[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 86 (Wednesday, May 4, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26389-26391]
[FR Doc No: 2022-09516]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2022-0010]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Notice and Request for
Comment; Confidential Business Information

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments on a reinstatement, without
change, of a previously approved collection of information.

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

SUMMARY: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
invites public comments about our intention to request approval from
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a reinstatement without
change of a previously approved information collection. Before a
Federal agency can collect certain information from the public, it must
receive approval from OMB. Under procedures established by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal
agencies must solicit public comment on proposed collections of
information, including extensions and reinstatements of previously
approved collections. This notice describes one collection of
information for which NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval, relating to
confidential business information.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before July 5, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in
the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
     Electronic Submissions: Go to the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail or Hand Delivery: Docket Management, U.S. Department
of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Room W12-
140, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except on Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to help
you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> before coming.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number for this notice. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit https://www.transportation.gov/privacy.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the street
address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets via internet.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information or access
to background documents, contact Dan Rabinovitz in the Office of the
Chief Counsel, [email protected], National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Please identify the relevant
collection of information by referring to its title and OMB Control
Number (Confidential Business Information, 2127-0025).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), before an agency submits a proposed
collection of information to OMB for approval, it must first publish a
document in the Federal Register providing a 60-day comment period and
otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies
concerning each proposed collection of information. The OMB has
promulgated regulations describing what must be included in such a
document. Under OMB's regulation (at 5 CFR 1320.8(d)), an agency must
ask for public comment on the following: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) how to enhance
the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
and (d) how to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA
asks for public comments on the following proposed collection of
information for which the agency is seeking approval from OMB.
    Title: Confidential Business Information
    OMB Control Number: 2127-0025
    Form Number(s): N/A
    Type of Request: Reinstatement without change of a previously
approved information collection
    Type of Review Requested: Regular
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval: 3 years from date of
approval

Summary of the Collection of Information

    Persons who submit information to the agency and seek to have the
agency withhold some or all of that information from public disclosure,
including under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552,
must provide the agency with sufficient support that justifies the
confidential treatment of that information. A request for confidential
treatment must meet the requirements set forth in 49 CFR part 512. For
example, a request must be submitted to the Office of the Chief Counsel
and include: (1) A letter to the Chief Counsel that contains supporting
information to justify a request, per Part 512.8; (2) a certificate in
support of a request for confidential treatment, per Part 512.4(b) and
Appendix A; (3) the material claimed to include confidential business
information--with proper confidential markings, per Part 512.6; and (4)
a complete copy of the material--with redactions over the portions for
which confidential treatment is claimed (i.e., so it cannot be seen),
and the rest of the material unredacted, per Part 512.5(a)(2).
    Part 512 helps ensure that information submitted under a claim of
confidentiality is properly evaluated under prevailing legal standards
and, where appropriate, accorded confidential treatment. The
requirements in Part 512 apply to all information submitted to NHTSA,
except as provided in section 512.2(b), for which a determination is
sought that the material is entitled to confidential treatment under 5
U.S.C. 552(b), most often because it constitutes confidential business
information as described in 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4), and should be withheld
from public disclosure. To facilitate the evaluation process, in their
requests for confidential treatment, submitters of information may make
reference to certain limited classes of information specified in
Appendix B that are presumptively treated as confidential, such as
blueprints and engineering drawings, future specific

model plans (under limited conditions), and future vehicle production
or sales figures for specific models (under limited conditions).
Additionally, Appendix C's class determinations, which are specific to
early warning reporting (EWR) data, grant presumptive confidentiality
to certain EWR data, with exceptions including information on death,
injury, and property damage claims and notices, which would be handled
on an individual basis according to the procedures of Part 512. 72 FR
59434 (Oct. 19, 2007).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The collection of EWR data is covered under OMB Control No.
2127-0616.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Description of the Need for the Information and the Proposed or Actual
Use of the Information

    NHTSA receives confidential information for use in its activities,
which include investigations, rulemaking actions, program planning and
management, and program evaluation. The information is needed to ensure
the agency has sufficient relevant information for decision-making in
connection with these activities. Some of this information is submitted
voluntarily, as in rulemaking, and some is submitted in response to
compulsory information requests, as in investigations. If Part 512 were
not in existence, the agency would still receive this confidential
information, either through voluntary submissions or through compulsory
submissions in response to agency requests issued pursuant to its
information gathering powers. The only difference would be that the
determinations of whether the information should be accorded
confidential treatment would be less structured and, ultimately, more
expensive and time-consuming for both the entities requesting
confidentiality and the agency.

Affected Public

    This collection of information applies to entities that submit to
the agency information that the entities wish to have withheld from
public disclosure, including under FOIA. Thus, the collection of
information applies to entities that are subject to laws administered
by the agency or agency regulations and are under an obligation to
provide information to the agency. It also includes entities that
voluntarily submit information to the agency. Such entities would
include manufacturers of motor vehicles and of motor vehicle equipment.
Importers are considered to be manufacturers. It may also include other
entities that are involved with motor vehicles or motor vehicle
equipment but are not manufacturers.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 165
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 5,575 hours.
    Potential submitters of requests for confidential treatment of
information include vehicle manufacturers, equipment manufacturers, and
registered importers. In recent years, NHTSA has received an average of
approximately 500 requests for confidential treatment of information
annually from approximately 75 unique requesters. Last year, however,
NHTSA began receiving more requests for confidential treatment after
NHTSA issued the Standing General Order 2021-01 (General Order) which
requires certain named entities to submit reports on crashes involving
ADS or Level 2 ADAS.\2\ As a result, NHTSA estimates it will receive an
additional 1,575 requests for confidential treatment each year from an
estimated 110 unique respondents, for a total of 2,075 requests from
165 unique respondents (NHTSA estimates that there will be some overlap
between respondents submitting requests in connection with General
Order reporting and those submitting non-General Order requests). NHTSA
estimates that most requests for confidential treatment have come, and
will continue to come, from large manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ More information about the General Order is available on
NHTSA's website at https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/standing-general-order-crash-reporting-levels-driving-automation-2-5 and in
NHTSA's information collection request with OMB control number 2127-
0754.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency receives requests for confidential treatment that vary
in size--from requests that ask the agency to withhold as little as a
portion of one page to voluminous electronic files. An entity
requesting confidential treatment must provide a written statement in
support of a request for confidential treatment that explains why the
submitted information should be withheld from public disclosure,
including the legal basis for withholding, along with a certification.
See 49 CFR part 512. In the case of submissions by large manufacturers,
which often consist of hundreds of pages of information, it takes, on
average, eight hours to prepare a submission. On the other hand, the
typical small business that submits a single page document should only
need about five (5) minutes to fully comply with the regulation. To
estimate the total burden associated with this information collection,
NHTSA has used the more conservative estimate that each non-General
Order submission will take approximately 8 hours. Therefore, the non-
General Order total annual burden is estimated at 4,000 hours (8 hours
x 500 requests/year). Additionally, NHTSA estimates that each General
Order submission will take approximately 1 hour.\3\ Therefore, the
General Order total annual burden is estimated at 1,575 hours (1 hour x
1,575 requests/year). Finally, the combined total annual burden is
estimated at 5,575 hours for 49 CFR part 512.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ NHTSA estimates that requests for confidential treatment
pursuant to the General Order will only take 1 hour because NHTSA's
online portal for General Order submissions helps automate the
process for requests and the General Order only allows entities to
request confidential treatment for three (3) fields per incident
report. Consequently, the limited General Order requests for
confidential treatment are, on average, remarkably smaller than the
voluminous non-General Order requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To calculate the labor cost associated with submitting requests for
confidential treatment, NHTSA looked at wage estimates for the type of
personnel involved with compiling and submitting the documents. NHTSA
estimated the total labor costs associated with these burden hours by
looking at the average wage for Paralegals and Legal Assistants. The
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) estimates that the average hourly wage
for Paralegals and Legal Assistants (BLS Occupation code 23-2011) is
$27.22. The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that private industry
workers' wages represent 70.4% of total labor compensation costs.
Therefore, NHTSA estimates the hourly labor costs to be $38.67 for BLS
Occupation code 23-2011. Consequently, NHTSA estimates the total labor
cost associated with the 5,575 burden hours to be $215,585. This
estimate was derived by multiplying the estimated annual burden of
5,575 hours with the mean hourly labor cost estimate for Paralegals and
Legal Assistants of $38.67 per hour. Table 1 provides a summary of the
estimated burden hours and labor costs associated with those
submissions.

                                            Table 1--Burden Estimates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Estimated  burden
Annual  responses    per  response     Average  hourly     Labor cost  per      Total burden       Total labor
                        (hours)           labor cost          submission            hours             costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          2,075              2.687             $38.67              $309.36              5,575          $215,585
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since 49 CFR part 512 does not require those persons who request
confidential treatment to keep copies of records or requests submitted
to us, there are no associated recordkeeping burdens.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ NHTSA has a separate record retention regulation (49 CFR
part 576) covered by a Paperwork Reduction Act clearance, OMB
Control No. 2127-0042.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Cost: $165.
    The only cost to respondents is expected to be postage costs. NHTSA
estimates that each mailed response costs $8.95 (priority flat rate
envelope from USPS). Historically, Part 512 requests were submitted by
mail. However, at the onset of the COVID-19 public health emergency,
NHTSA began accepting Part 512 submissions electronically and requested
that submissions not be mailed. NHTSA now estimates that no more than
1% of submissions are submitted by mail. Accordingly, NHTSA estimates
the total annual costs for this information collection to be $186
(2,075 submissions x .01 x $8.95 = $185.71, rounded to $186).
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspects of
this information collection, including (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Department, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Department's estimate
of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology.
    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter
35, as amended; 49 CFR 1.49; and DOT Order 1351.29.

Ann E. Carlson,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2022-09516 Filed 5-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 19, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69320-69322]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27665]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0962; Directorate Identifier 2013-CE-028-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; DORNIER LUFTFAHRT GmbH Airplanes

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
DORNIER LUFTFAHRT GmbH Model 228-212 airplanes. This proposed AD
results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and
correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes
the unsafe condition as main landing gear axle failure caused by
initial fatigue cracking and small pre-damage by corrosion. We are
issuing this proposed AD to require actions to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 3, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH, Dornier 228 Customer Support, P.O. Box
1253, 82231 Wessling, Germany; telephone: +49-(0)8153-30-2280; fax:
+49-(0)8153-30-3030. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas
City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-
2013-0962; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any
comments received, and other information. The street address for the
Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2013-0962;
Directorate Identifier 2013-CE-028-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://regulations.gov in Docket No. FAA-2013-0962, including any personal
information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
AD No.: 2013-0209, dated September 10, 2013 (referred to after this as
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified
products. The MCAI states:

An event of a main landing gear (MLG) axle break during touchdown
has been reported. The results of the subsequent technical
investigation indicated that improper restoration of corrosion
protection was the likely cause of the initial fatigue cracking.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to
failure of the main landing gear axle, possibly resulting in a
runway excursion with consequent damage to the aeroplane and injury
to the occupants.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, RUAG Aerospace
Services GmbH issued Service Bulletin (SB) SB-228-300, Rev. 1.
    For the reason described above, this AD requires a one-time
inspection of the MLG axle and, depending on findings,
accomplishment of applicable corrective actions.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-
2013-0962.

Relevant Service Information

    RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH has issued Dornier 228 Service
Bulletin No. SB-228-300, Revision 1, dated April 25, 2013. The actions
described in this service information are intended to correct the
unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they
have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because
we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type
design.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 2 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 160 work-hours per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The
average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $27,200, or $13,600 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH: Docket No. FAA-2013-0962; Directorate
Identifier 2013-CE-028-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by January 3, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to DORNIER LUFTFAHRT GmbH 228-212 airplanes, all
serial numbers, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 32: Landing
Gear.

(e) Reason

    This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. This AD was prompted by a report of a main landing gear
axle failure caused by initial fatigue cracking and detection of
small pre-damage by corrosion. We are issuing this AD to detect and
correct possible corrosion and cracking of the MLG axle, which could
lead to failure of the MLG axle resulting in a runway excursion with
consequent damage to the airplane and injury to the occupants.

(f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the actions in paragraphs (f)(1) through
(f)(2) of this AD:
    (1) Inspect the MLG axle following the Accomplishment
Instructions in RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH Dornier 228 Service
Bulletin No. SB-228-300, Revision 1, dated April 25, 2013, at the
time specified in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) or (f)(1)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) If, as of the effective date of this AD, the main landing
gear (MLG) has 6,000 or more hours time-in-service (TIS) since new
or is more than 10 years old: Within the next 400 hours TIS after
the effective date of this AD or within the next 6 months after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
    (ii) If, as of the effective date of this AD, the MLG has less
than 6,000 hours TIS since new or is between 5 to 10 years old:
Before or upon accumulating 6,400 hours TIS or within 6 months after
the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
    (2) If, during the inspections required in paragraph (f)(1) of
this AD, any discrepancies are found outside the limits as specified
in RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH Dornier 228 Service Bulletin No. SB-
228-300, Revision 1, dated April 25, 2013, before further flight,
make all necessary corrective actions following the Accomplishment
Instructions in RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH Dornier 228 Service
Bulletin No. SB-228-300, Revision 1, dated April 25, 2013.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, a federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person
is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a
penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information
subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless
that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control
Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is
2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is
estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the
time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection

of information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of
this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be
directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC
20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

(h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.:
2013-0209, dated September 10, 2013, for related information. You
may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2013-0962. For
service information related to this AD, contact RUAG Aerospace
Services GmbH, Dornier 228 Customer Support, P.O. Box 1253, 82231
Wessling, Germany; telephone: +49-(0)8153-30-2280; fax: +49-(0)8153-
30-3030. You may review copies of the referenced service information
at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on November 5, 2013.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-27665 Filed 11-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 93 (Wednesday, May 14, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27528-27533]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11075]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2011-0446; FRL-9910-82-Region-10]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Oregon:
Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a portion of the State Implementation Plan submittal from the
State of Oregon to address Clean Air Act interstate transport
requirements in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. The Clean Air Act requires that each State Implementation
Plan contain adequate provisions prohibiting air emissions that will
have certain adverse air quality effects in other states. The EPA is
proposing to determine that Oregon's existing State Implementation Plan
contains adequate provisions to ensure that air emissions in Oregon do
not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 National Ambient Air
Quality Standard in any other state.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 13, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2011-0446, by any of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Dr. Karl Pepple, EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste
and Toxics (AWT-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101.
     Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region 10 9th Floor Mailroom,
1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Dr. Karl
Pepple, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT-107. Such deliveries are
only accepted during normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-
2011-0446. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov
or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or
CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not
be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use
of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any
defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
the disclosure of which 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. Publicly available
docket materials are available either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle, WA 98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Karl Pepple at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the above EPA, Region 10 address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' are used, it is intended to mean the EPA.
Information is organized as follows:

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS and Interstate Transport
    B. Rules Addressing Interstate Transport for the 2006 24-Hour
PM2.5 NAAQS
    C. Guidance
II. The State Submittal
III. The EPA Evaluation
    A. Identification of Nonattainment and Maintenance Receptors
    B. Evaluation of Significant Contribution to Nonattainment
    C. Evaluation of Interference With Maintenance
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS and Interstate Transport

    On September 21, 2006, the EPA promulgated a final rule revising
the 1997 24-hour primary and secondary National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for PM2.5 from 65 micrograms per cubic
meter ([mu]g/m\3\) to 35 [mu]g/m\3\ (October 17, 2006, 71 FR 61144).
    The interstate transport provisions in Clean Air Act (CAA) section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) (also called ``good neighbor'' provisions) require each
state to submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that prohibits
emissions that will have certain adverse air quality effects in other
states. CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) identifies four distinct elements
related to the impacts of air pollutants transported across state
lines. In this action, the EPA is addressing the first two elements of
this section, specified at CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),\1\ for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This proposed action does not address the two elements of
the interstate transport SIP provision in CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding interference with measures required to
prevent significant deterioration of air quality or to protect
visibility in another state. We previously published a notice
approving the Oregon SIP for purposes of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(I)(II) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS on
August 1, 2013 (78 FR46514).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first element of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires that
each SIP for a new or revised NAAQS contain adequate measures to
prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity within the
state from emitting air pollutants that will ``contribute significantly
to nonattainment'' of the NAAQS in another state. The second element of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires that each SIP prohibit any
source or other type of emissions activity in the state from emitting
pollutants that will ``interfere with maintenance'' of the applicable
NAAQS in any other state.

B. Rules Addressing Interstate Transport for the 2006 24-Hour
PM2.5 NAAQS

    The EPA has previously addressed the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in past regulatory actions.\2\ The EPA published the
final Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (Transport Rule) to address the
first two elements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in the eastern
portion of the United States with respect to the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS, the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
(August 8, 2011, 76 FR 48208). The Transport Rule was intended to
replace the earlier Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) which was
judicially

remanded.\3\ See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
On August 21, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
issued a decision vacating the Transport Rule, see EME Homer City
Generation, L.P. v. E.P.A., 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), and ordering
the EPA to continue implementing CAIR in the interim. However, on April
29, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded the D.C.
Circuit's ruling and upheld the EPA's approach in the Transport Rule.
EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., No. 12-1182, 572 U.S. ---- slip
op. (2014).The State of Oregon was not covered by either CAIR or the
Transport Rule, and the EPA made no determinations in either rule
regarding whether emissions from sources in Oregon significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in another state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 1998);
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25172 (May 12, 2005); and
Transport Rule or Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, 76 FR 48208
(August 8, 2011).
    \3\ CAIR addressed the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS, and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. It did not address the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. For more information on CAIR, see
the July 30, 2012 proposal for Arizona regarding interstate
transport for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (77 FR 44551, 44552).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Guidance

    On September 25, 2009, the EPA issued a guidance memorandum that
addresses the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (``2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
Infrastructure Guidance'' or ``Guidance'').\4\ With respect to the
requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to prohibit emissions
that would contribute significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in
any other state, the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure
Guidance essentially reiterated the recommendations for western states
made by the EPA in previous guidance addressing the CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS.\5\ The 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
Infrastructure Guidance advised states outside of the CAIR region to
include in their CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs adequate technical
analyses to support their conclusions regarding interstate pollution
transport, e.g., information concerning emissions in the state,
meteorological conditions in the state and in potentially impacted
states, monitored ambient pollutant concentrations in the state and in
potentially impacted states, distances to the nearest areas not
attaining the NAAQS in other states, and air quality modeling.\6\ With
respect to the requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to
prohibit emissions that would interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS
in any other state, the Guidance stated that SIP submissions must
address this independent requirement of the statute and provide
technical information appropriate to support the state's conclusions,
such as information concerning emissions in the state, meteorological
conditions in the state and in potentially impacted states, monitored
ambient concentrations in the state and in potentially impacted states,
and air quality modeling. See footnotes 5 and 6. In this action, the
EPA is proposing to use the conceptual approach to evaluating
interstate pollution transport under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
that the EPA explained in the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
Infrastructure Guidance. For the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS,
the EPA believes that nonattainment and maintenance problems in the
western United States are generally relatively local in nature with
only limited impacts from interstate transport. The EPA believes that
the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submission from Oregon may be
evaluated using a ``weight of the evidence'' approach that takes into
account available relevant information. Such information may include,
but is not limited to, the amount of emissions in the state relevant to
the NAAQS in question, the meteorological conditions in the area, the
distance from the state to the nearest monitors in other states that
are appropriate receptors, or such other information as may be
probative to consider whether sources in the state may contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in other states. These submissions
can rely on modeling when acceptable modeling technical analyses are
available, but the EPA does not believe that modeling is necessarily
required if other available information is sufficient to evaluate the
presence or degree of interstate transport in a specific situation.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Memorandum from William T. Harnett entitled ``Guidance
on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the
2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS),'' September 25, 2009, available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/20090925_harnett_pm25_sip_110a12.pdf.
    \5\ See Memorandum from William T. Harnett entitled ``Guidance
for State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submission to Meet Current
Outstanding Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-hour
ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards,''
August 15, 2006, available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/section110a2di_sip_guidance.pdf.
    \6\ The 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure
Guidance states that EPA was working on a new rule to replace CAIR
to address issues raised by the court in the North Carolina case and
to provide guidance to states in addressing the requirements related
to interstate transport in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. It also notes that states could
not rely on the CAIR rule for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) submissions
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS because the CAIR rule
did not address this NAAQS. See 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
Infrastructure Guidance at 4.
    \7\ See ``2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure
Guidance,'' issued September 25, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. The State Submittal

    CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and section 110(l) require that
revisions to a SIP be adopted by the state after reasonable notice and
public hearing. The EPA has promulgated specific procedural
requirements for SIP revisions in 40 CFR part 51, subpart F. These
requirements include publication of notices, by prominent advertisement
in the relevant geographic area, a public comment period of at least 30
days, and an opportunity for a public hearing.
    On June 28, 2010, the State of Oregon submitted a SIP revision to
update the State's SIP for ozone and PM2.5. The State's SIP
submittal cover letter indicated the SIP revision included the ``Oregon
SIP Infrastructure for Addressing the Interstate Transport of Ozone and
Fine Particulate Matter'' to address the interstate transport SIP
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-hour ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS (2010 Interstate Transport SIP). The State's
June 28, 2010 submittal included public process documentation for the
2010 Interstate Transport SIP, including documentation of a duly
noticed public hearing held on December 22, 2009. The State
subsequently notified the EPA that a clerical error was made and that
the 2010 Interstate Transport SIP had not been attached to the June 28,
2010, cover letter. The State transmitted the 2010 Interstate Transport
SIP to the EPA on December 23, 2010. The State then transmitted a
letter to the EPA on March 14, 2011, confirming that the 2010
Interstate Transport SIP was submitted for purposes of meeting the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS,
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and
2008 ozone NAAQS.
    We find that the process followed by the State in adopting the 2010
Interstate Transport SIP complies with the procedural requirements for
SIP revisions under CAA section 110 and the EPA's implementing
regulations.
    To address whether emissions from sources in Oregon significantly
contribute to nonattainment of the 2006

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in another state, the State stated in
the 2010 Interstate Transport SIP that meteorological and other
characteristics of any areas designated nonattainment for the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the surrounding states of Washington,
Idaho, Nevada, and California support a finding that emissions from
Oregon sources do not significantly contribute to violations of the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in other states. The State
explained that the closest 2006 24-hour PM2.5 designated
nonattainment areas in neighboring states are the Tacoma area (Pierce
County) in Washington; the Chico area (portions of Butte County) in
California; and the Cache Valley area in Southeast Idaho (portions of
Cache County, Utah and Franklin County, Idaho). Oregon stated that the
area of highest Oregon emission densities (Portland Metro area) is
separated from these 2006 24-hour PM2.5 nonattainment areas
by significant distances and major mountain ranges up to approximately
7000 feet. The State identified one exception--the Portland, Oregon-
Vancouver, Washington metro area, which shares a common air shed
between Oregon and Washington. Oregon noted however that both Portland,
Oregon and Vancouver, Washington are in attainment with the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Additionally, the State described typical wind patterns during the
winter when PM2.5 levels are the highest. It noted that the
majority of wind speeds occur at less than eight miles per hour, and a
significant portion of low winds occur at less than five miles per
hour. The State explained that these low wind speeds and air stagnation
conditions do not lend themselves to long distance air pollution
transport. The State concluded that general meteorology supports the
conclusion that high winter time PM2.5 levels in Pacific
Northwest communities are typically dominated by local emission
sources.
    Oregon's 2010 Interstate Transport SIP also pointed to its CAA
section 110 infrastructure SIP to demonstrate that Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality (ODEQ) has the ability to participate as needed
in future studies on regional air pollution issues, can collaborate
with other states if air quality concerns are identified that require a
case-specific evaluation of interstate transport, and has the legal
mechanism to take action as needed to reduce emissions to help attain
compliance with Federal NAAQS. Oregon stated that that high
PM2.5 levels that threaten the NAAQS are investigated as
needed to identify contributing sources, including any potential role
of interstate transport.
    Finally, the State explained that it had consulted with air
agencies in Washington, Idaho, Nevada, and California and other
agencies to evaluate case-specific air quality problems that may
involve regional transport of air pollution. These staff-level
communications indicated no impacts on PM2.5 concentrations
in other states caused by transport from Oregon.
    Based on the information provided in its 2010 Interstate Transport
SIP, the State concluded that emissions from air pollution sources in
Oregon do not significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS in other states.

III. The EPA Evaluation

    To determine whether the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement
is satisfied, the EPA must determine whether a state's emissions
contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the NAAQS in other states. If this factual finding is in the
negative, then CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) does not require any
changes to a state's SIP. Consistent with the EPA's approach in the
1998 NOX SIP Call, the 2005 CAIR, and the 2011 Transport
Rule, the EPA is evaluating these impacts with respect to specific
monitors identified as having nonattainment and/or maintenance
problems, which we refer to as ``receptors.'' See footnote 2.
    This proposed approval addresses the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in
several ways. The EPA notes that no single piece of information is by
itself dispositive of the issue. Instead, the total weight of all the
evidence taken together is used to evaluate significant contributions
to nonattainment or interference with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in another state. Our proposed approval takes
into account Oregon's 2010 Interstate Transport SIP which explains that
meteorological and other characteristics in Oregon and in the
surrounding areas reduce the likelihood that emissions from sources in
Oregon contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in any downwind
state. In addition, we are supplementing the evaluation of the State's
submittal with a review of the monitors in other states that are
appropriate ``nonattainment receptors'' or ``maintenance receptors''
and additional technical information to consider whether sources in
Oregon contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in other states.
    Our Technical Support Document (TSD) contains a more detailed
evaluation and is available in the public docket for this rulemaking,
which may be accessed online at www.regulations.gov, docket number EPA-
R10-OAR-2011-0446. Below is a summary of our analysis.

A. Identification of Nonattainment and Maintenance Receptors

    The EPA evaluated data from existing monitors over three
overlapping three-year periods (i.e., 2008-2010, 2009-2011, and 2010-
2012) to determine which areas were violating the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS and which areas might have difficulty
maintaining attainment. If a monitoring site measured a violation of
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS during the most recent three-
year period (2010-2012), then this monitor location was evaluated for
purposes of the significant contribution to nonattainment element of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). If, on the other hand, a monitoring
site shows attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS during
the most recent three-year period (2010-2012) but a violation in at
least one of the previous two three-year periods (2008-2010 or 2009-
2011), then this monitor location was evaluated for purposes of the
interference with maintenance element of the statute.
    The State of Oregon was not covered by the original modeling
analyses conducted for the CAIR and the Transport Rule. The approach
described above is similar to the approach utilized by the EPA in
promulgating the CAIR and the Transport Rule. By this method, the EPA
has identified those areas with monitors to be considered
``nonattainment receptors'' or ``maintenance receptors'' for evaluating
whether the emissions from sources in another state could significantly
contribute to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance in, that
particular area.

B. Evaluation of Significant Contribution to Nonattainment

    The EPA reviewed Oregon's 2010 Interstate Transport SIP and
additional technical information to evaluate the potential for
emissions from sources in Oregon to contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS at specified
monitoring

sites in the western United States.\8\ The EPA first identified as
``nonattainment receptors'' all monitoring sites in the western states
that had recorded PM2.5 design values above the level of the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (35 [mu]g/m\3\) during the years
2010-2012.\9\ See Section III of the TSD for more a more detailed
description of the EPA's methodology for selection of nonattainment
receptors. All of the nonattainment receptors identified in western
states are in California, Idaho, Oregon, and Utah. Because geographic
distance is a relevant factor in the assessment of potential pollution
transport, the EPA focused its review on information related to
potential transport of PM2.5 pollution from Oregon to
nonattainment receptors in the states bordering Oregon: Idaho and
California.\10\ \11\ As detailed in the TSD, the EPA believes that the
following factors support a finding that emissions from Oregon do not
significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in these states: (1) Technical information
indicating that elevated PM2.5 levels at nonattainment
receptors are predominantly caused by local emission sources and (2)
air quality data indicating that regional background levels of
PM2.5 are generally low during the time periods of elevated
PM2.5 at these receptors. In addition, as detailed in the
TSD with respect to California, technical information indicating that
the dominant air flows across California are from the west to the east
additionally supports a finding that emissions from Oregon do not
significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ EPA has also considered potential PM2.5 transport
from Oregon to the nearest nonattainment and maintenance receptors
located in the eastern, midwestern, and southern states covered by
the Transport Rule and believes it is reasonable to conclude that,
given the significant distance from Oregon to the nearest such
receptor (in Illinois) and the relatively insignificant amount of
emissions from Oregon that could potentially be transported such a
distance, emissions from Oregon sources do not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS at this location. These same
factors also support a finding that emissions from Oregon sources
neither contribute significantly to nonattainment nor interfere with
maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS at any
location further east. See TSD at Section II.C.
    \9\ Because CAIR did not cover states in the western United
States, these data are not significantly impacted by the remanded
CAIR at this time and thus could be considered in this analysis.
    \10\ As this analysis is focused on interstate transport, the
EPA did not evaluate the impact of Oregon emissions onnonattainment
receptors within Oregon.
    \11\ Washington and Nevada have no nonattainment receptors. See
TSD at Table III.A.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA also evaluated potential PM2.5 transport to
nonattainment receptors in the more distant western state of Utah. The
EPA believes that the following factors support a finding that
emissions from Oregon do not significantly contribute to nonattainment
of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in Utah: (1) The significant
distance from Oregon to the nonattainment receptors in Utah, (2)
technical information indicating that elevated PM2.5 levels
at nonattainment receptors in Utah are predominantly caused by local
emission sources, and (3) air quality data indicating that regional
background levels of PM2.5 are generally low during the time
periods of elevated PM2.5 at Utah receptors.
    Based on this evaluation of Oregon's 2010 Interstate Transport SIP
and additional technical information, the EPA proposes to conclude that
emissions from sources in Oregon do not significantly contribute to
nonattainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in any other
state.

C. Evaluation of Interference With Maintenance

    The EPA reviewed Oregon's 2010 Interstate Transport SIP and
additional technical information to evaluate the potential for Oregon
emissions to interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS at specified monitoring sites in the western
United States. The EPA first identified as ``maintenance receptors''
all monitoring sites in the western states that had recorded
PM2.5 design values above the level of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS (35 [mu]g/m\3\) during the 2008-2010 and/or
2009-2011 periods but below this standard during the 2010-2012 period.
See section III of the TSD for more information regarding the EPA's
methodology for selection of maintenance receptors. All of the
maintenance receptors in the western states are located in California,
Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. The EPA focused its
evaluation of the potential for transport of Oregon emissions to the
maintenance receptors located in three states bordering Oregon:
California, Nevada, and Washington.\12 13\ As detailed in the TSD, the
EPA believes that the following factors support a finding that
emissions from sources in Oregon do not interfere with maintenance of
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in these border states: (1)
Technical information indicating that elevated 24-hour PM2.5
levels at these maintenance receptors are predominantly caused by local
emission sources, and (2) air quality data indicating that regional
background levels of PM2.5 are generally low during the time
periods of elevated 24-hour PM2.5 at these receptors. In
addition, with respect to California, technical information indicating
that elevated 24-hour PM2.5 levels at the maintenance
receptors are predominantly caused by local emission sources and that
the dominant air flows across California are from the west to the east
additionally supports a finding that emissions from sources in Oregon
do not interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS in California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ As this analysis is focused on interstate transport, the
EPA did not evaluate the impact of Oregon emissions on maintenance
receptors within Oregon.
    \13\ Idaho has no maintenance receptors. See TSD at Table
III.A.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA also evaluated the potential for transport of Oregon
emissions to maintenance receptors in the more distant states of
Montana and Utah. As detailed in the TSD, the EPA believes that the
following factors support a finding that emissions from sources in
Oregon do not interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in these more distant states: (1) The
significant distance from the Oregon to the maintenance receptors in
these states, (2) technical information indicating that elevated 24-
hour PM2.5 levels at these maintenance receptors are
predominantly caused by local emission sources, and (3) air quality
data indicating that regional background levels of PM2.5 are
generally low during the time periods of elevated 24-hour
PM2.5 at these receptors.
    Based on this evaluation of Oregon's 2010 Interstate Transport SIP
and additional technical information, the EPA proposes to conclude that
emissions from sources in Oregon do not interfere with maintenance of
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state.

IV. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve the portion of the SIP revision
submitted by the State of Oregon on June 28, 2010 that addresses the
interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA is proposing to
determine that Oregon's existing State Implementation Plan contains
adequate provisions to ensure that air emissions in Oregon do not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality
Standard in any other state. This action

is being taken under section 110 of the CAA.

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. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve 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 Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide the 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 proposed rule does not have tribal implications
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and the EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: April 10, 2014.
Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2014-11075 Filed 5-13-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P