[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 238 (Thursday, December 11, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73690-73693]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29070]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0442]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and
Seizure Disorders

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to grant requests from 9
individuals for exemptions from the regulatory requirement that
interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers have ``no established
medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other
condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of
ability to control a CMV.'' The regulation and the associated advisory
criteria published in the Code of Federal Regulations as the
``Instructions for Performing and Recording Physical Examinations''
have resulted in numerous drivers being prohibited from operating CMVs
in interstate commerce based on the fact that they have had one or more
seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication, rather than an
individual analysis of their circumstances by a qualified medical
examiner. The Agency concluded that granting exemptions for these CMV
drivers will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater
than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions. FMCSA
grants exemptions that will allow these 9 individuals to operate CMVs
in interstate commerce for a 2-year period. The exemptions preempt
State laws and regulations and may be renewed.

DATES: The exemptions are effective December 11, 2014. The exemptions
expire on December 12, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine M. Papp, Division Chief,
Physical Qualifications, Office of Medical Programs,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office
hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at: http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and/or Room W12-140 on the
ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

B. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the safety regulations for a 2-year period if it finds ``such
exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to
or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such
exemption.'' The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at
the end of the 2-year period.
    FMCSA grants 9 individuals an exemption from the regulatory
requirement in Sec.  391.41(b)(8), to allow these individuals who take
anti-seizure medication to operate CMVs in interstate commerce for a 2-
year period. The Agency's decision on these exemption applications is
based on an individualized assessment of each applicant's medical
information, including the root cause of the respective seizure(s), the
length of time elapsed since the individual's last seizure, and each
individual's treatment regimen. In addition, the Agency reviewed each
applicant's driving record found in the Commercial Driver's License
Information System (CDLIS) \1\ for commercial driver's license (CDL)
holders, and interstate and intrastate inspections recorded in Motor
Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS).\2\ For non-CDL holders,
the Agency reviewed the driving records from the State licensing
agency. The Agency acknowledges the potential consequences of a driver
experiencing a seizure while operating a CMV. However, the Agency
believes the drivers covered by the exemptions granted here have
demonstrated that they are unlikely to have a seizure and their medical
condition does not pose a risk to public safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Commercial Driver License Information System (CDLIS) is an
information system that allows the exchange of commercial driver
licensing information among all the States. CDLIS includes the
databases of fifty-one licensing jurisdictions and the CDLIS Central
Site, all connected by a telecommunications network.
    \2\ Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS) is an
information system that captures data from field offices through
SAFETYNET, CAPRI, and other sources. It is a source for FMCSA
inspection, crash, compliance review, safety audit, and registration
data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In reaching the decision to grant these exemption requests, the
Agency considered both current medical literature and information and
the 2007 recommendations of the Agency's Medical Expert Panel (MEP).
The Agency previously gathered evidence for potential changes to the
regulation at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) by conducting a comprehensive review
of scientific literature that was compiled into the ``Evidence Report
on Seizure Disorders and Commercial Vehicle Driving'' (Evidence Report)
[CD-ROM HD TL230.3 .E95 2007]. The Agency then convened a panel of
medical experts in the field of neurology (the MEP) on May 14-15, 2007,
to review 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) and the advisory criteria regarding
individuals who have experienced a seizure, and the 2007 Evidence
Report. The Evidence Report and the MEP recommendations are published
on-line at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/topics/mep/mep-reports.htm, under Seizure Disorders, and are in the docket for this
notice.

MEP Criteria for Evaluation

    On October 15, 2007, the MEP issued the following recommended
criteria for evaluating whether an individual with epilepsy or a
seizure disorder should be allowed to operate a CMV.\3\ The MEP
recommendations are included in previously published dockets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Engel, J., Fisher, R.S., Krauss, G.L., Krumholz, A., and
Quigg, M.S., ``Expert Panel Recommendations: Seizure Disorders and
Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Safety,'' FMCSA, October 15, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Epilepsy diagnosis. If there is an epilepsy diagnosis, the
applicant should be seizure-free for 8 years, on or off medication. If
the individual is taking anti-seizure medication(s), the plan for
medication should be stable for 2 years. Stable means no changes in
medication, dosage, or frequency of medication administration.
Recertification for drivers with an epilepsy diagnosis should be
performed every year.
    Single unprovoked seizure. If there is a single unprovoked seizure
(i.e., there is no known trigger for the seizure), the individual
should be seizure-free for 4 years, on or off medication. If the
individual is taking anti-seizure medication(s), the plan for
medication should be stable for 2 years. Stable means no changes in
medication, dosage, or frequency of medication administration.
Recertification for drivers with a single unprovoked seizure should be
performed every 2 years.
    Single provoked seizure. If there is a single provoked seizure
(i.e., there is a known reason for the seizure), the Agency should
consider specific criteria that fall into the following two categories:
Low-risk factors for recurrence and moderate-to-high risk factors for
recurrence.
     Examples of low-risk factors for recurrence include
seizures that were caused by a medication; by non-penetrating head
injury with loss of consciousness less than or equal to 30 minutes; by
a brief loss of consciousness not likely to recur while driving; by
metabolic derangement not likely to recur; and by alcohol or illicit
drug withdrawal.
     Examples of moderate-to-high-risk factors for recurrence
include seizures caused by non-penetrating head injury with loss of
consciousness or amnesia greater than 30 minutes, or penetrating head
injury; intracerebral hemorrhage associated with a stroke or trauma;
infections; intracranial hemorrhage; post-operative complications from
brain surgery with significant brain hemorrhage; brain tumor; or
stroke.
    The MEP report indicates individuals with moderate to high-risk
conditions should not be certified. Drivers with a history of a single
provoked seizure with low risk factors for recurrence should be
recertified every year.

Medical Review Board Recommendations and Agency Decision

    FMCSA presented the MEP's findings and the Evidence Report to the
Medical Review Board (MRB) for consideration. The MRB reviewed and
considered the 2007 ``Seizure Disorders and Commercial Driver Safety''
evidence report and the 2007 MEP recommendations. The MRB recommended
maintaining the current advisory criteria, which provide that ``drivers
with a history of epilepsy/seizures off anti-seizure medication and
seizure-free for 10 years may be qualified to drive a CMV in interstate
commerce. Interstate drivers with a

history of a single unprovoked seizure may be qualified to drive a CMV
in interstate commerce if seizure-free and off anti-seizure medication
for a 5 year period or more'' [Advisory criteria to 49 CFR 391.43(f)].
    The Agency acknowledges the MRB's position on the issue but
believes relevant current medical evidence supports a less conservative
approach. The medical advisory criteria for epilepsy and other seizure
or loss of consciousness episodes was based on the 1988 ``Conference on
Neurological Disorders and Commercial Drivers'' (NITS Accession No.
PB89-158950/AS). A copy of the report can be found in the docket
referenced in this notice.
    The MRB's recommendation treats all drivers who have experienced a
seizure the same, regardless of individual medical conditions and
circumstances. In addition, the recommendation to continue prohibiting
drivers who are taking anti-seizure medication from operating a CMV in
interstate commerce does not consider a driver's actual seizure history
and time since the last seizure. The Agency has decided to use the 2007
MEP recommendations as the basis for evaluating applications for an
exemption from the seizure regulation on an individual, case-by-case
basis.

C. Exemptions

    Following individualized assessments of the exemption applications,
including a review of detailed follow-up information requested from
each applicant, FMCSA is granting exemptions from 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8)
to 9 individuals. Under current FMCSA regulations, all of the 9 drivers
receiving exemptions from 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) would have been
considered physically qualified to drive a CMV in interstate commerce
except that they presently take or have recently stopped taking anti-
seizure medication. For these 9 drivers, the primary obstacle to
medical qualification was the FMCSA Advisory Criteria for Medical
Examiners, based on the 1988 ``Conference on Neurological Disorders and
Commercial Drivers,'' stating that a driver should be off anti-seizure
medication in order to drive in interstate commerce. In fact, the
Advisory Criteria have little if anything to do with the actual risk of
a seizure and more to do with assumptions about individuals who are
taking anti-seizure medication.
    In addition to evaluating the medical status of each applicant,
FMCSA evaluated the crash and violation data for the 9 drivers, some of
whom currently drive a CMV in intrastate commerce. The CDLIS and MCMIS
were searched for crash and violation data on the 9 applicants. For
non-CDL holders, the Agency reviewed the driving records from the State
licensing agency.
    These exemptions are contingent on the driver maintaining a stable
treatment regimen and remaining seizure-free during the 2-year
exemption period. The exempted drivers must submit annual reports from
their treating physicians attesting to the stability of treatment and
that the driver has remained seizure-free. The driver must undergo an
annual medical examination by a medical examiner, as defined by 49 CFR
390.5, following the FCMSA's regulations for the physical
qualifications for CMV drivers.
    FMCSA published a notice of receipt of application and requested
public comment during a 30-day public comment period in a Federal
Register notice for each of the applicants. A short summary of the
applicants' qualifications and a discussion of the comments received
follows this section. For applicants who were denied an exemption, a
notice will be published at a later date.

D. Comments

Docket #FMCSA-2013-0442

    On February 25, 2014, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of
exemption applications and requested public comment on 15 individuals
(79 FR 10603; Docket number FMCSA-2014-03994). The comment period ended
on March 27, 2014. No commenters responded to this Federal Register
notice. Of the 15 applicants, five were denied and one withdrew his
request. The Agency has determined that the following 9 applicants
should be granted an exemption.
Charles Blood
    Mr. Blood is a 60 year-old class B CDL holder in New York. He has a
history of seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since 1975.
He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency
remaining the same since that time. If granted the exemption, he would
like to drive a CMV. His physician states he is supportive of Mr. Blood
receiving an exemption.
Michael Duprey
    Mr. Duprey is a 53 year-old class A CDL holder in Connecticut. He
has a history of post traumatic seizure disorder and has remained
seizure free since 1992. He takes anti-seizure medication with the
dosage and frequency remaining the same since that time. If granted the
exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states he is
supportive of Mr. Duprey receiving an exemption.
Kenneth Hovey
    Mr. Hovey is a 52 year-old class A CDL holder in Oklahoma. He has a
history of seizure and has remained seizure free for at least 10 years.
He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency
remaining the same for 10 years. If granted the exemption, he would
like to continue to drive a CMV. His physician states he is supportive
of Mr. Hovey receiving an exemption.
Raymond Lobo
    Mr. Lobo is a 24 year-old driver in New Jersey. He has a history of
2 possible seizures and has remained seizure free for 10 years. He
takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining
the same for over 2 years. If granted the exemption, he would like to
drive a CMV. His physician states he is supportive of Mr. Lobo
receiving an exemption.
Randy Pinto
    Mr. Pinto is a 24 year-old class B CDL holder in Pennsylvania. He
has a history of seizure disorder and has remained seizure free for 9
years. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency
remaining the same since that time. If granted the exemption, he would
like to drive a CMV. His physician states he is supportive of Mr. Pinto
receiving an exemption.
Brent Robinson
    Mr. Robinson is a 33 year-old driver in North Carolina. He has a
history of seizure and has remained seizure free for over 10 years. He
has not taken anti-seizure medication for over 6 years. If granted the
exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states he is
supportive of Mr. Robinson receiving an exemption.
James Spece
    Mr. Spece is a 55 year-old driver in Pennsylvania. He has a history
of seizure disorder and has remained seizure free for 10 years. He
takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining
the same for 4 years. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive
a CMV. His physician states he is supportive of Mr. Spece receiving an
exemption.
Douglas Teigland
    Mr. Teigland is a 57 year-old driver in Minnesota. He has a history
of seizure and has remained seizure free since 1978. He takes anti-
seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same
since that time. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a
CMV. His physician states he is

supportive of Mr. Teigland receiving an exemption.
Joseph Thomas
    Mr. Thomas is a 26 year-old class A CDL holder in Maryland. He has
a history of seizure and has remained seizure free since 2000. He takes
anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the
same since that time. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive
a CMV. His physician states he is supportive of Mr. Thomas receiving an
exemption.

E. Basis for Exemption

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the epilepsy/seizure standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) if the
exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety
than would be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption,
applicants will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With
the exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, the
Agency's analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of
safety is likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to
drive in interstate commerce as opposed to restricting the driver to
driving in intrastate commerce.

Conclusion

    The Agency is granting exemptions from the epilepsy standard, 49
CFR 391.41(b)(8), to 9 individuals based on a thorough evaluation of
each driver's safety experience, and medical condition. Safety analysis
of information relating to these 9 applicants meets the burden of
showing that granting the exemptions would achieve a level of safety
that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved
without the exemption. By granting the exemptions, the interstate CMV
industry will gain 9 highly trained and experienced drivers. In
accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), each exemption will be valid for
2 years, with annual recertification required unless revoked earlier by
FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The
person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption;
(2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was
maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136 and 31315.
    FMCSA exempts the following 9 drivers for a period of 2 years with
annual medical certification required: Charles Blood (NY); Michael
Duprey (CT); Kenneth Hovey (OK); Raymond Lobo (NJ); Randy Pinto (PA);
Brent Robinson (NC); James Spece (PA); Douglas Teigland (MN); and
Joseph Thomas (MD) from the prohibition of CMV operations by persons
with a clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or seizures. If the exemption is
still in effect at the end of the 2-year period, the person may apply
to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at that time.

    Issued on: December 4, 2014.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-29070 Filed 12-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 127 (Tuesday, July 5, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39819-39820]
[FR Doc No: 2022-14166]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC22-81-000.
    Applicants: White Creek Wind I, LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act of White Creek Wind I, LLC.
    Filed Date: 6/24/22.
    Accession Number: 20220624-5183.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/15/22.

    Docket Numbers: EC22-82-000.
    Applicants: AMPCI North America Thermal Power Acquisition LLC.
    Description: Joint Application for Authorization Under Section 203
of the Federal Power Act of AMPCI North America Thermal Power
Acquisition LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 6/27/22.
    Accession Number: 20220627-5112.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/18/22.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1837-005.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Duke Energy Florida, LLC,
Duke Energy Progress, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Duke Energy Florida, LLC submits
tariff filing per 35: Order No. 864 Second Compliance Filing to be
effective 1/27/2020.
    Filed Date: 6/27/22.
    Accession Number: 20220627-5115.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/18/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1948-002.
    Applicants: Potomac-Appalachian Highline Transmission, LLC, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing: Potomac-Appalachian Highline
Transmission, LLC submits tariff filing per 35: PATH submits further
Compliance Filing in ER20-1948 to be effective 1/27/2020.
    Filed Date: 6/27/22.
    Accession Number: 20220627-5124.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/18/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2521-003.
    Applicants: Broadlands Wind Farm LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing.
    Filed Date: 6/27/22.
    Accession Number: 20220627-5079.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/18/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1141-000.
    Applicants: Black Hills Colorado Electric, LLC.
    Description: Refund Report: Refund Report to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 6/27/22.
    Accession Number: 20220627-5101.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/18/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1590-001.
    Applicants: El Paso Electric Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: El Paso Electric Company's Response
to May 27, 2022 Order to be effective 6/6/2022.
    Filed Date: 6/27/22.
    Accession Number: 20220627-5137.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/18/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1593-001.
    Applicants: AEP Texas Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: AEPTX-Lunis Creek Solar 1st A&R Gen
Interconnection Agr--Amend Pending to be effective 3/28/2022.
    Filed Date: 6/27/22.
    Accession Number: 20220627-5120.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/18/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1728-001.
    Applicants: Basin Electric Power Cooperative.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to Extend Time for Action
on Revised Wholesale Power Contract to be effective 3/24/2022.
    Filed Date: 6/27/22.
    Accession Number: 20220627-5127.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/28/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2097-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Filing Withdrawal: Request to Withdraw Filing-
Proceeding, Supp. re Catalina 2nd Amend (ER22-2097) to be effective N/
A.
    Filed Date: 6/22/22.
    Accession Number: 20220622-5046.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2195-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original ISA No. 6508; Queue
No. AE2-121 to be effective 5/27/2022.
    Filed Date: 6/27/22.
    Accession Number: 20220627-5055.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/18/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2196-000.
    Applicants: Mid-Atlantic Interstate Transmission, LLC, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Mid-Atlantic Interstate
Transmission, LLC submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: Mid-
Atlantic Interstate Transmission submits Revised IA SA No. 4577 to be
effective 8/27/2022.
    Filed Date: 6/27/22.
    Accession Number: 20220627-5075.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/18/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2197-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company,
Mississippi Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Alabama Power Company
submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: Origis Develop.m.ent (AL B
Solar + Storage) LGIA Filing to be effective 6/15/2022.
    Filed Date: 6/27/22.
    Accession Number: 20220627-5076.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/18/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2198-000
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company,
Mississippi Power Company
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Alabama Power Company
submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: Origis Develop.m.ent (4
Notch Solar + Storage) LGIA Filing to be effective 6/15/2022.
    Filed Date: 6/27/22.
    Accession Number: 20220627-5078.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/18/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2199-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company,
Mississippi Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Alabama Power Company
submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: Origis Develop.m.ent (5
Notch Solar + Storage) LGIA Filing to be effective 6/15/2022.
    Filed Date: 6/27/22.
    Accession Number: 20220627-5080.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/18/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2200-000.
    Applicants: Atlantic City Electric Company, PJM Interconnection,
L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Atlantic City Electric
Company submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: ACE Single Issue
Depreciation Filing to update Attachment H-1A to be effective 9/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 6/27/22.
    Accession Number: 20220627-5102.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/18/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2201-000.
    Applicants: Delmarva Power & Light Company, PJM Interconnection,
L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Delmarva Power & Light
Company submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: Delmarva Single
Issue Depreciation Filing to update Attachment H-3D to be effective 9/
1/2022.
    Filed Date: 6/27/22.
    Accession Number: 20220627-5103.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/18/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2202-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Entergy
Services, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Midcontinent Independent System
Operator, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35: 2022-06-27_Entergy
Operating Companies Depreciation Settlement Filing to be effective 1/1/
2021.
    Filed Date: 6/27/22.
    Accession Number: 20220627-5111.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/18/22.

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

    Dated: June 27, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-14166 Filed 7-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 61)]
[Notices]
[Page 16661-16662]
[DOCID:fr28mr08-58]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP08-89-000; PF08-4-000]

Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company; Notice of
Application

March 21, 2008.
    Take notice that on March 12, 2008, Williston Basin Interstate
Pipeline Company (Williston Basin), P.O. Box 5601, Bismarck, North
Dakota 58506-5601, filed an application pursuant to section 7(c) of the
Natural Gas Act for a certificate of public convenience and necessity
to construct and operate new natural gas facilities, the Sheyenne
Expansion Project, consisting of compression, piping, and measurement
facilities, located in various counties in North Dakota, all as more
fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission
and open for public inspection. This filing is available for review at
the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please
contact FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free
at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Specifically, Williston Basin's proposed Sheyenne Expansion Project
consists of: (i) The installation of a new 1,590 horsepower turbine-
driven compressor unit, Unit 4, at the Bismarck Compressor
Station, along with station piping modifications and a new gas cooler,
located in Burleigh County, North Dakota; (ii) construction of the new
Steele Compressor Station, located in Kidder County, North Dakota,
consisting of one 1,750 horsepower electric-driven reciprocating
compressor unit; (iii) install a control valve at the Cleveland
Junction and a suction control valve for the Cleveland Compressor
Station, located in Stutsman County, North Dakota; and (iv)
construction of an approximately 6,400 foot, 8-inch diameter steel
transmission lateral, the Casselton Ethanol Plant Lateral, and a
measurement station, located in Cass County, North Dakota. Williston
Basin estimates the cost of construction to be $7,487,160. Williston
Basin states that the project would increase firm capacity into
Williston Basin's subsystem by 9.65 MMcf/d, with approximately 96 per
cent of the additional capacity for the Tharaldson ethanol plant.
    Any questions regarding this Application should be directed to
Keith Tiggelaar, Director of Regulatory Affairs, Williston Basin
Interstate Pipeline Company, P.O. Box 5601, Bismarck, North Dakota
58506-5601or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    On November 15, 2007, the Commission staff granted Williston
Basin's request to utilize the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Pre-Filing Process and assigned Docket No. PF08-4-000 to staff
activities involving the Williston Basin's expansion project. Now, as
of the filing of Williston Basin's application on March 12, 2008, the
NEPA Pre-Filing Process for this project has ended. From this time
forward, Williston Basin's proceeding will be conducted in Docket No.
CP08-89-000, as noted in the caption of this Notice.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify Federal and State agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all Federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the below listed comment date, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to

the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties
to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the
proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    Motions to intervene, protests and comments may be filed
electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper; see, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.
    Comment Date: April 11, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-6312 Filed 3-27-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 177 (Friday, September 12, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54706-54707]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21810]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9916-52-OECA]

National Environmental Justice Advisory Council; Notice of
Charter Renewal

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Charter Renewal.

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

    Notice is hereby given that the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has determined that, in accordance with the provisions of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2,

the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) is a
necessary committee which is in the public interest. Accordingly, NEJAC
will be renewed for an additional two-year period. The purpose of the
NEJAC is to provide advice and recommendations to the Administrator
about issues associated with integrating environmental justice concerns
into EPA's outreach activities, public policies, science, regulatory,
enforcement, and compliance decisions.
    Inquiries may be directed to Sherri White, NEJAC Designated Federal
Officer, U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., (Mail Code 2201A),
Washington, DC 20460.

    Dated: July 29, 2014.
Cynthia Giles,
EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.
[FR Doc. 2014-21810 Filed 9-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: July 17, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 138)]
[Notices]
[Page 41142-41143]
[DOCID:fr17jy08-138]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58139; File No. SR-ISE-2008-54]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule
Change and Amendment No. 2 Thereto Relating to Changes to the Fee
Schedule

 July 10, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on June 30, 2008, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (the
``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. On July 9, 2008, the ISE filed Amendment No. 1
to the proposed rule change. On July 9, 2008, the ISE withdrew
Amendment No. 1 and filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The ISE is proposing to amend its Schedule of Fees to extend two
fee waivers and to remove reference to two expiring fee pilots. The
amendment also simplifies the fee schedule by imbedding the
``comparison'' fee into the ``execution'' fee. The text of the proposed
rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public
Reference Room, and http://www.ise.com.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    Purpose--The purpose of this proposed rule change is to extend the
pilot fee waivers for Premium Products and Second Market options, adopt
a new pilot fee waiver related to FX options, and remove reference to
expiring pilot fee discounts. The Exchange also proposes to simplify
the way in which certain current fees are stated in the fee schedule.
These changes will be operative on July 1, 2008.
1. Pilot Extensions
    First, ISE currently waives most customer transaction fees, with
such waiver scheduled to expire on June 30, 2008.\3\ In order to remain
competitive in the market place, we propose to extend this waiver
through June 30, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56055 (June 12,
2007), 72 FR 39648 (June 19, 2007) (SR-ISE-2007-52).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, pursuant to a pilot program, ISE offers a fee discount for
certain orders of 7,500 contracts or more that are executed in the
Exchange's Facilitation Mechanism.\4\ Specifically, ISE waives (1) the
execution and comparison fee on incremental volume above 7,500
contracts for Firm Proprietary orders, Non-ISE Market Maker orders, and
Customer orders in Premium Products, and (2) the execution fee on
incremental volume above 7,500 contracts for Customer orders in Second
Market options.\5\ The number of contracts at or under the threshold
are charged as per the Exchange's Schedule of Fees. ISE believes that
extending a fee cap for large-sized orders executed in its Facilitation
Mechanism will help strengthen its competitive position and encourage
members to use the Exchange's Facilitation Mechanism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57129 (January 10,
2008), 73 FR 2963 (January 16, 2008) (SR-ISE-2008-1).
    \5\ The Exchange notes that there is no comparison fee for
orders in Second Market options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current pilot program is set to expire on June 30, 2008. The
Exchange proposes to extend the fee cap for another year, until June
30, 2009.
    With regards to the two fee pilots that are being extended, the
Exchange notes that it is making no substantive changes to the way the
two fee pilots currently operate, other than to extend the date of
operation through June 30, 2009.
2. New Pilot Fee Waiver for FX Options
    The Exchange proposes to adopt a fee cap for large-size foreign
currency (``FX'') options orders. Specifically, the Exchange proposes,
for a one-year pilot expiring on June 30, 2009, to waive the
transaction fee on incremental volume above 5,000 for single-sized FX
options orders of at least 5,000 contracts. The number of contracts at
or under the threshold are charged the constituent's prescribed
execution fee. This waiver is for both Public Customer orders and Firm
Proprietary orders. The ISE believes that that this fee cap for large-
sized orders in FX options will encourage members to execute large-
sized orders on the Exchange.
3. Pilot Expirations
    The Exchange also proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees to remove
from that schedule references to two pilot programs that will terminate
on June 30, 2008 and that the Exchange is not extending. Pursuant to
those pilots, the Exchange (1) capped and waived fees when a firm
reached certain volume thresholds in options on the NASDAQ-100 Index
Tracking Stock[supreg] (``QQQQ[supreg]'') and the iShares Russell
2000[supreg] Index Fund (``IWM''), and (2) capped and waived fees for
members that achieved certain threshold levels in the Exchange's
Facilitation Mechanism. In light of the Exchange's increase market
share in QQQQ and IWM and the level of trading in its Facilitation
Mechanism, achieved in large part due to these fee pilot programs, ISE
does not believe there is a need to continue to provide a fee discount
as an incentive to members.
4. Consolidation of Execution and Comparison Fees
    Currently on the fee schedule, the Exchange separately itemizes
execution fees and a comparison fee. The Exchange proposes to eliminate
the comparison fee as a separate line item and instead imbed the fee
into the execution fee. Historically, the Exchange has waived
comparison fees in parallel with execution fees. Therefore, this change
will not change the actual amount being charged to any members, but
will simplify the fee schedule so that total transaction costs are more
easily understood.
    Statutory Basis--The basis under the Act for this proposed rule
change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(4) that an exchange have
an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among its members and other persons using its facilities. The Exchange
believes the fee changes proposed by this filing are reasonable in
that, with regards to the fee waivers, the proposed rule change waives
most fees for customer transactions and for certain

trades in FX Options; with regards to the fee pilot terminations, the
Exchange believes there is no longer a need to provide an incentive to
trade in those products or in the Exchange's Facilitation Mechanism;
with regards to the fee consolidation, the proposed rule change will
simplify the fee schedule. The Exchange notes that the fee changes are
also equitably allocated in that they equally apply to all members of
the Exchange.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3) of the Act \6\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \7\ thereunder because it
establishes or changes a due, fee, or other charge imposed on members
by ISE. At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR 19b-4(f)(2).
    \8\ For purposes of calculating the 60-day period within which
the Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change under
Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, the Commission considers the period
to commence on July 9, 2008, the date on which the ISE submitted
Amendment No. 2. See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change 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 Number SR-ISE-2008-54 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2008-54. 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 rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change 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, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. 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 publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2008-54 and should be
submitted on or before August 7, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-16363 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: February 15, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 31)]
[Notices]
[Page 7431]
[DOCID:fr15fe07-49]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP07-15-002]

Central New York Oil and Gas Company, LLC; Notice of Compliance
Filing

February 8, 2007.
    Take notice that on February 2, 2007, Central New York Oil and Gas
Company, LLC (CNYOG) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas
Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to be
effective February 1, 2007:

Third Revised Sheet No. 5
Third Revised Sheet No. 31
Third Revised Sheet No. 32
Second Revised Sheet No. 140

    CNYOG states that the filing is being made to correct the
pagination of the tariff sheets previously submitted on December 29,
2006, in the above-referenced docket.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing a
protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

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

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

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on February 14, 2007.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-2588 Filed 2-14-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 41 (Friday, March 3, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12393-12395]
[FR Doc No: 2017-04115]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 41 / Friday, March 3, 2017 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0169; Directorate Identifier 2017-SW-003-AD;
Amendment 39-18818; AD 2017-02-51]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation
Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are publishing a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Sikorsky) Model S-92A helicopters. This
AD requires inspecting certain bearings. This AD is prompted by reports
of failed bearings with subsequent loss of tail rotor (TR) control. The
actions of this AD are intended to address an unsafe condition on these
helicopters.

DATES: This AD becomes effective March 20, 2017 to all persons except
those persons to whom it was made immediately effective by Emergency AD
2017-02-51 issued on January 13, 2017, which contains the requirements
of this AD. We must receive comments on this AD by May 2, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0169; or in person at the Docket Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the economic evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for the Docket Operations Office
(telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.
    For service information identified in this final rule, contact
Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Customer Service Engineering, 124 Quarry
Road, Trumbull, CT 06611; telephone 1-800-Winged-S or<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may review the
referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional
Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort
Worth, TX 76177.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Blaine Williams, Aerospace Engineer,
Boston Aircraft Certification Office, Engine & Propeller Directorate,
1200 District Avenue, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803; telephone (781)
238-7161; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to
provide your comments prior to it becoming effective. However, we
invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written
comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the
economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that resulted
from adopting this AD. The most helpful comments reference a specific
portion of the AD, explain the reason for any recommended change, and
include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain
duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written
comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should
submit them only one time. We will file in the docket all comments that
we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public
contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking during the
comment period. We will consider all the comments we receive and may
conduct additional rulemaking based on those comments.

Discussion

    On November 16, 2016, we issued Emergency AD 2016-24-51 to correct
an unsafe condition on Sikorsky Model S-92A helicopters with a TR pitch
change shaft (TRPCS) assembly, part number (P/N) 92358-06303-041 or P/N
92358-06303-042, with bearings that were manufactured prior to November
3, 2016. AD 2016-24-51 subsequently published in the Federal Register
as a final rule (81 FR 95425, December 28, 2016). AD 2016-24-51
requires removing from service TRPCS assemblies with less than 5 hours
time-in-service (TIS) since new or overhaul. For TRPCS assemblies with
between 5 and 80 hours TIS since new or overhaul, AD 2016-24-51 also
requires performing one-time inspections of the TRPCS bearings and
replacing the TRPCS assembly if the bearings do not pass these
inspections. AD 2016-24-51 was prompted by two reports of an operator
losing TR control caused by a failed TRPCS assembly.

Actions Since AD 2016-24-51 Was Issued

    After AD 2016-24-51 was issued, we received a report of an S-92A
helicopter losing TR control because of a failed bearing with more than
80 hours TIS. We have now determined that the unsafe condition can
exist on TRPCS bearings regardless of hours TIS. Therefore, on January
13, 2017, we issued Emergency AD 2017-02-51, which applies to all TRPCS
assemblies, regardless of hours TIS. Emergency AD 2017-02-51 requires a
one-time visual inspection and a repetitive borescope inspection of the
TRPCS assembly bearing. The repetitive inspection is intended to detect
bearing deterioration. The actions in Emergency AD 2017-02-51 are
intended to detect a binding bearing, prevent loss of TR control, and
possible loss of control of the helicopter.

FAA's Determination

    We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information

and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to
exist or develop in other helicopters of the same type design.

Related Service Information

    We reviewed Sikorsky Alert Service Bulletin 92-64-011, Basic Issue,
dated January 10, 2017 (ASB). The ASB describes procedures for
inspecting the TRPCS and bearing assemblies for ratcheting, binding,
and rough turning. The ASB also specifies periodic review of the health
and usage monitoring system (HUMS) tail gearbox bearing energy tool.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires, before further flight, removing the TRPCS
assembly and inspecting the bearing. If the bearing does not rotate
freely; the bearing sounds rough or chatters; there is any purged
grease with metal particles; a nick or dent; or if there is a cut,
tear, or distortion in the bearing seal, before further flight,
replacing the TRPCS assembly is required. This AD also requires, within
10 hours TIS, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 10 hours TIS,
inspecting the TRPCS assembly with a borescope. If the white Teflon
seal or snap ring is missing, or if there is a rip, tear, or heat
damage on the seal or if there is no gap in the snap ring, replacing
the TRPCS assembly is required before further flight.

Differences Between This AD and the Service Information

    This AD requires repetitive borescope inspections of the TRPCS; the
ASB does not. The ASB specifies that operators review HUMS data in
addition to the one-time inspection and specifies contacting Sikorsky
if any discrepancies are found; this AD does not.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 80 helicopters of U.S.
Registry.
    We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order
to comply with this AD. At an average labor rate of $85 per hour,
borescope and visually inspecting the TRPCS assembly will require 16
work-hours, for a cost per helicopter of $1,360 and a cost of $108,800
for the U.S. fleet per inspection. If required, replacing a TRPCS
assembly will require 16 work-hours and required parts will cost
$4,000, for a cost per helicopter of $5,360.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    Providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adopting
these AD requirements would delay implementing the safety actions
needed to correct this known unsafe condition. Therefore, we found and
continue to find that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving
notice and comment prior to the adoption of this rule because the
previously described unsafe condition can result in loss of TR control
and certain actions must be accomplished before further flight and
within 10 hours TIS, a very short interval for these helicopters.
    Since it was found that immediate corrective action was required,
notice and opportunity for prior public comments before issuing this AD
were impracticable and contrary to public interest and good cause
existed to make the AD effective immediately by Emergency AD 2017-02-
51, issued on January 13, 2017, to all known U.S. owners and operators
of these helicopters. These conditions still exist and the AD is hereby
published in the Federal Register as an amendment to section 39.13 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 39.13) to make it effective to
all persons.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this 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, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

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):

2017-02-51 Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation: Amendment 39-18818; Docket
No. FAA-2017-FAA-2017-0169; Directorate Identifier 2017-SW-003-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Sikorsky)
Model S-92A helicopters, certificated in any category, with a tail
rotor pitch change shaft (TRPCS) assembly part number (P/N) 92358-
06303-041 or P/N 92358-06303-042 installed.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a binding TRPCS bearing.
This condition could result in loss of tail rotor (TR) control and
possible loss of control of the helicopter.

(c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective March 20, 2017 to all persons except
those persons to whom it was made immediately effective by Emergency
AD 2017-02-51, issued on January 13, 2017, which contains the
requirements of this AD.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

    (1) Before further flight, unless already done, remove the TRPCS
assembly and

inspect the SB2310 angular contact bearing for free rotation, purged
grease with metal particles, a nick or a dent, and any cut, tear, or
distortion on the bearing seal. If the bearing does not rotate
freely; the bearing sounds rough or chatters; there is any purged
grease with metal particles; a nick or dent; or if there is a cut,
tear, or distortion in the bearing seal, before further flight,
replace the TRPCS assembly.
    (2) Within 10 hours time-in-service (TIS), unless already done
within the last 10 hours TIS, and thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 10 hours TIS, on the TR side of the TRPCS bearing, remove the
plug from the end of the TRPCS, insert the borescope into the TRPCS,
and determine whether the white Teflon seal and snap ring are
installed. If the white Teflon seal or snap ring is missing, or if
there is a rip, tear, or heat damage on the seal or if there is no
gap in the snap ring, before further flight replace the TRPCS
assembly.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, may
approve AMOCs for this Emergency AD. Send your proposal to: Blaine
Williams, Aerospace Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office,
Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington,
Massachusetts 01803; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(g) Additional Information

    Sikorsky Alert Service Bulletin 92-64-011, Basic Issue, dated
January 10, 2017, which is not incorporated by reference, contains
additional information about the subject of this final rule. For
service information identified in this final rule, contact Sikorsky
Aircraft Corporation, Customer Service Engineering, 124 Quarry Road,
Trumbull, CT 06611; telephone 1-800-Winged-S or<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may review this service
information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest
Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

(h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6720 Tail Rotor
Control System.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on February 23, 2017.
Lance T. Gant,
Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-04115 Filed 3-2-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Meeting with OMB, SBA and Honeywell September 8, 2004 Participants Honeywell: Dave Cote, Mark Lewis, Chris Spear, Christine Ceccine EPA: Bob Meyers, Jeanne Briskin, Suzie Kocchi OMB: Paul Noe, Art Fraas, Edmond Toy SBA: Kevin Bromberg This meeting was requested by Honeywell to provide OMB information on the proposed SNAP rule to change the listing of HCFC 141b from acceptable to unacceptable for use in all foam applications as of January 1, 2005. Honeywell's CEO, Dave Cote, stressed his company's investment in HFC 245fa was based on the long standing HCFC phaseout schedule set by EPA in 1993. He urged the government to maintain the schedule to phaseout ozone depleting substances it established over 10 years ago and ensure the phaseout of HCFC 141b in the foam sector. He noted any delay would unfairly penalize those companies which made good faith investments in the transition to alternatives, in accordance with regulations.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 107 (Tuesday, June 4, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33230-33233]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13064]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0971;FRL-9818-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of California;
Redesignation of San Diego County to Attainment for the 1997 8-Hour
Ozone Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving, as a revision of the California state
implementation plan, a request from the California Air Resources Board
to redesignate the San Diego County ozone nonattainment area to
attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (1997 ozone standard) because the request meets the statutory
requirements for redesignation under the Clean Air Act. EPA is also
approving the State's plan for maintaining the 1997 ozone standard in
San Diego County for ten years beyond redesignation, and the
inventories and related motor vehicle emissions budgets within the
plan, because they meet the applicable requirements for such plans and
budgets.

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 5, 2013.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action: Docket ID No.
EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0791. Generally, documents in the docket for this
action are available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard
copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California.
While all documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov,
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be
publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard
copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Ungvarsky, Air Planning Office
(AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 972-
3963<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section is arranged as follows:

Table of Contents

I. Summary of Today's Final Action
II. Background
III. What comments did EPA receive on the proposed rule?
IV. What actions is EPA taking?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary of Today's Final Action

    EPA is approving several related actions. First, under Clean Air
Act (CAA or ``Act'') section 110(k)(3), EPA is approving a maintenance
plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard (``San Diego 8-hour maintenance
plan'') for the San Diego County 1997 ozone nonattainment area (``San
Diego 8-hour area'') as a revision to the California state
implementation plan (SIP).\1\ The San Diego 8-hour maintenance plan is
included in a document titled Redesignation Request and Maintenance
Plan for the 1997 National Ozone Standard for San Diego County
(December 2012) submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
on December 28, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436), EPA promulgated a revised
8-hour ozone standard of 0.075 ppm (the 2008 8-hour ozone standard),
and on May 21, 2012, EPA designated San Diego County as
nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard (77 FR 30088). This
rulemaking relates only to the 1997 8-hour ozone standard and does
not relate to the 2008 8-hour ozone standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In connection with the San Diego 8-hour maintenance plan, EPA finds
that the maintenance demonstration showing how the area will continue
to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard
(1997 ozone NAAQS or 1997 ozone standard) for at least 10 years beyond
redesignation (i.e., through 2025) and the contingency provisions
describing the actions that the San Diego County Air Pollution Control
District (SDCAPCD) will take in the event of a future monitored
violation meet all applicable requirements for maintenance plans and
related contingency provisions in CAA section 175A. EPA is also
approving the motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) in the San Diego
8-hour maintenance plan because we find that they meet the applicable
transportation conformity requirements under 40 CFR 93.118(e).
    Second, under CAA section 107(d)(3)(D), EPA is approving CARB's
request that accompanied the submittal of the San Diego 8-hour
maintenance plan, that is, to redesignate the San Diego 8-hour area to
attainment for the 1997 ozone standard. We are doing so based on our
conclusion that the area has met the five criteria for redesignation
under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E). Our conclusion in this

regard is based on our determination that the area has attained the
1997 ozone standard; that relevant portions of the California SIP are
fully approved; that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent
and enforceable reductions in emissions; that California has met all
requirements applicable to the San Diego 8-hour area with respect to
section 110 and part D of the CAA; and is based on our approval of the
San Diego 8-hour maintenance plan, which is part of this action.

II. Background

    On March 25, 2013 (78 FR 17902), EPA issued a notice of rulemaking
proposing to approve California's request to redesignate the San Diego
County area to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, as well
as proposing to approve California's ten-year ozone maintenance plan
for the area, and the volatile organic compound (VOC) and oxides of
nitrogen (NOX) MVEBs, and VOC and NOX emission
inventories as revisions of the California SIP.\2\ The proposed
rulemaking set forth the basis for determining that California's
redesignation request meets the CAA requirements for redesignation for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The proposed rulemaking provided an
extensive background on the ozone standards and their relationship to
historical air quality in San Diego County. The proposed rulemaking
also described the complete, quality-assured air quality monitoring
data for San Diego County for 2009-2011 showing that this area attained
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Preliminary data available to date for
2012 are consistent with continued attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Ground-level ozone is generally not emitted directly by
sources. Rather, directly-emitted NOX and VOC react in
the presence of sunlight to form ground-level ozone, as a secondary
pollutant, along with other secondary compounds. NOX and
VOC are ``ozone precursors.'' Reduction of peak ground-level ozone
concentrations is typically achieved through controlling VOC and
NOX emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What comments did EPA receive on the proposed rule?

    EPA's proposed rule provided a 30-day public comment period. During
this period, we received comment letters from the United States
Department of the Navy and the Industrial Environmental Association in
support of EPA's March 25, 2013, proposed rule. During the public
comment period, we did not receive any comments opposing the proposed
rule.

IV. What actions is EPA taking?

    Under CAA section 110(k)(3), and for the reasons provided in the
proposed rule and summarized herein, EPA is approving CARB's submittal
dated December 28, 2012 of the Redesignation Request and Maintenance
Plan for the 1997 National Ozone Standard for San Diego County
(December 2012) as a revision to the California state implementation
plan (SIP). In connection with the San Diego 8-hour maintenance plan,
EPA finds that the maintenance demonstration showing how the area will
continue to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for 10 years beyond
redesignation (i.e., through 2025) and the contingency provisions
describing the actions that SDCAPCD and CARB will take in the event of
a future monitored violation meet all applicable requirements for
maintenance plans and related contingency provisions in CAA section
175A. EPA is approving the MVEBs in the San Diego 8-hour maintenance
plan (shown in table 7 of this document) because we find they meet the
applicable transportation conformity requirements under 40 CFR
93.118(e).
    Second, under CAA section 107(d)(3)(D), we are approving CARB's
request, which accompanied the submittal of the maintenance plan, to
redesignate the San Diego County 8-hour ozone nonattainment area to
attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. We are doing so based on
our conclusion that the area has met the five criteria for
redesignation under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E). Our conclusion in this
regard is in turn based on our determination that the area has attained
the 1997 ozone NAAQS; that relevant portions of the California SIP are
fully approved; that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent
and enforceable reductions in emissions; that California has met all
requirements applicable to the San Diego 8-hour area with respect to
section 110 and part D of the CAA; and is based on our approval of the
San Diego 8-hour maintenance plan, which is part of this action.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E)
are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not
impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those
imposed by State law. Redesignation to attainment does not in and of
itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the
applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have
been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions
of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40
CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to
approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the
Clean Air Act. Accordingly, these actions merely approve a State plan
and redesignation request as meeting federal requirements and do not
impose additional requirements beyond those by state law. For these
reasons, these actions:
     Are not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not an economically significant regulatory action
based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Nonetheless, in
accordance with EPA's 2011 Policy on Consultation and Coordination with
Tribes, EPA has

notified Tribes located within the San Diego County 8-hour ozone
nonattainment.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

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

40 CFR Part 81

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

    Dated: May 14, 2013.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
    Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:

PART 52-- APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(425) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (425) A plan was submitted on December 28, 2012, by the Governor's
designee.
    (i) [Reserved]
    (ii) Additional material
    (A) San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD).
    (1) Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the 1997
National Ozone Standard for San Diego County, including motor vehicle
emissions budgets (MVEBs) and inventories.
    (2) SDAPCD Resolution Number 12-175, dated December 5, 2012.
``Resolution Adopting the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan
for the 1997 National Ozone Standard for San Diego County,'' including
inventories and motor vehicle emissions budgets for 2020 and 2025.
    (B) State of California Air Resources Board (CARB)
    (1) CARB Resolution Number 12-36, dated December 6, 2012.
``Approval of the San Diego 8-Hour Ozone SIP Redesignation Request and
Maintenance Plan,'' including inventories and motor vehicle emissions
budgets for 2020 and 2025.

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

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

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

0
4. Section 81.305 is amended by revising the entry for San Diego
County, CA in the table entitled ``California--1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
(Primary and Secondary)'' to read as follows:

Sec.  81.305  California.

* * * * *

                           California--1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Designation \a\                      Category/Classification
        Designated area         --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Date \1\               Type                Date \1\             Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
San Diego, CA..................
San Diego County (part)........
    That portion of San Diego    July 5, 2013.....  Attainment............  .................  .................
     County that excludes the
     areas listed below: La
     Posta Areas 1 and
     2,\b\ Cuyapaipe
     Area,\b\ Manzanita
     Area,\b\ Campo Areas
     1 and 2\b\.
    La Posta Areas 1    .................  Unclassifiable/         .................  .................
     and 2,\b\.                             Attainment.
    Cuyapaipe Area,\b\.........  .................  Unclassifiable/         .................  .................
                                                     Attainment.
Manzanita Area,\b\.............  .................  Unclassifiable/         .................  .................
                                                     Attainment.
Campo Areas 1 and       .................  Unclassifiable/         .................  .................
 2\b\.                                      Attainment.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified.
\b\ The boundaries for these designated areas are based on coordinates of latitude and longitude derived from
  EPA Region 9's GIS database and are illustrated in a map entitled ``Eastern San Diego County Attainment Areas
  for the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS,'' dated March 9, 2004, including an attached set of coordinates. The map and
  attached set of coordinates are available at EPA's Region 9 Air Division office. The designated areas roughly
  approximate the boundaries of the reservations for these tribes, but their inclusion in this table is intended
  for CAA planning purposes only and is not intended to be a federal determination of the exact boundaries of
  the reservations. Also, the specific listing of these tribes in this table does not confer, deny, or withdraw
  Federal recognition of any of the tribes so listed nor any of the tribes not listed.
* * * * *
\1\ This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-13064 Filed 6-3-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P