plan); 62 FR 66279 (December 18, 1997) (approval of the Illinois
portion of the Chicago area 15 percent ROP plan); 66 FR 30811 (June 8,
2001) (proposed approval of the Rhode Island post-1996 ROP plan); 66 FR
586 and 66 FR 634 (January 3, 2001) (approval of the Massachusetts and
Connecticut 1-hour ozone attainment demonstrations). In the only
adjudicated challenge to this approach, the court upheld it. See LEAN
v. EPA, 382 F.3d 575 (5th Cir. 2004). 70 FR 71612 at 71651.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Memorandum, G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide
Programs Branch to Air Directors, ``Contingency Measures for Ozone
and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Redesignations,'' June 1, 1992.

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

2. Contingency Measures in the Sacramento Ozone Plan
    The Sacramento Ozone Plan relies on emission reductions in excess
of RFP as contingency measures if the SMA fails to meet RFP
requirements. If the SMA fails to attain by June 15, 2019, the
Sacramento Ozone Plan relies on additional incremental emissions
reductions in 2019 from fleet turnover resulting from continued
implementation of measures in the Revised 2007 State Strategy.
    Contingency measures for failure to make RFP. To provide for
contingency measures for failure to make RFP, the SIP relies on surplus
NOX reductions in the RFP demonstration. Table 13
demonstrates that milestone years (i.e., 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017) and
the attainment year (i.e., 2018) have NOX reductions
exceeding what is required for RFP and the 3 percent contingency.
    Contingency measures for failure to attain. To provide contingency
measures for failure to attain, the SIP relies on the additional
incremental emissions reductions resulting from fleet turnover in
calendar year 2019 (the year after the attainment year). Additional
emissions reductions resulting from turnover in the on- and off-road
mobile source fleet in 2019 may be used to meet the attainment
contingency measure requirement. Table 14 below demonstrates that the
Sacramento Ozone Plan has sufficient VOC reductions in 2019 to provide
at least a three percent reserve for use as a possible attainment
contingency measure. In addition, the Sacramento Ozone Plan also
provides NOX reductions in 2019 that are available for use
in support of the attainment contingency measure, although the
NOX reductions alone do not provide a three percent reserve
unless combined with a portion of the VOC reductions.

    Table 14--Calculation of Post-2018 Attainment Contingency Measure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Emission calculations              VOC tpd            NOX tpd
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. 2018 Attainment Year Inventory  107.1.............  76.5
 Target.
B. CARB 2019 Emissions Forecast..  99.8..............  74.4
C. EPA Adjustments to 2019         +1.5..............  +0.5
 Inventory.
D. Adjusted 2019 Inventory (Line   101.3.............  74.9
 B + Line C).
E. Forecasted 2019 Creditable      5.8...............  1.6
 Reductions (Since 2018)
 Exceeding the Attainment Target
 Since 2018 (Line A-Line D).
F. Forecasted Percent Reductions   5.7%..............  2.1%
 Since 2018 (Line E / Line D).
G. Percent Reduction Required      3%................  na \a\
 From 2018 Adjusted Baseline
 Inventory.
H. Attainment Contingency Measure  Yes...............  na \a\
 Met? (Is Line F > or = Line G?).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ not applicable (na) because requirement already met by VOC
  reductions.

    These reductions are from fully creditable measures. They are not
relied on to demonstrate either attainment or RFP. For these reasons,
these post-2018 emissions reductions may be used to fulfill the
attainment contingency measure requirement.
    As discussed above, EPA is proposing to approve both the RFP and
attainment demonstrations in the Sacramento Ozone Plan because we have
determined the Sacramento Ozone Plan provides sufficient VOC emissions
reductions to meet these requirements.
3. Proposed Action on the Contingency Measures
    Contingency measures for failure to make RFP. As discussed above in
section IV.D, we are proposing to approve the SMA's RFP demonstration.
As shown in the RFP demonstration in table 13, there are excess
NOX reductions of 3 percent or greater in each milestone
year. These excess reductions are beyond those needed to meet the next
RFP percent reduction requirement and address the RFP contingency
measure requirement for 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, and 2018.
    Contingency measures for failure to attain. The incremental
additional emissions reductions that will occur in 2019 (the year after
the attainment year) from the continuing implementation of both on- and
off-road motor vehicle controls may be used to meet the contingency
measure requirement for failure to attain. As shown in table 14, there
is excess VOC reductions of 3 percent or greater in 2019. These excess
reductions fulfill the attainment contingency measure requirement for
2019.
    The Sacramento Ozone Plan includes measures and reductions that
collectively meet the CAA's minimum requirements (e.g., no additional
rulemaking, surplus to attainment and RFP needs) and allow us to
determine the reductions are at least equivalent to the current
estimate of one year's worth of RFP. Therefore, we are proposing to
approve the RFP and attainment contingency measure provisions in the
Sacramento Ozone Plan.

G. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Transportation Conformity

1. Requirements for Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
    CAA section 176(c) requires federal actions in nonattainment and
maintenance areas to conform to the goals of SIPs. This means that such
actions will not: (1) Cause or contribute to violations of a NAAQS, (2)
worsen the severity of an existing violation, or (3) delay timely
attainment of any NAAQS or any interim milestone.
    Actions that involve Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding or approval are subject to
EPA's transportation conformity rule, which is codified in 40 CFR part
93, subpart A. Under this rule, metropolitan planning organizations
(MPOs) in nonattainment and maintenance areas coordinate with state and
local air quality and transportation agencies, EPA, FHWA, and FTA to
demonstrate that an area's regional transportation plans (RTP) and
transportation improvement programs (TIP) conform to the applicable
SIP. This demonstration is typically done by showing that estimated
emissions from existing and planned highway and transit systems are
less than or equal to the motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs or
``budgets'') contained in the SIP. An attainment, maintenance, or RFP
SIP establishes MVEBs for the attainment year, each required RFP year
or last year of the maintenance plan, as appropriate. MVEBs are
generally established for specific years and specific pollutants or
precursors.
    Ozone attainment and RFP plans establish MVEBs for NOX
and VOC. See 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(i).
    Before an MPO may use MVEBs in a submitted SIP, EPA must first
either determine that the MVEBs are adequate or approve the MVEBs. In
order for us to find the MVEBs adequate and approvable, the submittal
must meet the conformity adequacy requirements of 40

CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5) and be approvable under all pertinent SIP
requirements. To meet these requirements, the MVEBs must be consistent
with the approvable attainment and RFP demonstrations and reflect all
of the motor vehicle control measures contained in the attainment and
RFP demonstrations. See 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iii), (iv) and (v). For
more information on the transportation conformity requirements and
applicable policies on MVEBs, please visit our transportation
conformity Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/index.htm.
    EPA's process for determining adequacy of a MVEB consists of three
basic steps: (1) providing public notification of a SIP submission; (2)
providing the public the opportunity to comment on the MVEB during a
public comment period; and, (3) making a finding of adequacy or
inadequacy. See 40 CFR 93.118.
2. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the 2009 Plan
    On July 16, 2009, we found the budgets in the 2009 Plan to be
adequate for the 2011, 2014, and 2017 milestone years and inadequate
for the 2018 attainment year for transportation conformity
purposes.\50\ We determined that the attainment year budgets were
inadequate because they lacked specificity and were not fully
enforceable and, therefore, did not meet the criteria for adequacy in
40 CFR Sec.  93.118(e)(4).\51\ We published a notice of our findings at
74 FR 37210 (July 28, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ See letter from Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, EPA
Region 9, to James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, July 16,
2009, with enclosure.
    \51\ See letter, Deborah Jordan, Air Division Director, EPA
Region 9, to James M. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, ``RE:
Adequacy Status of Sacramento 8-Hour Reasonable Further Progress and
Attainment Plan Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets,'' dated July 16,
2009.
    \52\ Final 2013/16 MTIP, Amendment #1 to the Metropolitan
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy 2035, and Air
Quality Conformity Analysis, August 16, 2012. FHWA approval December
14, 2012. http://www.sandag.org/uploads/2050RTP/F2050rtp_all.pdf.
    \53\ See July 25, 2014 letter from Deborah Jordan, Director, Air
Division, USEPA Region 9, to Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer,
CARB. On August 8, a notice of adequacy was published in the Federal
Register notifying the public that the Agency had found that the
MVEBs for ozone for the years 2014, 2017, and 2018 adequate for
transportation conformity purposes. See 79 FR 46436.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Revised Vehicle Emissions Budgets in 2013 Plan Update
    The 2013 Plan Update includes revised VOC and NOX MVEBs
for 2014, 2017, and 2018. See table 11-1 in the 2013 Plan Update. The
MVEBs in the 2013 Plan Update replaced the original MVEBs in the 2009
Plan and account for changes in emission reductions associated with the
revised 2007 State Strategy, an updated version of EMFAC (i.e.,
EMFAC2011), and the latest planning assumptions from the Sacramento
Area Council of Governments (SACOG).
    The MVEBs contained in the 2013 Plan Update are shown in table 15.
The MVEBs are the projected on-road mobile source VOC and
NOX emissions for the SMA for 2014, 2017, and 2018. They
include the projected on-road mobile source emissions and safety
margins and are rounded up to the next whole number tpd. The conformity
rule allows for a safety margin to be included in the budgets. The
overall emissions in the SMA with the addition of a small safety margin
added to the on-road emissions are consistent with RFP and attainment
of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. See 40 CFR 93.124(a). The derivation
of the MVEBs is discussed in section 11 of the 2013 Plan Update. The
MVEBs incorporate on-road motor vehicle emission inventory factors of
EMFAC2011, updated vehicle activity data from SACOG, and recent
amendments to the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Plan (2013/16
MTIP).\52\

                     Table 15--Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the Sacramento Ozone Plan
                                          [Tpd, average summer weekday]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     NOX                                    VOC
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        2014         2017         2018         2014         2017         2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-Road Inventory \a\.............           46           37           34           21           17           16
Safety Margin.....................            3            2            3            2            1            1
MVEBs \b\.........................           49           39           37           23           18           17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes adjustments for measures not reflected in EMFAC2011.
\b\ Rounded up to nearest ton.
Source: Table 11-1 on page 11-4 of the 2013 Plan Update.

    The availability of the SIP submission with MVEBs was announced for
public comment on EPA's Adequacy Web site on May 20, 2014, at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm, which provided
a 30-day public comment period that ended on June 19, 2014. EPA
received no comments from the public. On July 25, 2014, EPA determined
the 2014, 2017, and 2018 MVEBs were adequate.\53\ On August 8, 2014,
the notice of adequacy was published in the Federal Register. See 79 FR
46436. The new MVEBs became effective on August 25, 2014. After the
effective date of the adequacy finding, the new MVEBs must be used in
future transportation conformity determinations in the SMA area. EPA is
not required under its transportation conformity rule to find budgets
adequate prior to proposing approval of them, but in this instance, we
have completed the adequacy review of these budgets prior to our final
action on the 2013 Plan Update.
    In today's notice, EPA is proposing to approve the 2017 and 2018
MVEBs in the 2013 Plan Update for transportation conformity purposes.
EPA has determined through its thorough review of the submitted 2013
Plan Update that the 2017 and 2018 MVEBs are consistent with emission
control measures in the SIP, RFP, and attainment in the SMA for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA previously found the 2017 and 2018 MVEBs
adequate and is now proposing to approve those budgets. The 2017 and
2018 MVEBs are used in SACOG's conformity determination for the 2015/
2018 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program \54\ and will be
used in future conformity

determinations. The 2014 MVEBs are not used in SACOG's conformity
determination and will not be used in future conformity determinations
because SACOG is not required to address any year prior to 2017.
Therefore, EPA has determined that not approving the 2014 MVEBs would
have no practical impact on the transportation planning agencies in the
SMA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ On September 18, 2014, the SACOG Board of Directors
approved the 2015/18 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement
Program, Amendment #4 to the Metropolitan Transportation Plan/
Sustainable Communities Strategy 2035, and Air Quality Conformity
Analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The details of EPA's evaluation of the MVEBs for compliance with
the budget adequacy criteria of 40 CFR 93.118(e) were provided in a
separate adequacy letter \55\ included in the docket of this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See footnote #53.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Proposed Action on the Budgets
    As part of its review of the budgets' approvability, EPA has
evaluated the revised budgets using our adequacy criteria in 40 CFR
93.318(e)(4) and (5). We found that the 2017 and 2018 budgets meet each
adequacy criterion. We have completed our detailed review of the 2013
Plan Update, and are proposing to approve the SIP's attainment and RFP
demonstrations. We have also reviewed the proposed budgets submitted
with the 2013 Plan Update and have found that the 2017 and 2018 budgets
are consistent with the attainment and RFP demonstrations, were based
on control measures that have already been adopted and implemented, and
meet all other applicable statutory and regulatory requirements
including the adequacy criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5).
Therefore, we are proposing to approve the 2017 and 2018 budgets as
shown in table 15.
    As described above, the 2017 and 2018 budgets were determined to be
adequate on July 25, 2014 and became effective on August 25, 2014. The
new budgets replace the budgets previously found adequate in 2009, and
SACOG and the U.S. Department of Transportation are required to use the
new budgets in transportation conformity determinations as of August
25, 2014. If EPA later finalizes the approval of the 2017 and 2018
budgets, it will not affect SACOG and the U.S. Department of
Transportation because they already are required to use the new budgets
as of August 25, 2014. For conformity determinations, the plan
emissions should be used at the same level of accuracy as in the
revised updated budgets from the 2013 Plan Update.
    CARB requested that EPA limit the duration of its approval of the
budgets submitted on December 31, 2013 as part of the 2013 Plan Update
to last only until the effective date of EPA's adequacy finding for any
subsequently submitted budgets. See letter, Richard W. Corey, Executive
Officer, California Air Resources Board, December 31, 2013.
    The transportation conformity rule allows EPA to limit the approval
of budgets. See 40 CFR 93.118(e)(1). However, we can only consider a
state's request to limit an approval of its MVEB if the request
includes the following elements:
     An acknowledgement and explanation as to why the budgets
under consideration have become outdated or deficient;
     A commitment to update the budgets as part of a
comprehensive SIP update; and
     A request that EPA limit the duration of its approval to
the time when new budgets have been found to be adequate for
transportation conformity purposes.
    See 67 FR 69141 (November 15, 2002) (limiting our prior approval of
MVEB in certain California SIPs).
    Because CARB's request does not include all of these elements, we
cannot address it at this time. Once CARB has adequately addressed
them, we intend to propose to limit the duration of our approval of the
MVEBs in the 2013 Plan Update and provide the public an opportunity to
comment. The duration of the approval of the budgets, however, is not
limited until we complete such a rulemaking.

H. Vehicle Miles Travelled Emissions Offset Demonstration

    CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) requires a state with areas classified as
``Severe'' or ``Extreme'' to ``submit a revision that identifies and
adopts specific enforceable transportation control strategies and
transportation control measures to offset any growth in emissions from
growth in vehicle miles traveled or numbers of vehicle trips in such
area.'' Herein, we use ``VMT'' to refer to vehicle miles traveled and
refer to the related SIP requirement as the ``VMT emissions offset
requirement.'' In addition, we refer to the SIP revision intended to
demonstrate compliance with the VMT emissions offset requirement as the
``VMT emissions offset demonstration.'' Moreover, the SMA is subject to
the VMT emissions offset requirement for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard
by virtue of its classification as ``Severe'' for the 1997 ozone
standard. See 75 FR 24409 (May 5, 2010); and 40 CFR 51.902(a).
    CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) also includes two additional elements
requiring that the SIP include: (1) Transportation control strategies
and transportation control measures as necessary to provide (along with
other measures) the reductions needed to meet the applicable RFP
requirement, and (2) include strategies and measures to the extent
needed to demonstrate attainment.
1. Evaluation of Revised Sacramento VMT Emissions Offset Demonstrations
a. Section 182(d)(1)(A) and EPA's August 2012 VMT Emissions Offset
Demonstration Guidance
    As noted previously, the first element of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A)
requires that areas classified as ``Severe'' or ``Extreme'' submit a
SIP revision that identifies and adopts transportation control
strategies and transportation control measures sufficient to offset any
growth in emissions from growth in VMT or the number of vehicle trips.
In response to the Court's decision in Association of Irritated
Residents v. EPA, EPA issued a memorandum titled Guidance on
Implementing Clean Air Act Section 182(d)(1)(A): Transportation Control
Measures and Transportation Control Strategies to Offset Growth in
Emissions Due to Growth in Vehicle Miles Travelled (herein referred to
as the ``August 2012 guidance'').\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ Memorandum from Karl Simon, Director, Transportation and
Climate Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, to Carl
Edland, Director, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, EPA
Region 6, and Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, EPA Region 9,
August 30, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The August 2012 Guidance discusses the meaning of the terms,
``transportation control strategies'' (TCSs) and ``transportation
control measures'' (TCMs), and recommends that both TCSs and TCMs be
included in the calculations made for the purpose of determining the
degree to which any hypothetical growth in emissions due to growth in
VMT should be offset. Generally, TCSs is a broad term that encompasses
many types of controls including, for example, motor vehicle emission
limitations, inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs, alternative
fuel programs, other technology-based measures, and TCMs, that would
fit within the regulatory definition of ``control strategy.'' See,
e.g., 40 CFR 51.100(n). TCMs are defined at 40 CFR 51.100(r) as meaning
``any measure that is directed toward reducing emissions of air
pollutants from transportation sources. Such measures include, but are
not limited to those listed in section 108(f) of the Clean Air Act[,]''
and generally refer to programs intended to reduce the VMT, the number
of vehicle

trips, or traffic congestion, such as programs for improved public
transit, designation of certain lanes for passenger buses and high-
occupancy vehicles (HOVs), trip reduction ordinances, and the like.
    The August 2012 guidance explains how states may demonstrate that
the VMT emissions offset requirement is satisfied in conformance with
the Court's ruling. States are recommended to estimate emissions for
the nonattainment area's base year and the attainment year. One
emission inventory is developed for the base year, and three different
emissions inventory scenarios are developed for the attainment year.
For the attainment year, the state would present three emissions
estimates, two of which would represent hypothetical emissions
scenarios that would provide the basis to identify the ``growth in
emissions'' due solely to the growth in VMT, and one that would
represent projected actual motor vehicle emissions after fully
accounting for projected VMT growth and offsetting emissions reductions
obtained by all creditable TCSs and TCMs. See the August 2012 guidance
for specific details on how states might conduct the calculations.
    The base year on-road VOC emissions should be based on VMT in that
year and it should reflect all enforceable TCSs and TCMs in place in
the base year. This would include vehicle emissions standards, state
and local control programs such as I/M programs or fuel rules, and any
additional implemented TCSs and TCMs that were already required by or
credited in the SIP as of that base year.
    The first of the emissions calculations for the attainment year
would be based on the projected VMT and trips for that year, and assume
that no new TCSs or TCMs beyond those already credited in the base year
inventory have been put in place since the base year. This calculation
demonstrates how emissions would hypothetically change if no new TCSs
or TCMs were implemented, and VMT and trips were allowed to grow at the
projected rate from the base year. This estimate would show the
potential for an increase in emissions due solely to growth in VMT and
trips. This represents a ``no action'' taken scenario. Emissions in the
attainment year in this scenario may be lower than those in the base
year due to the fleet that was on the road in the base year gradually
being replaced through fleet turnover; however, provided VMT and/or
numbers of vehicle trips will in fact increase by the attainment year,
they would still likely be higher than they would have been assuming
VMT had held constant.
    The second of the attainment year's emissions calculations would
also assume that no new TCSs or TCMs beyond those already credited have
been put in place since the base year, but would also assume that there
was no growth in VMT and trips between the base year and attainment
year. This estimate reflects the hypothetical emissions level that
would have occurred if no further TCMs or TCSs had been put in place
and if VMT and trip levels had held constant since the base year. Like
the ``no action'' attainment year estimate described above, emissions
in the attainment year may be lower than those in the base year due to
the fleet that was on the road in the base year gradually being
replaced by cleaner vehicles through fleet turnover, but in this case
they would not be influenced by any growth in VMT or trips. This
emissions estimate would reflect a ceiling on the attainment emissions
that should be allowed to occur under the statute as interpreted by the
Court because it shows what would happen under a scenario in which no
offsetting TCSs or TCMs have yet been put in place and VMT and trips
are held constant during the period from the area's base year to its
attainment year. This represents a ``VMT offset ceiling'' scenario.
These two hypothetical status quo estimates are necessary steps in
identifying the target level of emissions from which states would
determine whether further TCMs or TCSs, beyond those that have been
adopted and implemented in reality, would need to be adopted and
implemented in order to fully offset any increase in emissions due
solely to VMT and trips identified in the ``no action'' scenario.
    Finally, the state would present the emissions that are actually
expected to occur in the area's attainment year after taking into
account reductions from all enforceable TCSs and TCMs that in reality
were put in place after the baseline year. This estimate would be based
on the VMT and trip levels expected to occur in the attainment year
(i.e., the VMT and trip levels from the first estimate) and all of the
TCSs and TCMs expected to be in place and for which the SIP will take
credit in the area's attainment year, including any TCMs and TCSs put
in place since the base year. This represents the ``projected actual''
attainment year scenario. If this emissions estimate is less than or
equal to the emissions ceiling that was established in the second of
the attainment year calculations, the TCSs or TCMs for the attainment
year would be sufficient to fully offset the identified hypothetical
growth in emissions.
    If, instead, the estimated projected actual attainment year
emissions are still greater than the ceiling which was established in
the second of the attainment year emissions calculations, even after
accounting for post-baseline year TCSs and TCMs, the state would need
to adopt and implement additional TCSs or TCMs to further offset the
growth in emissions and bring the actual emissions down to at least the
``had VMT and trips held constant'' ceiling estimated in the second of
the attainment year calculations, in order to meet the VMT offset
requirement of section 182(d)(1)(A) as interpreted by the Court.
b. Sacramento VMT Emissions Offset Demonstrations
    For the Sacramento VMT emissions offset demonstrations, the State
used EMFAC2011, the latest EPA-approved motor vehicle emissions model
for California. The EMFAC2011 model estimates the on-road emissions
from two combustion processes (i.e., running exhaust and start exhaust)
and four evaporative processes (i.e., hot soak, running losses, diurnal
losses, and resting losses). The EMFAC2011 model combines trip-based
VMT data from the regional transportation planning agencies (i.e.,
SACOG), starts data based on household travel surveys, and vehicle
population data from the California Department of Motor Vehicles. These
sets of data are combined with corresponding emission rates to
calculate emissions.
    Emissions from running exhaust, start exhaust, hot soak, and
running losses are a function of how much a vehicle is driven. As such,
emissions from these processes are directly related to VMT and vehicle
trips, and the State included emissions from them in the calculations
that provide the basis for the revised Sacramento VMT emissions offset
demonstration. The State did not include emissions from resting loss
and diurnal loss processes in the analysis because such emissions are
related to vehicle population, not to VMT or vehicle trips, and thus
are not part of ``any growth in emissions from growth in vehicle miles
traveled or numbers of vehicle trips in such area'' (emphasis added)
under CAA section 182(d)(1)(A).
    The Sacramento VMT emissions offset demonstration addresses the
1997 8-hour ozone standard and includes a 2002 ``base year'' scenario
for the purpose of the VMT emissions offset demonstration for the 1997
8-hour ozone standard. The ``base year'' for VMT emissions offset
demonstration

purposes should generally be the same ``base year'' used for
nonattainment planning purposes. In today's action, EPA is proposing to
approve the 2002 base year inventory for the SMA for the purposes of
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, and thus, the State's selection of 2002
as the base year for the revised Sacramento VMT emissions offset
demonstration for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard is appropriate.
    The demonstration also includes the previously described three
different attainment year scenarios (i.e., no action, VMT offset
ceiling, and projected actual) for 2018. The State's selection of 2018
is appropriate given that the Sacramento Ozone Plan demonstrates
attainment by the applicable attainment date of June 15, 2019 based on
the 2018 controlled emissions inventory.\57\ See 76 FR 57872, at 57885
(September 16, 2011) and 77 FR 12674, at 12693 (March 1, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ In this context, ``attainment year'' refers to the ozone
season immediately preceding a nonattainment area's attainment date.
In the case of the SMA, the applicable attainment date is June 15,
2019, and the ozone season immediately preceding that date will
occur in year 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 16 summarizes the relevant distinguishing parameters for each
of the emissions scenarios and show the State's corresponding VOC
emissions estimates. Table 16 provides the parameters and emissions
estimates for the revised VMT emissions offset demonstration for the
1997 8-hour ozone standard.

          Table 16--VMT Emissions Offset Inventory Scenarios and Results for 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               VMT                     Starts             Controls       VOC
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------  Emissions
             Scenario                                                                               ------------
                                        Year       1000/day       Year       1000/day       Year         tpd
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Year.........................         2002       52,595         2002        7,935         2002           45
No Action.........................         2018       64,709         2018       10,640         2002           28
VMT Offset Ceiling................         2002       52,595         2002        7,935         2002           19
Projected Actual..................         2018       64,709         2018       10,640         2018           14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: CARB's Technical Supplement, July 24, 2014.

    For the ``base year'' scenario, the State ran the EMFAC2011 model
for the 2002 base year using VMT and starts data corresponding to those
years. As shown in table 16, the State estimates SMA VOC emissions at
45 tpd in 2002.
    For the ``no action'' scenario, the State first identified the on-
road motor vehicle control programs (i.e., TCSs or TCMs) put in place
since the base year and incorporated into EMFAC2011 and then ran
EMFAC2011 with the VMT and starts data corresponding to the applicable
attainment year (i.e., 2018 for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard) without
the emissions reductions from the on-road motor vehicle control
programs put in place after the base year. Thus, the ``no action''
scenario reflects the hypothetical VOC emissions that would occur in
the attainment year in the SMA if the State had not put in place any
additional TCSs or TCMs after 2002. As shown in table 16, the State
estimates ``no action'' SMA VOC emissions at 28 tpd in 2018.
    For the ``VMT offset ceiling'' scenario, the State ran the
EMFAC2011 model for the attainment year but with VMT and starts data
corresponding to base year values. Like the ``no action'' scenario, the
EMFAC2011 model was adjusted to reflect the VOC emissions levels in the
attainment year without the benefits of the post-base-year on-road
motor vehicle control programs. Thus, the ``VMT offset ceiling''
scenario reflect hypothetical VOC emissions in the SMA if the State had
not put in place any TCSs or TCMs after the base year and if there had
been no growth in VMT or vehicle trips between the base year and the
attainment year.
    The hypothetical growth in emissions due to growth in VMT and trips
can be determined from the difference between the VOC emissions
estimates under the ``no action'' scenario and the corresponding
estimate under the ``VMT offset ceiling'' scenario. Based on the values
in table 16, the hypothetical growth in emissions due to growth in VMT
and trips in the SMA would have been 9 tpd (i.e., 28 tpd minus 19 tpd)
for the purposes of the revised VMT emissions offset demonstration for
the 8-hour ozone standard. This hypothetical difference establishes the
level of VMT growth-caused emissions that need to be offset by the
combination of post-baseline year TCMs and TCSs and any necessary
additional TCMs and TCSs.
    For the ``projected actual'' scenario calculation, the State ran
the EMFAC2011 model for the attainment year with VMT and starts data at
attainment year value and with the full benefits of the relevant post-
baseline year motor vehicle control programs. For this scenario, the
State included the emissions benefits from TCSs and TCMs put in place
since the base year.
    The most significant State on-road and fuels measures providing
reductions during the 2002 to 2018 time frame and relied upon for the
VMT emissions offset demonstration include Low Emission Vehicles II and
Zero Emissions Vehicle standards, California Reformulated Gasoline
Phase 3, and Cleaner In-Use Heavy-Duty Trucks. Some of these measures
were adopted prior to 2002, but all or part of their implementation
occurred after 2002. The TSD for today's action includes a list of TCSs
and TCMs adopted by the State since 2002.\58\ State measures adopted
since 2007, as part of the revised 2007 State Strategy, and their
reductions are also described in the IV.C and IV.D of this notice.
Additional information regarding implementation and expected reductions
from CARB's adopted measures is also available on CARB's rulemaking
activity Web site.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ The docket for today's action includes a list of the post-
1990 transportation control strategies. Per section 209 of the CAA,
the EPA has previously waived (for control of emissions from new
motor vehicles of new motor vehicle engines prior to March 30, 1966)
or authorized (for control emissions of nonroad engines or vehicles)
all such TCSs and TCMs relied upon for the VMT emissions offset
demonstration.
    \59\ See http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/regact.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in table 16, the results from these calculations establish
projected actual attainment-year VOC emissions of 14 tpd for the 1997
8-hour standard demonstration. The State then compared these values
against the corresponding VMT offset ceiling value to determine whether
additional TCMs or TCSs would need to be adopted and implemented in
order to offset any increase in emissions due solely to VMT and trips.
Because the ``projected actual'' emissions are less than the
corresponding ``VMT Offset Ceiling'' emissions, the State concluded
that the demonstration shows compliance with

the VMT emissions offset requirement and that there are sufficient
adopted TCSs and TCMs to offset the growth in emissions from the growth
in VMT and vehicle trips in the SMA for 1997 8-hour standard. In fact,
taking into account of the creditable post-baseline year TCMs and TCSs,
the State showed that they offset the hypothetical differences by 14
tpd for the 1997 8-hour standard, rather than merely the required 9
tpd.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ The offsetting VOC emissions reductions from the TCSs and
TCMs put in place after the respective base year can be determined
by subtracting the ``projected actual'' emissions estimates from the
``no action'' emissions estimates in table 16. For the purposes of
the 8-hour ozone demonstration, the offsetting emissions reductions,
14 tpd (28 tpd minus 14 tpd), exceed the growth in emissions from
growth in VMT and vehicle trips (9 tpd).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on our review of the State's submittal, including the
technical supplement, we find the State's analysis to be acceptable and
agree that the State has adopted sufficient TCSs and TCMs to offset the
growth in emissions from growth in VMT and vehicle trips in the SMA for
the purposes of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. As such, we find that
the revised SMA VMT emissions offset demonstration, complies with the
VMT emissions offset requirement in CAA section 182(d)(1)(A), and
therefore, we propose approval of the revised SMA VMT emissions offset
demonstration for the 1997 8-hour ozone standards as a revision to the
California SIP.
    Regarding the two additional elements in 182(d)(1)(A), as discussed
above in section IV.D, we are proposing to find that the Sacramento
Ozone Plan provides for RFP consistent with all applicable CAA and EPA
regulatory requirements. Therefore, we also propose to find that the
SIP meets requirement in CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) to include TCSs and
TCMs as necessary to provide (along with other measures) the reductions
needed to meet the applicable RFP requirement.
    Finally, based on the discussion in sections IV.B and IV.C above,
we are proposing to find that the Sacramento Ozone Plan provides for
expeditious attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. Therefore, we
propose to find that the SIP meets the requirement in CAA section
182(d)(1)(A) to include strategies and measures to the extent needed to
demonstrate attainment.
    Under CAA section 110(k)(3), and for the reasons set forth above,
EPA is proposing to approve CARB's 2013 Plan Update submittal, dated
December 31, 2013, of the Sacramento VMT emissions offset demonstration
for the 1997 8-hour ozone standards, as supplemented by CARB on June
19, 2014, as a revision to the California SIP. We are proposing to
approve this SIP revision because we believe that it demonstrates that
California has put in place specific enforceable transportation control
strategies and transportation control measures to offset the growth in
emissions from the growth in VMT and vehicle trips in the SMA for the
1997 8-hour ozone standard, and thereby meets the applicable
requirements in section 182(d)(1)(A) of the Clean Air Act.

V. EPA's Proposed Actions

A. EPA's Proposed Approvals

    For the reasons discussed above, EPA is proposing to approve
California's attainment SIP for the Sacramento Metro Area for the 1997
8-hour Ozone NAAQS. This SIP is comprised of the Sacramento Regional
Nonattainment Area 8-Hour Ozone Reasonable Further Progress Plan 2002-
2008 (February 2006), Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan
and Reasonable Further Progress Plan (March 26, 2009), CARB's 2007
State Strategy and Revised 2007 State Strategy (specifically the
portions applicable to the SMA), and the Sacramento Regional 8-Hour
Ozone Attainment Plan and Reasonable Further Progress Plan (September
26, 2013).
    EPA is proposing to approve under CAA section 110(k)(3) the
following elements of the Sacramento Ozone Plan:
    1. The revised 2002 base year emissions inventory as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 182(a)(1) and 40 CFR 51.915;
    2. The reasonably available control measure demonstration as
meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.912(d);
    3. The rate of progress and reasonable further progress
demonstrations as meeting the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(2)
and 182(c)(2)(B) and 40 CFR 51.910 and 51.905;
    4. The attainment demonstration as meeting the requirements of CAA
section 182(c)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 51.908;
    5. The contingency measure provisions for failure to make RFP and
to attain as meeting the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and
182(c)(9);
    6. The demonstration that the SIP provides for transportation
control strategies and measures sufficient to offset any growth in
emissions from growth in VMT or the number of vehicle trips, and to
provide for RFP and attainment, as meeting the requirements of CAA
section 182(d)(1)(A);
    7. The revised motor vehicle emissions budgets for 2017 and for the
attainment year of 2018, because they are derived from approvable RFP
and attainment demonstrations and meet the requirements of CAA sections
176(c) and 40 CFR part 93, subpart A; and
    8. The Districts' commitments to adopt and implement certain
defined measures, as listed in table 7-2 on pages 7-5 and 7-6 of the
2013 Plan Update.

B. Request for Public Comments

    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
document or on other relevant matters. We will accept comments from the
public on this proposal for the next 30 days. We will consider these
comments before taking final action.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    The Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that
complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal
regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they
meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely
proposes to approve a state plan revision as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For these reasons, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because

application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA;
and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: September 24, 2014.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2014-24487 Filed 10-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 24, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 49206]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22979]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP18-35-000.
    Applicants: Garden Banks Gas Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Garden Banks Oct2017 Phase II
Filing to be effective 12/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 10/16/17.
    Accession Number: 20171016-5162.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/30/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-36-000.
    Applicants: Mississippi Canyon Gas Pipeline, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Mississippi Canyon Phase II
Filing to be effective 12/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 10/16/17.
    Accession Number: 20171016-5199.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/30/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and Sec.  385.214) on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests
may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to
the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 17, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-22979 Filed 10-23-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 82 (Thursday, April 28, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25393-25394]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09998]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[CERCLA-04-2016-3752; FRL-9945-87-Region 4]

Forshaw Chemicals Superfund Site; Charlotte, Mecklenburg County,
North Carolina; Notice of Settlement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of settlement.

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

SUMMARY: Under 122(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has entered into a settlement
with James R. Forshaw and Wood Protection Products, Inc., concerning
the Forshaw Chemicals Superfund Site located in Charlotte, Mecklenburg
County, North Carolina. The settlement addresses recovery of CERCLA
costs for a cleanup action performed by the EPA at the Site.

DATES: The Agency will consider public comments on the settlement until
May 31, 2016. The Agency will consider all comments received and may
modify or withdraw its consent to the proposed settlement if comments
received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the
proposed settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the settlement are available from the Agency by
contacting Ms. Paula V. Painter, Program Analyst, using the contact
information provided in this notice. Comments may also be submitted by
referencing the Site's name through one of the following methods:
    Internet: https://www.epa.gov/nc/public-notice-settlement-concerning-forshaw-chemicals-superfund-site.
     U.S. Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Superfund
Division, Attn: Paula V. Painter, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta,
Georgia 30303.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula V. Painter at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 5, 2016.
Anita L. Davis,
Chief, Enforcement and Community Engagement Branch, Superfund Division.
[FR Doc. 2016-09998 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 161 (Tuesday, August 22, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 39891]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17741]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4321-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001]

Nebraska; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for State of Nebraska (FEMA-4321-DR), dated June 26, 2017, and related
determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued July 6, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Dolph A.
Diemont, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating
Officer for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of David G. Samaniego as
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Brock Long,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2017-17741 Filed 8-21-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 246 (Wednesday, December 23, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 79750-79754]
[FR Doc No: 2015-30821]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-0250; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-216-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of
comment period.

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

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive
(AD) for all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes.
The NPRM proposed to require replacing certain pitot probes on the
captain, first officer, and standby sides with certain new pitot
probes. The NPRM was prompted by reports of airspeed indication
discrepancies while flying at high altitudes in inclement weather. This
action revises the NPRM by reducing the proposed compliance time for
replacing certain pitot probes based on a risk assessment due to
additional reports of airspeed indication discrepancies while flying at
high altitudes in inclement weather. We are proposing this supplemental
NPRM (SNPRM) to prevent airspeed indication discrepancies during
inclement weather, which, depending on the prevailing altitude, could
lead to unknown accumulation of ice crystals and consequent reduced
controllability of the airplane. Since these actions impose an
additional burden over those proposed in the NPRM, we are reopening the
comment period to allow the public the chance to comment on these
proposed changes.

DATES: We must receive comments on this SNPRM by January 22, 2016.

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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey

Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed 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_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 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-2015-
0250; 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 proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments
will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2015-0250;
Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-216-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD 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 proposed AD.

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Model A318,
A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Federal Register on March 6, 2015 (80 FR 12094) (``the NPRM''). The
NPRM was prompted by reports of airspeed indication discrepancies while
flying at high altitudes in inclement weather. The NPRM proposed to
require replacing certain pitot probes on the captain, first officer,
and standby sides with certain new pitot probes.

Actions Since Previous NPRM (80 FR 12094, March 6, 2015) Was Issued

    Since we issued the NPRM (80 FR 12094, March 6, 2015), we have
determined it is necessary to reduce the compliance time for replacing
certain pitot probes based on a risk assessment due to additional
reports of airspeed indication discrepancies while flying at high
altitudes in inclement weather. The European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0205, dated
October 9, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition on all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series
airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Occurrences have been reported on A320 family aeroplanes of
airspeed indication discrepancies while flying at high altitudes in
inclement weather conditions. Investigation results indicated that
A320 aeroplanes equipped with Thales Avionics Part Number (P/N)
50620-10 or P/N C16195AA pitot probes appear to have a greater
susceptibility to adverse environmental conditions that aeroplanes
equipped with certain other pitot probes.
    Prompted by earlier occurrences, DGAC [Direction
G[eacute]n[eacute]rale de l'Aviation Civile] France issued [DGAC] AD
2001[dash]362 [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2001_362.pdf/AD_2001-362] [which corresponds to paragraph (f) of FAA AD
2004[dash]03[dash]33, Amendment 39[dash]13477 (69 FR 9936, March 3,
2004)] to require replacement of Thales (formerly known as Sextant)
P/N 50620[dash]10 pitot probes with Thales P/N C16195AA probes.
    Since that [DGAC] AD was issued, Thales pitot probe P/N C15195BA
was designed, which improved airspeed indication behavior in heavy
rain conditions, but did not demonstrate the same level of
robustness to withstand high[dash]altitude ice crystals. Based on
these findings, EASA have decided to implement replacement of the
affected Thales [pitot] probes as a precautionary measure to improve
the safety level of the affected aeroplanes.
    Consequently, EASA issued AD 2014-0237 (later revised) [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2014_0237.pdf/AD_2014-0237],
retaining the requirements of DGAC France AD 2001-362, which was
superseded, and cancelling two other DGAC ADs, to require
replacement of Thales Avionics pitot probes P/N C16195AA and P/N
C16195BA.
    Since EASA issued AD 2014-0237R1 [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/2014-0237R1] was issued, results of further analyses have determined
that the compliance time (48 months) of that AD has to be reduced in
relation to the risk assessment.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the
requirements of EASA AD 2014-0237R1, which is superseded, but
reduces the compliance time.

    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-2015-
0250.

Related Rulemaking

    On February 4, 2004, we issued AD 2004-03-33, Amendment 39-13477
(69 FR 9936, March 3, 2004), applicable to certain Airbus Model A300 B2
and B4 series airplanes; Model A300 B4-600, A300 B4-600R, and A300 F4-
600R series airplanes; Model A310 series Airplanes; Model A319, A320,
and A321 series airplanes; Model A330-301, -321, -322, -341, and -342
airplanes; and Model A340 series airplanes. That AD requires, among
other actions, replacement of certain pitot probes with certain new
pitot probes. That AD was issued to prevent loss or fluctuation of
indicated airspeed, which could result in misleading information being
provided to the flightcrew. Accomplishing the replacement specified in
paragraph (g) of this SNPRM would terminate the requirements of
paragraph (f) of AD 2004-03-33, for that airplane only.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued the following service information:
     Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 30, dated June 18,
2015.
     Service Bulletin A320-34-1456, Revision 01, dated May 15,
2012.
     Service Bulletin A320-34-1463, Revision 01, dated May 15,
2012.
    The service information describes procedures for replacing certain
Thales Avionics pitot probes on the captain, first officer, and standby
sides. This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this
SNPRM.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this SNPRM. We considered the comments received.
    American Airlines supports the proposed compliance time of 48
months for retrofit.

Request To Refer To Revised Service Information

    United Airlines (UAL) and Virgin America asked that the NPRM be
revised to refer to Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 29,
dated February 16, 2015. (The NPRM (80 FR 12094, March 6, 2015)
referred to Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 28, dated
September 1, 2014, as the appropriate source of service information for
replacing the pitot probes.) UAL stated that Airbus Service Bulletin
A320-34-1170, Revision 29, dated February 16, 2015, includes UAL
effectivity, as well as all A320 family airplanes fitted with Thales
Pitot Probes. Virgin America stated that Airbus Service Bulletin A320-
34-1170, Revision 28, dated September 1, 2014, is available only to
select operators who previously purchased the change; Airbus Service
Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 29, dated February 16, 2015, is
available to all operators with airplanes having Thales pitot probes
installed. American Airlines (AAL) asked that we refer to Airbus
Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 30, which is scheduled for
release in the near future. AAL added that the effectivity in Airbus
Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 28, dated September 1, 2014, is
incomplete.
    We agree to refer to Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision
30, dated June 18, 2015, for the pitot probe replacement. Airbus
Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 30, dated June 18, 2015, was
issued to update the operator list and related information in the
effectivity, and does not include additional work. We have changed
paragraph (g) of this SNPRM to refer to Airbus Service Bulletin A320-
34-1170, Revision 30, dated June 18, 2015. In addition, to give credit
for using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 28, dated
September 1, 2014, and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision
29, dated February 16, 2015, we added new paragraphs (i)(1)(xxv) and
(i)(1)(xxvi) to this SNPRM.

Request To Reduce the Compliance Time

    The Airline Pilots Association International (ALPA) asked that the
compliance time for replacement of the pitot probes, as specified in
paragraph (g) of the proposed AD (80 FR 12094, March 6, 2015), be
reduced to 24 months or less. ALPA stated that it recognizes the
potential flight safety risk of operating an airplane with reduced
controllability characteristics, which justifies reducing the
compliance time.
    We agree with the request to reduce the compliance time for
replacement of the pitot probes. As specified under ``Actions Since
Previous NPRM was Issued,'' we have reduced the proposed compliance
time for replacing certain pitot probes based on a risk assessment due
to additional reports of airspeed indication discrepancies while flying
at high altitudes in inclement weather. EASA has issued Airworthiness
Directive 2015-0205, dated October 9, 2015, to reduce the compliance
time for replacement of the pitot probes to 24 months. We have changed
the compliance time in paragraph (g) of this SNPRM accordingly.

Request for Clarification

    AAL stated the use of a pitot probe which meets the current icing
specification, as specified in the NPRM (80 FR 12094, March 6, 2015),
should note that a new icing specification is forthcoming. In addition,
the UTAS (formerly Goodrich) pitot probe having part number 0851HL is
built to the current specification. AAL noted that the data available
today shows that pitot probes on which the new icing requirement is met
should be available for retrofit in 2016.
    We acknowledge the commenter's statement about the NPRM proposing
the use of a pitot probe that meets the current icing airworthiness
requirements and not the new icing airworthiness requirements of
Amendment 25-140 (79 FR 65508, November 4, 2014) to 14 CFR part 25.
Since we are currently not aware of any pitot probes certified to the
new icing airworthiness requirements, this SNPRM would mandate Goodrich
pitot probes having part number 0851HL, which meet the icing
airworthiness requirements in effect at the time of establishing the
certification basis for Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series
airplanes. AAL may request approval for an alternative method of
compliance for the installation of pitot probes that meet the new
certification standards once the pitot probes are available for
installation, under the provisions of paragraph (k)(1) of this proposed
AD.
    AAL also asked the following related questions and we have provided
a response to each comment:
     What FAA activities are scheduled with suppliers to meet
the expectations of the new icing requirement? FAA activities
associated with the new icing requirements are related to new design
modifications. At this time we are not mandating installation of pitot
probes which meet the new icing certification standards.
     Does the FAA anticipate issuing a new AD mandating a
retrofit/forward fit to the new icing requirement? We do not plan to
issue further rulemaking mandating a retrofit/forward fit to the new
icing requirement at this time.
     Would the FAA extend the compliance time if another pitot
probe supplier demonstrates compliance to the new icing requirement? We
would not extend the compliance time because this SNPRM does not
require installing pitot probes that meet the new icing requirement;
therefore, the compliance time for the installation is considered
adequate to address the unsafe condition.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This SNPRM

    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.
    Certain changes described above expand the scope of the proposed AD
(80 FR 12094, March 6, 2015). As a result, we have determined that it
is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional
opportunity for the public to comment on this SNPRM.

Explanation of ``RC'' Procedures and Tests in Service Information

    The FAA worked in conjunction with industry, under the
Airworthiness Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee
(ARC), to enhance the AD system. One enhancement was a new process for
annotating which procedures and tests in the service information are
required for compliance with an AD. Differentiating these procedures
and tests from other tasks in the service information is expected to
improve an owner's/operator's understanding of crucial AD requirements
and help provide consistent judgment in AD compliance. The procedures
and tests

identified as RC (required for compliance) in any service information
have a direct effect on detecting, preventing, resolving, or
eliminating an identified unsafe condition.
    As specified in a NOTE under the Accomplishment Instructions of
Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 30, dated June 18, 2015,
procedures and tests that are identified as RC in any service
information must be done to comply with the proposed AD. However,
procedures and 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
alternative method of compliance (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 will require approval of an AMOC.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 953 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We also estimate that it would take about 4 work-hours per product
to comply with the new basic requirements of this proposed AD. The
average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost
about $21,930 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost
of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $21,223,310, or $22,270 per
product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this 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-2015-0250; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-
216-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by January 22, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2004-03-33, Amendment 39-13477 (69 FR 9936,
March 3, 2004).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs
(c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4) of this AD, certificated in any
category, all manufacturer serial numbers.
    (1) Airbus Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.
    (2) Airbus Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132,
and -133 airplanes.
    (3) Airbus Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233
airplanes.
    (4) Airbus Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231,
and -232 airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 34, Navigation.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of airspeed indication
discrepancies while flying at high altitudes in inclement weather.
We are issuing this AD to prevent airspeed indication discrepancies
during inclement weather, which, depending on the prevailing
altitude, could lead to unknown accumulation of ice crystals and
consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Replacement of Certain Pitot Probes on the Captain, First Officer,
and Standby Sides

    Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD: Replace
any Thales pitot probe having part number (P/N) C16195AA or P/N
C16195BA, with a Goodrich pitot probe having P/N 0851HL, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 30, dated June 18, 2015.
Accomplishing the replacement in this paragraph terminates the
requirements of paragraph (f) of AD 2004-03-33, Amendment 39-13477
(69 FR 9936, March 3, 2004), for that airplane only.

(h) Optional Methods of Compliance for Replacement Required by
Paragraph (g) of This AD

    (1) Replacement of the pitot probes in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1456,
Revision 01, dated May 15, 2012 (pitot probes on the captain and
standby sides); and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1463, Revision
01, dated May 15, 2012 (pitot probes on the first officer side); is
an acceptable method of compliance with the requirements of
paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (2) Airplanes on which Airbus Modification 25578 was embodied in
production, except for post-modification 25578 airplanes on which
Airbus Modification 155737 (installation of Thales pitot probes) was
also embodied in production, are compliant with the requirements of
paragraph (g) of this AD, provided it can be conclusively determined
that no Thales pitot probe having P/N C16195AA, P/N C16195BA, or P/N
50620-10 has been installed since the date of issuance of the
original certificate of airworthiness or the date of issuance of the
original export certificate of airworthiness. Post-modification
25578 airplanes on which Airbus Modification 155737 (installation of
Thales pitot probes) was also embodied in production must be in
compliance with the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using the service

information identified in paragraph (i)(1)(i) through (i)(1)(xxvi)
of this AD. This service information is not incorporated by
reference in this AD.
    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 04, dated May
24, 2000.
    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 05, dated
September 11, 2000.
    (iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 06, dated
October 18, 2001.
    (iv) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 07, dated
December 4, 2001.
    (v) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 08, dated
January 15, 2003.
    (vi) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 09, dated
February 17, 2003.
    (vii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 10, dated
November 21, 2003.
    (viii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 11, dated
August 18, 2004.
    (ix) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 12, dated
December 2, 2004.
    (x) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 13, dated
January 18, 2005.
    (xi) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 14, dated
April 21, 2005.
    (xii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 15, dated
July 19, 2005.
    (xiii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 16, dated
November 23, 2006.
    (xiv) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 17, dated
February 14, 2007.
    (xv) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 18, dated
October 9, 2009.
    (xvi) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 19, dated
November 9, 2009.
    (xvii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 20, dated
December 1, 2010.
    (xviii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 21, dated
March 24, 2011.
    (xix) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 22, dated
July 19, 2011.
    (xx) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 23, dated
February 3, 2012.
    (xxi) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 24, dated
April 12, 2012.
    (xxii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 25, dated
September 4, 2012.
    (xxiii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 26, dated
September 16, 2013.
    (xxiv) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 27, dated
March 18, 2014.
    (xxv) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 28, dated
September 1, 2014.
    (xxvi) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 29, dated
February 16, 2015.
    (2) This paragraph provides credit for the replacement of pitot
probes on the captain and standby sides specified in paragraph
(h)(1) of this AD, if the replacement was performed before the
effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-
1456, dated December 2, 2009, which is not incorporated by reference
in this AD.
    (3) This paragraph provides credit for the replacement of pitot
probes on the first officer side as specified in paragraph (h)(1) of
this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date
of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1463, dated March
9, 2010, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(j) Parts Installation Limitations

    (1) At the applicable time specified in paragraph (j)(1)(i) or
(j)(1)(ii) of this AD: No person may install on any airplane a
Thales pitot probe having P/N C16195AA or P/N C16195BA.
    (i) For airplanes with a Thales pitot probe having P/N C16195AA
or P/N C16195BA installed: After accomplishing the replacement
required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (ii) For airplanes without a Thales pitot probe having P/N
C16195AA or P/N C16195BA installed: As of the effective date of this
AD.
    (2) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install
on any airplane a Thales pitot probe having part number P/N 50620-
10.

(k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, 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 International Branch, send it to ATTN: Sanjay
Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information may be
emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office. The
AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (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
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): 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.

(l) Related Information

    (1) Refer to EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0205, dated
October 9, 2015, 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-2015-0250.
    (2) 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_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 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 November 25, 2015.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-30821 Filed 12-22-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 64 (Wednesday, April 3, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20103-20104]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07765]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1064; FRL-9797-6]

Radiation Protection Guidance for Diagnostic and Interventional
X-Ray Procedures

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is
announcing the availability of, and soliciting public comments for 60
days, on Radiation Protection Guidance for Diagnostic and
Interventional X-Ray Procedures. This document is Federal Guidance
Report No. 14. It replaces Federal Guidance Report No. 9, ``Radiation
Protection Guidance for Diagnostic X-rays,'' which was released in
October 1976. The recommendations contained in this report represent
consensus judgment of an interagency Medical Work Group for the
practice of diagnostic and interventional imaging by Federal agencies.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 3, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-1064, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the online instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email: to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
     Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Attn: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-1064. The agency's policy is that all comments received will
be included in the public docket without change and may be made
available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available electronically at
www.regulations.gov. As provided in EPA's regulations at 40 CFR Part 2,
and in accordance with normal EPA docket procedures, if copies of any
docket materials are requested, a reasonable fee may be charged for
photocopying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Boyd, Radiation Protection
Division, Mail Code 6608J, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC, 20460; telephone number: 202-343-
9395; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI information to EPA through
www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI

information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside
of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within
the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI). In
addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background

    This document is Federal Guidance Report No. 14 (FGR 14),
``Radiation Protection Guidance for Diagnostic and Interventional X-ray
Procedures.'' It replaces Federal Guidance Report No. 9, ``Radiation
Protection Guidance for Diagnostic X-rays,'' which was released in
October 1976. Federal Guidance reports were initiated under the Federal
Radiation Council (FRC), which was formed in 1959, through Executive
Order 10831. A decade later its functions were transferred to the
Administrator of the newly formed Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
as part of Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970. Under these authorities
it is the responsibility of the Administrator to ``advise the President
with respect to radiation matters, directly or indirectly affecting
health, including guidance for all Federal agencies in the formulation
of radiation standards and in the establishment and execution of
programs of cooperation with States.'' (42 U.S.C. 2021(h)) While EPA
believes that this guidance will be useful to the broader medical
community, the recommendations in FGR 14 are specifically directed to
the use of diagnostic and interventional x-rays in federal facilities.
A draft version of FGR 14 is now available for review and comment. It
can be found on the agency's Radiation Protection Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/radiation.

    Dated: March 27, 2013.
Michael P. Flynn,
Director, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air.
[FR Doc. 2013-07765 Filed 4-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P