[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 51 (Monday, March 16, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14840-14842]
[FR Doc No: 2020-05176]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2019-0890]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Highway 99 Partial Bridge Replacement, Stanislaus
River, Ripon, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a temporary safety
zone for certain waters of the Stanislaus River. This action is
necessary to provide for the safety of life on the Stanislaus River
near the Highway 99 Bridge in Ripon, CA, during partial bridge
replacement scheduled to occur between June 15, 2020 and November 7,
2020. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from
being in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port
San Francisco or a designated representative. We invite your comments
on this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before April 15, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2019-0890 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email LT Jennae Cotton, Waterways
Management, 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 San Francisco
DHS Department of Homeland Security

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On October 18, 2019, the California Department of Transportation
notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting partial bridge
replacement of the Highway 99 Bridge in Ripon, CA, from June 15, 2020
to November 7, 2020. Approximately 200 feet of the existing concrete,
double-arch bridge on Southbound Highway 99 over the Stanislaus River
will be demolished, removed, and replaced. Bridge construction hazards
include reduced bridge clearance and the potential for falling debris,
such as steel beams and other construction materials from demolition
and crane operations. The COTP has determined that potential hazards
associated with the partial bridge replacement would be a safety
concern for anyone within the Stanislaus River around or under the
bridge construction project.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels
and mariners in the navigable waters surrounding the Highway 99 Bridge
in Ripon, CA during construction. The Coast Guard is proposing this
rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP is proposing to establish a safety zone surrounding the
Highway 99 Bridge in Ripon, CA from June 15, 2020 through November 7,
2020. The safety zone would encompass all navigable waters of the
Stanislaus River, from surface to bottom, between the Union Pacific
Railway Bridge to the west and the Stanislaus River pedestrian crossing
bridge to the east of the Ripon Highway 99 Bridge, within the area
formed by connecting the following approximate latitude and longitude
points in the following order: 37[deg]43'47.7'' N, 121[deg]06'36.0'' W,
thence to 37[deg]43'49.9'' N, 121[deg]06'38.6'' W, thence to
37[deg]43'51.3'' N, 121[deg]06'36.1'' W, thence to 37[deg]43'49.2'' N,
121[deg]06'33.6'' W (NAD 83), and thence to the point of beginning; or
as announced via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
    This safety zone is intended to ensure the safety of mariners,
vessels, and the navigable waters during the bridge construction
project. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety
zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated
representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end
of this document.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed 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 NPRM has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, the NPRM 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 location of
the safety zone. Vessel transits in the area are limited to
recreational vessels and personal watercraft including small
recreational vessels used for fishing, kayaks, and inner tubes. Notice
would be provided to mariners via Notice to Mariners and posted at the
construction site and adjacent river entry locations 30 days in
advance.

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
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator. Notice will be provided 30 days
in advance of the safety zone. River entry and exit points will be
identified on both sides of the safety zone, and markers will provide
mariners with clear instruction throughout the duration of the project.
Depending on operations and river level parameters, mariners will be
provided a transit lane on weekends between July 25, 2020 and November
7, 2020.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    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 proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would 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 proposed 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 proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments) because it would 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 proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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 proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023-01 and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1
(series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination 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 proposed rule involves a safety
zone that would prohibit entry to the area surrounding the bridge
construction site and would last approximately five months with
intermittent weekend openings. Normally such actions are categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) in Table 3-1 of
U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Implementing Procedures. A
preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this
determination is available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed
rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for
alternate instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, visit https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

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 is
proposing to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 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.T11-019 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T11-019   Safety Zone; Highway 99 Partial Bridge Replacement,
Stanislaus River, Ripon, CA

    (a) Location. The following is a safety zone: The navigable waters
of the Stanislaus River, from surface to bottom, between the Union
Pacific Railway Bridge to the west and the Stanislaus River pedestrian
crossing bridge to the east of the Highway 99 Ripon Bridge, within the
area formed by connecting the following approximate latitude and
longitude points in the following order: 37[deg]43'47.7'' N,
121[deg]06'36.0'' W, thence to 37[deg]43'49.9'' N, 121[deg]06'38.6'' W,
thence to 37[deg]43'51.3'' N, 121[deg]06'36.1'' W, thence to
37[deg]43'49.2'' N, 121[deg]06'33.6'' W (NAD 83), and thence to the
point of beginning; or as announced via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, ``designated
representative'' means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a
Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast
Guard vessel or a Federal, State, or local officer designated by or
assisting the Captain of the Port San Francisco (COTP) in the
enforcement of the safety zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
subpart B of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (2) The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
    (3) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone must contact the COTP or the COTP's designated representative to
obtain permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter
or operate in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or
directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated
representative. Persons and vessels may request permission to enter the
safety zone through the 24-hour Command Center at telephone (415) 399-
3547.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from June 15,
2020 through November 7, 2020.
    (e) Information broadcasts. The COTP or the COTP's designated
representative will notify the maritime community of periods during
which this zone will be enforced in accordance with 33 CFR 165.7.
Additionally, signage will be posted beginning 30 days prior to the
start of the project and will remain posted for the duration of the
project. River markers will be provided on the Stanislaus River on each
side of the safety zone to direct mariners.

    Dated: March 9, 2020.
Howard H. Wright,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Alternate Captain of the Port, San
Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2020-05176 Filed 3-13-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 187 (Thursday, September 26, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50721-50725]
[FR Doc No: 2019-20893]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0250; Product Identifier 2018-NM-157-AD; Amendment
39-19734; AD 2019-18-07]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2015-17-
14, which applied to all Airbus SAS Model A319 series airplanes; Model
A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes, and Model A321-
111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. AD 2015-
17-14 required repetitive rototest inspections of the open tack holes
and rivet holes at the cargo floor support fittings of the fuselage,
including doing all applicable related investigative actions, and
repair if necessary. This AD continues to require the actions of AD
2015-17-14, adds actions for certain airplanes, and reduces the
compliance times for certain airplanes, as specified in an European
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is incorporated by reference.
This AD also reduces the applicability. This AD was prompted by further
analysis and widespread fatigue damage (WFD) evaluations which
identified the need to reduce the initial compliance times and
repetitive intervals for the inspections for certain airplanes, and to
add work for certain airplanes. The FAA is issuing this AD to address
the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective October 31, 2019.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 31,
2019.

ADDRESSES: For the material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this AD,
contact the EASA, at Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany;
telephone +49 221 89990 1000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet
www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this IBR material on the EASA website
at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this IBR material at the
FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195. It is also available in the AD docket on the internet at
http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2019-0250.

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-2019-
0250; or in person at Docket Operations 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 Docket Operations is 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: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD
2018-0233R1, dated November 28, 2018 (``EASA AD 2018-0233R1'')
(referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness
Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for
certain Airbus SAS Model A319 series airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -
214, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -
131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. You may examine the
MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-0250.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2015-17-14, Amendment 39-18247 (80 FR
52182, August 28, 2015) (``AD 2015-17-14''). AD 2015-17-14 applied to
all Airbus SAS Model A319 series airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214,
-231, -232, and -233 airplanes, and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -
212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on April 24, 2019 (84 FR 17102). The NPRM was prompted by
further analysis and WFD evaluations which identified the need to
reduce the initial compliance times and repetitive intervals for the
inspections for certain airplanes, and to add work for certain
airplanes. The NPRM proposed to continue to require the actions of AD
2015-17-14. The NPRM also proposed to add actions for certain
airplanes, and reduce the compliance times for certain airplanes. The
FAA is issuing this AD to address cracking in the open tack holes and
rivet holes at the cargo floor support fittings of the fuselage, which
could affect the structural integrity of the airplane. See the MCAI for
additional background information.

Comments

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

Request To Change Applicability

    Delta TechOps (DAL) asked that the applicability identified in
paragraph (c) of the proposed AD be changed by adding the following
language: ``Serial number exceptions for Airbus production
[modification] MOD status, as defined within the Applicability
paragraph of EASA AD 2018-0233R1, are likewise acceptable for FAA AD
applicability definition.'' DAL stated that paragraph (c) applies to
certain A320 family aircraft identified in the EASA AD, and noted that
paragraph 2 of the EASA AD provides additional applicability details,
namely, excluding serial numbers from the applicability based on the
Airbus MOD status.
    The FAA acknowledges the commenter's request and offers the
following clarification: The intent of the applicability identified in
paragraph (c) of this AD is to match the applicability in EASA AD 2018-
0233R1, for airplanes with an FAA-approved type certificate, including
exceptions based on modifications. Therefore, no change to this AD is
necessary in this regard.

Request To Change Method for Obtaining Corrective Actions

    DAL asked that the method for obtaining corrective actions, as
required by paragraph (g) of the proposed AD, be changed. DAL stated
that those requirements entail complying with all required actions and
compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, EASA AD 2018-
0233R1. DAL added that, specifically, this means the method for
obtaining all corrective actions is to contact Airbus. DAL asked that
the method for obtaining corrective actions be changed as follows:

    If any crack is found during any inspection required by this AD:
Before further flight, repair using a method approved by the
Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or
Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the
DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    DAL noted that, as written, the proposed AD will limit
authorization for corrective action solely to Airbus (EASA DOA), which
restricts operator flexibility to obtain corrective action directly
from the FAA or from the EASA.
    The FAA disagrees with the commenter's request because the method
proposed by the commenter is already provided in paragraph (i)(2) of
this AD (as restated from the proposed AD), which in turn applies to
paragraph (g) of this AD. Therefore, no change to this AD is necessary
in this regard.

Request To Include Certain Deviations

    DAL asked that a deviation paragraph be added to the exceptions in
paragraph (h) of the proposed AD as follows: ``If accomplishing
inspections according to a non-RC [required for compliance] revision of
manufacturer Service Information, deviations from paragraphs other than
paragraph 3.C. `Procedures' do not require an [alternative method of
compliance] AMOC.'' DAL stated that the inspection can be done using
any revision of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1257, and the original
issue was not written in RC format. DAL added that operators have by
now performed the initial inspection using the original issue of that
service information. DAL noted that these inspections comply with the
final rule because credit is allowed in EASA AD 2018-0233R1. DAL stated
that it is possible that operators deviated from procedures outside of
paragraph 3.C. when accomplishing a non-RC

formatted service information revision, or may never have incorporated
Revision 01 or Revision 02.
    The FAA disagrees with the commenter's request. EASA AD 2018-0233R1
requires inspecting in accordance with Revision 02 of Airbus Service
Bulletin A320-53-1257. If the inspection is done using the original
issue or Revision 01 of the service information, credit is given for
compliance in EASA AD 2018-0233R1. Any deviation from the service
information must comply with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
Therefore, no change to this AD is necessary in this regard.

Request To Remove Corrosion Prevention Requirement

    DAL stated that the application of CML 12ADB1 Corrosion
Preventative Compound should not be considered an RC step. DAL noted
that operators are responsible for maintaining their own corrosion
prevention programs, and application of corrosion inhibiting compounds
(CICs) during embodiment of ADs should not be included with the RC
steps.
    The FAA does not agree to remove the requirement to apply CIC. The
application of CIC is necessary to address the unsafe condition, and to
ensure that the correct CIC is used, this AD requires use of the CIC
referenced in the service information that is identified in the MCAI
for the applicable product. However, under the provisions of paragraph
(i)(1) of this AD, the FAA will consider requests for approval of
another corrosion prevention compound if sufficient data are submitted
to substantiate that it would provide an acceptable level of safety.
The FAA has not changed this AD regarding this issue.

Request To Clarify Requirements

    United Airlines (UAL) asked if the intent of paragraph (g) of the
proposed AD is that operators are required to comply with EASA AD 2018-
0233R1 in its entirety, except as noted in paragraph (h) of the
proposed AD, or just compliance with the section in EASA AD 2018-0233R1
titled ``Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s).'' UAL stated that
the proposed AD should provide clarification so operators know the
specific parts of the EASA AD necessary for compliance.
    The FAA agrees to clarify the requirements in paragraph (g) of this
AD. This AD requires compliance with EASA AD 2018-0233R1 in its
entirety, through that incorporation, except for any differences
identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD. Using
common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section
in the EASA AD does not mean that operators need comply only with that
section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to ``all required
actions and compliance times,'' compliance with this AD requirement is
not limited to the section titled ``Required Action(s) and Compliance
Time(s)'' in the EASA AD. The FAA has not changed this AD in this
regard.

Request To Include Terminating Action and Credit for Previous Actions

    JetBlue asked that the modification required by paragraph (8) of
EASA AD 2018-0233R1 be added to the proposed AD as terminating action.
The commenter also asked that credit be provided for actions done in
accordance with FAA AD 2015-17-14 through related AMOCs.
    The FAA acknowledges the commenter's request. However, the
terminating action found in paragraph (8) of EASA AD 2018-0233R1 is
already provided for in paragraph (g) of this AD, which requires
complying with all required actions and compliance times specified in,
and in accordance with, EASA AD 2018-0233R1. In addition, paragraph
(i)(1)(ii) of this AD provides credit for AMOCs approved previously for
AD 2015-17-14. Unless otherwise noted in this AD, all provisions of
EASA AD 2018-0233R1 apply to the corresponding provisions of this AD.
Therefore, the FAA has made no changes to this AD in this regard.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments
received, and determined that air safety and the public interest
require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor
editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related IBR Material Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2018-0233R1 describes procedures for repetitive inspections
of the open tack holes and rivet holes of the fuselage frames below the
cargo floor support fittings for cracking. This material 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, and it is publicly available through the EASA
website.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 1,009 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                          Estimated Costs for Required Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Action                        Labor cost          Parts cost              Cost per product                  Cost on U.S. operators
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retained actions from AD 2015-17-14..  Up to 471 work-hours x               $0  Up to $40,035......................  Up to $40,395,315.
                                        $85 per hour = Up to
                                        $40,035.
New actions..........................  Up to 474 work-hours x           13,000  Up to $53,290......................  Up to $53,769,610.
                                        85 per hour = Up to
                                        $40,290.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has received no definitive data that enables the agency 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.
    The FAA is 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 and
associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA 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) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, 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.

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 removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2015-17-14, Amendment 39-18247 (80 FR 52182, August 28, 2015), and
adding the following new AD:

2019-18-07 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-19734; Docket No. FAA-2019-0250;
Product Identifier 2018-NM-157-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective October 31, 2019.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2015-17-14, Amendment 39-18247 (80 FR 52182,
August 28, 2015) (``AD 2015-17-14'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus SAS Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114,
-115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -
216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131,
-211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes; certificated in any
category, as identified in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2018-0233R1, dated November 28, 2018 (``EASA AD 2018-0233R1'').

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by further analysis and widespread fatigue
damage (WFD) evaluations and full-scale fatigue testing that
indicated that several broken frames in certain areas of the cargo
compartment were found, especially on the cargo floor support
fittings and open tack holes on the left-hand side, which identified
the need to reduce the initial compliance times and repetitive
intervals for the inspections for certain airplanes, and to add work
for certain airplanes. The FAA is issuing this AD to address
cracking in the open tack holes and rivet holes at the cargo floor
support fittings of the fuselage, which could affect the structural
integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, EASA AD 2018-0233R1.

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2018-0233R1

    (1) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements
of this AD: Where EASA AD 2018-0233R1 refers to ``the effective date
of the original issue of this AD,'' this AD requires using the
effective date of this AD, and where EASA AD 2018-0233R1 refers to
``the effective date of EASA AD 2013-0310,'' this AD requires using
October 2, 2015 (the effective date of AD 2015-17-14).
    (2) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2018-0233R1 does not
apply to this AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (j) of this AD. Information may
be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (i) 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.
    (ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2015-17-14 are approved as
AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of EASA AD 2018-0233R1 that
are required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's
EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the
approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): For any service information
referenced in EASA AD 2018-0233R1 that contains RC procedures and
tests: Except as required by paragraph (i)(2) of this AD, RC
procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as
RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests
identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

(k) 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 this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2018-0233R1, dated
November 28, 2018.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2018-0233R1, contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-
Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 89990 6017; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this
EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this EASA AD at the FAA, Transport Standards
Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

EASA AD 2018-0233R1 may be found in the AD docket on the internet at
http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2019-0250.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on September 16, 2019.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-20893 Filed 9-25-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 165 (Monday, August 28, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40701-40703]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18087]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0004; FRL-9966-94-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; Kentucky; Revisions to Jefferson County
Emissions Monitoring and Reporting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On March 22, 2011, and April 20, 2011, the Commonwealth of
Kentucky, through the Kentucky Division for Air Quality (KDAQ),
submitted revisions to the Kentucky State Implementation Plan (SIP) on
behalf of the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District
(District). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the
April 20, 2011, submittal and the portions of the March 22, 2011,
submittal concerning changes to the District's stationary source
emissions monitoring and reporting requirements because the
Commonwealth has demonstrated that these changes are consistent with
the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

DATES:  This rule will be effective September 27, 2017.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0004. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information 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 at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Wong, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Wong
can be reached by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In this rulemaking, EPA is approving certain changes related to the
District's stationary source emissions monitoring and reporting
requirements in Regulation 1.06 \1\ in the March 22, 2011, and April
20, 2011, SIP revisions. This regulation provides the District with the
authority to require emissions monitoring at stationary sources and
requires certain sources to maintain emissions records and provide
annual emissions statements to the District. It does not impose any
emissions limits or control requirements on any emissions source. The
March 22, 2011, submission also included changes to Jefferson County
Regulation 1.02--Definitions; Regulation 3.01--Ambient Air Quality
Standards; Regulation 3.02--Applicability of Ambient Air Quality
Standards; Regulation 3.03--Definitions; Regulation 3.04--Ambient Air
Quality Standards; and Regulation 3.05--Methods of Measurement. EPA
approved these changes, with the exception of the requested addition of
certain definitions in Regulation 1.02, on December 6, 2016 (81 FR
87815).\2\ The March 22, 2011, submission also included changes to
Regulation 1.07--Emissions During Startups, Shutdowns, Malfunctions and
Emergencies. EPA approved the changes to Regulation 1.07 on June 10,
2014 (79 FR 33101). The April 20, 2011, submission revises only
Regulation 1.06.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In 2003, the City of Louisville and Jefferson County
governments merged and the ``Jefferson County Air Pollution Control
District'' was renamed the ``Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control
District.'' However, each of the regulations in the Jefferson County
portion of the Kentucky SIP still has the subheading ``Air Pollution
Control District of Jefferson County.'' Thus, to be consistent with
the terminology used in the SIP, EPA refers throughout this notice
to regulations contained in Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky
SIP as the ``Jefferson County'' regulations.
    \2\ EPA did not approve the addition of definitions for the
terms ``acute noncancer effect,'' ``cancer,'' ``carcinogen,'' and
``chronic noncancer effect,'' because these definitions are not
related to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). See
81 FR 87815.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. EPA's Analysis of Kentucky's SIP Revisions

A. March 22, 2011, Submittal

    The March 22, 2011, SIP submission contains a version of Regulation
1.06 adopted by the District on June 21, 2005 (referred to as ``Version
7'' by the District) and a version of Regulation 1.06 adopted by the
District on September 21, 2005 (referred to as ``Version 8''). The
version currently incorporated into the SIP is referred to as ``Version
6'' (District effective on December 15, 1993). See 65 FR 53660 (October
23, 2001). Collectively, Versions 7 and 8 change the heading of
Regulation 1.06 to ``Stationary Source Self-Monitoring, Emissions
Inventory Development, and Reporting,'' and change aspects of Section
1--``In Stack Self-Monitoring and Reporting'' (including a change in
the title to ``In-Stack Self-Monitoring and Reporting); Section 2--
``Ambient Air Monitoring''; and Section 3--``Emissions and Related Data
Reporting'' (including a change in the title to ``Provisions for
Section 4 and Section 5 Emissions Data''). The submission adds four new
sections: Section 4--``Emissions Data for Criteria Pollutants, HAPs,
and Ammonia''; Section 5--``Enhanced Emissions Data for Toxic Air
Contaminants''; Section 6--``Certification by a Responsible Official'';
and Section 7--``Confidentiality and Open Records Requirements.'' The
changes to the heading of Regulation 1.06, the changes to Sections 1
and 2, and the addition of Sections 6 and 7 are administrative in
nature. The changes to Section 3 modify and add provisions regarding
emissions reporting data requirements, methods of emissions
calculations, and stationary source emissions statements, and remove
outdated reporting dates; the addition of Section 4 details
requirements for submitting emissions statements on an annual basis for
particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide,
lead, ozone precursor emissions of volatile organic compounds and
oxides of nitrogen, ammonia, and hazardous air pollutants; and Section
5 contains requirements for enhanced emissions statements for listed
``toxic air contaminants.'' Because the reporting of toxic air
contaminants is not related to the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for the criteria pollutants, EPA is not acting on
Section

5.\3\ EPA is approving the changes to Regulation 1.06 contained in the
March 22, 2011, SIP revision, with the exception of Section 5 and
references to Section 5 located in Section 3, to the extent that these
changes are not superseded by the changes in the April 20, 2011,
submittal discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The criteria pollutants are particulate matter, sulfur
dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, lead, and ground-level
ozone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. April 20, 2011, Submittal

    The April 20, 2011, SIP submission contains a version of Regulation
1.06 adopted by the District on January 19, 2011 (referred to as
``Version 9'' by the District). After acknowledging that the District
had sent Versions 7 and 8 to Kentucky for submittal to EPA, the
District requests that EPA incorporate Version 9 into the SIP and
identifies changes in Regulation 1.06 between Version 8 and Version 9.
Version 9 revises Version 8 by changing aspects of Section 1 (including
a change in the title to ``Stack Monitoring and Reporting''); Section 2
(including a change in title to ``Ambient Air Monitoring and
Reporting''); Section 3 (including a change in the title to
``Requirements for Section 4 and Section 5 Emissions Statements'');
Section 4 (including a change in the title to ``Emissions Statements
for Criteria Pollutants, HAPs, and Ammonia''); Section 5 (including a
change to the title to ``Emissions Statements for Toxic Air
Contaminants''); and Section 6. Version 9 also eliminates Section 7.
The submitted changes clarify and streamline the monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for stationary sources by
deleting and combining redundant and outdated provisions. The changes
to Section 4 also modify the emissions threshold for sources to submit
annual emissions statements to the District. For the reasons discussed
above, EPA is not acting on Section 5 or on the references to Section 5
located in Section 3.
    EPA has determined that the changes to Regulation 1.06 in the March
22, 2011, and April 20, 2011, SIP submissions are consistent with the
CAA. The text of the regulation in the SIP will reflect Version 9, with
the exception of Section 5 and any references to Section 5 located in
Section 3.
    In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on June 29,
2017 (82 FR 29467), EPA proposed to approve the changes to Regulation
1.06 in the March 22, 2011, and April 20, 2011, SIP submissions as
described above. The rationale for EPA's actions are further explained
in the NPRM. Comments on the proposed rulemaking were due on or before
July 31, 2017. EPA received no adverse comment on the proposed action.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Jefferson
County Regulation 1.06--Stationary Source Self-Monitoring, Emissions
Inventory Development, and Reporting, District effective on January 19,
2011, with the exception of Section 5 and any references to Section 5
located in Section 3. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and/or at the
EPA Region 4 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).
    Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion
in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan,
are fully federally-enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA
as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and
will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal
Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Final Action

    EPA is taking final action to approve Kentucky's March 22, 2011,
and April 20, 2011, SIP revisions as discussed in Section II, above.
The text of Jefferson County Regulation 1.06--Stationary Source Self-
Monitoring, Emissions Inventory Development, and Reporting in the SIP
will reflect the version of the rule effective on January 19, 2011
(Version 9) with the exception of changes to Section 5 and any
references to Section 5 located in Section 3.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 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 Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; 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).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other

required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by October 27, 2017. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Sulfur
dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: August 16, 2017.
V. Anne Heard,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    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 S--Kentucky

0
2. In Sec.  52.920, table 2 in paragraph (c) is amended by revising the
entry ``1.06'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.920   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                         Table 2--EPA-Approved Jefferson County Regulations for Kentucky
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                District
      Reg            Title/subject      EPA approval     Federal Register       effective        Explanation
                                            date              notice              date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Reg 1--General Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
1.06...........  Stationary Source            8/28/17  [insert Federal            1/19/2011  Revision approved
                  Self-Monitoring,                      Register citation].                   except section 5
                  Emissions Inventory                                                         and any references
                  Development, and                                                            to section 5
                  Reporting.                                                                  located in section
                                                                                3.

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-18087 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P