAAI AD I-57-2020-06-01, contact CAAI, P.O. Box 1101,
Golan Street, Airport City, 70100, Israel; telephone 972-3-9774665;
fax 972-3-9774592; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may find this CAAI AD
on the CAAI website at https://www.caa.gov.il.
    (4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St.
Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on August 12, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-19389 Filed 9-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P