[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 95 (Friday, May 15, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29331-29338]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08874]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0137; FRL-10008-15-Region 5]

Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Indiana;
Redesignation of the Muncie, Indiana Lead Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the
April 14, 2016, request from the Indiana Department of Environmental
Management (IDEM) to redesignate the Muncie nonattainment area to
attainment for the 2008 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)
for lead. EPA is also approving the State's maintenance plan and
attainment year emission inventory for lead. EPA is approving these
actions in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's
implementation regulations and guidance regarding the 2008 lead NAAQS.

DATES: This final rule is effective on May 15, 2020.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0137. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
through www.regulations.gov or at the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays and facility
closures due to COVID-19. We recommend that you telephone Mary
Portanova at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Portanova, Environmental
Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. What is being addressed by this document?
II. What comments did we receive on the proposed action and what are
EPA's responses to those comments?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is being addressed by this document?

    On May 30, 2017 (82 FR 24553), EPA issued a direct final approval
and associated proposed rulemaking (82 FR 24635) addressing Indiana's
April 14, 2016 submittal of a redesignation request, maintenance plan,
and attainment year lead emissions inventory for the Muncie lead
nonattainment area. The main source of lead emissions in the Muncie
area is the Exide Technologies secondary lead smelter. See the direct
final action for the full discussion of our basis for approval. Because
we received adverse comments on the direct final approval, we withdrew
the direct final approval on July 10, 2017 (82 FR 31722). Below, we
address the comments that we received, and finalize our proposed
rulemaking action.

II. What comments did we receive on the proposed action and what are
EPA's responses to those comments?

    EPA received a set of comments from one party during the public
comment period on the May 30, 2017 action. The comments, and EPA's
response to each comment, are as follows:
    Comment: The commenter stated that the proposal ``incorrectly
states that the 2015 ambient monitoring data is the most recent
available. That is not true and it wasn't even true when the Acting
Regional Administrator signed the rule. EPA has a legal and moral
obligation to not provide false information in Federal Register
notices. Thus, EPA should publish a supplemental proposal that includes
the 2016 ambient monitoring data which was final by no later than May
1, 2017.''
    EPA Response: Indiana submitted its redesignation request to EPA on
April 14, 2016. The State included Muncie lead monitoring data from
2013-2015 in its submittal. At the time of Indiana's submittal, these
data represented the most recent available full three years of
monitoring data, and EPA used them in evaluating Indiana's
redesignation request.
    Indiana is required to certify and submit to EPA each year of air
quality monitoring data by May 1 of the following year. For 2016 data,
the deadline for state certification was May 1, 2017. The Regional
Administrator signed the proposal to redesignate the Muncie area on May
4, 2017. During the time that EPA staff were reviewing Indiana's
submittal and preparing the notice of proposed rulemaking, monitoring
data for 2016 was not yet certified, and the ``most recent'' fully
certified data during this time was the data through 2015, which showed
attainment of the 2008 lead NAAQS. The 2008 lead NAAQS are met when the
maximum arithmetic three-month mean concentration for a three-year
period is less than or equal to 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter
([micro]g/m\3\). See 40 CFR 50.16. The maximum three-month average lead
concentration over three years is also known as the design value.
Although the 2016 data was certified a few days before EPA's notice of
proposed rulemaking was signed, the 2015 monitor data was clearly the
most recent certified, quality-assured data available at the time of
the State's redesignation request and during EPA's review process, and
the 2013-2015 design value was the appropriate measure for evaluating
the State's redesignation request and proposing action. As the
preliminary 2016 data continued to show attainment of the 2008 lead
NAAQS, EPA did not delay its action on the redesignation.
    Moreover, air quality monitoring data at the Muncie lead monitor
continues to show that the area is attaining the 2008 lead NAAQS,
providing further support for EPA's finding that the area has attained
the NAAQS under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i). Table 1 below includes all
fully certified and preliminary data available for the area and shows
that the area's lead design value is well below the level of the NAAQS.
    EPA does not agree that a supplemental proposal is required under
these circumstances. The CAA contemplates that EPA publish a

proposed and final rule in order to effectuate redesignations. CAA
section 107(d)(2). It is not reasonable to require additional
supplemental proposals every time additional data becomes available,
given that new preliminary and certified data are continually updated,
nor is it necessary. Where an area has violated the NAAQS such that EPA
can no longer find that the area is attaining, EPA has disapproved
redesignations. See Southwestern Pa. Growth Alliance v. Browner, 121
F.3d 106 (3rd Cir. 1997) (upholding EPA's disapproval of a
redesignation and stating in dicta, ``The use of the term ``has
attained'' . . . may be interpreted as suggesting that the attainment
must continue until the date of the redesignation.''); Kentucky v. EPA,
No. 96-4274, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 21686, at *11-12 (6th Cir. Sept. 2,
1998) (affirming EPA's disapproval of a redesignation and finding that
``[a]s the EPA interprets the CAA, the CAA requires the EPA to
determine attainment based on all data available at the time the EPA
issues its ruling.'').

                                                        Table 1--Three-Month Rolling Lead Averages and Design Values for Muncie, Indiana
                                                                                [2012-2019]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three-Month Rolling Lead Averages ([micro]g/m\3\) for Muncie-Mt. Pleasant Blvd. (18-035-0009)                                                                      Three-Year Design Values
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Nov 2011-Jan 2012                Dec 2011-Feb 2012      Jan-Mar  Feb-Apr  Mar-May  Apr-Jun  May-Jul  Jun-Aug  Jul-Sep  Aug-Oct  Sep-Nov  Oct-Dec   3-Year Design Value Period (years)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 0.30                              0.34              0.29     0.17     0.12     0.11     0.09     0.05     0.06     0.05     0.05     0.05             DV ([micro]g/m3)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2013
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Nov 2012-Jan 2013                Dec 2012-Feb 2013      Jan-Mar  Feb-Apr  Mar-May  Apr-Jun  May-Jul  Jun-Aug  Jul-Sep  Aug-Oct  Sep-Nov  Oct-Dec  ...................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 0.05                              0.06              0.04     0.03     0.03     0.03     0.03     0.04     0.04     0.05     0.04     0.04   ...................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2014
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Nov 2013-Jan 2014                Dec 2013-Feb 2014      Jan-Mar  Feb-Apr  Mar-May  Apr-Jun  May-Jul  Jun-Aug  Jul-Sep  Aug-Oct  Sep-Nov  Oct-Dec               2012-2014
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 0.03                              0.04              0.04     0.04     0.04     0.05     0.05     0.04     0.03     0.03     0.03     0.03                   0.34
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2015
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Nov 2014-Jan 2015                Dec 2014-Feb 2015      Jan-Mar  Feb-Apr  Mar-May  Apr-Jun  May-Jul  Jun-Aug  Jul-Sep  Aug-Oct  Sep-Nov  Oct-Dec               2013-2015
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 0.03                              0.03              0.04     0.05     0.06     0.06     0.06     0.05     0.03     0.04     0.04     0.11                   0.11
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2016
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Nov 2015-Jan 2016                Dec 2015-Feb 2016      Jan-Mar  Feb-Apr  Mar-May  Apr-Jun  May-Jul  Jun-Aug  Jul-Sep  Aug-Oct  Sep-Nov  Oct-Dec               2014-2016
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 0.11                              0.10              0.03     0.02     0.03     0.03     0.03     0.03     0.03     0.03     0.03     0.03                   0.11
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Nov 2016-Jan 2017                Dec 2016-Feb 2017      Jan-Mar  Feb-Apr  Mar-May  Apr-Jun  May-Jul  Jun-Aug  Jul-Sep  Aug-Oct  Sep-Nov  Oct-Dec               2015-2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 0.03                              0.03              0.02     0.02     0.03     0.03     0.04     0.04     0.03     0.04     0.03     0.04                   0.11
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Nov 2017-Jan 2018                Dec 2017-Feb 2018      Jan-Mar  Feb-Apr  Mar-May  Apr-Jun  May-Jul  Jun-Aug  Jul-Sep  Aug-Oct  Sep-Nov  Oct-Dec               2016-2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 0.03                              0.03              0.01     0.01     0.02     0.02     0.02     0.01     0.01     0.02     0.02     0.02                   0.11
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2019
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Not yet certified
           Nov 2018-Jan 2019                Dec 2018-Feb 2019      Jan-Mar  Feb-Apr  Mar-May  Apr-Jun  May-Jul  Jun-Aug  Jul-Sep  Aug-Oct  Sep-Nov  Oct-Dec             \1\ 2017-2019
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 0.02                              0.02              0.02     0.02     0.02     0.03     0.03     0.03     0.03     0.03     0.02     0.02                   0.04
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Maximum 3-month value through December 2019; not a valid DV until certified.

    Comment: The commenter stated that EPA has not met criterion 3 of
the redesignation requirements. The fact that the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for secondary lead
smelters applies to Exide Technologies does not establish that the
implementation of the NESHAP caused the area to come into attainment.
    EPA Response: To meet criterion 3, the EPA Administrator must
determine that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and
enforceable emission reductions resulting from

implementation of the applicable SIP, Federal air pollution control
regulations, or other permanent and enforceable emission reductions.
The Exide Technologies facility is subject to the NESHAP as well as to
lead emission limits and control requirements in the federally approved
Indiana SIP, which are permanent and enforceable at all times. The
Indiana SIP limits on emissions units at Exide Technologies and the
requirements for total plant enclosure and control of fugitive dust
emissions at Exide are contained in 326 Indiana Administrative Code
(IAC) 20-13.1. EPA approved 326 IAC 20-13.1 \1\ into the Indiana SIP on
July 17, 2015 (80 FR 42393). Therefore, EPA finds that the Indiana SIP
contains permanent and enforceable limits for Exide Technologies in
Muncie.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA's July 17, 2015 approval excluded certain sections of
326 IAC 20-13.1-1, 20-13.1-5, 20-13.1-10, 20-13.1-11, 20-13.1-12,
20-13.1-13, 20-13.1-14; and all of 326 IAC 20-13.1-15. See 40 CFR
52.770(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Indiana has been working to reduce ambient lead concentrations in
Muncie over many years. Lead emission control measures were implemented
at Exide Technologies over time, both before and after the current
NESHAP was implemented. The Muncie area was designated nonattainment
for the 2008 lead NAAQS on November 22, 2010 (75 FR 71033). The NESHAP
for secondary lead smelters was amended on January 5, 2012 (77 FR 556).
At that time, Exide Technologies was already complying with the
previous version of the NESHAP. Indiana's SIP rule 326 IAC 20-13.1
contains lead emission standards for some emission units which are more
stringent than those in the NESHAP. Exide was required to comply with
the SIP limits by October 1, 2013. Indiana informed EPA that some of
the physical controls required in the 2012 NESHAP were already in place
at Exide Technologies before 2012. Indiana also confirmed that,
following inspections in 2012 by IDEM and EPA staff, multiple
housekeeping adjustments were made at the plant after the nonattainment
designation, which improved the facility's ability to control its
fugitive lead emissions and helped to bring the facility operations
into full compliance with the NESHAP and the SIP emission limits. For
example, Exide Technologies revised its procedures for servicing
baghouse control devices to avoid allowing fugitive material to escape
the enclosed space; located and sealed gaps and areas of leakage in the
enclosed buildings; and installed or upgraded monitors for measuring
the negative pressure inside the facility.
    Muncie's ambient lead concentrations began to improve in mid-2012,
although its three-year design value still showed nonattainment of the
2008 lead NAAQS for 2012-2014. The highest three-month average lead
monitor reading in Muncie after its nonattainment designation was for
December 2011-February 2012 (0.34 [micro]g/m\3\). Since that time, the
three-month rolling average values at the Muncie monitor dropped
rapidly, with no further three-month rolling averages exceeding the
level of the 2008 lead NAAQS recorded at the site after the February-
April 2012 (0.17 [micro]g/m\3\) averaging period. The Muncie area
reached full attainment of the 2008 lead NAAQS as of the 2013-2015
design value period. The area has continued to attain the 2008 lead
NAAQS for three more years, through the 2016-2018 design value period.
Preliminary 2019 data also suggest that the area is still attaining the
2008 lead NAAQS. See Table 1. EPA is satisfied that the imposition of
the NESHAP and SIP emission control requirements for Exide
Technologies, with full compliance facilitated by Exide Technologies'
recently improved housekeeping measures and operating procedures, was,
in fact, responsible for the reduction in lead emissions and the
improvement in Muncie's monitored lead concentrations since the Muncie
lead nonattainment designation.
    Comment: The commenter stated that to the extent that the NESHAP
for secondary lead smelting ``does not apply during startup, shutdown,
and/or malfunction,'' the Exide Technologies facility is not subject to
any enforceable emission limits during startup, shutdown, and/or
malfunction, and accordingly, criterion 3 is not met.
    EPA Response: The commenter is incorrect that the lead standard
``does not apply'' during those periods of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction (SSM). The NESHAP for secondary lead smelters does not
contain exemptions from emission limits for lead during SSM; the
existing exemptions in the NESHAP apply only to emissions of dioxins
and furans. Compare, e.g., 40 CFR 63.543(a)-(b) (lead standards for
process vents), with id. Sec.  63.543(c) (furan and dioxin standards
for process vents). Accordingly, for purposes of the Muncie area's
attainment of the 2008 lead NAAQS, the permanent and enforceable
measure within the secondary lead smelter NESHAP contributing to that
attainment applies at all times.
    The NESHAP for secondary lead smelters presently contains a
provision that purports to allow a source, in limited circumstances, to
assert an affirmative defense to civil penalty claims for exceedances
caused by a narrow category of malfunctions.\2\ See 40 CFR 63.552. For
two reasons, this narrowly crafted affirmative defense provision is no
barrier to redesignation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ As a legal matter, this narrowly crafted affirmative defense
does not ``exempt'' sources in Muncie or elsewhere from the NESHAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, this affirmative defense does not legally or functionally
``exempt'' covered sources from any emission standards because even
with the affirmative defense provision, any exceedance of the emission
standard at any time is still a violation. The provision is expressly
``not available for claims for injunctive relief.'' Id. Accordingly,
even for that narrow category of malfunction-caused exceedances, any
exceedance is a violation of the emission standard and the NESHAP can
be enforced through suits for injunctive relief by states, EPA, and
affected citizens. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. 7604(a)(1), (f)(3). With
respect to lead emissions in Muncie, the ready availability of this
injunctive relief ensures that the state and Federal regulators, as
well as the public, can effectively enforce the NESHAP at Exide
Technologies. This approach is consistent with other EPA
redesignations. See, e.g., 79 FR 55645, 55649 (September 17, 2014)
(affirmative defense in SIP provision was ``sufficiently enforceable
for purposes of redesignation'' because of, inter alia, the ``continued
availability of injunctive relief'').
    Second, regardless of the permanent and enforceable reductions
pursuant to the lead NESHAP, Indiana's approved lead SIP contains
additional provisions applicable to the Exide Technologies facility.
Although some of these provisions are based on the NESHAP for secondary
lead smelters, these approved SIP rules do not include any exemptions
or affirmative defense provisions for lead or any other pollutants.
Pertinent to the issue of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, the
Indiana SIP rule for secondary lead smelters states at 326 IAC 20-13.1-
1(f), ``Emission standards in this rule apply at all times.''
Additionally, 326 IAC 20-13.1-5(h) requires, ``At all times, the owner
or operator of a secondary lead smelter shall operate and maintain any
affected emission unit, including associated air pollution control
equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety
and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions.''
Although, as a matter of State law, Indiana's rule 326 IAC 20-13.1-15
contains affirmative

defense language for malfunctions similar to that of the NESHAP, the
provision is not part of Indiana's approved, federally enforceable lead
SIP. See 80 FR 42393, 42394 (July 17, 2015) (noting that Indiana
expressly asked EPA not to approve 326 IAC 20-13.1-15 into the lead
SIP); 40 CFR 52.770(c) (identifying EPA-approved rules). Therefore,
regardless of the enforceability of the lead NESHAP, EPA is satisfied
that Indiana's federally enforceable lead SIP requirements for Exide
Technologies do not contain any exemptions for emissions during SSM,
despite the commenter's allegations.
    Comment: The commenter stated that the ambient monitoring values
are not consistent with a conclusion that the NESHAP caused the area to
attain. Specifically, the commenter stated, ``All of the values for
2013-2015 are below 0.06 except in the last quarter, the value almost
doubles to 0.11. This seems to indicate that something else was
happening during all of the quarters except the last quarter. Was the
Exides [sic] plant even operating at full capacity during all of the
quarters except last quarter of 2015? If so, was the plant voluntarily
operating in a manner to keep the ambient values low? By voluntarily, I
mean operating in a manner not required by the NESHAP. Without an
answer to these questions, EPA cannot conclude that the NESHAP caused
the area to come into compliance.'' The commenter further stated that
the 2016 monitoring data, with a three-month maximum high of 0.11
[micro]g/m\3\, ``once again establishes that something other than the
NESHAP caused the 2013-2015 values to be so low. Furthermore, the fact
that the First Max and Second Max on Monitor 3 was above the level of
the NAAQS indicates that rather than the NESHAP causing attainment of
the NAAQS, Indiana DEM just got lucky do [sic] to some random factor
like meteorology or the plant is operating in a manner to make
voluntary reductions to above [sic] violating the NAAQS. EPA should
also review communications between IDEM and Exides [sic] to ensure that
they are not working together to use voluntary measures to avoid the
monitors' detecting NAAQS exceedances.''
    EPA Response: EPA does not agree that the single three-month
average cited by the commenter indicates that the area's attainment of
the NAAQS cannot be the result of permanent and enforceable measures.
The 2013-2015 design value of 0.11 [micro]g/m\3\ meets the lead NAAQS
of 0.15 [micro]g/m\3\. However, as the commenter pointed out, there
appeared to be a sudden rise in the three-month average value at the
end of 2015. An elevated air quality monitor value was recorded at the
Muncie site on December 14, 2015. Exide Technologies told IDEM that on
that date, errors occurring while replacing bags in the baghouse caused
eight bags to fall off when the unit undertook its routine mechanical
action to remove the sediment which had deposited on the bags. After
the bags were properly reinstalled, subsequent monitor readings
improved. EPA reiterates that Muncie's monitored design value for 2013-
2015 (which represents the highest single three-month average
concentration over the three-year period) was below the NAAQS of 0.15
[micro]g/m\3\. The December 2015 incident at Exide Technologies'
baghouse did not cause or contribute to any violation of the 2008 lead
NAAQS. EPA is satisfied that Exide Technologies' compliance with its
lead SIP requirements, which include proper operation of control
technologies, will ensure that monitored air quality in Muncie will
remain below the 2008 lead NAAQS.
    The commenter was concerned that EPA could be overlooking an upward
emissions trend after concentrations appeared to rise at the end of
2015. More monitoring data for Muncie has become available since EPA's
proposal. See Table 1. Considering only the data through 2015, it might
appear that the lead emissions in Muncie had been low but suddenly
climbed at the end of 2015. However, EPA believes that the three-month
average concentration of 0.11 [micro]g/m\3\ for October-December 2015
did not demonstrate a return to routinely high emissions that could
lead to violations of the 2008 lead NAAQS, nor does it call into
question EPA's conclusion that the permanent and enforceable measures
on the facilities at issue are the cause of the area's attainment of
the standard. The alleged baghouse incident in December 2015 apparently
resulted in a monthly average concentration of 0.2519 [micro]g/m\3\.
Although the monthly monitored lead concentrations for the months
surrounding December 2015 were much lower, the three consecutive three-
month lead averages which included December 2015 were calculated to be
at or near 0.11 [micro]g/m\3\. The surrounding single-month values were
0.0505 [micro]g/m\3\ (October 2015) and 0.0347 [micro]g/m\3\ (November
2015), and 0.0319 [micro]g/m\3\ (January 2016) and 0.0233 [micro]g/m\3\
(February 2016). The subsequent three-month averages after the December
2015-February 2016 period were all much lower than 0.11 [micro]g/m\3\.
Because the form of the 2008 lead NAAQS uses the maximum three-month
average value over three years as the design value, the design values
for 2013-2015, 2014-2016, and 2016-2018 were all 0.11 [micro]g/m\3\,
since those three-year averaging periods all included the three-month
average of 0.11 [micro]g/m\3\ for October-December 2015 and/or November
2015-January 2016.
    The monitoring data demonstrate an overall pattern that strongly
supports a redesignation to attainment. The Muncie lead three-month
average concentrations have typically ranged from 0.01 [micro]g/m\3\ to
0.06 [micro]g/m\3\ from June-August 2012 through the present. The only
higher three-month averages were the October-December 2015 three-month
average value cited by the commenter, and the two three-month average
values following it, but these have been shown to be caused by a single
month's short-lived emission increase. As shown in Table 1, the
remaining 74 certified three-month average values since June-August
2012 have been no higher than 0.06 [micro]g/m\3\. Considering
preliminary monitoring data for 2019, the maximum three-month average
lead concentration value from 2017-2019 (specifically, beginning with
the three-month average for November 2016 to January 2017 and
continuing through October-December of 2019) appears likely to be as
low as 0.04 [micro]g/m\3\. EPA is satisfied that the Muncie lead
monitoring data suggest that the December 2015 incident does not
represent a return to pre-2012 ambient lead concentrations. Instead,
the data indicate that the area is attaining the 2008 lead NAAQS.
    The commenter speculates that the Muncie area's monitored
attainment may be due to the Exide facility's voluntary operation in a
manner that reduces emissions, and that absent proof that the facility
is not voluntarily curtailing emissions, EPA cannot conclude that the
NESHAP is the cause of the area's compliance. The commenter also
suggests that EPA should review all communications between IDEM and
Exide Technologies in order to ensure there is no collusion to use
voluntary curtailment of emissions to meet the NAAQS. Per EPA's
longstanding guidance regarding redesignations to attainment, EPA
interprets CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) to require a showing that the
state must be able to ``reasonably attribute'' the improvement in air
quality to emission reductions which are permanent and enforceable.
Memorandum from John Calcagni, ``Procedures for Processing Requests to
Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' (Sept. 4, 1992) (``Calcagni Memo''),
at 4. The record demonstrates that the State has done so here. In its

redesignation request and maintenance plan submission, Indiana modeled
projected ambient lead concentrations for the Muncie area using
allowable emission limits at the single source of lead in the area,
Exide Technologies. See [Maintenance Plan at 21-22]. Given the State's
technical demonstration that the area would continue to attain the 2008
lead NAAQS if the source at issue were to emit at allowable levels,
there is no record support for commenter's speculation that Muncie's
attainment is due to Exide's voluntary curtailment of emissions (i.e.,
actual emissions that are below the level that would be permitted under
the emission limits), rather than the permanent and enforceable limits
for Exide Technologies and the NESHAP cited by Indiana. EPA does not
agree that given the record evidence, it must prove the negative--that
the area's attainment was not caused by the emission limits imposed
here. There is a single source in the Muncie area, emission limits were
imposed on that source, those limits correlate with a measured and
sustained drop in ambient lead concentrations (excepting expected
short-term variability), and the State has provided additional modeling
showing that even if emissions were to go up to permitted levels, the
area would still maintain the NAAQS. We therefore disagree that it is
necessary to review communications between Indiana and Exide
Technologies before we may draw the conclusion that CAA section
107(d)(3)(E)(iii) has been satisfied.
    The comment also cited the first and second maximum values of
Monitor 3 as evidence that something other than the NESHAP caused the
area's attainment of the NAAQS. The May 30, 2017 direct final/proposed
action did not publish or discuss first and second maximum monitored
values. The commenter did not provide the monitor data reports which
formed the basis of these comments, but if the commenter's data source
reports were similar to those found in EPA's air quality data website's
Monitor Values Report (https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data),
then EPA notes that the Monitor Values Reports for lead for the
individual calendar years do show the first through fourth maximum data
points. These are the four highest single-day monitored values at the
site. These overall maximum daily values are not intended to be
directly compared to the NAAQS. Compliance with the 2008 lead NAAQS is
not determined by whether an area's daily maximum concentrations exceed
the level of the NAAQS, but rather by whether an area's design value
meets the NAAQS. For the 2008 lead NAAQS, the design value for an air
quality monitor is defined as the maximum three-month mean
concentration at that monitor over three years. See 40 CFR 50.16. An
area's design value is based on the monitor in the area which records
the highest design value over the three-year period. Muncie has one
regulatory air quality monitor for lead, the Mt. Pleasant Boulevard
monitor, 18-035-0009. An area attains the 2008 lead NAAQS if the area's
design value is equal to or below 0.15 [micro]g/m\3\. The ``first max''
and ``second max'' cited by the commenter do not indicate that the
Muncie area is violating the 2008 lead NAAQS. A more relevant value for
NAAQS comparison, which can be found in the Monitor Values Report, is
the maximum three-month average value for the year reported. The
maximum three-month average value at Muncie has been below the level of
the NAAQS since 2013.
    As for the elevated single-day monitored values cited by the
commenter, EPA notes that short-term ambient levels of lead can be
affected by short-term variations in lead emissions from industrial
sources, or local meteorological conditions that can affect the
entrainment of nearby lead-bearing dust or the strength or direction of
the dispersion of industrial lead emissions in the atmosphere. The
State's modeled attainment demonstration also accounts for the variety
of meteorological conditions which can occur in the Muncie area, and
the analysis has shown that at allowable emissions, the Muncie area
will meet the 2008 lead NAAQS. EPA does not find that the occurrence of
occasional elevated daily monitored values, which do not result in
three-month averages above the 2008 lead NAAQS, indicate that this area
should not be redesignated.
    Regarding the comment that random outside factors such as weather
may have played a role in the reduced ambient concentrations evident at
the monitor in recent years, the monitoring data do not appear to
support that conclusion. The monitor has been in the same location for
more than ten years and has measured ambient lead concentrations both
above and below the NAAQS during that interval. The pattern of ambient
monitored levels of lead at the Muncie monitor since 2012 shows a
distinct drop below the 2008 lead NAAQS, and then remains generally
steady at or near that low level. Three-month ambient lead levels are
not as sensitive to weather conditions as pollutants formed in the
atmosphere such as ozone. Wind variations or weather events may affect
the strength or direction of local dispersion of lead emissions, or the
uptake of windblown surface sediments, but these effects would be
short-lived and variable. The historical pattern of monitored levels at
Muncie is more indicative of emission reductions taking effect while
daily variation continues to occur as expected. The monthly and three-
month average monitored values have been less variable in recent years
than before 2013, which does not seem to indicate that favorable
weather conditions have reduced monitored values more than recent
emission reductions have done.
    Comment: EPA should also review data from monitors 1 and 2 at the
Muncie monitoring location. Even if these monitors' data cannot be used
for criterion 1, they can be used to evaluate the other criteria.
    EPA Response: There is one lead monitor in Muncie (18-035-0009)
that is used for comparison to the lead NAAQS. It is located at 2601 W
Mt. Pleasant Boulevard. There is another monitor collocated with
monitor 18-035-0009, but it is only used to fill in missing data at the
main monitor. A third Muncie monitor, known as Exide East (18-035-
0008), is an industrial site monitor owned and operated by Exide
Technologies and is not used for regulatory purposes. EPA has reviewed
the data from all three monitors. Although the data from the Exide East
monitor and the Mt. Pleasant Boulevard collocated monitor are not
directly used for NAAQS evaluation, EPA notes that for 2013 through
2018, the Exide East lead monitor and the collocated monitor show
three-month average values and three-year design values of similar
magnitude to those of the Mt. Pleasant Boulevard reporting monitor.
Neither monitor reported three-month average values in that period
which would exceed the NAAQS.
    Comment: The commenter stated that in order to meet criterion 3 as
well as criterion 4, EPA must model the ambient levels of lead in all
ambient air locations using the maximum allowable emissions under the
NESHAP. The commenter suggested that it is extremely likely that such
modeling will show violations of the NAAQS and thus require EPA to
disapprove the redesignation request and maintenance plan.
    EPA Response: The May 30, 2017 action cited Indiana's modeling
analysis, included in the docket at EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0137, which
demonstrated that the maximum allowable federally enforceable emission
limits for Exide Technologies

will provide for attainment of the NAAQS.
    Comment: The commenter stated that as to redesignation criteria 1,
3, and 5, EPA has determined that the Indiana SIP is defective because
it allows emissions above emission limits during malfunctions even if
those emissions cause violations of a NAAQS. In support of this
proposition, the commenter cites the final notice for the SSM SIP Call
at 80 FR 33840, 33966 (June 12, 2015). The commenter asserts that,
accordingly, EPA ``cannot approve this redesignation until Indiana or
EPA removes 326 Ind. Admin. Code 1-6-4(a) from the Indiana SIP.''
    EPA Response: Criteria 1, 3, and 5, cited by the commenter, appear
to refer to CAA sections 107(d)(3)(E)(i), (iii), and (v). The commenter
also cites EPA's June 12, 2015 SSM SIP Call concerning how provisions
in SIPs treat excess emissions during periods of SSM (80 FR 33840). As
the commenter stated, the Indiana SIP rule identified in the SIP Call
is 326 IAC 1-6-4(a), approved by EPA in 1984. That rule, however,
applies only to non-major sources whose potential emissions are so
small that their sole permitting requirement is either a registration
permit or minor source permit under 326 IAC 2-1-1 or 326 IAC 2-1-4,
respectively. It does not apply to Exide Technologies, the source that
Indiana identified as the only contributor to ambient lead
concentrations in Muncie. Exide Technologies has a major source
operating permit issued by IDEM pursuant to rules approved by EPA under
title V of the CAA and 40 CFR part 70. Exide Technologies' part 70
permit states at section B.11(d) that Exide Technologies' permit
conditions supersede 326 IAC 1-6.
    With respect to commenter's specific allegations regarding the
redesignation criteria, we do not agree that the SSM provision at issue
in 326 IAC 1-6-4(a) calls into question EPA's finding that the area has
attained the NAAQS. The air quality monitoring data clearly show that
the area is attaining the NAAQS, and the status of the SSM SIP Call
does not alter those factual circumstances. We also disagree that the
SSM provision impacts EPA's conclusion that CAA section
107(d)(3)(E)(iii) is satisfied. The permanent and enforceable lead
emission reductions at Exide Technologies, which were demonstrated to
provide for attainment in Muncie, would not be affected in any way by
326 IAC 1-6-4(a), which plainly does not apply to the single, relevant
source. Finally, EPA believes that the SSM provision cited by the
commenter is not relevant to the inquiry of whether Indiana has
complied with CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(v), which requires Indiana to
have ``met all requirements applicable to the area under section 110 of
this title and part D of this subchapter.'' Not every requirement in
the CAA is ``applicable'' for purposes of determining whether a
nonattainment area may be redesignated, per CAA section
107(d)(3)(E)(v). The provision at issue here does not apply to any lead
sources in the Muncie area, and is not ``applicable'' for purposes of
evaluating Muncie's request for redesignation.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is redesignating the Muncie lead nonattainment area to
attainment of the 2008 lead NAAQS. The Muncie lead nonattainment area
in Delaware County, Indiana, consists of a portion of the City of
Muncie, Indiana, bounded to the north by West 26th Street/Hines Road,
to the east by Cowan Road, to the south by West Fuson Road, and to the
west by a line running south from the eastern edge of Victory Temple's
driveway to South Hoyt Avenue and then along South Hoyt Avenue. EPA is
also approving Indiana's lead maintenance plan for the Muncie area and
the 2013 lead attainment year emission inventory for Muncie.
    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d), EPA finds there is good cause
for these actions to become effective immediately upon publication.
This is because a delayed effective date is unnecessary due to the
nature of a redesignation to attainment, which relieves the area from
certain CAA requirements that would otherwise apply to it. The
immediate effective date for this action is authorized under both 5
U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides that rulemaking actions may become
effective less than 30 days after publication if the rule ``grants or
recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction,'' and section
553(d)(3), which allows an effective date less than 30 days after
publication ``as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found
and published with the rule.'' The purpose of the 30-day waiting period
prescribed in section 553(d) is to give affected parties a reasonable
time to adjust their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes
effect. This rule, however, does not create any new regulatory
requirements such that affected parties would need time to prepare
before the rule takes effect. Rather, this rule relieves the State of
planning requirements for this lead nonattainment area. For these
reasons, EPA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for these
actions to become effective on the date of publication of these
actions.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of the maintenance plan under CAA section
107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the status of the geographical
area and do not impose any additional regulatory requirements on
sources beyond those required by state law. A redesignation to
attainment does not in and of itself impose any new requirements, but
rather results in the application of requirements contained in the CAA
for areas that have been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the
Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies
with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42
U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the
criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law
as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For these reasons, this
action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because it is not a significant regulatory
action under Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because
redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical
area and does not impose any new regulatory requirements on tribes,
impact any existing sources of air pollution on tribal lands, nor
impair the maintenance of lead NAAQS in tribal lands.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    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 July 14, 2020. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.

    Dated: April 20, 2020.
Kurt Thiede,
Regional Administrator.

    40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  52.770, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding
entries for ``Muncie 2008 lead emissions inventory'' and ``Muncie 2008
lead maintenance plan'' following the entry for ``Muncie Hydrocarbon
Control Strategy'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.770  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                       EPA-Approved Indiana Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Title                   Indiana date            EPA approval                  Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Muncie 2008 lead emissions inventory.       4/14/2016  5/15/2020, [insert Federal
                                                        Register citation].
Muncie 2008 lead maintenance plan....       4/14/2016  5/15/2020, [insert Federal
                                                        Register citation].

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

0
3. Section 52.797 is amended by adding paragraphs (f) and (g) to read
as follows:

Sec.  52.797  Control strategy: Lead.

* * * * *
    (f) Approval--Indiana's 2008 lead emissions inventory for the
Muncie area, as submitted on April 14, 2016, satisfying the emission
inventory requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the Clean Air Act for
the Muncie area.
    (g) Approval -- The 2008 lead maintenance plan for the Muncie,
Indiana nonattainment area has been approved as submitted on April 14,
2016.

PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES

0
4. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

0
5. Section 81.315 is amended by revising the entry for Muncie, IN in
the table entitled ``Indiana--2008 Lead NAAQS'' to read as follows:

Sec.  81.315  Indiana.

* * * * *

                                            Indiana--2008 Lead NAAQS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Designation for the 2008 NAAQS \a\
                      Designated area                      -----------------------------------------------------
                                                               Date \1\                     Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Muncie, IN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delaware County (part)....................................    May 15, 2020  Attainment.
    A portion of the City of Muncie, Indiana bounded to
     the north by West 26th Street/Hines Road, to the east
     by Cowan Road, to the south by West Fuson Road, and
     to the west by a line running south from the eastern
     edge of Victory Temple's driveway to South Hoyt
     Avenue and then along South Hoyt Avenue.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified.
\1\ December 31, 2011, unless otherwise noted.

[FR Doc. 2020-08874 Filed 5-14-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 24, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49146-49149]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23014]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-1020; Product Identifier 2017-NM-114-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus Model A318-111 and -112 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -
114, and -115 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, and -216
airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -211, -212, and -213 airplanes.
This proposed AD was prompted by a review of maintenance instructions
for a blend repair of the snout diameter of the main beam assembly of
the forward engine mount that would create an excessive gap between the
bearing mono-ball and the snout. This proposed AD would require
modifying the main beam assembly of the forward engine mount. We are
proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 8,
2017.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus,
Airworthiness Office-EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac
Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51;
email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the FAA,
Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-
227-1221.

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-2017-
1020; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received,
and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations
office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments
will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 425-227-
1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2017-1020;
Product Identifier 2017-NM-114-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM based on
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 NPRM.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD
2017-0132, dated July 27, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory
Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an
unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A318-111 and -112 airplanes;
Model A319-111, -112,

-113, -114, and -115 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, and -216
airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -211, -212, and -213 airplanes.
The MCAI states:

    A review of maintenance instructions revealed that the Goodrich
Aerospace CFM56-5B, Forward Engine Mount Component Maintenance
Manual (CMM) 71-21-08, revision (rev.) 1 up to 46 (inclusive),
repair 10 (Blend Repair-Beam Assembly Snout Diameter), provides
instructions to blend the wear on the forward engine mount assembly,
Part Number (P/N) 642-2000-9, 642-2000-13, or 642-2000-25, creating
an excessive gap between the bearing mono-ball and the snout of the
forward engine mount main beam assembly, P/N 642-2006-501, or P/N
642-2006-503.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to in-
flight failure of a forward engine mount and consequent detachment
of an engine, possibly resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane
and injury to persons on the ground.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued
Service Bulletin (SB) A320-71-1065 and SB A320-71-1066, and Goodrich
Aerospace issued SB RA32071-159, providing instructions for an in-
shop inspection(s) for the main beam snout and, depending on
findings, applicable corrective action(s) and re-identification.
    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires
replacement of the affected forward engine mount main beam
assemblies. As the same main beam assemblies are certified for
CFM56-5A engine installation, this [EASA] AD also applies to
aeroplanes with that engine.

    Required actions include modifying the main beam assembly of the
forward engine mount. The modification includes repairing, replacing,
or reworking the main beam assembly. You may examine the MCAI in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-1020.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-71-1065, Revision 01, dated
July 28, 2017. This service information describes procedures for
modifying the main beam assembly of the forward engine mount. The
modification includes, among other things, repair or replacement of the
main beam assembly.
    Airbus has also issued Service Bulletin A320-71-1066, dated
December 1, 2016. This service information describes procedures for
modifying the main beam assembly of the forward engine mount. The
modification includes, among other things, rework of the main beam
assembly.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these
same type designs.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 500 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost        Parts cost      Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modification.....................  Up to 76 work-hours            $778  Up to $7,238.......  Up to $3,619,000.
                                    x $85 per hour =
                                    $6,460.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2017-1020; Product Identifier 2017-NM-114-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by December 8, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Airbus Model A318-111 and -112 airplanes;
Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, and -115 airplanes; Model A320-
211, -212, -214, and -216 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -211,
-212, and -213 airplanes; certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 71, Powerplant.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a review of maintenance instructions for
a blend repair of the diameter of the snout of the main beam
assembly of the forward engine mount that would create an excessive
gap between the bearing mono-ball and the snout. We are issuing this
AD to prevent in-flight failure of a forward engine mount, and
consequent detachment of an engine, which could result in reduced
controllability of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Definition of Affected Parts

    For the purposes of this AD: An ``affected main beam'' is any
main beam assembly of the forward engine mount, part number (P/N)
642-2006-501 or P/N 642-2006-503, identified in paragraph (g)(1) or
(g)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Any part for which no maintenance records are available to
confirm the part has never been repaired.
    (2) Any part that was repaired as specified in the instructions
of Goodrich Aerospace component maintenance manual (CMM) 71-21-08,
Revision 1 through 46, repair 10, except for parts identified in
paragraphs (g)(2)(i), (g)(2)(ii), and (g)(2)(iii) of this AD.
    (i) Any part on which a qualifying inspection identified in
paragraph (h) of this AD has been done and there were no findings
(the inspection was passed).
    (ii) Any part on which a qualifying inspection identified in
paragraph (h) of this AD has been done and that part has been
repaired as specified in the instructions of Goodrich Aerospace
Service Bulletin RA32071-159.
    (iii) Any part that has been repaired in accordance with other
instructions approved by the Manager, International Section,
Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).

(h) Definition of Qualifying Inspection

    For the purposes of this AD: ``A qualifying inspection'' is an
inspection done as specified in the instructions of Goodrich
Aerospace Service Bulletin RA32071-159; or for CFM56-5B engines, an
inspection done as specified in the instructions of Goodrich
Aerospace CMM 71-21-08, Revision 47, repair 10; or for CFM56-5A
engines, an inspection done as specified in the instructions of
Goodrich Aerospace CMM 71-21-06, Revision 59, repair 21.

(i) Definition of Airplane Groups

    For the purposes of this AD: ``Group 1 airplanes'' are airplanes
on which an affected main beam has been installed as of the
effective date of this AD. ``Group 2 airplanes'' are airplanes on
which an affected main beam has not been installed as of the
effective date of this AD; this includes airplanes with an original
certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of
airworthiness that was issued after the effective date of this AD.

(j) Modification of Affected Main Beam Assemblies

    For Group 1 airplanes as identified in paragraph (i) of this AD:
At the earliest of the compliance times specified in paragraphs
(j)(1), (j)(2), and (j)(3) of this AD, modify each affected main
beam identified in paragraph (g) of this AD, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-71-1065,
Revision 01, dated July 28, 2017; and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-
71-1066, dated December 1, 2016; as applicable, except as required
by paragraph (k) of this AD.
    (1) Within 48 months after the effective date of this AD.
    (2) Within 10,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this
AD.
    (3) Within 15,000 flight hours after the effective date of this
AD.

(k) Exception to Service Information

    Where Airbus Service Bulletin A320-71-1065, Revision 01, dated
July 28, 2017, specifies to contact a manufacturer for appropriate
action, and specifies that action as ``RC'' (Required for
Compliance): Before further flight, accomplish corrective actions in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (n)(2) of this
AD.

(l) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraph (j) of this AD involving Airbus Service Bulletin A320-71-
1065, Revision 01, dated July 28, 2017, if those actions were
performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service
Bulletin A320-71-1065, dated December 1, 2016.

(m) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an
affected main beam identified in paragraph (g) of this AD or a
forward engine mount assembly equipped with an affected main beam
identified in paragraph (g) of this AD, on any airplane.

(n) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the International Section, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (o)(2) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to: [email protected].
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA
DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-
authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by
paragraph (k) of this AD: If any service information contains
procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and
tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests
that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and
tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using
accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or
inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided
the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the
airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any
substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC
require approval of an AMOC.

(o) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA AD 2017-0132, dated July 27, 2017, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2017-1020.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone
425-227-1405; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus, Airworthiness Office-EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33
5 61 93 44 51; email: [email protected]; Internet:
http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 17, 2017.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-23014 Filed 10-23-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 19 (Monday, January 30, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5875-5876]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01760]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0022; FRL-10621-01-OMS]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the
Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment
Request; State and Federal Emission Guidelines for Hospital/Medical/
Infectious Waste Incinerators (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), State and Federal Emission
Guidelines for Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators (EPA ICR
Number 1899.10, OMB Control Number 2060-0422), to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR,
which is currently approved through January 31, 2023. Public comments
were previously requested, via the Federal Register, on July 22, 2022
during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30
days for public comments.

DATES: Comments may be submitted on or before March 1, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0022, to EPA online using https://www.regulations.gov/ (our
preferred method), or by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA
Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460. EPA's policy is that all
comments received will be included in the public docket without change,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Muntasir Ali, Sector Policies and
Program Division (D243-05), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a proposed extension of the ICR,
which is currently approved through January 31,

2023. An agency may neither conduct nor sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number.
    Public comments were previously requested, via the Federal Register
(87 FR 43843), on July 22, 2022 during a 60-day comment period. This
notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. Supporting
documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be
collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket
can be viewed online at https://www.regulations.gov, or in person, at
the EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is
202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket,
visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The Emission Guidelines (EG) (40 CFR part 60, subpart Ce)
for Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators were proposed on
February 27, 1995; promulgated on September 15, 1997; and revised on
both October 6, 2009 and April 4, 2011. The Federal Plan Requirements
for these regulations (40 CFR part 62, subpart HHH) were proposed on
July 6, 1999; promulgated on August 15, 2000; and revised on May 13,
2013. Subpart Ce requires either states or tribes to develop plans to
implement the EG. If approvable state or tribal plans were not
developed, the EPA was required to develop a Federal plan (Subpart HHH)
to implement the Emission Guidelines for such states and tribes. The
Federal plan is an interim measure to ensure that emissions standards
are implemented until states assume their role as the preferred
implementers of the EG. The 2013 rule finalized amendments to the HMIWI
federal plan to implement the amended EG adopted on October 6, 2009,
for those states that did not have an approved revised/new state plan
in place within 2 years after promulgation of the EG. The regulations
in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ce and 40 CFR part 62, subpart HHH apply to
each existing individual hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerator
(HMIWI) that either commenced construction prior to December 2, 2008 or
commenced modification prior to April 6, 2010. This information is
being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ce
and 40 CFR part 62, subpart HHH.
    Form numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste
Incinerators.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart Ce and 40 CFR part 62, subpart HHH).
    Estimated number of respondents: 28 existing respondents,
consisting of 16 privately-owned, 1 Federally-owned, 1 State/locally
owned HMIWI facilities, plus 10 States requiring State Plan Inventories
(total).
    Frequency of response: Semiannually and annually.
    Total estimated burden: 19,200 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $2,430,000 (per year), which includes
$239,000 in annualized capital/startup and/or operation & maintenance
costs.
    Changes in the estimates: The decrease in burden from the most-
recently approved ICR is due to a decrease in the number of sources due
to a decline in the industry. This decrease is not due to any program
changes. The number of sources has declined as HMIWI units have closed.
Any new units that either commence construction after December 2, 2008
or commence modification after April 6, 2010 are subject to the new
source performance standards at 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ec. The
decrease in the operation and maintenance costs from the currently-
approved ICR is also due to the decline in the number of HMIWI units.
There are no changes to the capital costs because there are no new
entities subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ce or 40 CFR part 62,
subpart HHH.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2023-01760 Filed 1-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 248 (Thursday, December 28, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 89576-89578]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28650]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2023-0986]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Erie Canal, North Tonawanda, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
navigable waters within a 105-foot radius of a pedestrian bridge and
the surrounding Erie Canal in North Tonawanda, NY. The safety zone is
needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from
potential hazards created by a fireworks display. Entry of vessels or
persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by
the Captain of the Port, Eastern Great Lakes.

DATES: This rule is effective from 11:40 p.m. December 31, 2023,
through 12:30 a.m. January 1, 2024.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2023-0986 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this rule,
call or email LT William Kelley, Waterways Management at Sector Eastern
Great Lakes, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because the event sponsor did not submit
notice of the fireworks display to the Coast Guard with sufficient time
remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Delaying the effective
date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be
impracticable and contrary to the public interest by inhibiting the
Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels from the
hazards associated with this fireworks display.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. For the same reasons discussed in
the preceding paragraph, waiting for a 30-day notice period to run
would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port (COTP)
Eastern Great Lakes has determined that fireworks over the water
presents significant risks to public safety and property. This rule is
needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the
navigable waters within the safety zone while the fireworks display is
taking place.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 11:40 p.m. December 31,
2023, through 12:30 a.m. on January 1, 2024. The safety zone will cover
all navigable waters within a 105-foot radius of land launched
fireworks over the Erie Canal, in North Tonawanda, NY. The duration of
the zone is intended to protect spectators, vessels, and the marine
environment in these navigable waters during the fireworks display. No
vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without
obtaining permission from the COTP Eastern Great Lakes or a designated
representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as
amended by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review).
Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. The safety zone
will encompass a 105-foot radius of land launched fireworks in the Erie
Canal, in North Tonawanda, NY. lasting approximately one hour during
the evening when vessel traffic is normally low. Moreover, the Coast
Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine
channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek
permission to enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.

    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal Government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a
safety zone lasting only 50 minutes that will prohibit entry within 105
feet of the fireworks launch site. It is categorically excluded from
further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS
Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental
Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.
For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of
this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,
6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0986 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0986  Safety Zone; Erie Canal, North Tonawanda, NY.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters of
the Erie Canal, from surface to bottom, encompassed by a 105-foot
radius around 43[deg]01'17.96'' N 78[deg]52'41.04'' W.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative
means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain,
petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a
Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port Eastern Great Lakes (COTP) in the enforcement of
the safety zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety
zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP Eastern Great Lakes or
a designated representative.
    (2) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone must contact the COTP Eastern Great Lakes or their designated
representative to obtain permission to do so. The COTP Eastern Great
Lakes or their designated representative may be contacted via VHF
Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in
the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the
COTP Eastern Great Lakes, or their designated representative.
    (d) Enforcement period. The regulated area described in paragraph
(a) is effective from 11:40 p.m. on December 31, 2023 to 12:30 a.m. on
January 1, 2024.

    Dated: December 19, 2023.
M.I. Kuperman,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Eastern Great Lakes.
[FR Doc. 2023-28650 Filed 12-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P