[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 217 (Friday, November 8, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60393-60395]
[FR Doc No: 2019-24350]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-10001-78-ORD; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2019-0275]

Availability of the Systematic Review Protocol for the PFDA,
PFNA, PFHxA, PFHxS, and PFBA IRIS Assessments

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing a 45-
day

public comment period associated with release of the Systematic Review
Protocol for the perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA), perfluorononanoic acid
(PFNA), perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA), perfluorohexanesulfonate
(PFHxS), and perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS) assessments. This protocol document presents the methods
for conducting the systematic reviews and dose response analyses for
these assessments as well as summarizes the Agency's problem
formulation activities. Public input will help to inform the subsequent
development of draft assessments for these per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances (PFAS) chemicals.

DATES: The 45-day public comment period begins November 8, 2019 and
ends December 23, 2019. Comments must be received on or before December
23, 2019.

ADDRESSES: The Systematic Review Protocol for perfluorodecanoic acid
(PFDA), perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA),
perfluorohexanesulfonate (PFHxS), and perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA)
assessments will be available via the internet on the IRIS website at
https://www.epa.gov/iris/iris-recent-additions and in the public docket
at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2019-0275.
Information on these chemicals is provided in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the docket, contact
the ORD Docket at the EPA Headquarters Docket Center; telephone: 202-
566-1752; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For technical information on the protocol, contact Dr. James Avery,
Center for Public Health & Environmental Assessment; telephone: 202-
564-1494; or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Information on PFAS and Systematic Review Protocols

    Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a large class of
man-made chemicals widely used in consumer products and industrial
processes. The basic structure of PFAS consists of a carbon chain
surrounded by fluorine atoms, with different chemicals possessing
different end groups. The five toxicity assessments being developed
according to the scope and methods outlined in this protocol build upon
several other PFAS assessments that have already been developed, and
represent only one component of the broader PFAS action plan underway
at the U.S. EPA (https://www.epa.gov/pfas/epas-pfas-action-plan).
    This protocol document presents the methods for conducting the
systematic reviews and dose response analyses for assessments of
perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA), perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA),
perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA), perfluorohexanesulfonate (PFHxS), and
perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA). This includes a summary of why these
specific PFAS chemicals were prioritized for evaluation, description of
the objectives and specific aims of the assessments, draft PECO
(Populations, Exposures, Comparators, and Outcomes) criteria, and
identification of key areas of scientific complexity. Public input
received on the protocol is considered during preparation of the draft
assessments and any adjustments made to the protocol will be reflected
in an updated version released in conjunction with the draft
assessments.

II. How To Submit Technical Comments to the Docket at http://www.regulations.gov

    Submit your comments on the Systematic Review Protocol for the
PFDA, PFNA, PFHxA, PFHxS, and PFBA IRIS Assessments to Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-ORD-2019-0275, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center (ORD Docket), Mail Code: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20460. The phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Hand Delivery: The ORD Docket is located in the EPA
Headquarters Docket Center, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004.
    The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. If you provide comments by mail or hand delivery,
please submit three copies of the comments. For attachments, provide an
index, number pages consecutively with the comments, and submit an
unbound original and three copies.
    Instructions: Direct your comments on the systematic review
protocol to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2019-0275. Please ensure that your
comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments
received after the closing date will be marked ``late,'' and may only
be considered if time permits. It is EPA's policy to include all
comments it receives in the public docket without change and to make
the comments available online at https://www.regulations.gov, including
any personal information provided, unless a comment includes
information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information for which disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not
submit information through https://www.regulations.gov or email that
you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The https://www.regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means 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 EPA without going through https://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, 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 EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, 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. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Docket: Documents in the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other materials,
such as copyrighted material, are publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in https://www.regulations.gov or hard copy at the ORD Docket in the
EPA Headquarters Docket Center.

    Dated: October 20, 2019.
Wayne E. Cascio,
Director, Center for Public Health & Environmental Assessment.
[FR Doc. 2019-24350 Filed 11-7-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 144 (Friday, July 26, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 36096]
[FR Doc No: 2019-15865]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC19-114-000.
    Applicants: Big Sky Wind, LLC, Pattern Renewables 2 LP.
    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act, et al. of Big Sky Wind, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 7/18/19.
    Accession Number: 20190718-5095.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/8/19.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG19-153-000.
    Applicants: Hickory Run Energy, LLC.
    Description: Hickory Run Energy, LLC Notice of Self-Certification
of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 7/19/19.
    Accession Number: 20190719-5052.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/19.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1198-001.
    Applicants: Ameren Illinois Company.
    Description: Compliance Filing to Order on Formal Challenge of
Ameren Illinois Company.
    Filed Date: 7/19/19.
    Accession Number: 20190719-5099.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-151-001.
    Applicants: MATL LLP.
    Description: Post-Open Solicitation Compliance Filing, et al. of
MATL LLP.
    Filed Date: 7/19/19.
    Accession Number: 20190719-5071.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1928-001.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 3290R2 Sholes Wind GIA--Extension of
Time for Commission Action to be effective 4/25/2019.
    Filed Date: 7/19/19.
    Accession Number: 20190719-5046.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1962-001.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 1166R33 Oklahoma Municipal Power
Authority NITSA and NOA Amended Filing to be effective 7/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 7/19/19.
    Accession Number: 20190719-5089.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2285-001.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to SWE (PowerSouth
Territorial) NITSA Amendment Filing (45 Byrd WayDP) to be effective 6/
1/2019.
    Filed Date: 7/19/19.
    Accession Number: 20190719-5059.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2422-000.
    Applicants: San Diego Gas & Electric Company, Sempra Gas & Power
Marketing, LLC.
    Description: Joint Application for Approval of Affiliate
Transaction of San Diego Gas & Electric Company, et al.
    Filed Date: 7/18/19.
    Accession Number: 20190718-5154.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/8/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2423-000.
    Applicants: Mid-Atlantic Interstate Transmission, LLC, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: MAIT submits 10 Engineering
and Construction Services Agreements to be effective 9/17/2019.
    Filed Date: 7/19/19.
    Accession Number: 20190719-5051.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2424-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Pembroke Energy Project LGIA
Filing to be effective 7/8/2019.
    Filed Date: 7/19/19.
    Accession Number: 20190719-5055.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2425-000.
    Applicants: Mitsui & Co. Energy Marketing and Services (USA), Inc.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market Based
Rate to be effective 9/17/2019.
    Filed Date: 7/19/19.
    Accession Number: 20190719-5079.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2426-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: CCSF Work Performance
Agreement for Warnerville Rehabilitation (TO SA 284) to be effective 7/
20/2019.
    Filed Date: 7/19/19.
    Accession Number: 20190719-5093.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2427-000.
    Applicants: Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: 2nd Amended Operating
Agreement to be effective 7/20/2019.
    Filed Date: 7/19/19.
    Accession Number: 20190719-5096.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2428-000.
    Applicants: Grazing Yak Solar, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Golden West Power Partners,
LLC and Grazing Yak Solar, LLC SFA to be effective 9/18/2019.
    Filed Date: 7/19/19.
    Accession Number: 20190719-5103.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2429-000.
    Applicants: Brookfield Smoky Mountain Hydropower LP.
    Description: Compliance filing: Baseline Tariff Submission and
Request for Administrative Cancellation to be effective 6/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 7/19/19.
    Accession Number: 20190719-5105.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/19.

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

    Dated: July 19, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-15865 Filed 7-25-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: June 8, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 110)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 31771-31778]
[DOCID:fr08jn07-20]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 51, 78, and 97

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0439, FRL-8323-4]
RIN 2060-AN12

Petition for Reconsideration and Proposal for Withdrawal of
Findings of Significant Contribution and Rulemaking for Georgia for
Purposes of Reducing Ozone Interstate Transport

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this action, we are requesting comments on EPA's response
to a Petition for Reconsideration regarding a final rule we issued
under Section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) related to the interstate
transport of nitrogen oxides (NOX).
    On April 21, 2004, we issued a final rule (Phase II NOX
SIP Call Rule) that required the State of Georgia to submit revisions
to its State Implementation Plan (SIP) that prohibit specified amounts
of NOX emissions--one of the precursors to ozone (smog)
pollution--for the purposes of reducing NOX and ozone
transport across State boundaries in the eastern half of the United
States. This rule became effective on June 21, 2004.
    Subsequently, the Georgia Coalition for Sound Environmental Policy
(GCSEP or Petitioners) filed a Petition for Reconsideration requesting
that EPA reconsider the applicability of the NOX SIP Call
Rule to the State of Georgia. In response to this Petition, and based
upon review of additional available information, EPA is proposing to
remove Georgia from the NOX SIP call region. Specifically,
EPA proposes to rescind the applicability of the requirements of the
Phase II NOX SIP Call Rule to the State of Georgia, only.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before July 23, 2007.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts us requesting to speak at a
public hearing by June 25, 2007, we will hold a public hearing and hold
the record open for purposes of rebuttal comments. Additional
information about the hearing and rebuttal comments would be published
in a subsequent Federal Register notice.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2005-0439, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line

instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0439, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West (Air Docket), Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Avenue, Northwest, Washington, DC. Please include a total
of two copies.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
West (Air Docket), 1301 Constitution Avenue, Northwest, Room 3334,
Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2004-0439. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://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 http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail.

The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,

which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov

your e-mail 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, 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 EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, 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. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA

West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. This
Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Air
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Smith, Air Quality Policy
Division, Geographic Strategies Group (C539-04), Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919)
541-4718, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For legal questions, please contact
Winifred Okoye, U.S.

EPA, Office of General Counsel, Mail Code 2344A, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    This action proposes to remove the applicability of certain
requirements related to NOX emissions in the State of
Georgia. If these requirements were not removed, they would potentially
affect electric utilities, cement manufacturing, and industries
employing large stationary source internal combustion engines.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly

mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For
CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the
outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically
within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as
CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (e.g., subject heading, Federal Register
proposal publication date and reference page number(s)).
     Follow directions--The EPA may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and provide substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the specified comment
period deadline.
    Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for
consideration must clearly distinguish such information from other
comments and clearly label it as CBI. Send submissions containing such
proprietary information directly to the following address, and not to
the public docket, to ensure that proprietary information is not
inadvertently placed in the docket: Attention: Mr. Roberto Morales,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OAQPS Document Control Officer,
109 TW Alexander Drive, Room C404-02, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.
The EPA will disclose information identified as CBI only to the extent
allowed by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of
confidentiality accompanies a submission when it is received by EPA,
the information may be made available to the public without further
notice to the commenter.

C. How Can I Find Information About a Possible Hearing?

    People interested in presenting oral testimony or inquiring as to
whether a hearing is to be held should contact Ms. Pam Long, Air
Quality Planning Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(C504-03), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-
mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>at least 2 days in advance of the public
hearing. People interested in attending the public hearing should also
call Ms. Long to verify the time, date, and location of the hearing.
The public hearing will provide interested parties the opportunity to
present data, views, or arguments concerning the proposed action. If a
public hearing is held, further information will be contained in a
subsequent notice, including the scheduled date, and it will be held at
9:00 a.m. in EPA's Auditorium in Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, or at an alternate site nearby.

D. How Is This Preamble Organized?

    The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
    B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
    C. How Can I Find Information About a Possible Hearing?
    D. How is This Preamble Organized?
II. Background
    A. Background on NOX SIP Call, Subsequent Litigation
and Rulemaking Related to the State of Georgia
    B. GCSEP Requests Related to Phase II NOX SIP Call
Rule
    C. Purpose of this Proposal.
III. Proposed Response to GCSEP's Petition for Reconsideration
    A. Proposed Action
    B. Rationale for Proposed Action
    C. Other Issues Raised by the Petitioner.
IV. Response to Previous Comments on the Reconsideration Issue
V. Request for Public Comment on Issues Contained in the Petition
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations

II. Background

A. Background on NOX SIP Call, Subsequent Litigation and Rulemaking
Related to the State of Georgia

    On October 27, 1998, EPA took final action to prohibit specified
amounts of emissions of oxides of Nitrogen (NOX), one of the
main precursors of ground-level ozone, from being transported across
State boundaries in the eastern half of the United States. (The
NOX SIP Call Rule) (63 FR 57356, (October 27, 1998)). We
found that sources and emitting activities in 22 States and the
District of Columbia (23 States) \1\ were emitting NOX in
amounts that significantly contribute to downwind nonattainment of the
1-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS or standard).
(63 FR 57356). We also determined separately that sources and emitting
activities in these

23 States emit NOX in amounts that significantly contribute
to and interfere with maintenance of downwind nonattainment of the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS (63 FR 57358, 57379)). To determine significant
contribution, we examined both the air quality impacts of emissions and
the amount of reductions that could be achieved through the application
of highly cost effective controls. The air quality impacts portion of
our significant contribution analysis relied on state specific
modeling, and modeling and recommendations by the Ozone Transport
Assessment Group (OTAG) (62 FR 60335,(November 7, 1997), and 63 FR
57381-57399).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The 23 states were Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, District
of Columbia, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina, New Jersey, New
York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin (63 FR 57394).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This analysis examined the impact of upwind emissions on downwind
nonattainment areas. The preamble defined nonattainment for purposes of
this analysis. It stated that a downwind area should be considered,

    ``nonattainment,'' for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),
under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS if the area (as of 1994-96 time period)
had nonattainment air quality and if the area was modeled to have
nonattainment air quality in the year 2007, after implementation of
all measures specifically required of the area under the CAA as well
as implementation of Federal measures required or expected to be
implemented by that date.

63 FR 57386; See also 63 FR 57373-75; 62 FR 60324-25. We explained that
``nonattainment [areas] includes areas that have monitored violations
of the standard and areas that 'contribute to ambient air quality in a
nearby area' that is violating the standard.'' 63 FR 57373. Thus, to
qualify as a downwind nonattainment receptor, an area had to be both in
current nonattainment and also modeled to have nonattainment air
quality in 2007. An area shown to be in attainment at either time was
not considered a downwind receptor. 63 FR 57371, 73-75, 57382-83. See
also 63 FR 57385-87 for our discussion on the determination of downwind
nonattainment receptors.
    We assessed each upwind State's contribution to the 1-hour standard
downwind nonattainment independent of the State's contribution to the
8-hour standard nonattainment. 62 FR 60326; 63 FR 57377 and 57395. We
determined and concluded that the level of NOX emissions
reductions necessary to address the significant contribution for the 8-
hour NAAQS would be achieved using the same control measures for the 1-
hour standard (63 FR 57446). Therefore, we promulgated only one
NOX emissions budget for each of the affected upwind States
(63 FR 57439). Further, we required these States to submit revised
SIPs, prohibiting those amounts of NOX emissions such that
any remaining emissions would not exceed the level specified in the
NOX SIP Call regulations for that State in 2007. 62 FR
60364-5; 63 FR 57378 and 57426.
    With regard to the State of Georgia, we determined that sources and
emitting activities in the State of Georgia were significantly
contributing to the 1-hour standard nonattainment in Birmingham,
Alabama and Memphis, Tennessee (63 FR 57394). At the time the
NOX SIP Call Rule was being developed, monitored air quality
data for 1994-1996 indicated that Memphis, Tennessee had nonattainment
air quality \2\ although we had redesignated the Memphis, Tennessee
nonattainment area as an attainment area in 1995.\3\ 60 FR 3352,
(January 17, 1995). Further, Birmingham, Alabama was a designated
nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS at the time we issued the
SIP Call. In addition, the modeling done at that time showed that
receptors in the Memphis and Birmingham areas were modeled to have
nonattainment air quality in the year 2007. Thus, Memphis, Tennessee
and Birmingham, Alabama were ``nonattainment'' areas for purposes of
the NOX SIP Call Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Monitored air quality data indicated that the Memphis,
Tennessee nonattainment area had nonattainment air quality from 1994
through 2000. Since 2001, the Memphis, Tennessee nonattainment area
has had monitored attainment air quality data.
    \3\ In the NOX SIP Call Rule, we relied on the
designated area solely as a proxy to determine which areas have air
quality in nonattainment. ``Our reliance on designated nonattainment
areas for purposes of the 1-hour NAAQS does not indicate that the
reference in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to `nonattainment' should be
interpreted to refer to areas designated nonattainment.'' 63 FR
57375 n.25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A number of parties, including certain States as well as industry
and labor groups, challenged the NOX SIP Call Rule.
Specifically, Georgia and Missouri industry petitioners, citing the
OTAG modeling and recommendations, maintained that EPA had record
support for the inclusion of only eastern Missouri and northern Georgia
as contributing significantly to downwind nonattainment. The United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit or
Court), upheld our findings of significant contribution for almost all
jurisdictions covered by the NOX SIP Call, with respect to
the 1-hour standard \4\ but vacated and remanded the inclusion of
Georgia and Missouri, Michigan v. EPA, 213 F. 3d 663 (D.C. Cir. 2000),
cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 1225 (2001)(Michigan). The Court agreed with
the litigants that only the Eastern portion of Missouri and Northern
portion of Georgia were within a geographic area for photochemical
modeling known as the ``fine grid,'' and thus, the record for the
rulemaking supported only including those portions of the two
States.\5\ Subsequently, in response to the Court decision in Michigan,
we proposed (in what is referred to as the ``Phase II NOX
SIP Call rule''), the inclusion of only the fine grid parts of the
States of Georgia and Missouri in the NOX SIP Call with
respect to the 1-hour standard only. (67 FR 8396, (February 22, 2002)).
We also proposed revised NOX budgets for the States of
Georgia and Missouri that would include only the fine grid portions of
these States. On April 21, 2004, we finalized the Phase II
NOX SIP Call rule. This rule included eastern Missouri and
northern Georgia as proposed, allocated revised NOX budgets
that reflected the inclusion of sources in only these areas, and set
revised SIP submittal and full compliance dates of April 1, 2005 and
May 1, 2007, respectively. 69 FR 21604, (April 21, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In light of various challenges to the 8-hour standard, we
stayed the 8-hour basis for the NOX SIP Call rule
indefinitely. (65 FR 56245, (September 18, 2000).
    \5\ As the Court stated, ``[a]ccordingly, they say the
NOX Budget for Missouri and Georgia should be based
solely on those emissions.'' 213 F. 3d at 684.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. GCSEP Requests Related to Phase II NOX SIP Call Rule

    After our promulgation of the Phase II NOX SIP Call
rule, GCSEP, on June 16, 2004, took several legal actions: (1) A
request that EPA reconsider the rulemaking in light of new information
(2) a request that EPA stay the effectiveness of the rule pending a
review of that information, and (3) a formal challenge to the rule in
Federal Courts.
    Petition for Reconsideration. GCSEP requested that EPA ``convene a
proceeding for reconsideration of the rule,'' under section
307(d)(7)(B) of the Act. (Petition for Reconsideration, June 16, 2004)
(Petition). GCSEP made this request based on assertions that:

--Certain events occurred after the close of notice and comment period
of our February 21, 2002, proposal (that is, these events occurred
after April 15, 2002), and
--EPA needed to reopen the rule for public notice and comment on those
specific events.
    GCSEP asserted that it ``was impracticable to raise [its] objection
within [the provided comment period] or [that] the grounds for [its]
objection arose after the public comment period (but within the time
specified for judicial review).'' Section 307(d)(7)(B).

In addition, GCSEP further asserted that its objection was ``of central
relevance to the outcome of the rule.'' Section 307(d)(7)(B).
    Request for Stay of Effectiveness. GCSEP also requested a stay of
the effectiveness of the Phase II NOX SIP Call Rule as it
relates to the State of Georgia only. The stay would delay the
applicability of Phase II NOX SIP Call requirements to
Georgia during the period EPA would conduct notice-and-comment
rulemaking to address the issues raised in the Petition (i.e., the
action initiated in this notice). On March 1, 2005, EPA proposed to
stay the effectiveness of the Phase II NOX SIP Call Rule as
requested by GCSEP. (70 FR 9897, (March 1, 2005)). Four parties
commented on the proposed rule, raising issues related to the merits of
the stay, and also raising issues related to the merits of the
Petition. On August 31, 2005, EPA finalized, as proposed, a stay of the
effectiveness of the Phase II NOX SIP Call Rule as it
related to Georgia only. (70 FR 51591, (August 31, 2005)). EPA also
responded to comments on the stay but indicated that it would respond
to comments on the reconsideration in any subsequent reconsideration
action.
    Challenge in Circuit Court. Finally, GCSEP filed a challenge to the
Phase II NOX SIP call rule in the Court of Appeals for the
11th Circuit, which has since been transferred to the D.C. Circuit.
Georgia Coalition for Sound Environmental Policy v. EPA, Case No. 04-
13088-C. The EPA and GCSEP have requested and the Court has granted the
request to hold the challenge in abeyance pending completion of the
present rulemaking.

C. Purpose of This Proposal

    This proposal initiates the process to respond to the Petition for
Reconsideration. We propose to agree with the central point raised by
the petitioner. That is, we propose to amend EPA regulations as
recommended by GCSEP to remove only the State of Georgia from inclusion
in the Phase II NOX SIP call rule based on additional
information that became available after the close of the comment period
for the proposed Phase II rule. We are not reopening any other portions
of the NOX SIP Call and Phase II NOX SIP Call
rules for public comment and reconsideration.
    The primary purpose of this notice is to provide our rationale and
an opportunity to comment on our proposed response to the Petition.
    As noted in Section III below, the four parties who commented on
the March 1, 2005 proposal related to the Stay of Effectiveness also
provided a number of comments related to the Petition for
Reconsideration. In this notice, we respond to a number of issues
raised in these previous comments. We will fully respond to all
substantive comments on the reconsideration in the final action on this
proposal.

III. Proposed Response to GCSEP's Petition for Reconsideration

A. Proposed Action

    The EPA proposes to amend the Phase II NOX SIP call rule
to remove the State of Georgia only. The EPA proposes to agree with
GCSEP's request, and in this action we are proposing to rescind or
withdraw our finding that sources and emitting activities in the State
of Georgia emit NOX in amounts that significantly contribute
to nonattainment of the 1-hour ozone standard in nonattainment areas in
other States. We request comment on this proposal. We are not reopening
any other portions of the NOX SIP Call and Phase II
NOX SIP Call rules for public comment and reconsideration.

B. Rationale for Proposed Action

    In the Petition for Reconsideration, GCSEP argued that the State of
Georgia did not meet EPA's stated rationale for the NOX SIP
call when EPA promulgated the Phase II NOX SIP Call rule. In
short, GCSEP argued that (1) EPA based its inclusion of Northern
Georgia on a finding that Northern Georgia contributes to nonattainment
of the one-hour standard in Birmingham, Alabama and Memphis, Tennessee;
(2) neither Birmingham nor Memphis was a nonattainment area at the time
of the Phase II rulemaking; and (3) as a result of the revised
attainment status of Birmingham and Memphis, there are no 1-hour ozone
nonattainment areas in any States affected by NOX emissions
from Northern Georgia, and (4) therefore Northern Georgia no longer
satisfied EPA's stated rationale for inclusion in the NOX
SIP call regulation. On each of these points, EPA proposes to agree.
    In the 1998 NOX SIP Call Rule, we articulated a test for
selecting the receptors used in evaluating impacts on downwind
``nonattainment,'' under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). We defined
``nonattainment'' areas as including ``areas that have monitored
violations of the standard and areas that `contribute to ambient air
quality in a nearby area' that is violating the standard'' (63 FR
57373; See also, 63 FR 57375-85). Additionally, as noted previously, to
be defined as ``nonattainment'' receptors, the receptor also had to be
modeled to have nonattainment air quality in the year 2007.
    As earlier explained, with regard to the State of Georgia, EPA
determined that sources and emitting activity in this State emit
NOX in amounts that significantly contribute to
nonattainment of the 1-hour ozone standard in the Birmingham, Alabama
and Memphis, Tennessee nonattainment areas (63 FR 57394). Although we
had redesignated the Memphis, Tennessee nonattainment area in 1995,
monitored air quality data for 1994-1996 indicated nonattainment air
quality.\6\ Birmingham, Alabama was designated nonattainment for the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS and also had nonattainment air quality. Thus, at the
time of the promulgation of the 1998 NOX SIP Call rule, both
Memphis, Tennessee and Birmingham, Alabama were in ``nonattainment''
for purposes of the NOX SIP Call Rule. In addition, modeling
done at that time showed that both areas were also projected to have
nonattainment air quality in 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Monitored air quality data indicated that the Memphis,
Tennessee nonattainment area had nonattainment air quality from 1994
through 2000. Since 2001, the Memphis, Tennessee nonattainment area
has had monitored attainment air quality data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have now redesignated these areas to 1-hour ozone attainment
areas and both currently have monitored air quality data that does not
violate the 1-hour ozone standard. More specifically, on March 12,
2004, we redesignated Birmingham, Alabama, to attainment of the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS. 69 FR 11798, (March 12, 2004). In addition, the Memphis,
Tennessee nonattainment area, which was redesignated in 1995 has had
monitored attainment air quality data since 2001.
    Therefore, we agree with GCSEP that after promulgation of the
NOX SIP Call Rule in 1998, both Memphis, Tennessee and
Birmingham, Alabama now show attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard.
Thus, they no longer meet the definition of ``nonattainment'' used in
the 1998 NOX SIP Call to identify downwind receptor areas
for the air quality impacts portion of the significant contribution
analysis.
    In light of the fact that both downwind receptor areas no longer
qualify as nonattainment areas for purposes of the significant
contribution analysis, we are proposing to withdraw our findings of
significant contribution for the State of Georgia for the 1-hr
standard. This in effect would mean that the State of Georgia would no
longer be required to submit a revised SIP, by April 1, 2005, that
prohibits certain amounts of NOX emissions. Additionally, we
would no longer require the State of Georgia to adopt and implement
NOX control measures,

(originally required by May 1, 2007), that ensure the State achieves
the aggregate NOX emissions budget set out in the Phase II
NOX SIP Call Rule in the 2007 ozone season. There are no
other areas that would be affected by our decision to withdraw the
findings of significant contribution for the State of Georgia. We are
soliciting comments on this proposal.

C. Other Issues Raised by the Petitioner

    In addition to the issue of our redesignation of downwind
receptors, discussed above, GCSEP raised a number of additional issues
and concerns in its petition. GCSEP believes these additional issues
and concerns provide additional rationale for its petition, and for the
recommendation to not include Georgia in the NOX SIP call
regulations. Because EPA is proposing to rescind the findings of
significant contribution for the State of Georgia, and therefore, the
requirement to comply with the NOX SIP call requirements, we
do not believe that we need to take comment on these additional issues
and concerns. Moreover, we believe that petitioners could have raised
most of these issues and concerns during the comment period for the
Phase II rulemaking. Therefore, we do not believe that they are of
central relevance to the outcome of that rulemaking. Section
307(d)(7)(B) requires a petitioner to make a showing that it was
``impracticable to raise [an] objection within the provided comment
period or [that] the grounds for such objection arose after the period
for public comment * * * and that such objection is of central
relevance to the outcome of the rule.'' Because EPA is proposing to
rescind the SIP call requirements for Georgia on the grounds discussed
herein, we do not believe it is either necessary or appropriate to
respond to these additional arguments in this notice. A brief summary
of each of these additional points is contained below:
    Flaws in SIP call methodology. GCSEP's petition asserts that the
CAA requires State-specific findings regarding a State's contribution.
Citing CAA language in sections 110(k)(5) and 110(a)(2)(D), and noting
that the NOX SIP Call relied on ``subregional'' runs with
multi-State aggregations, GCSEP argues that the NOX SIP Call
was flawed.
    Changes to Georgia's SIP. GCSEP's petition notes that Georgia's
current SIP contains regulations that achieve additional NOX
reductions which went into effect between May 1, 2003 and June 1, 2004.
For example, NOX emissions from electric generating units
(EGUs), in the fine grid area of Georgia were reduced approximately 66%
from 2000 levels. Because these required emissions reductions were not
part of Georgia's SIP when EPA originally evaluated the adequacy of the
SIP in 1997 and 1998, GCSEP argues that the Phase II NOX SIP
Call Rule should have revisited its prior determination that the SIP
was ``inadequate'' to prevent significant downwind impacts.
    EPA's analysis outdated. GCSEP notes that there is a significant
time period between EPA's additional analysis of the original 1998 rule
and the Final Phase II rule in 2004. As a result, GCSEP asserts that
EPA's record and basis for including Georgia in the SIP Call is so
``stale'' that data can no longer be used to support EPA's decision.
    Assertions that EPA's decision to proceed with the final rule is
arbitrary and capricious. GCSEP argues in the petition that EPA was
``arbritrary and capricious'' in including Georgia in its final rule
without considering new information related to redesignation of areas
in Alabama and Tennessee. In support of this argument, GCSEP discusses
hypothetical arguments EPA might have made in rejecting its petition
for reconsideration, using a response to a comment regarding our
continued inclusion of Missouri in the Phase II NOX SIP Call
Rule. (69 FR 21626-27).

IV. Response to Previous Comments on the Reconsideration Issue

    As we stated in the final rule staying the effectiveness of the
requirements of Phase II in Georgia, we received four comments raising
issues that we deemed beyond the scope of the proposed stay. In this
notice, EPA is now providing responses to those comments because we had
indicated that we would be responding to them within the context of
this rulemaking. (70 FR 51594).
    Lack of a NOX emissions cap. Two commenters--the North
Carolina Division of Air Quality (NCDAQ), and the Alabama Department of
Environmental Management (ADEM)--opposed GCSEP's request for
reconsideration and recommendation to remove Georgia from the SIP call
regulations. Both NCDAQ and ADEM acknowledged that the current Georgia
ozone SIP may currently be achieving greater NOX emissions
reductions from Georgia sources that would have been subject to the
NOX SIP call. Nonetheless, both NCDAQ and ADEM expressed
concerns that sources of NOX emissions in Georgia would not
be subject to an emissions cap unlike sources located in neighboring
states that are subject to the NOX SIP Call Rule.
    The EPA agrees that certain sources in Georgia would not formally
be subject to an emissions cap. The EPA believes, however, that in
practice it is extremely unlikely that NOX emissions in
Georgia could increase above the levels required by the NOX
SIP Call even in the absence of a cap. The principal reason that
emissions will not increase is that local NOX emission
reductions continue to be needed to address 8-hour ozone nonattainment
in Atlanta. Given this long term need, SIP revisions will continually
seek and provide decreases in NOX emissions. See also our
response below to the comment on the effect of our removal of Georgia
from the NOX SIP Call Rule on 8-hour ozone standard
nonattainment downwind areas.
    Effects on downwind 8-hour ozone standard nonattainment. Both NCDAQ
and ADEM expressed concerns that the lack of a ``cap'' on certain
sources in Georgia may impede the ability of neighboring States to meet
and maintain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    The EPA believes that current analyses show that sources and
emitting activities in Georgia do not contribute significantly to 8-
hour ozone standard nonattainment in any other States. In the analysis
for the final Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR),(70 FR 25162, (May 12,
2005)), EPA concluded that sources and emitting activities in Georgia
do not significantly contribute to ozone nonattainment in other States,
and accordingly, did not include Georgia within the region subject to
NOX caps under CAIR for the ozone season.
    ADEM notes in their comments that the CAIR modeling analysis
assumed full implementation of the NOX SIP call in all
affected States including Georgia. Although the ADEM does not make this
point specifically, EPA infers from this comment a suggestion that EPA
would have to revisit the CAIR modeling, without subjecting Georgia to
the NOX SIP call, for EPA's conclusions related to Georgia's
contribution in other States to continue to be supportable.
    The EPA believes there is ample evidence that shows that the
current Atlanta SIP reductions achieves greater reductions than would
have been required by the Phase II NOX SIP Call Rule. The
EPA has conducted an analysis, included in the docket for this rule,
which shows that this is currently the case. Control measures
implemented for the 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration for the
Atlanta area were phased in beginning in 1999 and were fully
implemented by the 2003 ozone

season. This analysis showed, for example, that:

-- Due to the 1999 Atlanta attainment SIP, five EGUs are limited to the
equivalent of 0.13 lb/million BTU (five plant average). In combination
with the two remaining EGUs, there is a seven plant limit of 0.20 lb/
million BTU.
-- Total NOX reductions modeled for the Atlanta attainment
SIP were 431 tons per day, while the Phase II NOX SIP Call
Rule would have achieved emission reductions of 387 tons per day of
NOX (59,258 tons per ozone season (69 FR 21629). Thus, total
emission reductions from the Atlanta attainment SIP were estimated to
be at least as great as reductions from the Phase II NOX SIP
Call Rule.
-- Future emissions projections of EGU emissions, conducted by EPA
using its integrated planning model (IPM), indicate that some EGUs
located within the fine grid area will be controlled by advanced
NOX controls (selective catalytic reduction), based on the
Atlanta attainment SIP instead of the projected Phase II SIP SIP Call
requirements.
-- The Atlanta attainment SIP achieves substantial NOX
emission reductions from non-EGU control measures in the Atlanta
control plan. This includes, for example, RACT requirements for sources
not included in the NOX SIP Call Rule, and restrictions on
open burning.

    Moreover, as noted previously, Georgia will need further reductions
in NOX emissions over time to continue to address 8-hour
ozone nonattainment in Atlanta. Accordingly, EPA finds no basis to
question its conclusion in the CAIR analysis that Georgia emissions do
not contribute to 8-hour ozone nonattainment in other States.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and
is therefore not subject to review under the EO. This action is
proposing to grant a petition of reconsideration requesting that the
State of Georgia not be included in the NOX SIP Call and
does not impose any additional control requirements or incur any
additional costs.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.,
because the action proposes to remove a regulatory requirement.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedures Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that
the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined in the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 12.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In
determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant
economic impact of the rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule
relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect
on all of the small entities subject to the rule.
    This action neither imposes requirements on small entities, nor
will there be impacts on small entities beyond those, if any, required
by or resulting from the NOX SIP Call and the Section 126
Rules. We have therefore concluded that this proposed rule will relieve
regulatory burden for all small entities affected by this rule. We
continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule
on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such
impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for any proposed or final rules with ``Federal mandates''
that may result in the expenditure to State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating a rule for which a
written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires
EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory
alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The
provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with
applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an
alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least
burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final
rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA
establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, including Tribal governments, it
must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government
agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected
small governments, enabling

officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
    This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or Tribal
governments or the private sector. The EPA prepared a statement for the
final NOX SIP Call that would be required by UMRA if its
statutory provisions applied. This action does not create any
additional requirements beyond those of the final NOX SIP
Call, and will actually reduce the requirements by excluding the State
of Georgia, and therefore no further UMRA analysis is needed.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. This action does not impose an
enforceable duty on these entities. This action imposes no additional
burdens beyond those imposed by the final NOX SIP Call.
Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule
from State and local officials.

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

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not
have Tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
    It will not have substantial direct effects on Tribal governments,
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, as specified in Executive Order
13175. This action does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian Tribal governments. The EPA stated in the final
NOX SIP Call Rule that Executive Order 13084 did not apply
because that final rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian Tribal governments or call on States to regulate
NOX sources located on Tribal lands. The same is true of
this action. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from
tribal officials.

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

    Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it
is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866,
and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. This action does not impose
requirements beyond those, if any, required by or resulting from the
NOX SIP Call and Section 126 Rules.
    The public is invited to submit or identify peer-reviewed studies
and data, of which the Agency may not be aware, that assessed results
of early life exposure to NOX (or ground-level ozone, of
which NOX is a precursor).

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

    This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have
concluded that this rule is not likely to have any adverse energy
effects.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This proposed
rulemaking does not involve technical standards, therefore, EPA is not
considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

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

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or

the environment. For the final NOX SIP Call, the Agency
conducted a general analysis of the potential changes in ozone and
particulate matter levels that may be experienced by minority and low-
income populations as a result of the requirements of that rule. These
findings were presented in the RIA for the NOX SIP Call.
This action does not affect this analysis.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 51

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 78

    Acid rain, Air pollution control, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 97

    Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: June 1, 2007.
William L. Wehrum,
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 51 of chapter I of
title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended
as follows:

PART 51--REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION AND SUBMITTAL OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

    1. The authority citation for Part 51 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart G--Control Strategy

    2. Section 51.121 is amended as follows:
    a. By revising paragraph (c)(2).
    b. By removing the entry for ``Georgia'' from the tables in
paragraphs (e)(2)(i), (e)(4)(iii) and (g)(2)(ii).
    c. By removing and reserving paragraph (e)(2)(ii)(C).
    d. By removing paragraph (s).

Sec.  51.121  Findings and requirements for submission of State
implementation plan revisions relating to emissions of oxides of
nitrogen.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) With respect to the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, the portions of
Missouri, Michigan, and Alabama within the fine grid of the OTAG
modeling domain. The fine grid is the area encompassed by a box with
the following geographic coordinates: Southwest Corner, 92 degrees West
longitude and 32 degrees North latitude; and Northeast Corner, 69.5
degrees West longitude and 44 degrees North latitude.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E7-11036 Filed 6-7-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 192 (Wednesday, October 3, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49780-49784]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21346]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0905; Product Identifier 2017-NM-090-AD; Amendment
39-19424; AD 2018-19-23]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2013-01-02,
which applied to certain The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B,
747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D,
747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes; and Model 757-200, 757-
200PF, and 757-300 series airplanes. AD 2013-01-02 required replacing
the control switches of certain cargo doors. This AD requires
replacement of certain cargo door control switches with a new, improved
switch; installation of an arm switch in certain cargo doors;
operational and functional tests; and applicable on-condition actions.
This AD also adds airplanes to the applicability. This AD was prompted
by reports of uncommanded cargo door operation. We are issuing this AD
to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective November 7, 2018.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of November 7,
2018.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data
Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA
90740-5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this service information 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 on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0905.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0905; 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 (phone: 800-647-
5527) is Docket Operations, 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: Susan L. Monroe, Aerospace Engineer,
Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Section, FAA, Seattle ACO
Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-
231-3570; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to supersede AD 2013-01-02, Amendment 39-17316 (78 FR 4051,
January 18, 2013) (``AD 2013-01-02''). AD 2013-01-02 applied to certain
The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B,
747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and
747SP series airplanes; and Model 757-200, 757-200PF, and 757-300
series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on October
6, 2017 (82 FR 46722). The NPRM was prompted by reports of uncommanded
cargo door operation. The NPRM proposed to require replacement of
certain cargo door control switches with a new, improved switch;
installation of an arm switch in certain cargo doors; operational and
functional tests; and applicable on-condition actions. The NPRM also
proposed to add airplanes to the applicability. We are issuing this AD
to prevent failures of the cargo door control switch from allowing
uncommanded movement of the cargo door, which, if not corrected, could
lead to injuries to persons and damage to the airplane.

Comments

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

Support for the NPRM

    FedEx Express and United Airlines (UAL) stated they had no
technical objection to the NPRM.

Request To Withdraw the NPRM

    Three commenters requested that the NPRM be withdrawn. Virgin
Atlantic Airlines (VAA) and Deutsche Lufthansa AG (DLH) pointed out
there have been no reported failures of the cargo door control switches
or incidents of uncommanded door operation at VAA or DLH since AD 2013-
01-02 was issued. United Parcel Service (UPS) stated that the NPRM
appears to be based on a single event of an otherwise reliable cargo
door switch configuration, based on industry data that show no
significant number of unscheduled removals reported since AD 2013-01-02
was issued. DLH commented that the operational area of the cargo door
is a safety critical area that requires the operator to verify that the
area is safe and clear, whether an additional arm switch is present or
not. All commenters stated that the repetitive inspections required by
AD 2013-01-02 should remain in place and that accomplishing the actions
in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-52-2307, dated May 23,
2017; and Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-52-2308, dated
June 5, 2017; should be an optional terminating action for the
inspections.
    We disagree with the commenters' request because our risk analysis
indicates that the actions mandated by AD 2013-01-02 were inadequate to
mitigate the unsafe condition. Although VAA and DLH have had no new
incidents, there have been multiple reports of uncommanded cargo door
operation within the affected fleets. Therefore, existing procedures
for door operation have not been adequate to prevent the unsafe
condition. We are mandating the actions in this AD because an unsafe
condition exists, which is likely to exist or develop on other products
of the same type design. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Specify Compliance Times Using Flight Cycles

    UPS requested that we specify compliance times in terms of flight
cycles rather than calendar time because cargo door operation is based
on flight cycles. UPS also stated that the compliance interval for both
Model 747 and 757 fleets should be the same because the operation of
the cargo door control switch is the same across both models. UPS
recommended replacing the cargo door control switches every 3,000
flight cycles.
    We disagree with the commenter's request because we have not
confirmed a causal relationship between switch failure and operating
cycles. In developing the compliance time in this AD, we have
considered the safety implications, parts availability, and normal
maintenance schedules for the timely installation of the cargo door
control switches. Further, the compliance time in this AD corresponds
with the manufacturer's recommended compliance time for each model. If
we receive additional data that justify a different compliance time, we
may consider further rulemaking on this issue. In addition, under the
provisions of paragraph (j) of this AD, we will consider requests for
approval of alternative compliance times if sufficient data are
submitted to substantiate that the change would provide an acceptable
level of safety. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Include Latest Service Information Revision

    AAL, Delta Airlines (DAL), and FedEx Express requested that we
refer to Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-52-0093,
Revision 2, dated November 14, 2017, instead of Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 757-52-0093, Revision 1, dated April 21,
2017, which is referenced in the NPRM. DAL stated that the revised
service information allows alternatives to Alodine 1200 and 1200S. AAL
noted that paragraphs (c)(4) and (g)(4) of the proposed AD would no
longer be necessary as the new service information addresses those
issues. AAL also requested that we provide credit for Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 757-52-0093, Revision 1, dated April 21,
2017.
    We agree with the commenters' request. Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 757-52-0093, Revision 2, dated November 14, 2017,
provides minor corrections, and there is no effect on airplanes on
which earlier revisions were done. Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 757-52-0093, Revision 2, dated November 14, 2017, also adds
variable numbers NP901 through NP904 inclusive to the effectivity. We
had referred to those variable numbers in paragraphs (c)(4) and (g)(4)
of the proposed AD. Therefore, we have made the following changes to
this AD:
     Changed paragraphs (c)(3) and (g)(3) of this AD to refer
to Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-52-0093, Revision 2,
dated November 14, 2017.
     Removed paragraphs (c)(4) and (g)(4) of the proposed AD.
     Changed this AD to provide credit for certain actions done
before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 757-52-0093, Revision 1, dated April 21, 2017
(reference paragraph (i)(3) of this AD).

Request To Extend Compliance Time

    Multiple commenters requested that we extend the compliance times
in the proposed AD. DLH requested we extend the compliance time on the
Model 747 airplanes from 35 months to 72 months because there have been
no recorded cargo door control switch failures since AD 2013-01-02 was
issued. American Airlines (AAL) requested that for the requirement to
replace the cargo door control switches on Model 757 airplane cargo
doors 1 and 2, we extend the compliance time from 24 months to 36
months. AAL explained that new cargo door control switches will have
already been installed as part of compliance with AD 2013-01-02, and
proposed accomplishing a functional check of the cargo door control
switch every 12 months until cargo door control switches are replaced
in accordance with Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-52-
0093, Revision 2, dated November 14, 2017.
    We disagree with extending the compliance times in this AD because
we have determined that the replacements required by AD 2013-01-02 are
inadequate, and that new, improved switches are necessary to address
the unsafe condition. In developing the compliance times in this AD, we
have considered the safety implications, parts availability, and normal
maintenance schedules for the timely installation of the cargo door
control switches. Further, the compliance times in this AD correspond
with the manufacturer's recommended compliance time for each model. If
we receive additional data that justify different compliance times, we
may consider further rulemaking on this issue. In addition, under the
provisions of paragraph (j) of this AD, we will consider requests for
approval of alternative compliance times if sufficient data are
submitted to substantiate that the change would provide an acceptable
level of safety. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Request for Relief Due to Parts Availability

    Cathay requested a non-specific extension of the compliance times
due to parts availability issues. Cathay stated that paragraphs (g)(1)
and (g)(2) of the proposed AD would require accomplishment of
applicable actions in accordance with Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 747-52-2307, dated May 23, 2017; and Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 747-52-2308, dated June 5, 2017. Cathay noted that
both service bulletins specify a compliance time of 35 months after the
``original issue date of the service bulletin'' (e.g., May 23, 2017;
and June 5, 2017, respectively). The commenter stated it had received
information from Boeing that certain parts were not ready for delivery
due to issues during validation of Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 747-52-2307, dated May 23, 2017. The commenter also stated
that Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-52-2308, dated June
5, 2017, has not been validated.
    Regarding Cathay's comment that certain compliance times are
relative to the issue dates of Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 747-52-2307, dated May 23, 2017; and Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 747-52-2308, dated June 5, 2017, we agree to clarify
the required compliance times. Paragraph (g) of this AD states ``Except
as required by paragraph (h) of this AD,'' and paragraph (h) of this AD
specifies that certain compliance times are relative to the ``effective
date of this AD,'' rather than the ``original issue date of this
service bulletin.'' Therefore, the compliance times in this AD are
based on the effective date of this AD instead of the issue date of
applicable service bulletins.
    The Boeing Company has completed the validation process for all
applicable service information. Revised and validated service
information for the Model 747 airplanes is now available. This AD
references the revised service information as the appropriate source of
service information for affected Boeing Model 747 series airplanes. In
addition, Boeing has informed us that parts are currently available for
compliance with this AD.
    We have changed paragraphs (c)(1) and (g)(1) of this AD to refer to
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-52-2307, Revision 1,
dated May 2, 2018;

and paragraphs (c)(2) and (g)(2) of this AD to reference Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 747-52-2308, Revision 1, dated June 18,
2018. We have also changed paragraph (h) of this AD to refer to Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-52-2307, Revision 1, dated May
2, 2018; and Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-52-2308,
Revision 1, dated June 18, 2018. We have also changed this AD to
provide credit for certain actions done before the effective date of
this AD using Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-52-2307,
dated May 23, 2017, or Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-
52-2308, dated June 5, 2017, as applicable (reference paragraphs (i)(1)
and (i)(2) of this AD).
    Since parts and revised service information are available, and
since the compliance times are based on the effective date of this AD,
rather than the service information, we have not changed the compliance
times in this AD in this regard. However, under the provisions of
paragraph (j) of this AD, we will consider requests for approval of
alternative compliance times if sufficient data are submitted to
substantiate that the change would provide an acceptable level of
safety.

Request To Remove Replacement Requirement for Certain Airplanes

    Boeing requested we revise the language in paragraph (g)(4) of the
proposed AD to remove the requirement to replace the nose cargo door
control switch from the Model 757 airplane requirements because Model
757 airplanes do not have a nose cargo door.
    We agree with the commenter's request for the reasons provided by
the commenter. As stated previously, paragraph (g)(4) of the proposed
AD is not retained in this AD. The actions for Model 757 airplanes,
which are required by paragraph (g)(3) of this AD, are specified in
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-52-0093, Revision 2,
dated November 14, 2017, which does not reference nose cargo door
switches.

Conclusion

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed the following Boeing service information.
     Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-52-2307,
Revision 1, dated May 2, 2018; and Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 747-52-2308, Revision 1, dated June 18, 2018. The service
information describes procedures for replacement of the nose, forward,
and aft cargo door control switches with new, improved switches;
installation of an arm switch in the forward and aft cargo doors; a
nose cargo door normal operation test; forward and aft cargo door open
and close functional tests; and applicable on-condition actions. These
documents are distinct since they apply to different airplanes in
different configurations.
     Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-52-0093,
Revision 2, dated November 14, 2017. This service information describes
procedures for replacement of the forward and aft cargo door control
switches with new, improved switches; installation of an arm switch in
the forward and aft cargo doors; an operational test of the No. 1 and
No. 2 cargo doors; repetitive functional tests of the No. 1 and No. 2
cargo doors; and applicable on-condition actions.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 584 airplanes of U.S. registry. We
estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                                     Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Action                          Labor cost           Parts cost         Cost per product                Cost on U.S. operators
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement (Boeing Special Attention   78 work-hours x $85 per           $12,874  $19,504..................  $273,056.
 Service Bulletin 747-52-2307) (14       hour = $6,630.
 airplanes).
Replacement (Boeing Special Attention   24 work-hours x $85 per               980  3,020....................  283,880.
 Service Bulletin 747-52-2308) (94       hour = $2,040.
 airplanes).
Replacement (Boeing Special Attention   51 work-hours x $85 per            10,626  14,961...................  7,121,436.
 Service Bulletin 757-52-0093) (476      hour = $4,335.
 airplanes).
Repetitive Test (Boeing Special         3 work-hours x $85 per                  0  255 per test cycle.......  121,380 per test cycle.
 Attention Service Bulletin 757-52-      hour = $255 per test
 0093) (476 airplanes).                  cycle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be
covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected
individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all available costs in our
cost estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has
delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category
airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System
Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2013-01-02, Amendment 39-17316 (78 FR 4051, January 18, 2013), and
adding the following new AD:

2018-19-23 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-19424; Docket No. FAA-
2017-0905; Product Identifier 2017-NM-090-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective November 7, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2013-01-02, Amendment 39-17316 (78 FR 4051,
January 18, 2013) (``AD 2013-01-02'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company airplanes; certificated in
any category; as identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3)
of this AD.
    (1) Model 747-8F and 747-8 series airplanes as identified in
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-52-2307, Revision 1,
dated May 2, 2018.
    (2) Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C,
747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP
series airplanes, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 747-52-2308, Revision 1, dated June 18, 2018.
    (3) Model 757-200, 757-200PF, 757-200CB, and -300 series
airplanes, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 757-52-0093, Revision 2, dated November 14, 2017.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52, Doors.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of uncommanded cargo door
operation. We are issuing this AD to prevent failures of the cargo
door control switch from allowing uncommanded movement of the cargo
door, which if not corrected, could lead to injuries to persons and
damage to the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    Except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD: Do the
applicable actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and
(g)(3) of this AD.
    (1) For airplanes identified in Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 747-52-2307, Revision 1, dated May 2, 2018: At the
applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-52-2307, Revision 1,
dated May 2, 2018, do all applicable actions identified as ``RC''
(required for compliance) in, and in accordance with, the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 747-52-2307, Revision 1, dated May 2, 2018.
    (2) For airplanes identified in Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 747-52-2308, Revision 1, dated June 18, 2018: At the
applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-52-2308, Revision 1,
dated June 18, 2018, do all applicable actions identified as RC in,
and in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-52-2308, Revision 1, dated
June 18, 2018.
    (3) For airplanes identified in Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 757-52-0093, Revision 2, dated November 14, 2017: At the
applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-52-0093, Revision 2,
dated November 14, 2017, do all applicable actions identified as RC
in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-52-0093, Revision 2,
dated November 14, 2017.

(h) Exception to Service Information

    Where Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-52-2307,
Revision 1, dated May 2, 2018; Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 747-52-2308, Revision 1, dated June 18, 2018; and Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-52-0093, Revision 2, dated
November 14, 2017; specify a compliance time after ``the original
issue date of this service bulletin,'' this AD requires compliance
within the specified compliance time after the effective date of
this AD.

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in
paragraph (g)(1) of this AD if those actions were performed before
the effective date of this AD using Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 747-52-2307, dated May 23, 2017.
    (2) This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in
paragraph (g)(2) of this AD if those actions were performed before
the effective date of this AD using Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 747-52-2308, dated June 5, 2017.
    (3) This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in
paragraph (g)(3) of this AD if those actions were performed before
the effective date of this AD using Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 757-52-0093, dated May 5, 2016; or Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 757-52-0093, Revision 1, dated April 21, 2017.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request
to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District
Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the
manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD. Information may be
emailed to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the
Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, to make those findings. To be approved,
the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation
must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval
must specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) For service information that contains steps that are labeled
as RC, the provisions of paragraphs (j)(4)(i) and (j)(4)(ii) of this
AD apply.
    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step
and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to

comply with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled ``RC Exempt,''
then the RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An
AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps
and identified figures.
    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted
methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection
program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC
steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done
as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition.

(k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Susan L. Monroe,
Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Section,
FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198;
phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-52-2307,
Revision 1, dated May 2, 2018.
    (ii) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-52-2308,
Revision 1, dated June 18, 2018.
    (iii) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-52-0093,
Revision 2, dated November 14, 2017.
    (3) For The Boeing Company service information identified in
this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual
& Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal
Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on September 14, 2018.
John P. Piccola,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-21346 Filed 10-2-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P