[Federal Register: November 13, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 218)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 63800-63805]
[DOCID:fr13no07-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-28828; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-010-AD;
Amendment 39-15258; AD 2007-23-12]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 707 Airplanes and Model
720 and 720B Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Boeing Model 707 airplanes and Model 720 and 720B series airplanes.
This AD requires accomplishing an airplane survey to define the
configuration of certain system installations, and repair of any
discrepancy found. This AD also requires modifying the fuel system by
installing lightning protection for the fuel quantity indication system
(FQIS), ground fault relays for the fuel boost pumps, and additional
power relays for the center tank fuel pumps and uncommanded on-
indication lights at the flight engineer's panel. This AD results from
fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are issuing this
AD to prevent certain failures of the fuel pumps or FQIS, which could
result in a potential ignition source inside the fuel tank, which, in
combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank
explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective December 18, 2007.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-
2207.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
; 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 (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the Document 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: Kathrine Rask, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 917-6505; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to all Boeing Model 707
airplanes and Model 720 and 720B series airplanes. That NPRM was
published in the Federal Register on August 1, 2007 (72 FR 41958). That
NPRM proposed to require accomplishing an airplane survey to define the
configuration of certain system installations, and repair of any
discrepancy found. That NPRM proposed to also require modifying the
fuel system by installing lightning protection for the fuel quantity
indication system, ground fault relays for the fuel boost pumps, and
additional power relays for the center tank fuel pumps and uncommanded
on-indication lights at the flight engineer's panel.

Comments

    We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the
development of this AD. We have considered the single comment received.
The commenter, Boeing, supports the NPRM.

Conclusion

    We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the
comment received, and determined that air safety and the public
interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 185 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. This AD affects about 52 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The required survey takes about 20 work hours per airplane, at an
average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the
estimated cost of the survey for U.S. operators is $83,200, or $1,600
per airplane.
    Because the manufacturer has not yet developed a modification
commensurate with the actions specified by this AD, we cannot provide
specific information regarding the required number of work hours or the
cost of parts to do the required modification. In addition,
modification costs will likely vary depending on the operator and the
airplane configuration. The compliance time of 72 months should provide
ample time for the development, approval, and installation of an
appropriate modification.
    Based on similar modifications accomplished previously on other
airplane models, however, we can reasonably estimate that the
modification may require as many as 420 work hours per airplane, at an
average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Required parts may cost up to
$185,000 per airplane. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of
the modification for U.S. operators may cost up to $11,367,200, or
$218,600 per airplane.

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 have 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 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); and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES
section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
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 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec.  39.13 by
adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):

2007-23-12 Boeing: Amendment 39-15258. Docket No. FAA-2007-28828;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-010-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD becomes effective December 18, 2007.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all Boeing Model 707-100 long body, -200,
-100B long body, and -100B short body series airplanes; and Model
707-300, -300B, -300C, and -400 series airplanes; and Model 720 and
720B series airplanes; certificated in any category.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the
manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent certain failures of
the fuel pumps or fuel quantity indication system (FQIS), which
could result in a potential ignition source inside the fuel tank,
which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in
fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

Compliance

    (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Airplane Survey

    (f) Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD:
Conduct an airplane survey that defines the configuration of system
installations for the wing leading edges, wing-to-body area,
electrical equipment bay, flight deck, and FQIS using a method
approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(h)(1) of this AD. If any discrepancy is detected, repair before
further flight using a method approved in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD. Submit the
survey results to the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356, at
the applicable time specified in paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this
AD. The report must include the survey results (e.g., photographs
and sketches, part numbers of FQIS components and fuel pumps, and
the actual configuration of FQIS and the fuel pump control systems),
a description of any discrepancy found, the airplane serial number,
and the number of landings and flight hours on the airplane. Under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the
information collection requirements contained in this AD and has
assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056.
    (1) If the survey was done after the effective date of this AD:
Submit the report within 30 days after the survey.
    (2) If the survey was done before the effective date of this AD:
Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of this
AD.

    Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, ``discrepancy'' is defined
as any wear or deterioration (e.g., damage, fluid leaks, corrosion,
cracking, or system failures) that might prevent the airplane from
being in an airworthy condition.

Modification of Fuel System

    (g) Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD: Modify
the fuel system as specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and
(g)(3) of this AD, using a method approved in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD.
    (1) Replace the FQIS wire bundle along the leading edge of the
left and right wings with a new wire bundle that has a lightning
shield that is separated from other wiring.
    (2) Replace each fuel pump relay with a ground fault interrupter
relay.
    (3) Install redundant power relays for the center tank fuel
pumps and uncommanded on-indication lights at the flight engineer's
panel.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (h)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures
found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) None.
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13NO07.000

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13NO07.001

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 12, 2007.
Stephen P. Boyd,
Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 07-5635 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-C


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 17, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 8089]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03293]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2015-0027; OMB No. 1660-0125]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request; FEMA Preparedness Grants: Homeland Security
Grant Program (HSGP)

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the
information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and
Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission will describe the
nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents,
the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort and resources used by
respondents to respond) and cost, and the actual data collection
instruments FEMA will use.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before March 18, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the proposed information
collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk
Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection should be made to Director,
Records Management Division, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472-
3100, or email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    This proposed information collection previously published in the
Federal Register on December 4, 2015 at 80 FR 75870 with a 60 day
public comment period. No comments were received. The purpose of this
notice is to notify the public that FEMA will submit the information
collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget for
review and clearance.

Collection of Information

    Title: FEMA Preparedness Grants: Homeland Security Grant Program
(HSGP).
    Type of information collection: Revision of a currently approved
information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0125.
    Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Form 089-1, HSGP Investment
Justification (SHSP and UASI); FEMA Form 089-16, OPSG Operations Order
Report; FEMA Form 089-20, OPSG Inventory of Operation Orders.
    Abstract: The HSGP is an important tool among a comprehensive set
of measures to help strengthen the Nation against risks associated with
potential terrorist attacks. DHS/FEMA uses the information to evaluate
applicants' familiarity with the national preparedness architecture and
identify how elements of this architecture have been incorporated into
regional/state/local planning, operations, and investments.
    The HSGP is a primary funding mechanism for building and sustaining
national preparedness capabilities. The HSGP is comprised of three
separate grant programs: the State Homeland Security Program (SHSP),
the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI), and Operation Stonegarden
(OPSG). Together, these grants fund a range of preparedness activities,
including planning, organization, equipment purchase, training,
exercises, and management and administration costs. The OPSG will begin
to utilize the Office of Management and Budget's web-based portal
MAX.GOV, at https://www.MAX.GOV/, for operational management of the
grant program.
    Affected Public: State, Local or Tribal Government.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 462.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 310,357 hours.
    Estimated Cost: The estimated annual cost to respondents for the
hour burden is $19,096,265. There are no annual costs to respondents'
operations and maintenance costs for technical services. There are no
annual start-up or capital costs. The cost to the Federal Government is
$2,022,270.

    Dated: February 10, 2016.
Richard W. Mattison,
Records Management Program Chief, Mission Support, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2016-03293 Filed 2-16-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-19-P


[Federal Register: December 19, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 245)]
[Notices]
[Page 77680]
[DOCID:fr19de08-79]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER09-382-000]

Hay Canyon Wind, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

December 15, 2008.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Hay Canyon Wind, LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the Applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is January 5, 2009.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also 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>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-30228 Filed 12-18-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 243 (Wednesday, December 19, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65085-65087]
[FR Doc No: 2018-27445]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2018-1091]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Monongahela River, Miles 91.7 to 92.3, Maidsville,
WV

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
all navigable waters of the Monongahela River from mile 91.7 to mile
92.3. This safety zone is necessary to protect persons, vessels, and
the marine environment from potential hazards associated with shore
side construction activities. Entry of persons or vessels into this
zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Marine
Safety Unit Pittsburgh or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from December 19,
2018 until December 21, 2018.
    For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from
December 14, 2018 until December 19, 2018.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2018-1091 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Petty Officer Jennifer Haggins, Marine Safety Unit
Pittsburgh, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that
good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. This
safety zone must be established by December 14, 2018 and we lack
sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then
consider those comments before issuing this rule. The NPRM process
would delay the establishment of the safety zone until after the date
of the shore side construction and compromise public safety.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying this rule would be
contrary to the public interest because immediate action is necessary
to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with the shore
side construction work involving a helicopter lifting heavy equipment.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231. The Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh (COTP) has
determined that potential hazards associated with shore side
construction work will be a safety hazard for anyone within a one-mile
stretch of the Monongahela River. The rule is needed to protect
persons, vessels, and the marine environment on the navigable waters
within the safety zone before, during, and after the construction is
complete and the helicopter is away from the area.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from 9 a.m. through 6
p.m. on December 14, 2018 through December 21, 2018. The safety zone
will cover all navigable waters of the Monongahela River, from mile
91.7 to mile 92.3. The duration of the zone is intended to protect
persons, vessels, and the marine environment on these navigable waters
before, during, and after the shore side construction. No

vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without
obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. A
designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer
of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control
of USCG Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh. Persons and vessels seeking
entry into this safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a
designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16
or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Persons and vessels permitted to
enter this safety zone must transit at their slowest safe speed and
comply with all lawful instructions of the COTP or a designated
representative. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the
public of the enforcement period for the safety zone as well as any
changes in the schedule through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs),
Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information
Bulletins (MSIBs), as appropriate.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
duration, and location of the safety zone. This rule will impact a
small designated area of the Monongahela River of only one mile and for
only eight days. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue MSIBs, LNMs, BNMs
via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule allows
vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

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

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the
Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is
one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively
have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves
a safety zone lasting eight days that will prohibit entry on a one-mile
stretch of the Monongahela River. It is categorically excluded from
further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS
Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental
Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket
where indicated under ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T08-1091 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-1091  Safety Zone; Monongahela River, miles 91.7 to 92.3,
Maidsville, WV.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters of the Monongahela River from mile 91.7 to mile 92.3.
    (b) Effective period. This section is effective without actual
notice from December 19, 2018 until December 21, 2018. For the purposes
of enforcement, actual notice will be used from [December 14, 2018
until December 19, 2018].
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23, entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by
the Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh (COTP) or a
designated representative. A designated representative is a
commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard
assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Marine Safety
Unit Pittsburgh.
    (2) Persons and vessels seeking entry into this safety zone must
request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They
may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or by telephone at (412) 221-
0807.
    (3) Persons and vessels permitted to enter this safety zone must
transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful
instructions of the COTP or a designated representative.
    (d) Informational broadcasts. The COTP or a designated
representative will inform the public of the enforcement period for the
safety zone as well as any changes in the schedule through Broadcast
Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or
Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs), as appropriate.

    Dated: December 14, 2018.
A.W. Demo,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit
Pittsburgh.
[FR Doc. 2018-27445 Filed 12-18-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: October 5, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 191)]
[Notices]
[Page 51218]
[DOCID:fr05oc09-106]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Submission Deadline for Schedule Information for O'Hare
International Airport, John F. Kennedy International Airport, and
Newark Liberty International Airport for the Summer 2010 Scheduling
Season

AGENCY: Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA).

ACTION: Notice of submission deadline.

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

SUMMARY: Under this notice, the FAA announces the submission deadline
of October 15, 2009, for Summer 2010 flight schedules at Chicago's
O'Hare International Airport (ORD), New York's John F. Kennedy
International Airport (JFK), and Newark Liberty International Airport
(EWR) in accordance with the International Air Transport Association
(IATA) Worldwide Scheduling Guidelines. The deadline of October 15,
2009, coincides with the schedule submission deadline for the IATA
Schedules Conference for the Summer 2010 scheduling season.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA has designated ORD as an IATA Level
2, Schedules Facilitated Airport, and JFK and EWR as Level 3,
Coordinated Airports. The scheduled operations at JFK and EWR are
currently limited by the FAA through orders that the FAA expects will
continue to be in effect for the Summer 2010 scheduling season.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Order Limiting Scheduled Operations at John F. Kennedy
International Airport, 73 FR 3,510 (Jan. 18, 2008); 73 FR 8,737
(Feb. 14, 2008) (amendment to order). Order Limiting Scheduled
Operations at Newark Liberty International Airport, 73 Fed. Reg.
29550 (May 21, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA is primarily concerned about planned operations during peak
hours, but carriers may submit schedule plans for the entire day. At
ORD, the peak hours are 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. Central Daylight Time (1200-
0200 UTC) and at EWR and JFK from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. Eastern Daylight
Time (1000-0300 UTC). Schedule information should include all planned
commercial operations including passenger, charter, and cargo flights.
Carriers must submit schedule information in sufficient detail to
include at minimum, the operating carrier, flight number, scheduled
time of operation, frequency, and effective dates. The FAA encourages
the use of IATA standard schedule information format and data elements
in the IATA Standard Schedules Information Manual.
    The U.S. summer scheduling season for these airports is from March
28, 2010, through October 30, 2010, in recognition of the IATA
scheduling season dates. The FAA understands there may be differences
from other nations' schedule season dates due to different U.S.
daylight saving time rules. The FAA will accommodate these differences
to the extent that it is possible.
    JFK will have runway and airfield construction during the Summer
2010 scheduling season. As a result, the primary departure runway 13R/
31L will be unavailable from March 1 until July 1, and it will not be
fully available until mid-November. During this time, the FAA will use
alternative runway configurations and procedures in order to reduce
congestion and delays; however, there will be operational impacts and
additional delays under certain conditions. During spring and early
summer, the closure of Runway 13R/31L is expected to result in year-
over-year delay increases. Modeling suggests that peak hour spring
delays will be similar to historic August levels. Regular meetings are
being held to plan for the construction and mitigation efforts. These
meetings include the FAA, the Port Authority of New York and New
Jersey, JFK air carrier representatives, and other stakeholders.
    In light of reduced airport capacity during the Summer 2010
scheduling season, the FAA anticipates allocating Operating
Authorizations only for historic operations during peak hours. Carriers
seeking to initiate new peak-hour service at JFK should consider their
alternatives or should utilize the secondary market to obtain Operating
Authorizations from other carriers.

DATES: Schedules must be submitted no later than October 15, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Schedules may be submitted by mail to the Slot
Administration Office, AGC-240, Office of the Chief Counsel, 800
Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
ARINC: DCAYAXD; or by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Tegtmeier, Associate Chief
Counsel for the Air Traffic Organization, Office of the Chief Counsel,
AGC-40, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: 202-
267-7971; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Issued in Washington, DC on September 29, 2009.
Rebecca B. MacPherson,
Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations.
[FR Doc. E9-23892 Filed 10-2-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 160 (Monday, August 21, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39509-39511]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17204]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0335; Product Identifier 2017-NM-025-AD; Amendment
39-18994; AD 2017-17-04]
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 all The
Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series
airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of cracks in the upper aft
skin of the right wing at certain fastener holes along the rear spar
upper chord. This AD requires repetitive inspections for cracking of
the upper aft skin of the wings, and repair if necessary. We are
issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective September 25, 2017.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of September
25, 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; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards
Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also
available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0335.

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-
0335; 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 final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office
(phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) 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: Payman Soltani, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount
Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 562-627-
5210; 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 all Model 737-100, -200, -
200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Federal Register on May 17, 2017 (82 FR 22619) (``the NPRM''). The NPRM
was prompted by a report of cracks in the upper aft skin of the right
wing at certain fastener holes along the rear spar upper chord. The
NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections for cracking of the
upper aft skin of the wings, and repair if necessary.

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.

Support for the NPRM

    Boeing and Robert Simpson concurred with the content of the NPRM.

Effect of Winglets on Accomplishment of the Proposed Actions

    Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing the supplemental
type certificate (STC) ST01219SE does not affect compliance with the
actions specified in the NPRM.
    We agree with the commenter. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of
the proposed AD as paragraph (c)(1) and added paragraph (c)(2) to this
AD to state that installation of STC ST01219SE does not affect the
ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for
airplanes on which STC ST01219SE is installed, a ``change in product''
alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not
necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this final rule with the change 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 final
rule.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1332, dated
January 3, 2017. This service information describes procedures for
repetitive detailed inspections of the upper aft skin of the wings for
cracking. 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 471 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repetitive inspections...........  5 work-hours x $85               $0  $425 per inspection  $200,175 per
                                    per hour = $425                      cycle.               inspection cycle.
                                    per inspection
                                    cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that enables us to provide cost
estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to
the Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

    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):

2017-17-04 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18994; Docket No. FAA-
2017-0335; Product Identifier 2017-NM-025-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective September 25, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    (1) This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -
200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in
any category.
    (2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC)
ST01219SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/
rgstc.nsf/0/312bc296830a925c86257c85006d1b1f/$FILE/ST01219SE.pdf)
does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by
this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01219SE is
installed, a ``change in product'' alternative method of compliance
(AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the
requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of cracks in the upper aft skin
of the right wing at certain fastener holes along the rear spar
upper chord. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in
the upper aft skin of the wings, which could result in the inability
of a principle structural element to sustain limit load, and
consequent reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Group 2 Airplanes: Detailed Inspections and Repair

    For Group 2 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-57A1332, dated January 3, 2017: At the applicable time
specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-57A1332, dated January 3, 2017, except as required by
paragraph (i) of this AD, do a detailed inspection for cracking of
the upper aft skin of the wings from wing buttock line (WBL) 80 to
WBL 155, in accordance with Part 1 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1332, dated
January 3, 2017. If any cracking is found, repair before further
flight in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j)
of this AD. Although Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1332,
dated January 3, 2017, specifies to contact Boeing for repair
instructions, and specifies that action as ``RC'' (Required for
Compliance), this AD requires repair as specified in this paragraph.
Repeat the inspection thereafter at the applicable time specified in
paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-57A1332, dated January 3, 2017.

(h) Group 1 Airplanes: Inspection and Corrective Action

    For Group 1 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-57A1332, dated January 3, 2017: Within 120 days after
the effective date of this AD, inspect for cracking of the upper aft
skin of the wings, and do all applicable corrective actions, using a
method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (j) of this AD.

(i) Exception to the Service Information

    Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1332, dated January
3, 2017, 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.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority
to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures
found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your
request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards
District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to
the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (k) 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, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 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 (g) of this AD: For service
information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for
Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (j)(4)(i) and
(j)(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. If a step or substep is labeled ``RC Exempt,'' then the
RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. 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.

(k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Payman Soltani,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch,
3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-
5313; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(l) 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 737-57A1332, dated January 3,
2017.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For 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;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (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 August 8, 2017.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-17204 Filed 8-18-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency s Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement, and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request 2. OMB control number b. X None EPA, Office of Air and Radiation, OAQPS a.   2 0 6 0 3. Type of information collection ( check one) 4. Type of review requested ( check one)

a. x New collection a. x Regular b. Revision of a currently approved collection b. Emergency  Approval requested by: / /

c. Extension of a currently approved collection c. Delegated d. Reinstatement, without change, of a previously 5. Small entities approved collection for which approval has expired Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a e. Reinstatement, with change, of a previously substantial number of small entities? Yes x No approved collection for which approval has expired f. Existing collection in use without OMB control 6. Requested expiration date number a. x Three years from approval date For b   f, note Item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions b. Other Specify: /

7. Title Standards of Performance for New and Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Steam Generating Units ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUUU) ( Final Rule)

8. Agency form number( s) ( if applicable)

EPA ICR No. 2137.02 9. Keywords Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Electric utility steam generating units 10. Abstract Recordkeeping and reporting requirements for final rule amendments to 40 CFR parts 60, 72 and 75 that establish mercury emission limits for new coalsteam generating units and a mercury emissions cap and trade program for existing coal fired electric utility steam generating units.

11. Affected public 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with   P  and all others that apply with   X ) ( Mark primary with   P  and all others that apply with   X )

a. Individuals or households d. Farms a. Voluntary b. P Business or other for profit e. X Federal Government b. Required to obtain or retain benefits c. Not for profit institutions f. X State, Local or Tribal c. P Mandatory Government 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Number of respondents 1,125 a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs $ 11,870 b. Total annual responses 1,125 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) $ 73,132 1. Percentage of these responses c. Total annualized cost requested $ 85,002 collected electronically 0 % d. Current OMB inventory $ 0 c. Total annual hours requested 710,993 e. Difference $ 85,002 d. Current OMB inventory 0 f. Explanation of difference e. Difference 710,993 1. Program change $ 85,002 f. Explanation of difference 2. Adjustment $ 0 1. Program change 710,993 2. Adjustment 0 15. Purpose of information collection 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply)

( Mark primary with   P  and all others that apply with   X ) a. X Recordkeeping b. Third party disclosure a. Application for benefits e. Program planning or c. X Reporting b. Program evaluation management 1. X On occasion 2. Weekly c. General purpose statistics f. Research 3. Monthly 4. X Quarterly d. Audit g. P Regulatory or 5. X Semi annually 6. X Annually compliance 7. Biennially 8. Other ( describe) daily 17. Statistical methods 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the Does this information collection employ statistical methods? content of this submission)

Yes X No Name: Bill Maxwell, EPA/ OAR/ OAQPS/ ESD Phone: 919 541 5430 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 2 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, I certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers: ( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions; ( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication; ( c) It reduces burden on small entities; ( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents; ( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices; ( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements; ( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( i) Why the information is being collected; ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number; ( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions); ( i) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Office Official Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Date Director, Office of Environmental Information OMB 83 I 10/ 95


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 215 (Thursday, November 6, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65901-65906]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26300]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0169; FRL-9918-73-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Allegheny County; Control of Outdoor Wood-Fired Boilers

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania pertaining to the control of particulate matter (PM)
emissions from the operation of outdoor wood-fired boilers (OWBs) in
Allegheny County. EPA is approving this revision in accordance with the
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This final rule is effective on December 8, 2014.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0169. All documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic
docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III,
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the
Commonwealth's submittal are available at the Allegheny County Health
Department, Bureau of Environmental Quality, Division of Air Quality,
301 39th Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15201.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Schmitt,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On August 5, 2014, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPR) proposing approval of a revision to the Allegheny County portion
of the Pennsylvania SIP for the control of PM from the operation of
OWBs in Allegheny County. 79 FR 45395. The formal SIP revision was
submitted on January 15, 2014 by the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (PADEP) on behalf of Allegheny County. In the
NPR, EPA proposed approval of the SIP revision because EPA's review of
the revision indicated that the regulations submitted would reduce
problems associated with the operation of OWBs, including smoke and
burning prohibited fuels, including garbage, tires, and hazardous
waste. Id. at 45396.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    The SIP revision consists of: (1) adding Section 2104.09 (Outdoor
Wood-Fired Boiler) to Article XXI, ``Air Pollution Control Rules and
Regulations''; and (2) adding new related definitions to Section
2101.20 (Definitions) of Article XXI. Section 2104.09 contains the
requirements pertaining to the sale, manufacture, installation, and
operation of OWBs in Allegheny County. The specific requirements
pertaining to the regulation of OWBs in Allegheny County, as well as
EPA's rationale for approving these changes, are explained in the NPR
and the accompanying Technical Support Document (TSD) and will not be
restated here. These documents are contained in the electronic docket
available online at www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-R03-OAR-
2014-0169.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In the TSD, EPA stated that the SIP revision would reduce
emissions of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) from OWBs
which would promote benefits such as improved visibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Public Comments

    EPA received two sets of comments on the August 5, 2014 NPR
proposing approval of Allegheny County's January 15, 2014 SIP
submission for control of OWBs in the County. A full set of comments is
provided in the docket for this final rulemaking action. A summary of
each comment and EPA's response is provided in this section.

A. Clean Air Council Comments

    Comment: Clean Air Council (CAC) urges EPA to disapprove the
proposed SIP revision based on several factors and states that an
outright ban on OWBs in Allegheny County is appropriate asserting,
``greater action is necessary to sufficiently protect residents from
harmful wood smoke'' from OWBs. Specifically, CAC states that an
outright ban of OWBs in Allegheny County is appropriate given the local
terrain, proximity of neighbors, and magnitude of other emissions in
the Allegheny County airshed.

    To support this argument, CAC cites a study which indicates setback
regulations and stack height requirements for OWBs are insufficient to
protect public health. CAC also mentions that EPA's proposed
residential wood heater new source performance standards (NSPS) point
to site-specific criteria that states have considered in the past when
developing rules for OWBs including: (1) local terrain; (2) proximity
of neighbors; and (3) magnitude of other emissions in the airshed.
Regarding terrain, CAC states the Allegheny County terrain is such that
emissions are frequently ``trapped'' which contributes to poor air
quality events and states the area is prone to temperature inversions
which prevent air movement and leads to stagnation. CAC contends
inversions typically occur during cooler months when OWBs would likely
be used more often which would lead to potentially dangerous periods of
high PM levels in the County. In addition, CAC refers to Allegheny
County's population density as more dense than the average density for
Pennsylvania and compares it to the density for the State of Washington
which banned OWBs.
    Finally, CAC asserts concerns with the magnitude of emissions in
the Allegheny County airshed and refers to the County as downwind of
West Virginia nonattainment areas for PM2.5 and sulfur
dioxide (SO2) and of a maintenance area for ozone. CAC notes
the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley area is also designated nonattainment for
the 1997 and 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS while Allegheny County and
Beaver County are designated nonattainment for the 2010 SO2
NAAQS.\2\ Finally, CAC cites to the recent, proposed designation of
Allegheny County as nonattainment for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
CAC states EPA's proposed designation found Allegheny County has high
emissions of PM-precursor pollutants, including nitrogen oxides
(NOX), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), ammonia, and
SO2, and states EPA identified nine major sources of PM-
precursor pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ CAC notes a portion of Beaver County is also designated
nonattainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Overall, CAC claims continued operation of OWBs in the County will
only ``exacerbate'' the County's struggle to attain the NAAQS and
requested EPA disapprove the proposed SIP revision as CAC believes only
a complete ban on OWBs can protect County residents given these
factors.
    Response: EPA appreciates CAC's concern regarding Allegheny
County's air quality and CAC's suggestion for a ban on OWBs. Present
laws and regulations in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and in
Allegheny County specifically permit operation and use of OWBs with
certain conditions. This SIP revision includes regulations from the
Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD) providing additional
restrictions on operation and use of OWBs within the County which EPA
believes will reduce smoke and PM emissions therefore also improving
visibility. EPA believes approving ACHD's regulations into the
Allegheny County portion of the Pennsylvania SIP will strengthen the
SIP through pollution reductions within the County.
    Section 110 of the CAA provides the statutory framework for
approval and disapproval of SIP revisions. Under the CAA, EPA
establishes NAAQS for certain pollutants. The CAA establishes a joint
Federal and state program to control air pollution and protect the
public health. States are required to prepare SIPs for each designated
``air quality region'' within their borders. The SIP must specify
emission limits and other measures necessary for that area to attain
and maintain the required NAAQS. Pursuant to section 107(a) of the CAA,
the states have the primary responsibility to assure air quality within
the state by submitting a SIP to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Each
SIP must be submitted to the EPA for its review and approval; in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices
provided the SIP revision is found to meet the minimum requirements of
the CAA or any applicable EPA regulations. See section 110(k)(3) of the
CAA; see also Union Elec. Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 265 (1976).
    EPA's authority to approve SIP revisions is governed by CAA section
110(k). EPA does not have authority under the CAA to condition (or
otherwise require) as a prerequisite for approval of a state's SIP
submittal the adoption of the most stringent or most protective control
measure possible for achieving the NAAQS within the state as long as
the SIP meets the minimum requirements of the CAA or its implementing
regulations. See Commonwealth of Virginia, et al., v. EPA, 108 F.3d
1397, 1410 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (citing Natural Resources Defense Council,
Inc. v. Browner, 57 F.3d 1122, 1123 (D.C. Cir.1995)). EPA cannot
condition approval of Pennsylvania's SIP submission of ACHD's
regulations upon inclusion of a particular emission reduction program
such as banning OWBs as long as the SIP otherwise meets the
requirements of the CAA. As explained in the NPR and the TSD, ACHD's
regulations should reduce emissions of PM and PM2.5 and
should improve visibility within the County which should aid in the
County's attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA believes
including ACHD's regulations within the Pennsylvania SIP will
strengthen the SIP and believes the SIP revision meets the requirements
of the CAA including section 110 of the CAA. Thus, EPA disagrees that
the submitted SIP revision should be disapproved for not including in
the regulations more stringent provisions.
    Regarding EPA's 2014 proposed NSPS for OWBs, EPA stated in the
proposed residential heater NSPS, which EPA proposed pursuant to
section 111 of the CAA, that additional actions may be needed by local
regulatory authorities in addressing impacts from residential heaters
due to site-specific concerns, such as local terrain, meteorology,
proximity of neighbors and other exposed individuals. 79 FR 6330, 6336
(February 3, 2014). Thus, in keeping with Congressional intent for
states to design emission reduction programs within their states for
SIPs in accordance with sections 107(a) and 110, local and state
regulatory authorities may consider requirements for residential wood
heaters for SIPs which are beyond the requirements EPA has proposed for
the NSPS and may consider such factors as local terrain, meteorology,
proximity of neighbors and other exposed individuals. These factors are
not mandatory for states to consider for emission reduction measures
for SIPs and were not used by EPA in developing the 2014 NSPS proposal;
they are also not mandatory minimum requirements in the CAA for
approvability of Pennsylvania's SIP revision to include ACHD's
regulations for OWBs.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In the 2014 NSPS proposal, EPA stated, ``our BSER [Best
System of Emission Reduction] determination rests on: (1) the
achievability of the proposed emission levels (i.e., the fact that
top-performing models for each appliance type are already achieving
the proposed emission levels); and (2) the cost effectiveness of the
proposed standards when considering the design life span and the
emitting life span of the appliances in residences.'' 79 FR at 6354.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also notes that CAC correctly indicated the attainment status
of several areas in West Virginia as well as in Allegheny County.
However, EPA is approving this SIP revision pursuant to section 110 of
the CAA as the PM reductions and visibility improvement from ACHD's
regulations will strengthen the Pennsylvania SIP. Pennsylvania did not
submit this SIP

revision as an attainment plan for any NAAQS, thus, no provisions in
part D, Title I of the CAA, relating to attainment planning, are
applicable to this rulemaking action. EPA notes that when Pennsylvania
develops any required attainment plans for Allegheny County for any
NAAQS it could consider whether a total ban on OWBs might be
appropriate to demonstrate timely attainment or represent reasonably
available control measures, and EPA would consider the potential
availability of such controls in reviewing any attainment SIPs for
Allegheny County.
    In summary, nothing in the CAA requires EPA to consider the
terrain, proximity of neighbors, or magnitude of other emissions in the
airshed before determining the approvability of a particular regulation
for a SIP revision. EPA finds the SIP revision to include ACHD's
regulations for OWBs strengthens the Pennsylvania SIP with pollution
reduction requirements, particularly for PM, and therefore meets the
requirements for SIP approval in section 110 of the CAA.
    Comment: CAC also claims that the enforceability of ACHD's
prohibition on the use of OWBs during air quality action days (in
Section 2104.09(h) of Article XXI, Rules and Regulations of the ACHD)
is ``dubious at best'' as it will be difficult for ACHD to assess
compliance and take corrective action when needed. CAC claims an
outright ban of OWBs is therefore appropriate for Allegheny County.
    Response: EPA appreciates CAC's concern with the enforceability of
ACHD's regulation; however, EPA disagrees that CAC's concern with
enforceability of the regulation impacts our ability to approve this
SIP revision.\4\ EPA is approving ACHD's OWB regulations for inclusion
in the Pennsylvania SIP because the regulations will reduce PM and
improve visibility within Allegheny County, and therefore the SIP
revision meets requirements in CAA section 110 as the revision
strengthens the Pennsylvania SIP. CAC has presented no factual or legal
argument supporting its concern for the enforceability of ACHD's OWB
regulations. EPA has previously concluded the Pennsylvania SIP includes
enforceable emission limitations and control measures and provides
necessary assurances that Pennsylvania has adequate personnel, funding
and authority to implement the Pennsylvania SIP. \5\ CAC provides no
factual or legal argument to challenge our prior conclusions. EPA
believes ACHD's regulations include clear and practically enforceable
terms for fuel requirements for OWBs and for sale, distribution and
operation of OWBs, including a prohibition on OWB operation on Air
Quality Action Days in Allegheny County.\6\ As EPA has previously
concluded Pennsylvania has adequate funding and other tools such as
personnel to implement its SIP, EPA disagrees with CAC that its
unsubstantiated concerns with enforceability of ACHD's OWB regulations
lead to any conclusion that a ban on OWBs is appropriate or required
instead of approval of this SIP revision. In addition, including the
OWB regulations in the Pennsylvania SIP ensures Federal enforceability
of the regulations providing additional assurance the SIP will be
implemented. See section 113(a) of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As part of the SIP submittal, Pennsylvania included ACHD's
response to comments received during ACHD's public comment process
on these OWB regulations. In the responses, ACHD stated it regularly
implements effective enforcement of all Article XXI regulations and
expects to do the same with the proposed new OWB regulations.
    \5\ See 77 FR 58955 (approving Pennsylvania's infrastructure
SIPs as meeting requirements in CAA section 110(a)(2) including
110(a)(2)(A) and (E) for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone and the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS).
    \6\ ``Air Quality Action Day'' is clearly defined in section
2101.20 of ACHD's Article XXI to mean ``a day for which a forecast
has been issued by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection, the Allegheny County Health Department or the Southwest
Pennsylvania Air Quality Partnership indicating that ambient
concentrations of ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, sulfur
dioxide, or nitrogen dioxide might reach unhealthful levels or
exceed the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: CAC cites to a 2010 study by Environment and Human Health,
Inc. (EHHI) that indicates setback regulations and stack height
requirements for OWBs have been insufficient to protect human health.
CAC asserts the study concluded OWBs should be banned as no regulations
put in place protect neighboring properties or health of families in
homes on those properties. CAC requests that EPA disapprove the
proposed SIP revision in light of the study.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the CAC that EPA should disapprove the
SIP revision for ACHD's regulations on OWBs based on this EHHI study.
The 2010 EHHI study investigated how homes are affected by neighboring
OWBs and the health implications for the families living inside homes
impacted by wood smoke. The EHHI study measured indoor PM
(PM2.5 and even finer particulate matter less than 0.5
micrometers (PM0.5)) inside homes varying in distance from
an operating OWB in the State of Connecticut over the course of three
days. The proposed SIP revision from ACHD is intended to reduce outdoor
air pollution. As discussed previously, EPA is approving this SIP
revision because it strengthens the SIP and will provide benefits by
reducing PM and PM2.5 emissions from OWBs overall and
improving visibility. Congress did not design the CAA (including the
SIP process, NAAQS pollutants, or area nonattainment designations) to
have any effect on indoor air pollution. Even though concentrations of
PM from OWBs may enter nearby resident's homes, the CAA does not
require states to control outdoor pollution based on indoor impacts.
The CAC has not articulated any legal argument regarding why a study of
indoor PM impacts EPA's ability to approve a SIP revision which EPA
finds benefits emissions of PM2.5 to outdoor air. EPA
recognizes that there may be ancillary health benefits in a community
that coincide with OWB programs. As mentioned in the TSD accompanying
our NPR, EPA noted the ACHD regulations for OWBs, which are in addition
to Pennsylvania's requirements for OWBs in 25 Pa. Code 123.14, should
provide further protections to the residents of Allegheny County.
However, as previously discussed, states have primary responsibility
for deciding how to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Under the CAA, the
sole issue for EPA's consideration in this rulemaking action is whether
ACHD's OWB regulations, as an additional PM control measure for the
Pennsylvania SIP, would be consistent with CAA provisions. EPA is
approving the inclusion of ACHD's OWB regulations into the SIP because
the approval is consistent with the requirements of section 110 of the
CAA, including attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS, including the
PM NAAQS. CAC's request for a ban on OWBs in Allegheny County based on
health concerns, particularly concerns for indoor air pollution, may be
considered and implemented at the local level without EPA's review or
approval. See 77 FR 1414 (January 10, 2012) (final action approving
revisions to the Alaska SIP relating to removing the motor vehicle
inspection and maintenance program for control of carbon monoxide in
Anchorage).

B. American Lung Association Comments

    The American Lung Association (ALA) provides several comments in
order to ``amplify'' comments received from CAC.
    Comment: With respect to the issue of proximity of neighbors, ALA
emphasizes that this factor renders

OWBs problematic for the City of Pittsburgh and the remainder of
Allegheny County, which has a population density nearly five times that
of the state average. ALA states the areas of the County beyond the
City of Pittsburgh are also at increased risk from OWBs. ALA asserts
that any rule regulating any air pollution source should address the
issue from the macro scale of air pollution inventories and that
source's impacts on ambient air quality for the region as a whole, and
should not institutionalize highly localized adverse air pollution
impacts. ALA asserts it could support a rule for OWBs if ACHD could
demonstrate widespread use of OWBs (operating with the local
topographic variations and uneven compliance with rules for feedstock
quality and operating conditions) would not produce significantly
elevated concentrations of air pollutants in neighboring properties.
ALA claims evidence it has seen shows such a rule is unlikely to be so
effective. ALA also asserts any rule on OWBs must not only be workable
for the current locations and prevalence of these units but should be
forward-looking and able to handle possible future expansions of this
source. ALA claims the regulatory burden of managing emissions from a
much larger local inventory of OWBs, along with all of the issues
related to cumulative adverse effects of individually, apparently
``well-controlled'' sources, and even neighbor-versus-neighbor
disputes, should not be regarded as inconsiderable. ALA claims once
OWBs are widely used it will be difficult to return to non-use.
    Finally, ALA notes studies done in southwestern Pennsylvania and in
Allegheny County in particular show evidence that current levels of air
pollution and emissions of carcinogens already pose higher risks to
health and lives of regional and county residents. ALA claims such a
situation does not support taking less than a strict health-protective
approach with respect to sources of air pollution that are already
problematic, both in terms of emission factors, and in terms of the
necessary surveillance and enforcement resources to control them
properly.
    Response: EPA appreciates the health-based concerns expressed by
ALA. EPA notes that it considers health based impacts when setting the
NAAQS, including in particular the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA
sets the NAAQS to protect public health with an adequate margin of
safety. As previously discussed, Congress placed the role of
implementing the NAAQS and devising measures to attain and maintain the
NAAQS with the states. See section 107(a) of CAA. EPA's role is to
approve SIP submittals that meet minimum criteria in the CAA and its
implementing regulations. EPA believes ACHD's OWB regulations
strengthen the Pennsylvania SIP as the regulations should reduce
overall emissions of PM2.5 from OWBs. Pennsylvania's SIP
submittal discussed how ACHD tailored its OWB regulations to the
specific situations encountered in Allegheny County and how ACHD
expected the regulations to benefit the health of citizens of Allegheny
County.\7\ EPA's TSD, supporting the approval of the SIP revision,
stated the ACHD regulations would reduce problems associated with the
operation of OWBs, including smoke and burning prohibited fuels, and
would reduce ambient levels of PM2.5 which would improve
visibility. To approve these regulations as a SIP-strengthening
measure, EPA does not have to determine if the emissions reductions
from the regulations are or are not significant or address health
concerns in Allegheny County. EPA merely needs to determine if the
regulations will generate some additional emissions reductions that
would not be achieved by the current Pennsylvania SIP. EPA has reviewed
these regulations in accordance with that framework and finds the
provisions approvable for the SIP as the regulations will reduce
PM2.5 and improve visibility. EPA has concluded the OWB
regulations meet the minimum criteria for SIP approvability. No
provision in the CAA, or in its implementing regulations, requires
consideration of additional health impacts available from alternative,
more stringent emission control measures before EPA may approve
emission control measures submitted by a state for SIP approval, nor
requires EPA to take a ``strict health-protective approach'' before
approving SIPs as suggested by ALA. See Commonwealth of Virginia v.
EPA, 108 F.3d 1397 (limiting role of EPA to reviewing SIP submissions
for compliance with CAA requirements). As discussed in a prior
response, and in the TSD, EPA recognizes that there may be ancillary
health benefits in Allegheny County from the OWB regulations from
reduced exposure to PM2.5 emissions. However, as discussed
previously, states have primary responsibility for deciding how to
attain and maintain the NAAQS, which EPA set to protect health with an
adequate margin of safety. Under the CAA, the sole issue for EPA's
consideration in this rulemaking action is whether adding the OWB
regulations from ACHD in the SIP would be consistent with CAA
provisions. EPA has found the ACHD regulations are a PM control measure
and approval is therefore consistent with the requirements of the CAA,
including attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. Concerns regarding
population density, institutionalized air pollution impacts, cumulative
adverse health impacts, property impacts, and increased usage of OWBs
are not criteria for approving SIP submissions under the CAA. ACHD is
able to consider on its own any additional restrictions on OWBs or
other emission sources to benefit the health of residents of Allegheny
County given ALA's concerns for air pollution in the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The SIP submittal is available in the electronic docket
online at www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0169.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, operation of OWBs is permissible generally within
Allegheny County and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. ACHD's
regulations add restrictions on OWB operations and therefore reduce
impacts from the OWB operation. Therefore, contrary to ALA's comments,
ACHD's regulations should reduce air pollutant concentrations and not
lead to elevated concentrations of air pollutants. Thus, EPA
appreciates ALA's comments and concerns but finds the submitted SIP
provision approvable and in accordance with the CAA.

IV. Correction

    During the course of this rulemaking action EPA became aware of
three inadvertent errors involving Section 2101.20 in the ``EPA-
Approved Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD) Regulations'' at 40
CFR 52.2020(c), table (2). The first error occurs at the second entry
for Section 2101.20. The title of the section should read
``Definitions'' not ``Definitions related to gasoline volatility.'' The
second error occurs at the fourth entry for Section 2101.20. The EPA
approval date should read ``12/28/10, 75 FR 81480'' not ``12/28/10, 75
FR 81555.'' The third error occurs at the fifth entry for Section
2101.20. The EPA approval date should read ``1/2/14, 79 FR 54'' not
``1/2/14, 79 FR.'' In this rulemaking action, EPA corrects these
errors.

V. Final Action

    EPA is approving the Pennsylvania SIP revision consisting of: (1)
The addition of Section 2104.09 (Outdoor Wood-Fired Boilers) to Article
XXI, ``Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations''; and (2) the
addition of related new definitions to Section 2101.20. EPA is also
correcting minor typographical errors found in 40 CFR

52.2020(c), table (2), related to Section 2101.20 (Definitions).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, 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.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by January 5, 2015. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action, pertaining to the regulation of OWBs in Allegheny
County, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: October 23, 2014.
William C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
    40 CFR part 52 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 NN--Pennsylvania

0
2. In Sec.  52.2020, the table in paragraph (c)(2) is amended by:
0
a. Under Part A, revising the second, fourth, and fifth entries for
``2101.20'', and adding a new entry for ``2120.20'' and
0
b. Under Part D, adding in numerical order an entry for ``2104.09''.
    The revised and added text reads as follows:

Sec.  52.2020  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Additional
   Article XX or XXI          Title/Subject      State  effective     EPA Approval date      explanation/  Sec.
        citation                                       date                                   52.2063 citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Part A--General
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
2101.20................  Definitions...........   5/15/98, 9/1/99  4/17/01, 66 FR 19724..  (c)(151); See Part I
                                                                                of the IBR document.

                                                  * * * * * * *
2101.20................  Definitions...........           5/24/10  12/28/10, 75 FR 81480.  Addition of four new
                                                                                definitions:
                                                                                Exterior panels,
                                                                                interior panels,
                                                                                flat wood panel
                                                                                coating, and
                                                                                tileboard. See Part
                                                                                III of the IBR
                                                                                document.
2101.20................  Definitions...........           5/24/10  1/2/14, 79 FR 54......  Addition of ``PM2.5''
                                                                                definition.

2101.20................  Definitions...........            6/8/13  11/6/14 [Insert         Added seven
                                                                    Federal Register        definitions related
                                                                    citation].              to Outdoor Wood-
                                                                                Fired Boilers.

                                                  * * * * * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Part D--Pollutant Emission Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
2104.09................  Outdoor Wood-Fired                6/8/13  11/6/14 [Insert         Added new regulation.
                          Boilers.                                  Federal Register
                                                                    citation].

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

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2014-26300 Filed 11-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P