[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 210 (Tuesday, November 1, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65719-65723]
[FR Doc No: 2022-23344]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52 and Part 81

[EPA-R09-OAR-2022-0815; FRL-10250-01-R9]

Finding of Failure To Attain and Reclassification as Serious
Nonattainment for the 2012 Annual Fine Particulate Standard: Plumas
County, California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
determine that the Plumas County nonattainment area failed to attain
the 2012 annual fine particulate matter (``PM2.5'') national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS or ``standard'') by the December
31, 2021 ``Moderate'' area attainment date. This proposed determination
is based on ambient air quality monitoring data from 2019 through 2021.
If the EPA finalizes this determination as proposed, then Clean Air Act
(CAA or ``Act'') section 188(b)(2) requires that the nonattainment area
be reclassified to Serious by operation of law. Within 18 months from
the effective date of a reclassification to Serious, the State must
submit a revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP) that complies
with the statutory and regulatory requirements for Serious
PM2.5 nonattainment areas.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by December 1, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2022-0815 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. If you need assistance in a
language other than English or if you are a person with disabilities
who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you, please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Dorantes, Air Planning Office
(AIR-2), EPA Region IX,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background and Regulatory Context
    A. The 2012 Annual PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality
Standard
    B. Clean Air Act Requirements for PM2.5 Nonattainment
Areas
    C. Plumas County Designation for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
and State Implementation Plan Requirements
II. Proposed Determination and Associated Rationale
    A. Applicable Statutory and Regulatory Provisions
    B. Monitoring Network Review, Quality Assurance, and Data
Completeness
    C. The EPA's Evaluation of Attainment
III. Reclassification as Serious Nonattainment and Serious Area SIP
Requirements
    A. Reclassification as Serious and Applicable Attainment Date
    B. Clean Air Act Requirements for Serious Area Plans
IV. Summary of Our Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Regulatory Context

A. The 2012 Annual PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard

    Under section 109 of the Clean Air Act, the EPA has established
NAAQS for certain pervasive air pollutants (referred to as ``criteria
pollutants'') and conducts periodic reviews of the NAAQS to determine
whether they should be revised or whether new NAAQS should be
established. The EPA established these standards after considering
substantial evidence from numerous health studies demonstrating that
serious adverse health effects are associated with exposures to these
criteria pollutants.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For a given air pollutant ``primary'' NAAQS are those
determined by the EPA as requisite to protect the public health,
allowing an adequate margin of safety, and ``secondary'' standards
are those determined by the EPA as requisite to protect the public
welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects associated
with the presence of such air pollutant in the ambient air. See CAA
section 109(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Particulate matter includes particles with diameters that are
generally 2.5 microns or smaller (PM2.5), and particles with
diameters that are generally 10 microns or smaller (PM10).
PM2.5 can be emitted by sources directly into the atmosphere
as a solid or liquid particle (``primary PM2.5'' or ``direct
PM2.5'') or can be formed in the atmosphere (``secondary
PM2.5'') as a result of various chemical reactions among
precursor pollutants such as nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur
dioxide (SO2), volatile organic compounds (VOC), and ammonia
(NH3).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 80 FR 15340, 15342 (March 23, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Epidemiological studies have shown statistically significant
correlations between elevated PM2.5 levels and detrimental
effects to human health and

the environment. The health effects associated with PM2.5
exposure include changes in lung function resulting in the development
of respiratory symptoms, aggravation of existing respiratory
conditions, and cardiovascular disease (as indicated by increased
hospital admissions, emergency room visits, absences from school or
work, and restricted activity days), and premature mortality.
Individuals particularly sensitive to PM2.5 exposure include
older adults, people with heart and lung disease, and children.\3\
Elevated PM2.5 levels also have adverse secondary effects
such as visibility impairment and damage to vegetation and ecosystems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EPA, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter, No. EPA/
600/P-99/002aF and EPA/600/P-99/002bF, October 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 18, 1997, the EPA first established annual and 24-hour
NAAQS for PM2.5.\4\ The annual primary and secondary
standards were set to 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\)
based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5
concentrations. Then, on January 15th, 2013, in order to provide
increased protection of public health, the EPA promulgated a more
stringent annual PM2.5 NAAQS, revising the primary standard
to 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\ based on a 3-year average of annual mean
PM2.5 concentrations, while retaining the secondary standard
at 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 62 FR 38652 (July 18, 1997). In October 2006, the EPA
lowered the 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5 from 65 micrograms
per cubic meter ([mu]g/m3) to 35 [mu]g/m3. 71
FR 61144 (October 17, 2006).
    \5\ 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013) and 40 CFR 50.18. Unless
otherwise noted, all references to the PM2.5 NAAQS in
this document are to the 2012 annual NAAQS of 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\,
codified at 40 CFR 50.18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Clean Air Act Requirements for PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas

    The CAA requires states to develop a SIP that provides generally
for the attainment, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. In
addition, the CAA requires states to make a specific type of SIP
submittal, a nonattainment plan submittal, that imposes additional
controls for purposes of attaining the PM2.5 NAAQS, to
achieve reductions of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor
emissions.
    The general CAA part D nonattainment area planning requirements are
found in subpart 1 and the nonattainment area planning requirements
specific to particulate matter are found in subpart 4. The subpart 1
statutory requirements for attainment plans include the following: the
section 172(c)(1) requirements for reasonably available control
measures (RACM)/reasonably available control technology (RACT) and
attainment demonstrations; the section 172(c)(2) requirement to
demonstrate reasonable further progress (RFP); the section 172(c)(3)
requirement for emissions inventories; the section 172(c)(5)
requirements for a nonattainment new source review (NNSR) permitting
program; and the section 172(c)(9) requirement for contingency
measures.
    The more specific subpart 4 statutory requirements for Moderate
PM2.5 nonattainment areas include the following: the section
189(a)(1)(A) NNSR permit program requirements; the section 189(a)(1)(B)
requirements for attainment demonstrations; the section 189(a)(1)(C)
requirements for RACM; the section 189(c) requirements for RFP and
quantitative milestones; and the section 189(e) requirement for
controls on sources of particulate matter precursors.
    Under subpart 4, states with Moderate PM2.5
nonattainment areas must provide for attainment in the area as
expeditiously as practicable but no later than the end of the sixth
calendar year after designation. For the 2012 PM2.5 annual
NAAQS, this date is December 31, 2021. In addition, under subpart 4,
direct PM2.5 and all precursors to the formation of
PM2.5 are subject to control unless the EPA approves a
demonstration from the state establishing that a given precursor does
not contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed the
PM2.5 NAAQS in the area.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 40 CFR 51.1006 and 51.1009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To implement the PM2.5 NAAQS, the EPA has also
promulgated the ``Fine Particle Matter National Ambient Air Quality
Standard: State Implementation Plan Requirements; Final Rule''
(``PM2.5 Implementation Rule'').\7\ The PM2.5
Implementation Rule provides additional regulatory requirements and
guidance applicable to attainment plan submittals for the
PM2.5 NAAQS, including the 2012 annual PM2.5
NAAQS at issue in this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 81 FR 58010 (August 24, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Plumas County Designation for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and State
Implementation Plan Requirements

    Following promulgation of new or revised NAAQS, the EPA is required
under CAA section 107(d) to designate regions throughout the nation as
attaining or not attaining these NAAQS. Those regions found not to be
attaining the NAAQS are also given a classification that describes the
degree of nonattainment. Under subpart 4 of part D of title I of the
CAA, the EPA designates areas found to be violating the
PM2.5 NAAQS, and areas that contribute to such violations,
as nonattainment and classifies them initially as Moderate
nonattainment areas.
    Effective January 15, 2015, the EPA designated a portion of Plumas
County as a Moderate nonattainment area (``Portola nonattainment
area'') for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS based on ambient monitoring
data that showed the area was above the 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\ primary
standard for the 3-year 2011-2013 monitoring period.\8\ For this 2011-
2013 monitoring period, the annual PM2.5 design value \9\
for the Portola nonattainment area was 12.8 [mu]g/m\3\ from readings at
the Portola PM2.5 monitoring site.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 80 FR 2206 (January 15, 2015).
    \9\ A design value is the 3-year average NAAQS metric that is
compared to the NAAQS level to determine when a monitoring site
meets or does not meet the NAAQS. The specific methodologies for
calculating whether the annual PM2.5 NAAQS is met at each
eligible monitoring site in an area are found in 40 CFR part 50,
Appendix N, section 4.1.
    \10\ From 2000 through early 2013, the Portola PM2.5
monitoring site was located at 161 Nevada Street. In 2013, the site
was relocated to 420 Gulling Street where it remains to date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This Moderate nonattainment designation and classification required
the state of California to submit an attainment plan for the Portola
nonattainment area, in accordance with the requirements of CAA sections
172(c) and 189(a), (c), and (e), demonstrating attainment of the NAAQS
as expeditiously as practical but no later than the end of the sixth
calendar year following the designation, or December 31, 2021, which is
the latest permissible attainment date under CAA section 188(c)(2).
    Under state law, the local air district with the primary
responsibility for developing a plan to attain the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS in this area is the Northern Sierra Air Quality
Management District (NSAQMD or ``District''). The District worked with
the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in preparing the plan. On
February 28, 2017, California submitted the ``Portola Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5) Attainment Plan'' (``Portola PM2.5
Plan'') to address the CAA's Moderate nonattainment area requirements
for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. On March 25, 2019, the EPA
fully approved the Portola PM2.5 Plan, except for the
contingency measure elements.\11\ California later submitted a revision
to Portola PM2.5 Plan (``PM2.5 Plan Revision''),
which included a contingency measure adopted in an ordinance by the
City of Portola.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 84 FR 11208 (March 25, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 2, 2021, the EPA took final action to approve the
PM2.5 Plan

Revision.\12\ We also found that the contingency measure element of the
Portola PM2.5 Plan, as revised and supplemented by the
Proposed PM2.5 Plan Revision, satisfied the requirements for
contingency measures in CAA section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014 for
purposes of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in the Portola
nonattainment area.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 86 FR 12263 (March 3, 2021).
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Proposed Determination and Associated Rationale

A. Applicable Statutory and Regulatory Provisions

    Sections 179(c)(1) and 188(b)(2) of the CAA require the EPA to
determine whether a PM2.5 nonattainment area attained by the
applicable attainment date, based on the area's air quality ``as of the
attainment date.'' Generally, this determination of whether an area's
air quality meets the PM2.5 standard(s) is based upon the
most recent three years of complete, certified data gathered at
eligible monitoring sites in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.\14\ The
requirements of 40 CFR part 58 include quality assurance procedures for
monitor operation and data handling, siting parameters for instruments
or instrument probes, and minimum ambient air quality monitoring
network requirements. State, local, or tribal agencies operating air
monitoring sites, in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, must enter the
ambient air quality data and associated quality assurance data from
these sites into the EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) database.\15\ These
monitoring agencies certify annually that these data are accurate to
the best of their knowledge, taking into consideration the quality
assurance findings.\16\ Accordingly, the EPA relies primarily on AQS
data when determining the attainment status of an area. In determining
whether data are suitable for regulatory determinations, the EPA uses a
``weight of evidence'' approach, considering the requirements of 40 CFR
part 58, Appendix A ``in combination with other data quality
information, reports, and similar documentation that demonstrate
overall compliance with Part 58.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N, section 3.0.
    \15\ 40 CFR 58.16. AQS is the EPA's national repository of
ambient air quality data.
    \16\ 40 CFR 58.15(a).
    \17\ 40 CFR part 58, Appendix A, section 1.2.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2012 primary annual PM2.5 standard is met when the
three year average of the annual arithmetic mean concentration, as
determined in accordance with 40 CFR part 50 appendix N, is less than
or equal to 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\ at each eligible monitoring site.\18\ For
the annual PM2.5 standard, eligible monitoring sites are
those monitoring stations that meet the criteria specified in 40 CFR
58.11 and 58.30, and thus are approved for comparison to the annual
PM2.5 NAAQS.\19\ Three years of valid annual means are
required to produce a valid annual PM2.5 NAAQS design
value.\20\ Data completeness requirements for a given year are met when
at least 75 percent of the scheduled sampling days for each quarter
have valid data.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 40 CFR 50.18(b); 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N, section
4.1(a).
    \19\ 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N, section 1.0(c).
    \20\ 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N, section 4.1(b).
    \21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Monitoring Network Review, Quality Assurance, and Data Completeness

    CARB is the governmental agency with the primary authority and
responsibility under the State's laws for collecting ambient air
quality data for the Portola nonattainment area. The Portola monitoring
site (AQS ID: 06-063-1010) is the only regulatory PM2.5
monitoring site in the Portola nonattainment area and is operated by
CARB. CARB submits annual monitoring network plans to the EPA
documenting the status of CARB's air monitoring network, as required
under 40 CFR 58.10.\22\ The EPA reviews these annual network plans for
compliance with specific requirements in 40 CFR part 58. With respect
to the Portola nonattainment area, we have found that the annual
network plans submitted by CARB meet these requirements under 40 CFR
part 58, including minimum monitoring requirements.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ We have included copies of CARB's annual monitoring network
plans for 2019-2021 in our docket.
    \23\ We have included our reviews of CARB's annual monitoring
network plans and the correspondence transmitting these reviews in
our docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with 40 CFR 58.15, CARB certifies annually that the
previous year's ambient concentration and quality assurance data are
completely submitted to AQS and that the ambient concentration data are
accurate, taking into consideration the quality assurance findings.\24\
Along with the certification letters, CARB submits a summary of the
precision and accuracy data for all ambient air quality data.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ We have included CARB's annual data certifications for
2019, 2020, and 2021 in our docket.
    \25\ See 40 CFR 58.15(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Design Value Report also includes a validity indicator that
reflects whether the design value is valid (i.e., calculated using data
that meet the applicable completeness criteria). For the purposes of
this proposal, we reviewed the data for the 2019-2021 period for
completeness and determined that the PM2.5 data collected by
CARB met the 75 percent completeness criterion for all 12 quarters at
the Portola monitoring site.
    Finally, the EPA conducts regular technical systems audits (TSAs)
where we review and inspect state and local ambient air monitoring
programs to assess compliance with applicable regulations concerning
the collection, analysis, validation, and reporting of ambient air
quality data. For the purposes of this proposal, we reviewed the
findings from the EPA's 2018 TSA of CARB's ambient air monitoring
program.\26\ None of the findings from the 2018 TSA were cause for
invalidation of any data from the Portola PM2.5 monitoring
site.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ EPA Region 9, Technical Systems Audit of the Ambient Air
Monitoring Program: California Air Resources Board, September-
December 2018 (Final Report dated January 2020).
    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, based on the relevant monitoring network plans,
certifications, and 2018 TSA, we propose to find that the
PM2.5 data collected at the Portola monitoring site are
suitable for determining whether the Portola nonattainment area
attained the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date.

C. The EPA's Evaluation of Attainment

    Table 1 provides the 2021 PM2.5 design value from the
regulatory monitor within the Portola nonattainment area, expressed as
a single design value representing the average of the annual mean
values from the 2019-2021 period; the annual mean for each individual
year is also listed. The PM2.5 data show that the design
value at the Portola monitoring site was 16.5 [mu]g/m\3\, which exceeds
the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\.
Consequently, the EPA proposes to determine based upon three years of
complete, quality-assured and certified data from 2019 through 2021,
that the Portola nonattainment area did not attain the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of December
31, 2021.

                                     Table 1--2019-2021 Annual PM2.5 Design Value for the Portola Nonattainment Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Annual weighted mean ([mu]g/m\3\)           2019-2021 annual
                       Monitoring site                            AQS site ID #   ---------------------------------------------------    design value
                                                                                2019             2020             2021          ([mu]g/m\3\)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Portola......................................................        06-063-1010             12.2             20.9             16.5                16.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: EPA AQS Design Value Report, AMP480, dated August 10, 2022. (User ID: JCARLSTAD, Report Request ID: 2039270).

III. Reclassification as Serious Nonattainment and Serious Area SIP
Requirements

A. Reclassification as Serious and Applicable Attainment Date

    In accordance with section 188(b)(1) of the Act, the EPA is
proposing to reclassify the Portola nonattainment area from Moderate to
Serious for the 2012 annual PM2.5 standard, based on the
determination that the area did not attain the standard by the
applicable attainment date.
    Under section 188(c)(2) of the Act, the attainment date for a
Serious area ``shall be as expeditiously as practicable but no later
than the end of the tenth calendar year beginning after the area's
designation as nonattainment . . .'' The EPA designated Plumas County
as nonattainment for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS effective January
15, 2015. Therefore, upon reclassification to Serious, the latest
permissible attainment date under section 188(c)(2) of the Act for the
purposes of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in the Portola
nonattainment area, will be December 31, 2025.
    Under section 188(e) of the Act, a state may apply to the EPA for a
single extension of the Serious area attainment date of up to five
additional years, which the EPA may grant if the state satisfies
certain statutory conditions. Before the EPA may extend the attainment
date for a Serious area under section 188(e), the state must: (1) Apply
for an extension of the attainment date beyond the statutory attainment
date; (2) demonstrate that attainment by the statutory attainment date
is impracticable; (3) demonstrate that it has complied with all
requirements and commitments pertaining to the area in the
implementation plan; (4) demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Administrator that the plan for the area includes the most stringent
measures that are included in the implementation plan of any state or
are achieved in practice in any state, and can feasibly be implemented
in the area; and (5) submit a demonstration of attainment by the most
expeditious alternative date practicable.

B. Clean Air Act Requirements for Serious Area Plans

    Upon reclassification of the Portola nonattainment area to Serious
for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, California will be required to
submit an additional SIP revision to satisfy the statutory requirements
that apply to Serious PM2.5 nonattainment areas, including
the requirements of subpart 4 of part D, title I of the Act and 40 CFR
part 51, subpart Z. Pursaunt to CAA section 189(b)(2), this SIP
revision will be due 18 months from the effective date of the final
reclassification to Serious.
    The Serious area SIP elements that California will be required to
submit are as follows:
    1. Provisions to assure that the best available control measures,
including the best available control technology for stationary sources,
for the control of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5
precursors shall be implemented no later than four years after the area
is reclassified (CAA section 189(b)(1)(B));
    2. a demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the plan
provides for attainment as expeditiously as practicable but not later
than December 31, 2025, or where the state is seeking an extension of
the attainment date under section 188(e), a demonstration that
attainment by December 31, 2025 is impracticable and that the plan
provides for attainment by the most expeditious alternative date
practicable and not later than December 31, 2030 (CAA sections
189(b)(1)(A), 188(c)(2), and 188(e));
    3. plan provisions that require RFP (CAA section 172(c)(2));
    4. quantitative milestones that are to be achieved every three
years until the area is redesignated to attainment and that demonstrate
RFP toward attainment by the applicable date (CAA section 189(c));
    5. provisions to assure that control requirements applicable to
major stationary sources of PM2.5 also apply to major
stationary sources of PM2.5 precursors, except where the
state demonstrates to the EPA's satisfaction that such sources do not
contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed the
standard in the area (CAA section 189(e));
    6. a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions
from all sources of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors in
the area (CAA section 172(c)(3));
    7. contingency measures to be implemented if the area fails to meet
RFP (including quantitative milestones and related reports) or to
attain by the applicable attainment date (CAA section 172(c)(9)); and
    8. a revision to the NNSR program to lower the applicable ``major
stationary source'' \28\ thresholds from 100 tpy to 70 tpy (CAA section
189(b)(3)) and to satisfy the subpart 4 requirements for major
stationary sources of PM2.5 precursors (CAA section 189(e)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ For any Serious area, the terms ``major source'' and
``major stationary source'' include any stationary source that emits
or has the potential to emit at least 70 tpy of PM10 (CAA
sections 189(b)(3)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Summary of Our Proposed Action

    In accordance with section 188(b)(2) of the CAA, the EPA is
proposing to determine that the Portola Moderate nonattainment area did
not attain the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by its applicable
attainment date of December 31, 2021. Our proposed determination that
the Portola nonattainment area failed to attain the PM2.5
NAAQS is based on complete, quality-assured, and certified
PM2.5 monitoring data for the 2019-2021 period.
    If we finalize our action as proposed, the Portola nonattainment
area will be reclassified as a Serious PM2.5 nonattainment
area by operation of law pursuant to CAA section 188(b)(2) and will be
subject to all applicable Serious area requirements, as outlined in
section III.B. Under CAA sections 188(c)(2), the Serious area
attainment date for the Portola nonattainment area will be as
expeditiously as practicable but no later than December 31, 2025, ten
years after the area's designation to nonattainment.
    The EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in
this document. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal
until December 1, 2022 and will consider comments before taking final
action.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be

found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review, and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and therefore
was not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the PRA because it does not contain any information
collection activities.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This
proposed action, if finalized, would require the state to adopt and
submit SIP revisions to satisfy CAA requirements and would not itself
directly regulate any small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate of $100 million
or more, as described in UMRA (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action itself
imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments,
or the private sector. This action proposes to determine that the
Portola nonattainment area failed to attain the NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date. If finalized, this determination would trigger
existing statutory timeframes for the state to submit a SIP revision.
Such a determination in and of itself does not impose any federal
intergovernmental mandate.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. As there are no federally recognized tribes
within the Portola nonattainment area,\29\ the proposed finding of
failure to attain the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS does not apply
to tribal areas, and the proposed rule would not impose a burden on
Indian reservation lands or other areas where the EPA or an Indian
tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction within the Portola
nonattainment area. Thus, this proposed rule does not have tribal
implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order
13175.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Map of Federally-Recognized Tribes in EPA's Pacific
Southwest (Region 9) is available at https://www.epa.gov/tribal-pacific-sw/map-federally-recognized-tribes-epas-pacific-southwest-region-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This proposed action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because the effect of this proposed
action, if finalized, would be to trigger additional planning
requirements under the CAA. This proposed action does not establish an
environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.

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

    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because
it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 establishes federal executive policy on
environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to
the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make
environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the
United States. There is no information in the record indicating that
this action would be inconsistent with the stated goals of Executive
Order 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color,
low-income populations, and indigenous peoples.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Designations and classifications,
Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: October 19, 2022.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2022-23344 Filed 10-31-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: May 5, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 87)]
[Notices]
[Page 26573-26574]
[DOCID:fr05my06-137]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53733; File No. 4-208]

Intermarket Trading System; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of the Twenty Second Amendment to the ITS Plan Relating
to the Change in Name From the Cincinnati Stock Exchange, Inc., to the
National Stock Exchange and to the Admission of the NASDAQ Stock Market
LLC as an ITS Participant

April 27, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 608 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on April 19, 2006, the ITS Participants, through the ITS Operating
Committee, submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed amendment (``Twenty Second Amendment'') to
the restated ITS Plan.\3\ The purpose of the Twenty Second Amendment is
to recognize the change in name from the Cincinnati Stock Exchange,
Inc., to the National Stock Exchange and to admit the NASDAQ Stock
Market LLC as an ITS Participant. Pursuant to Rule 608(b)(3)(ii) under
the Act,\4\ the ITS Participants designated the amendment as concerned
solely with the administration of the Plan. As a result, the Twenty
Second Amendment has become effective upon filing with the
Commission.\5\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
amendment, the Commission may summarily abrogate the amendment and
require that such amendment be refiled in accordance with paragraph
(a)(1) of Rule 608 and reviewed in accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of
Rule 608, if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary
or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors,
or the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, to remove impediments
to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a national market system or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \2\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \3\ The ITS Plan is a National Market System (``NMS'') plan,
which was designed to facilitate intermarket trading in exchange-
listed equity securities based on current quotation information
emanating from the linked markets. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 19456 (January 27, 1983), 48 FR 4938 (February 3, 1983).
    The ITS Participants currently include the American Stock
Exchange LLC (``Amex''), the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (``BSE'');
the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. (``CBOE''); the Chicago
Stock Exchange (``CHX''), Inc., the Cincinnati Stock Exchange, Inc.
(``CSE''), the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.
(``NASD''), the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NYSE''), the
Pacific Exchange, Inc. (``PCX''), and the Philadelphia Stock
Exchange, Inc. (``Phlx'') (``Participants'').
    \4\ 17 CFR 242.608(b)(3)(ii).
    \5\ The ITS Participants initially filed the Twenty Second
Amendment on March 17, 2006. The ITS Participants amended the filing
on April 19, 2006 to designate the filing as effective on filing
pursuant to Rule 608(b)(3)(ii) under the Act and to make other
technical changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Description and Purpose of the Proposed Amendment

    The ITS Participants proposed to amend the restated ITS Plan to
recognize the change in name from the Cincinnati Stock Exchange, Inc.,
to the National Stock Exchange and to admit the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC
as an ITS Participant.

A. Governing or Constituent Documents

    Not applicable.

B. Implementation of Amendment

    The ITS Participants have manifested their approval of the proposed
amendment by means of their execution of the Twenty Second Amendment.
The Amendment has become effective upon filing.

C. Development and Implementation Phases

    Not applicable.

D. Analysis of Impact on Competition

    The Participants believe that the proposed amendment does not
impose any burden on competition.

E. Written Understanding or Agreements Relating to Interpretation of,
or Participation in, Plan

    Not applicable.

F. Approval by Sponsors in Accordance With Plan

    Under section 4(c) of the restated ITS Plan, the requisite approval
of the amendment is achieved by execution of the amendment on behalf of
each ITS Participant. The amendment is so executed.

G. Description of Operation of Facility Contemplated by the Proposed
Amendment

    Not applicable.

H. Terms and Conditions of Access

    Not applicable.

I. Method of Determination and Imposition, and Amount of, Fees and
Charges

    Not applicable.

J. Method of Frequency of Processor Evaluation

    Not applicable.

K. Dispute Resolution

    Not applicable.

II. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File No. 4-208 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File No. 4-208. This file number
should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the
Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please
use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the
Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).

Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed Plan amendment that are filed
with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the
proposed Plan amendment between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of the filing
also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal
office of the ITS. All comments received will be posted without change;
the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File No. 4-208 and
should be submitted on or before May 26, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(27).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-6780 Filed 5-4-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


Summary of Pronamide Uses ° Pronamide is a restricted use pesticide.

° It is a selective, pre emergence herbicide registered for the control of grassy and broadleaf weeds on terrestrial food crops [artichoke, blackberry, blueberry, boysenberry, cherry, endive (escarole), lettuce, nectarine, peach, pear, plum, prune, raspberry, (black, red), rhubarb]; terrestrial food and feed crops (agricultural fallow/ idleland, apples, grapes, peas, sugar beets); terrestrial nonfood crops (Christmas tree plantations, golf course turf, ornamental herbaceous plants, recreation area lawns, and outdoor residential (ornamental and/ shade trees, ornamental woody shrubs and vines).

Health Effects ° Pronamide is a liver toxicant. Other target organs include thyroid, testes, kidney, adrenal gland, thymus, heart, and brain.

° Pronamide was previously classified as a Group B2 chemical, probable human carcinogen based on thyroid follicular cell adenomas (male and female) and benign interstitial cell tumors (males) in rats and heptacelluar carcinomas in male mice.

° Carcinogenicity studies in rodents indicate two types of tumors, benign testicular interstitial cell tumors and uncommon thyroid follicular cell adenomas; and one type of tumor in the mouse, hepatocellular carcinomas.

° The cancer potency estimate for pronamide using the Q1* model is 2.59 x 10 2 (mg/ kg/ day) 1 .

FQPA Safety Factor ° A 3x FQPA Safety Factor is required for all population subgroups when assessing non occupational exposures of all durations.

Dietary Food Risk ° No appropriate toxicologic endpoint was identified for acute dietary exposure. Consequently an acute dietary risk assessment was not performed for pronamide.

° Chronic dietary risk estimates from exposure to food do not exceed the Agency's level of concern. The chronic dietary risk estimate is <1% of the cPAD, for U. S. population and for all subgroups. ° The cancer dietary risk estimate is 1.06 x 10 7 for the U. S. population, and does not exceed the Agency's level of concern (1.0 x 10 6 or one in one million). Residential Risk ° Registrant has voluntarily cancelled the residential use product.

° The registrant has agreed to limit use to turf grown for seed or sod and non residential sites including golf courses, industrial and office building sites, stadium fields or professional athletic fields. These risk mitigation measures make children's non dietary exposure unlikely. To minimize adult non occupational exposure, the registrant has agreed to amend pronamide labels to require a 24 hour restricted entry interval or require watering in as soon as possible after application.

° As a result of the risk assessment, the sole exposure scenario for the non occupational risk assessment is based on low contact activity which is represented and estimated by golf course reentry. The route of exposure is dermal. The population at risk is adults.

° The short term Margin of Exposure (MOE) for golf course reentry using zero day after treatment (DAT 0) turf transferable residue data from the turf study is 1000. Therefore, the Agency is not concerned about short term residential exposure to pronamide.

° No intermediate or long term exposure scenarios (i. e., greater than 30 days) are anticipated based on the results of the turf transferable residue (TTR) study which showed that residues dissipate to below the level of quantification by day 14 following application.

° The adult golfer cancer risk is estimated at 1.15 x 10 7 . In order to exceed the cancer risk (1.0 x 10 6 ), an exposure frequency of 8.7 days per year would be needed for the activity of golf. Because pronamide is applied one time per year, the Agency does not believe this exposure frequency will occur. Therefore, the cancer risk for golfers does not exceed the Agency's level of concern.

Drinking Water Assessment ° Short term and chronic drinking water exposure to pronamide did not result in a risk estimate of concern for non cancer risks. The short term EECs ranged between 3.7 to 10.3 ppb, depending on the crop, compared to the DWLOC which ranges from 560 to 700 ppb. The chronic non cancer EECs range between 0.53 to 4.45 ppb, depending on the crop, compared to the chronic DWLOC which ranged between 300 to 1050 ppb.

° There are cancer risk estimates which slightly exceed the Agency's level of concern. While the modeled groundwater EEC is 1.1 ppb compared to the cancer DWLOC 1.06 ppb, the modeled surface water EECs exceed the DWLOC for some crops (the surface water cancer EECs range from 0.54 to 4.3 ppb). 3 Aggregate Risk ° Risk estimates for all pathways of exposure are not of concern for pronamide short term exposure when pronamide use is restricted per the label changes cited above. The chronic aggregate risk estimates do not exceed the level of concern.

° The short term food, water, and low contact dermal (golfing) pronamide exposures were aggregated in the Risk Assessment, and the estimated environmental concentration (EECs) for surface water (3.69 to 10.3 ppb) and ground water (1.1 ppb), modeled using SCI GROW and PRZM EXAMS did not exceed the DWLOC (range 560 700 ppb). Therefore, risk estimates for all pathways of exposure are not of concern for pronamide short term exposure when pronamide use is restricted per the label changes.

° The chronic DWLOCs (300  1050 ppb) were greater than the EECs for modeled surface water (0.53  4.45 ppb), and modeled groundwater (1.1 ppb). In addition, non targeted USGS monitoring data ranged from 0.0037 to 0.365 ppb in surface water, and from 0.005  0.82 ppb in ground water. The Agency concludes the chronic aggregate risk estimates do not exceed the level of concern.

° While the modeled EECs (4.35 ppb) are slightly higher than the cancer DWLOC (1.06 ppb), the Agency is not concerned because of the conservative inputs used in the surface water modeling. The PRZM EXAMS assessment was based on the maximum label rates for pronamide, whereas typical rates for many crops are 25% 50% less. The model also assumed a Percent Crop Area (PCA) of 87%, which is likely to be an overestimate for the commodities being assessed. In addition, pronamide data exists for only one soil in the aerobic soil metabolism study. When aerobic soil metabolism data is only available in one soil, a conservative extrapolation factor is used which is likely to contribute to overestimating potential persistence and exposure. As a result, Dow AgroSciences has agreed to conduct an aerobic soil metabolism study (two additional soils) and an aerobic aquatic metabolism study as confirmatory data.

Tolerance Reassessment Summary ° Pronamide tolerances are established under 40 CFR §180.317 (a), (b) and (c). The tolerance expression, listed in (a) and (c), is in terms of the combined residues of the residues of the herbicide propyzamide and its metabolites (containing the 3, 5 dichlorobenzoyl moiety and calculated as 3, 5 dichloro N (1,1 dimethyl 2 propynyl) benzamide). The tolerance expression, listed in (b), is in terms of the parent only. The Agency recommends that the tolerance expression under (b) be modified to include the metabolites. The Agency also recommends the following: decreasing the established tolerance for artichokes, increasing the tolerances for cattle fat, goat fat, hog fat, horse fat, and sheep fat, revoking the tolerance for poultry, kidney; grass, forage and proposing a tolerance for alfalfa seed. 4 Data Requirements Most pertinent product chemistry data requirements are satisfied for technical grade active ingredients. The following information is required:

° Product Chemistry GDLN Description 860.1200 Direction for use 860.1380 Storage Stability Data ° Additional data are also required for the 51% Formulation Intermediate (FI) concerning the following:

GDLN Description 830.6314 oxidation/ reduction 830.6316 explodability 830.6317 storage stability 830.6320 corrosion characteristics The registrant must either certify that the supplier of beginning materials and the manufacturing processes have not changed since the last comprehensive product chemistry reviews or submit complete updated product chemistry data packages.

Although there is confidence in the overall scientific quality of the available toxicity data, several data gaps were identified which are required to fulfill the OPPTS harmonized test guidelines:

° Toxicity GDLN Description 870.3700 developmental study in rats 870.3200 21 day dermal toxicity study Non GDLN 28 day inhalation study 870.7600 dermal penetration study Non GDLN comparative thyroid rat assay in adult animals and offspring A review of product labels and the supporting residue chemistry data indicates the following reside, data are required:

° Residue (GDLN 860.1500 Crop Field Trials)

Description dried winter peas vines and hay of winter peas 5 ° The following label amendments are required for rotational crops lettuce, peas (winter), and alfalfa grown for seed:

GDLN Description 860.1850 Confined Accumulation in Rotational Crops 860.1900 Field Accumulation in Rotational Crops ° 30 day plant back interval for leafy vegetables (except Brassica vegetables) ° 90 day plant back interval for root and tuber vegetables ° 360 day plant back interval for cereal grains, forage and fodder, and straw of cereal grain ° Confirmatory storage stability data (GDLN 860.1380) are required for regulated pronamide metabolites on the following:

Description alfalfa apples grapes lettuce peaches plums ° A confirmatory aerobic soil metabolism study (835.4100) and the aerobic aquatic metabolism study (835.4300).

The registrant is required to further optimize/ improve the revised animal enforcement method (TR 34 91 68) to yield acceptable recoveries at a fortification level equal to established animal tolerances. Following method improvement, the registrant is required to submit bridging independent laboratory validation (ILV) data; the required ILV data should include two control samples fortified at 0.4 ppm, the reassessed tolerance level for the kidney and liver of ruminants.


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 120 (Thursday, June 21, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28772-28774]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13349]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

48 CFR Parts 1519 and 1552

[EPA-HQ-OARM-2018-0165; FRL-9979-24-OARM]

Acquisition Regulation: Removal of EPA Mentor
Prot[eacute]g[eacute] Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is taking
direct final action to amend the EPA Acquisition Regulation (EPAAR) by
removing Mentor-prot[eacute]g[eacute] clause requirement and the
corresponding provision and clause, ``Mentor Prot[eacute]g[eacute]
Program'' and ``Procedures for Participation in the EPA Mentor
Prot[eacute]g[eacute] Program''.

DATES: This final rule is effective on September 19, 2018 without
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by July 23, 2018.
If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in
the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take
effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OARM-2018-0165, at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shakethia Allen, Policy, Training, and
Oversight Division, Acquisition Policy and Training Service Center
(3802R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Executive Summary

    This direct final rule makes the following changes to 48 CFR parts
1519 and 1552: (1) Remove 1519.203, Mentor-prot[eacute]g[eacute], (2)
clause 1552.219-70, Mentor Prot[eacute]g[eacute] Program, and (3)
provision 1552.219-71, Procedures for Participation in the EPA Mentor
Prot[eacute]g[eacute] Program.

II. General Information

A. Why is EPA using a direct final rule?

    EPA is publishing this rule without a prior proposed rule because
we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse
comment. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule
will not take effect. Any parties interested in commenting must do so
at this time.

B. Does this action apply to me?

    EPAAR 1519.203 and corresponding clause and provision,
respectively, 1552.219-70 and 1552.219-71 apply to all contractors who
hold a current contract with EPA which includes these clauses.

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

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 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.

III. Background

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mentor-
Prot[eacute]g[eacute] Program was established to stimulate small
disadvantaged businesses (SDBs) and women-owned small businesses
(WOSBs) participation in Agency contracts. Prime contractors (mentors)
provide technical and managerial support to SDBs or WOSBs
subcontractors (prot[eacute]g[eacute]s).
    The Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 and the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 provided authority for the Small
Business Administration (SBA) to establish mentor-prot[eacute]g[eacute]
programs for all small businesses. Rather than creating separate
programs for each constituency--Service Disabled Veteran Owned
Businesses, Women Owned Small Businesses, Historically Underutilized
Business Zones--the SBA chose to create a single, all-inclusive mentor-
prot[eacute]g[eacute] program modeled on the successful mentor-
prot[eacute]g[eacute] program available to participants in its 8(a)
program. SBA's mentor prot[eacute]g[eacute] program is federal wide, so
EPA can use it instead of managing its own program.

EPA will use SBA's program to reduce redundancy and increase
efficiencies.

IV. Statutory and Executive Orders Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993)
and therefore, not subject to review under the E.O..

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
No information is collected under this action.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure
Act or any other statute; unless the agency certifies that the rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of
assessing the impact of this rule on small entities,''small entity''is
defined as: (1) A small business that meets the definition of a small
business found in the Small Business Act and codified at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field. After considering the economic
impacts of this rule on small entities, I certify that this action will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This action removes a current EPAAR provision and does not
impose requirements involving capital investment, implementing
procedures, or record keeping. This rule will not have a significant
economic impact on small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, Local, and Tribal
governments and the private sector. This rule contains no Federal
mandates (under the regulatory provisions of the Title II of the UMRA)
for State, Local, and Tribal governments or the private sector. The
rule imposes no enforceable duty on any State, Local or Tribal
governments or the private sector. Thus, the rule is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and Local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' This rule
does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government as specified in
Executive Order 13132.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

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

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

    Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),
applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be economically
significant as defined under Executive Order 12886, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that may have a proportionate
effect on children.
    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not
an economically significant rule as defined by Executive Order 12866,
and because it does not involve decisions on environmental health or
safety risks.

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

    This final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution or Use'' (66 FR 28335, May 22, 2001), because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA)

    Section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) of NTTAA, Public Law 104-113,
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This final
rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not
considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on
environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to
the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make
environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the
United States. EPA has determined that this final rulemaking will not
have disproportionately high and adverse

human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income
populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided
to human health or the environment. This rulemaking does not involve
human health or environmental effects.

K. Congressional Review

    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. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types
of rules (1) rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to
agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization,
procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or
obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required
to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801 because
this is a rule of agency organization, procedure, or practice that does
not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency
parties. EPA will use SBA's federal wide mentor prot[eacute]g[eacute]
program instead of managing its own program.

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 1519 and 1552

    Environmental protection, Government procurement, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses.

    Dated: May 16, 2018.
Kimberly Patrick,
Director, Office of Acquisition Management.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, 48 CFR parts 1519 and 1552
are amended as set forth below:

PART 1519--SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAMS

0
1. The authority citation for part 1519 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Sec. 205(c), 63 Stat. 390, as amended, 40 U.S.C.
486(c).

1519.203  [Removed and reserved]

0
2. Section 1519.203 is removed and reserved.

PART 1552--SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES

0
3. The authority citation for part 1552 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301 and 41 U.S.C. 418b.

1552.219-70  [Removed and reserved]

0
4. Section 1552.219-70 is removed and reserved.

1552.219-71  [Removed and reserved]

0
5. Section 1552.219-71 is removed and reserved.

[FR Doc. 2018-13349 Filed 6-20-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 184 (Friday, September 23, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 58084]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20545]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0066; FRL-10231-01-OMS]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Grain Elevators (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), NSPS for Grain Elevators (EPA ICR
Number 1130.13, OMB Control Number 2060-0082), 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 November 30, 2022. Public comments were
previously requested, via the Federal Register, on April 8, 2022 during
a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days
for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below,
including its estimated burden and cost to the public. 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.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before October 24,
2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0066, 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.
    The 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.
    Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed
information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for
Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

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: 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<PHONE_NUMBER>. For
additional information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) apply to each
affected facility at any grain terminal elevator or any grain storage
elevator. The facilities are each truck unloading station, truck
loading station, barge and ship loading station, railcar loading
station, railcar unloading station, grain dryer and all grain handling
operations that commenced construction, modification or reconstruction
after August 3, 1978. Owners or operators of the affected facilities
must make a one-time-only report of the date of construction or
reconstruction, notification of the actual date of startup,
notification of any physical or operational change to existing facility
that may increase the rate of emission of the regulated pollutant,
notification of initial performance test; and results of initial
performance test. Owners or operators are also required to maintain
records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or
malfunction, or any period during which the monitoring system is
inoperative.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Grain elevator operators.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart DD).
    Estimated number of respondents: 200 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially.
    Total estimated burden: 460 hours (per year). Burden is defined at
5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $55,000 (per year), which includes no
annualized capital/startup and/or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in burden from the
most-recently approved ICR as currently identified in the OMB Inventory
of Approved Burdens. This is due to two considerations: (1) the
regulations have not changed over the past three years and are not
anticipated to change over the next three years; and (2) the growth
rate for this industry is very low or non-existent, so there is no
significant change in the overall burden. Since there are no changes in
the regulatory requirements and there is no significant industry
growth, there are also no changes in the capital/startup and/or
operation and maintenance (O&M) costs.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2022-20545 Filed 9-22-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 24 (Tuesday, February 7, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9489-9492]
[FR Doc No: 2017-01341]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-7261; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-004-AD;
Amendment 39-18783; AD 2017-02-04]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
The Boeing Company Model 747-200B, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, and 747-
400F series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of cracking in
both the aluminum strut side skin, and corrosion resistant steel (CRES)
outer spring beam support fitting. This AD requires inspections,
related investigative and corrective actions, and a fastener
installation modification. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective March 14, 2017.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 14,
2017.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data
Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA
90740-5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this 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<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
7261.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
7261; 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 AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-
5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill Ashforth, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-
6432; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company
Model 747-200B, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, and 747-400F series
airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 21, 2016
(81 FR 40205). The NPRM was prompted by a report of cracking in both
the aluminum strut side skin, and corrosion resistant steel (CRES)
outer spring beam support fitting. The NPRM proposed to require
repetitive high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections for cracking
in the strut side skin, an open-hole HFEC inspection for cracking,
applicable related investigative and corrective actions, and a fastener
installation modification. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct
cracking of the strut side skin and spring beam support fitting; such
cracking could result in the failure of the outer spring beam support
fitting, which could cause separation of a strut and engine from the
airplane during flight.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and
the FAA's response to each comment.

Requests To Include Additional Clarification of Service Information

    Boeing, Delta Airlines (DAL), and KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (KLM)
requested that we revise paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of the proposed
AD to include Boeing Service Bulletin Information Notice 747-54A2245 IN
02, dated February 11, 2016; and Boeing Service Bulletin Information
Notice 747-54A2245 IN 03, dated May 13, 2016. The commenters all
mentioned that without the information contained in the requested
information notices, the requirements of the proposed AD cannot be
fully accomplished.
    We partially agree with the request to revise paragraphs (g), (h),
and (i) of this AD to include new information that clarifies how to
accomplish the required tasks specified in this AD. However, there is
new service information that includes the same additional information.
We have revised this AD to refer to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
54A2245, Revision 1, dated September 20, 2016, as the appropriate
source of service information to use for the actions required by this
AD. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2245, Revision 1, dated
September 20, 2016, includes additional information discovered during
validation of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2245, dated December
18, 2015. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2245, Revision 1, dated
September 20, 2016, clarifies the procedures for the fastener removal,
drill ream, and spot facing steps, and provides additional access
instructions, but does not include any new actions. Additionally, we
have added a new paragraph (j) to this AD to give credit for actions
performed before the effective date of this AD, using Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-54A2245, dated December 18, 2015. We have
redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

Request To Clarify the Unsafe Condition Statement

    Boeing requested that we revise the unsafe condition statement by
clarifying the location of the cracking. Boeing reported that cracking
has been found not only in the strut side skin, but also in the spring
beam support fitting.
    We agree with the request to clarify the unsafe condition
statement. We have revised the Discussion section of this final rule,
and paragraph (e) of this AD accordingly. The unsafe condition
statement has been removed from the SUMMARY section of this final rule.

Request To Revise the Costs of Compliance

    Boeing requested that we revise the Costs of Compliance to reflect
updated work-hours to do the inspection. Boeing specified that the
hours necessary to do the inspection were re-evaluated to be 4 work-
hours, and the new information was disclosed in Boeing Service Bulletin
Information Notice 747-54A2245 IN 01, dated December 23, 2015.
    We agree with the request, and have revised the Costs of Compliance
section of this final rule to reflect the updated work-hours.

Request To Revise Compliance Time for Repetitive Inspections

    KLM requested that we revise the compliance time for the repetitive
inspections from 500 flight cycles to 1,250 flight cycles. KLM pointed
out that during the 747 Structures Task Group meetings organized to
support strut modification, Boeing had established a design goal to
tolerate one major load path failure and still meet regulatory
requirements with a longer inspection interval. KLM also indicated that
the time required for the repetitive inspections is a large burden.
    We disagree with the request to revise the compliance time for the
repetitive inspections. In 1993, the Model 747 Structures Task Group
did not foresee this level of damage occurring. Through damage
tolerance analysis, the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) has
determined that 500 flight cycles is the maximum number of flight
cycles that provides an acceptable level of safety, and the FAA agrees
with that analysis. Additionally, as discussed previously, the OEM has
revised the time required to do the repetitive inspections from 291
work-hours to 4 work-hours in the new service information referenced
previously, reducing the burden to operators. We have not revised the

compliance time for the repetitive inspections; however, we have
revised this AD to refer to the new service information referenced
previously.

Request To Clarify How Certain Parts May Be Used for Terminating Action

    DAL requested clarification of the use of certain parts (fillers)
for the terminating action required for all airplanes. DAL pointed out
that certain parts are specifically named to include the airplane
engine model (CF6-80C2), and that this could preclude the terminating
action or lead to a non-compliant installation for airplanes with Pratt
& Whitney (PW) 4000 engines installed.
    We agree with the request for clarification because it should make
this AD easier to interpret. We have revised paragraph (h) of this AD
to specify that part numbers 321U2400-5600, 321U2400-5601, and
321U2400-5602 may be used for airplanes with General Electric CF6-80
engines and PW4000 engines.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2245, Revision 1,
dated September 20, 2016. The service information describes procedures
for repetitive HFEC inspections for cracking in the strut side skin, an
open-hole HFEC inspection for cracking, applicable related
investigative and corrective actions, and a fastener installation
modification. 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.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 320 airplanes of U.S. registry. We
estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost        Parts cost      Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection.......................  4 work-hours x $85               $0  $340 per inspection  $108,800 per
                                    per hour = $340                      cycle.               inspection cycle.
                                    per inspection
                                    cycle.
Modification.....................  Up to 490 work-              56,414  Up to $98,064......  Up to $31,380,480.
                                    hours x $85 per
                                    hour = $41,650.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2017-02-04 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18783; Docket No. FAA-
2016-7261; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-004-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective March 14, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-200B, 747-300,
747-400, 747-400D, and 747-400F series airplanes, certificated in
any category, equipped with General Electric (GE) CF6-80 series
engines or Pratt & Whitney PW4000 series engines; as identified in
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2245, Revision 1, dated
September 20, 2016.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 54; Nacelles/
pylons.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of cracking in both the
aluminum strut side skin, and corrosion resistant steel (CRES) outer
spring beam support fitting. We are issuing this AD to detect and
correct cracking of the strut side skin and spring beam support
fitting; such cracking could result in

the failure of the outer spring beam support fitting, which could
cause separation of a strut and engine from the airplane during
flight.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Repetitive Inspections

    Except as provided by paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD,
at the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2245,
Revision 1, dated September 20, 2016, do a surface high frequency
eddy current (HFEC) inspection for cracking of the strut side skin,
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-54A2245, Revision 1, dated September 20, 2016,
except as required by paragraph (i)(3) of this AD. Repeat the
inspection thereafter at the applicable times specified in paragraph
1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2245,
Revision 1, dated September 20, 2016, until the actions required by
paragraph (h) of this AD are done. If any cracking is found, do the
actions specified in paragraph (h) of this AD before further flight.

(h) Terminating Actions

    Within the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph
1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2245,
Revision 1, dated September 20, 2016, except as provided by
paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD: Do a fastener hole open-
hole HFEC inspection for cracking, applicable related investigative
and corrective actions, and a fastener installation modification, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-54A2245, Revision 1, dated September 20, 2016,
except as required by paragraph (i)(3) of this AD. Do all applicable
related investigative and corrective actions before further flight.
Part numbers 321U2400-5600, 321U2400-5601, and 321U2400-5602 may be
used for modification of airplanes with GE CF6-80 engines and PW4000
engines. Doing the actions required by this paragraph terminates the
repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

(i) Exceptions to Service Information

    (1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2245, Revision 1,
dated September 20, 2016, specifies a compliance time ``after the
original issue date of this service bulletin,'' this AD requires
compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective
date of this AD.
    (2) The Condition column in table 1 and table 2 of paragraph
1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2245,
Revision 1, dated September 20, 2016, refers to total flight cycles
``at the original issue date of this service bulletin.'' This AD,
however, applies to the airplanes with the specified total flight
cycles as of the effective date of this AD.
    (3) Although Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2245, Revision
1, dated September 20, 2016, specifies to contact Boeing for repair
instructions, and specifies that action as ``RC'' (Required for
Compliance), this AD requires repair before further flight using a
method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (k) of this AD.

(j) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in
paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed
before the effective date of this AD, using Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-54A2245, dated December 18, 2015.

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
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 ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the
Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. To be approved, the
repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) Except as required by paragraph (i)(3) of this AD, for
service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required
for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (k)(4)(i) and
(k)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step
and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply
with the AD. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps,
including substeps and identified figures.
    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted
methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection
program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC
steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done
as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition.

(l) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Bill Ashforth,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle ACO,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (m)(3) and (m)(4) of this AD.

(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2245, Revision 1, dated
September 20, 2016.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For Boeing service information identified in this AD,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data
Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA
90740-5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) 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
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 12, 2017.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-01341 Filed 2-6-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P