[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 129 (Friday, July 7, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31545-31546]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14254]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Chapter I

46 CFR Chapters I and III

49 CFR Chapter IV

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0480]

Evaluation of Existing Coast Guard Regulations, Guidance
Documents, Interpretative Documents, and Collections of Information

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Request for comments; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: We are extending the comment period on the subject request for
comments that we published June 8, 2017. We are extending the deadline
by 2 months because interested persons indicated they needed more time
to respond. The comment period is now open through September 11, 2017.

DATES: Your comments and related material in response to our request
for comments published June 8, 2017 (82 FR 26632) must now be received
on or before September 11, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-

2017-0480 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document
call or email Mr. Adam Sydnor, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard is extending the comment
period on the request for comments entitled ``Evaluation of Existing
Coast Guard Regulations, Guidance Documents, Interpretative Documents,
and Collections of Information'' that we published in the Federal
Register on June 8, 2017 (82 FR 26632). We are extending the comment
period by 2 months to allow interested persons more time to comment.
You may now submit comments through September 11, 2017.
    In our June 8, 2017 request for comments, which is available via
www.regulations.gov in docket USCG-2017-0480, we requested your
comments on Coast Guard regulations, guidance documents, and
interpretative documents that you believe should be repealed, replaced,
or modified. Also, we welcome your comments on our approved collections
of information, regardless of whether the collection is associated with
a regulation. We took this action in response to Executive Orders
13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs; 13777,
Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda; and 13783, Promoting Energy
Independence and Economic Growth. We plan to use your comments to
assist us in our work with the Department of Homeland Security's
Regulatory Reform Task Force.
    Your comments should help us with our ongoing task of identifying
and alleviating unnecessary regulatory burdens. After assessing
responses to our June 8 request for comments, we may issue a similar
request for comments next year.

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for the
notice requesting comments (USCG-2017-0480), indicate the specific
regulation, guidance document, interpretative document, or collection
of information you are commenting on, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. Please make your comments as specific as
possible, and include any supporting data or other information, such as
cost information, you may have. Also, if you are commenting on a
regulation, please provide a Federal Register (FR) or Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) citation when referencing a specific regulation, and
provide specific suggestions regarding repeal, replacement or
modification.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Copies of Executive Orders 13771, 13777, and 13783, the
June 8, 2017 request for comments, and all public comments are
available in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, visit http://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.
    Although the Coast Guard will not respond to individual comments,
we value your comments and will give careful consideration to them.

    Dated: June 30, 2017.
J.G. Lantz,
Senior Accountable Regulatory Official, Director of Commercial
Regulations and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2017-14254 Filed 7-6-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 80 (Tuesday, April 26, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 24606]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09545]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-RCRA-2015-0809; FRL-9944-51-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Part B Permit Application, Permit
Modifications, and Special Permits (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``Part B Permit Application,
Permit Modifications, and Special Permits (Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No.
1573.14, OMB Control No. 2050-0009) to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a proposed extension of
the ICR, which is currently approved through April 30, 2016. Public
comments were previously requested via the Federal Register (81 FR
1415) on January 12, 2016 during a 60-day comment period. This notice
allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller
description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden
and cost to the public. 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.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before May 26, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
RCRA-2015-0809, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA
Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for
EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Vyas, Office of Resource
Conservation and Recovery (mail code 5303P), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: Section 3005 of Subtitle C of RCRA requires treatment,
storage or disposal facilities (TSDFs) to obtain a permit. To obtain
the permit, the TSDFs must submit an application describing the
facility's operation. There are two parts to the RCRA permit
application--Part A and Part B. Part A defines the processes to be used
for treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes; the design
capacity of such processes; and the specific hazardous wastes to be
handled at the facility. Part B requires detailed site specific
information such as geologic, hydrologic, and engineering data. In the
event that permit modifications are proposed by the applicant or the
EPA, modifications must conform to the requirements under Sections 3004
and 3005.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Hazardous waste treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities and State, Local, or Tribal governments.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (RCRA Section 3005).
    Estimated number of respondents: 159.
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Total estimated burden: 24,926 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b)
    Total estimated cost: $7,901,274 (per year), includes $5,735,647
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 1,257 hours in
the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This increase is due to the larger number of affected
facilities, based on the current information and reporting requirements
from the RCRAInfo database.

Courtney Kerwin,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2016-09545 Filed 4-25-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 20 (Wednesday, January 30, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 6318]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01923]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 2593-030 and 2823-019]

Algonquin Power Company; Notice of Intent To File License
Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, and Approving Use of
the Traditional Licensing Process

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application and
Request to Use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    b. Project No.: 2593-030 and 2823-019.
    c. Date Filed: November 29, 2012.
    d. Submitted By: Algonquin Power Company.
    e. Name of Project: Upper Beaver Falls Hydroelectric Project (P-
2593-030) and Lower Beaver Falls Hydroelectric Project (P-2823-019).
    f. Location: The Upper and Lower Beaver Falls Hydroelectric
Projects are located on the Beaver River in the Towns of Croghan and
New Bremen in Lewis County, New York. The projects do not affect
federal lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's regulations
    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Mr. Armando Sanchez, Algonquin
Power Company, 2845 Bristol Circle, Oakville, Ontario, Canada, L6H 7H7;
(905) 465-4555; or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Andy Bernick at<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Algonquin Power Company filed a request to use the Traditional
Licensing Process for both projects on November 29, 2012. Algonquin
Power Company provided public notice of the request on December 19,
2012. In a letter dated January 23, 2013, the Director of the Division
of Hydropower Licensing approved the request to use the Traditional
Licensing Process.
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with:
(a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency
regulations thereunder at 50 CFR Part 402; and (b) the New York State
Historic Preservation Officer, as required by section 106, National
Historical Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
    l. With this notice, we are designating Algonquin Power Company as
the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal
consultation, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and
section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
    m. Algonquin Power Company filed a combined Pre-Application
Document (PAD) for both projects with the Commission, including a
proposed process plan and schedule, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the
Commission's regulations.
    n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site
(http://www.ferc.gov), using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number (P-2593-030 or P-2823-019), excluding the last three digits in
the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-
866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also available for
inspection and reproduction at the address in paragraph h.
    o. The licensee states its unequivocal intent to submit an
application for a new license for Project Nos. 2593-030 and 2823-019.
Pursuant to 18 CFR 16.8, 16.9, and 16.10 each application for a new
license and any competing license applications must be filed with the
Commission at least 24 months prior to the expiration of the existing
license. All applications for license for these projects must be filed
by December 31, 2015.
    p. Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filing and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.

    Dated: January 23, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-01923 Filed 1-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 24, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11290-11291]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03827]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0408; FRL-10020-68-OW]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; EPA's
WaterSense Program (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to
submit an information collection request (ICR), ``EPA's WaterSense
Program (Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No. 2233.08, OMB Control No. 2040-0272) to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Before doing so, EPA is
soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed
information collection as described below. This is a proposed extension
of the ICR, which is currently approved through June 30, 2021. 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.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before April 26, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2006-0408 online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tara O'Hare, WaterSense Branch, Water
Infrastructure Division, Office of Wastewater Management, Office of
Water, (Mail Code 4204M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-
8836; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be

viewed online at www.regulations.gov. The telephone number for the
Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional information about EPA's
public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.), EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i)
Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including
whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the
accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed
collection of information, including the validity of the methodology
and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA
will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate.
The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and
approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice
to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to
submit additional comments to OMB.
    Abstract: WaterSense is a voluntary program designed to create
self-sustaining markets for water-efficient products and services via a
common label. The program provides incentives for manufacturers and
builders to design, produce, and market water-efficient products and
homes. The program also encourages consumers and commercial and
institutional purchasers of water-using products and systems to choose
water-efficient products and use water-efficient practices.
    As part of strategic planning efforts, EPA encourages programs to
develop meaningful performance measures, set ambitious targets, and
link budget expenditures to results. Data collected under this ICR will
assist WaterSense in demonstrating results and carrying out evaluation
efforts to ensure continual program improvement. In addition, the data
will help EPA estimate water and energy savings and inform future
product categories and specifications. All shipment and sales data
submitted by WaterSense manufacturer and retailer/distributor partners
are collected as confidential business information (CBI) using the
procedures outlined in the WaterSense CBI security plan under the Clean
Water Act.
    On April 10, 2020, EPA published a Federal Register document (85 FR
20268) that sought input on whether and how the program could better
understand and collect information on consumer satisfaction with
labeled products. Based on the comments received on the notice (and
summarized in the supporting statement), there is no support for
conducting a survey or study on consumer satisfaction for use in future
product reviews. There is, however, support for a general survey that
would help to provide information to improve awareness of the
WaterSense label and brand, which is covered under the existing ICR.
    Form Numbers: *Forms not yet finalized in italics.

Partnership Agreement

 Builders 6100-19
 Licensed Certification Providers 6100-20
 Manufacturers 6100-13
 Professional Certifying Organizations 6100-07
 Promotional partners 6100-06
 Retailers/distributors 6100-12

Application for Professional Certifying Organization Approval

 Professional Certifying Organizations 6100-X3

Annual Reporting Form

 Builders 6100-09
 Professional Certifying Organizations 6100-09
 Promotional partners 6100-09

Annual Reporting Form--Online and Hard-Copy Confidential Business
Information (CBI) Forms

 Plumbing Manufacturers 6100-09
 Non-plumbing Manufacturers 6100-09
 Retailers/Distributors 6100-09

Provider Quarterly Reporting Form

 Licensed Certification Providers 6100-09

Award Application Form

 Builders 6100-17
 Licensed Certification Providers 6100-17
 Manufacturers 6100-17
 Professional Certifying Organizations 6100-17
 Promotional Partners 6100-17
 Retailers/Distributors 6100-17

Consumer Awareness Survey

 Survey form 6100-X2

    Respondents/affected entities: Respondents will consist of
WaterSense partners and participants in the consumer survey. WaterSense
partners include product manufacturers; professional certifying
organizations; retailers; distributors; utilities; federal, state, and
local governments; home builders; licensed certification providers; and
non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary.
    Estimated number of respondents: EPA estimates the total number of
respondents (over 3 years) to be 2,561.
    Frequency of response: Once a prospective partner organization
reviews WaterSense materials and decides to join the program, it will
submit the appropriate Partnership Agreement for its partnership
category (this form is only submitted once). Professional Certifying
Organizations must include additional documentation to begin their
partnership by completing an Application for Professional Certifying
Organization Approval (this form is only submitted once). Each year,
EPA also asks partners to submit an Annual Reporting Form and Awards
Application (voluntarily at the partner's discretion). Licensed
certification providers for WaterSense-labeled new homes are asked to
submit a Provider Quarterly Reporting Form four times each year. EPA
also may conduct two Consumer Awareness Surveys over the three-year
period of the ICR.
    Total estimated burden: 6,830 hours (per year for both respondents
and EPA). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $598,527 (per year for both respondents and
EPA), includes $1,578 annualized capital or operation & maintenance
costs.
    Changes in Estimates: There is a decrease of 2,096 hours in the
total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This decrease is due to changes in program
requirements including using online forms for all non-CBI related data,
discontinuing the individual irrigation partner category, and
simplifying the quarterly provider reporting requirements, which have
reduced operation & maintenance costs and lowered the estimated burden.
EPA also better understands how long it takes partners to complete
program forms and has better historical data to project new partners/
forms over the next three years.

    Dated: February 18, 2021.
Andrew D. Sawyers,
Director, Office of Wastewater Management.
[FR Doc. 2021-03827 Filed 2-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 51 (Tuesday, March 17, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13839-13840]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06026]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP15-104-000]

DBM Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on March 3, 2015, DBM Pipeline, LLC (DBM
Pipeline), 1201 Lake Robbins Drive, The Woodlands, Texas 77380, filed
in Docket No. CP15-104-000 an application pursuant to section 7(c) of
the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations,
requesting: (i) Authorization to own, operate and maintain its existing
9-mile,16-inch diameter Ramsey Residue Line located in Reeves County,
Texas; (ii) a blanket certificate, pursuant to Part 157, Subpart F of
the Commission's regulations; (iii) a blanket certificate pursuant to
Part 284, Subpart G of the Commission's regulation; and (iv) waivers of
certain regulatory requirements. DBM Pipeline estimates the cost of the
Project to be approximately $9.7 million, all as more fully set forth
in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to
public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. For

assistance, contact FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-
free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Philip H. Peacock, Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate
Secretary, DBM Pipeline, LLC, 1201 Lake Robbins Drive, The Woodlands,
Texas 77380, by telephone at (832) 636-600 or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's
public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of
Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and
state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary
reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations
within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit seven copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and seven copies of the protest or intervention to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Comment Date: March 31, 2015.

    Dated: March 10, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-06026 Filed 3-16-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


 ? Need to return call by / at/ between and . Signature: Project No.: 0172.01.005 DISTRIBUTION Page __ 1_ of _ 2_

Project Name: 2004/ 2005 304( m) Plan TELEPHONE CALL RECORD Outgoing Call Date: 01/ 16/ 04 Time: 2: 00 PM Company Name: Royster Clark, Hartsville, SC Contact Name: Billy Pirkle Phone No.: 1 800 767 2855, Ext. 448 Name: Arash Hooshangi Eastern Research Group, Inc.

GENERAL SUBJECT : Clarification of Manufacturing Processes and Pollutant Discharges TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN Mr. Pirkle works in Illinois and oversees the environmental operation of other Royster Clark facilities as well. I asked Mr. Pirkle about the Hartsville, SC facility and whether he knew what subcategory of 40 CFR it was regulated under. Mr. Pirkle told me that it was regulated under 40 CFR 418 ( Fertilizer Manufacturing) and has a SIC code of 2875. He explained the operation of Hartsville facility and told me that presently in that facility they do not manufacture anything; they only combine products. He said that they purchase liquids ( such as sulfuric acid or phosphoric acid) and other by products and combine them in a rotary drum. A reaction occurs and the result is granular homogenous fertilizer. I asked him whether the product was a phosphate fertilizer and he said that there are 40 different grades that are produced. Some grades contain phosphate and some grades do not contain phosphate at all. He said that the facility does not produce any sulfuric acid, any phosphoric acid, or ammonia. However, he mentioned that in the past the facility used to manufacture " normal superphosphates." He said that the operation was stopped in 2001. I explained to him that we are looking at the data from 2000 and so we are interested to know what manufacturing operations occurred in that year. We then discussed both 40 CFR 418 ( fertilizer) and 40 CFR 422 ( phosphate) and Mr. Pirkle made sure that the Hartsville facility did not produce any products described in the applicability section of each subcategory. Therefore, we concurred that in 2000 their facility conducted operations covered under 40 CFR 418, subpart A for producing normal superphosphate.

I also asked Mr. Pirkle about the reported pollutant discharges from the Hartsville, SC facility. He said that the discharge of pollutants is based on production throughput and is not affected by precipitation. If such discharges fluctuate and are higher at times, that is only due to handling issues. For example, it is possible that during loading/ unloading, chemicals are spilled and are discharged to the wastewater. I asked Mr. Pirkle how they discharged their wastewater. He explained that their facility does not discharge any process water. All process waters are recycled and fully used. Their only water discharge is storm water and their PCS permit is also for storm water. Their storm water discharges are directly discharged. He also said that the facility's sanitary sewer goes to municipal treatment facilities. ? Need to return call by / at/ between and . Signature: At the conclusion, Mr. Pirkle asked for my contact information, the EPA project name as well as EPA contacts. I gave him Carey Johnston's name and phone number.


MEMORANDUM

TO:		Public Record for the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule
		EPA Docket Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0274 (www.regulations.gov)

FROM:		Carey A. Johnston, P.E.
            USEPA/OECA/OC
            ph:<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
DATE:		6 June 2014

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT:	Notes from State Technical Workgroup Meeting (5 June 2014) [DCN 0139]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overview

      This was the twelfth meeting for the EPA-state technical workgroup, which is discussing key issues related to the proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule (eRule). These discussions are informing the forthcoming supplemental Federal Register notice and they will continue beyond the publication of the supplemental notice to help EPA address state comments. EPA participants will include the OECA eRule Team as well as representatives from EPA's Office of Water and Office of Environmental Information. Technical workgroup members are listed below in Tables 1 and 2. The agenda for this meeting is also provided below. EPA is summarizing the notes from these discussions for the docket in order to provide transparency on EPA's outreach during the rulemaking process. The OECA eRule team will also be available for any other stakeholder group that would like to discuss the eRule.

Meeting Notes

     EPA (Mr. Carey Johnston) started the meeting by reminding state participants that in addition to raising questions during the technical workgroup meetings, states can email their questions on the proposed rule (including the data elements) to EPA. Questions on all aspects of the proposed rule can be sent to Mr. Johnston. Mr. Johnston then asked teleconference participants to focus on the Construction and Industrial Stormwater Information in Appendix A. The source of these data elements includes NPDES permit applications, Notices of Intent (NOI), and waiver requests (see 30 July 2013; 78 FR 46092).  Mr. Johnston started the technical discussion by reading the name of each data element along with the corresponding data description and regulatory or policy citation. After reading about five to ten elements at a time, Mr. Johnston asked for input from the technical workgroup. Below are some questions and comments from the technical workgroup.

* Several states noted that they there are varying amount of data collection on NPDES permit applications, NOIs, and waivers as it relates to industrial and construction stormwater sites. For example, several states noted that they don't collection information on the total impervious area or total activity area. ACWA (Mr. Sean Rolland) noted that the stormwater information collection requirements may be in EPA's regulations but some states may not be currently collecting all of the required data.

* Indiana (Mr. Tom Easterly) noted that they may need to fix their NPDES implementing state regulations to more closely match EPA's regulations. He noted that Indiana was authorized to implement the core NPDES program soon after the 1972 Clean Water Act. Mr. Easterly noted that there will be a costs associated with updating state regulations.

* Oklahoma (Mr. David Pruitt) noted that some of these data elements are not now in EPA's data system of record for the NPDES program (ICIS-NPDES). He noted that it will costs states money to not only start collecting these data but also to upgrade their databases and systems for sharing data with ICIS-NPDES.

* Indiana (Mr. Easterly) suggested that Proposed Best Management Practices for Industrial Activities and Stormwater and Post-Construction Best Management Practices for Industrial Activities and Stormwater Discharges be converted from a text field to a drop-down list. He noted that this would make data entry easier for states. Washington State (Ms. Nancy Kmet) suggested that these data be collected via Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs).

* Texas, Florida, and South Dakota noted that the Proposed Best Management Practices for Industrial Activities and Stormwater are not collected on the NOI but are rather contained in the regulated entity's Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which is held on-site and is available for inspection. States noted that operators may change their best management practices (BMPs) and then update their SWPPP. Consequently, the SWPPP is a often considered by states to be a `living document' that is periodically updated by the operator. State inspectors will use the SWPPP to determine compliance. Texas noted concern that require the submission of BMPs on a NPDES permit application or NOI will `lock' an operator into using a particular BMP or will cause the operator to submit a revised NOI if there are changes to their list of BMPs.

* Washington state (Ms. Kmet) stated that they do collect BMPs in their NOI.

* ACWA (Mr. Rolland) asked EPA how the economic analysis for the proposed rule handles the situation where information collection requirements may be in EPA's regulations but some states may not be currently collecting all of the required data. EPA (Mr. Johnston) noted that EPA did not include costs associated with previous EPA regulations as EPA has already accounted for the compliance costs in those previous rules. He noted that it is important to separate the changes associated with the proposed eRule from actions taken to meet existing requirements.

* Washington state noted that some of these data elements are more narrative in nature and don't lend themselves for electronic reporting. EPA (Mr. John Dombrowski) ask that Ms. Kmet and other state participants provide suggestions on how to make the data elements more amendable to electronic reporting.

Next Steps

      The next technical workgroup meeting is June 12th.
     State Technical Workgroup Meeting  -  NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule
                                  5 June 2014

      1pm		Introduction/Roll Call

      1:10	Discussion of Industrial and Construction Stormwater Data Elements from Individual Permit Applications, NOIs, and Waivers

      2:00		End of Call

Quick Reminder
   *    The technical workgroup is not a formal decision-making body. The workgroup is expected to develop, research, and evaluate options for consideration by EPA and state senior management.

   *    There are no formal quorum rules for the workgroup. Scheduled teleconferences will proceed with whichever workgroup members call in to participate.

   *    There will be no formal voting or consensus of the workgroup. Instead, the workgroup is expected to try to develop recommendations reflecting their various perspectives, not achieve consensus.

   *    Summaries of the workgroup's discussions will be prepared for and reviewed by the workgroup, for presentation to EPA senior management and other states and the rulemaking record. The discussions summaries will outline the major elements of the discussions, areas of agreement and any dissenting views.

Table 1: State Technical Workgroup Members

                                 Main Contact
                             State or Organization
                              Main Contact Email
                         State/Org. Present? (Yes/No)
                                 Sean  Rolland
                                     ACWA
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Karen Lechner
                                      AK
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Christy Monk
                                      AL
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Eric Cleckler

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                  Glenda Dean

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                 Teresa Marks
                                      AR
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                   Pat Goff

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                   Mo Shafii

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                 Karen Bassett

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                 David Ramsey

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                Ellen Carpenter

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                Wendy LeStarge
                                      AZ
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Robin Belley

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                  David Lelsz

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                  Andy Putnam
                                      CO
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Elisa Willard

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                 Bob Zimmerman
                                      DE
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                  Beth Graves
                                     ECOS
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                                  Chris Klena
                                      FL
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                              Jessica Kleinfelter

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                 Edward Smith

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                               Frances Carpenter

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                               Frances Carpenter
                                      GA
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Tom Easterly
                                      IN
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                               Jeremy Chenevert

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                 Ed Dillingham
                                      KS
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                             Shelly Shores-Miller

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                Shawn Hokanson
                                      KY
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                                 Ruth Wallace
                                      MO
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                              Christopher Miller

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                  Tamara Dahl
                                      MN
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Greg Jackson
                                      MS
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                                  John Murphy
                                    NEIWPCC
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                                 Jason Lonardo
                                      NJ
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Julio Collazo

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                 Robert Wither
                                      NY
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Joseph DiMura

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                             Shellie Chard-McClary
                                      OK
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                  Roy Walker

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                 David Pruitt

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                 Jim Billings
                                      OR
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Sean Furjanic
                                      PA
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                Kent Woodmansey
                                      SD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                   Tim Flor

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                Albert Spangler

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                               Lawrence Bunting
                                      TN
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                      No
                                  Kim Wilson
                                      TX
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Lynley Doyen

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                               Kimberly Shepard

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                 Jeff Studenka
                                      UT
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Jerome Brooks
                                      VA
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                  Phani Eturu

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                Stephen Bernath
                                      WA
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                  Nancy Kmet

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Table 2: EPA Technical Workgroup Members

                                     Name
                                  EPA Office
                                     Email
                               Present? (Yes/No)
                                   Lisa Lund
                                  OECA/OC/IO
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                                John Dombrowski
                                 OECA/OC/ETDD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                  Andy Hudock
                                 OECA/OC/ETDD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                Rochele Kadish
                                 OECA/OC/ETDD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                Carey Johnston
                                 OECA/OC/ETDD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Jackie Clark
                                  OW/OWM/WPD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                  Roy Chaudet
                                 OEI/OIC/IESD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                                 Chuck Freeman
                                 OEI/OIC/IESD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                                 Aditi Prabhu
                                    OGC/WLO
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                                 David Apanian
                                   Region 4
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Erika Farris
                                  OW/OWM/WPD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                  Glynis Hill
                                 OP/ORPM/PRAD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes


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

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request EPA/ OAQPS/ ESD 2. OMB control number b. G None a 2060 0253 3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. X Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes X No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. X Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title National Emission Standards for Coke Oven Batteries ( Renewal)

8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) 1362.06 9. Keywords coke plants, coke oven batteries 10. Abstract The final amendments establish more stringent requirements for the control of hazardous air pollutants from coke oven batteries that chose to comply with maximum achievable control technology ( MACT) standards under the 1993 rule. The final amendments will establish tighter visible emission limits for existing coke by product batteries and will add emission limits and work practice standards to the current requirements for charging operations at new nonrecovery batteries. The final changes are being made in response to the 8 year review provisions in section 112( d) of the Clean Air Act and the residual risk provisions in section 112( f). Other amendments will add work practice standards for improved control of door leak emissions from non recovery batteries.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. X State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. X Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents __ 19_____________ b. Total annual responses ______ 42.3__ _________ 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 20 % c. Total hours requested _____ 80,119_________ d. Current OMB inventory _____ 105,107_________ e. Difference ___________ ( 24,988)________ f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change __________ 0__________ 2. Adjustment ________( 24,988)_________ 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars) a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs _____ 0_____________ b. Total annual costs ( O& M) ________________ 0_____________ c. Total annualized cost requested _____________ 0_____________ d. Current OMB inventory ____________________ 0_____________ e. Difference _____________________ 0_____________ f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change ___________________ 0___________ 2. Adjustment ________________________ 0___________

15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. P Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. X Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1. Q On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. X Semi annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biennially 8. Q Other ( describe)

17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes X No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: _ Bob Schell ____________________________ Phone: ___ 919 541 4116 _________________________

OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

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

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( I) Why the information is being collected' ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( I) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

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

Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95 Certification Requirement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions 5 CFR 1320.9 reads " As part of the agency submission to OMB of a proposed collection of information, the agency ( through the head of the agency, the Senior Official or their designee) shall certify ( and provide a record supporting such certification) that the proposed collection of information

"( a) is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including that the information to be collected will have practical utility;

"( b) is not unnecessarily duplicative of information otherwise reasonably accessible to the agency;

"( c) reduces to the extent practicable and appropriate the burden on persons who shall provide information to or for the agency, including with respect to small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U. S. C § 601( 6)), the use of such techniques as:

"( 1) establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to those who are to respond; "( 2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements; or collection of information , or any part thereof; "( 3) an exemption from coverage of the collection of information, or any part thereof;

"( d) is written using plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology and is understandable to those who are to respond;

"( e) is to be implemented in ways consistent and compatible, to the maximum extent practicable, with the existing reporting and recordkeeping practices of those who are to respond;

"( f) indicates for each recordkeeping requirement the length of time persons are required to maintain the records specified;

"( g) informs potential respondents of the information called for under § 1320.8( b)( 3); [ see below]

"( h) has been developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected, including the processing of the information in a manner which shall enhance, where appropriate, the utility of the information to agencies and the public;

"( I) uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology appropriate to the purpose for which the information is to be collected; and "( j) to the maximum extent practicable, uses appropriate information technology to reduce burden and improve data quality, agency efficiency and responsiveness to the public."

NOTE: 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3) requires that each collection of information:

"( 3) informs and provides reasonable notice to the potential persons to whom the collection of information is addressed of: "( I) the reasons the information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( ii) the way such information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( iii) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the average burden of the collection ( together with a request that the public direct to the agency any comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden); "( iv) whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain or retain a benefit ( citing authority), or mandatory ( citing authority); "( v) the nature and extent of confidentiality to be provided, if any ( citing authority); and "( vi) the fact that any 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."

OMB 83 I ( Instructions) 10/ 95


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 227 (Monday, November 26, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60337-60339]
[FR Doc No: 2018-25494]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0582; Product Identifier 2018-NM-085-AD; Amendment
39-19503; AD 93-14-19R1]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule; removal.

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

SUMMARY: We are removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 93-14-19, which
applied to certain The Boeing Company Model 767-200 and -300 series
airplanes. AD 93-14-19 required inspections for disbonding of the
trailing edge wedge of the leading edge slat; and repair, if necessary.
We issued AD 93-14-19 to prevent the loss of a trailing edge wedge,
which could result in reduced maneuver margins, reduced speed margins
to stall, and unexpected roll before stall warning, all of which would
adversely affect the controllability of the airplane. Since we issued
AD 93-14-19, an updated stability and control analysis showed that the
worst-case scenario of a trailing edge wedge disbond in-flight would
not adversely affect the controllability of the airplane. Accordingly,
AD 93-14-19 is removed.

DATES: This AD becomes effective November 26, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

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-2018-
0582; 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 AD, the

regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information.
The address for Docket Operations (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by removing AD 93-14-19, Amendment 39-8644 (58 FR 41177, August
3, 1993) (``AD 93-14-19''). AD 93-14-19 applied to certain The Boeing
Company Model 767-200 and -300 series airplanes. The NPRM published in
the Federal Register on July 17, 2018 (83 FR 33162) (``the NPRM''). The
NPRM was prompted by an updated stability and control analysis that
showed the worst-case scenario of a trailing edge wedge disbond in-
flight would not adversely affect the controllability of the airplane.
The NPRM proposed to remove AD 93-14-19. We are issuing this AD to
remove AD 93-14-19.

Comments

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

Support for the NPRM

    Boeing and Delta Air Lines (DAL) stated their support for the
proposed AD. United Airlines stated that it has no objection to the
proposed rule.

Request to Withdraw the NPRM

    Airline Pilots Association, International (ALPA) stated that it
opposes the rescission of AD 93-14-19 because the FAA continues to
issue similar ADs effective to other airplanes. ALPA also noted that
the required actions of AD 93-14-19 are relatively low cost.
    From these statements, we infer that ALPA was requesting that we
withdraw the NPRM. We do not agree with the commenter's request.
Updated stability and control data for the affected airplanes shows
that damage and disbonding of the leading edge slat wedge is
insufficient to be considered an airplane-level safety item. The
updated data shows that there is sufficient lateral control up to stick
shaker to counter any rolling moment caused by a missing or damaged
slat wedge. Therefore, we have not changed this AD in this regard.

Request to Rescind Similar AD on another Airplane Model

    DAL asked if AD 2017-22-12, Amendment 39-19092 (82 FR 55027,
November 20, 2017) (``AD 2017-22-12''), would also be considered for
rescission. DAL reasoned that AD 2017-22-12 required, among other
things, inspection of the same structure (the trailing edge slat wedge
of the leading edge slats) on The Boeing Company Model 757 series
airplanes for the same reason (disbonding of slats) as AD 93-14-19.
    We agree to clarify. We do not find it appropriate to rescind AD
2017-22-12 at this time. The flight characteristics of The Boeing
Company Model 757 series airplanes are different than the flight
characteristics of The Boeing Company Model 767 series airplanes, and
the stability and control analysis of the one model does not transfer
to the other model. However, if new data indicates that the identified
unsafe condition no longer exists on Model 757 airplanes, we might
consider additional rulemaking at that time. We have not changed this
AD in this regard.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD as proposed except for 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.

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.
    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 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 the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

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)
93-14-19, Amendment 39-8644 (58 FR 41177, August 3, 1993), and adding
the following new AD:

93-14-19R1 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-19503; Docket No. FAA-
2018-0582; Product Identifier 2018-NM-085-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective November 26, 2018.

(b) Affected AD

    This AD removes AD 93-14-19, Amendment 39-8644 (58 FR 41177,
August 3, 1993).

(c) Applicability

    This action applies to The Boeing Company Model 767 series
airplanes, certificated in any category, line numbers 1 through 488
inclusive.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Wayne Lockett,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email: [email protected].

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on November 8, 2018.
Chris Spangenberg,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-25494 Filed 11-23-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 180 (Wednesday, September 16, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57723-57727]
[FR Doc No: 2020-19207]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2018-0766, FRL-10012-38-Region 10]

Air Plan Approval; Idaho: Infrastructure Requirements for the
2015 Ozone Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Whenever the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgates
a new or revised National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), the
Clean Air Act requires each State to make a State Implementation Plan
(SIP) submission to establish that its SIP provides for the
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the revised NAAQS. This
type of SIP submission is commonly referred to as an infrastructure SIP
submission. The EPA is approving the State of Idaho's September 27,
2018, SIP submission as meeting applicable infrastructure requirements
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

DATES: The final rule is effective October 16, 2020.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2018-0766. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or
other information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on
the internet and is publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Jentgen at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.

I. Background Information

    On April 9, 2019, the EPA proposed to approve Idaho's September 27,
2018, SIP submission as meeting certain infrastructure requirements of
the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS (84 FR 14067). The
initial public comment period for this proposed action ended on May 9,
2019. Due to an administrative error, the EPA omitted certain documents
relevant to the proposed action from the docket during the initial
comment period, open from April 9, 2019 to May 9, 2019. The EPA
corrected the administrative error and on May 28, 2019, we provided an
additional 30 days for public comment on the proposed action (84 FR
24420). The public comment period ended on June 27, 2019. The EPA
received adverse comments on the proposal.

II. Response to Comments

    The EPA received adverse comments during the initial comment period
related to our administrative docket error that left out documents
relevant to the proposed action. The EPA addressed these comments by
including the relevant documents in the docket and providing an
additional 30-day comment period. The EPA received one comment during
the second comment period. We have summarized and responded to the
remaining adverse comments below. The full text of the submitted
comments may be found in the docket for this action.

Comment--Ozone NAAQS Violations

    Summary - The Idaho Conservation League (ICL) asserted that
monitoring data indicates Idaho's efforts to prevent a violation of the
2015 ozone NAAQS are ineffective. ICL further asserted that the EPA's
approval of the 2015 ozone infrastructure SIP submission should be
contingent upon the State's ``creation and implementation of new
management strategies to address ozone in Idaho.''
    Specifically, ICL pointed to Idaho's infrastructure SIP submission,
at appendix B, Table B-1, indicating the 2015-2017 design value for
ozone measured at the Boise--White Pine air monitoring station was
0.070 parts per million (ppm), equal to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Moreover,
ICL stated that in more recent years the monitor has shown exceedances
and that the 2016-2018 design value is likely to violate the 2015 ozone
NAAQS. ICL concluded that the laws, rules, and regulations referenced
by Idaho in its 2015 ozone infrastructure SIP submission do not appear
adequate. Thus, the commenter advocated that the EPA's approval of this
SIP submission should be contingent upon Idaho's creation and
implementation of new emissions management strategies to address ozone
in Idaho.
    Response--The EPA agrees that that the monitor data identified by
the commenter indicates that there may be violations of the 2015 ozone
NAAQS at this monitor, but disagrees that this is an issue that the
State should address in the context of an infrastructure SIP
submission. We have reviewed monitoring data at the Boise--White Pine
Elementary monitor (Site ID: 160010017) and the design value for the
most recent three-year period (2016-2018) is 0.072 ppm, which is over
the 2015 ozone NAAQS of 0.070 ppm. At this point in time, all areas of
Idaho are designated attainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The EPA
designated the entire State of Idaho as attainment/unclassifiable for
the 2015 ozone NAAQS, based on 2013-2015 design value data (82 FR
54232, at page 54243). Each of the three monitors in Idaho that rely on
Federal Reference Method (FRM) ozone monitoring data (Boise-White Pine,
Meridian-St Luke's, and Craters of the Moon) had 2013-2015 design
values below the 0.070 ppm ozone NAAQS. If there are now violations of
the 2015 ozone NAAQS at any monitors, then either Idaho or the EPA may
need to consider the need for a redesignation under section 107(d)(3),
or other proactive actions to address the ambient ozone concentrations
in the area.
    The existence of possible violations of the NAAQS does not,
however, directly affect Idaho's September 27, 2018, infrastructure SIP
submission. As stated in the proposal, the EPA's longstanding position
is that infrastructure SIP submissions are intended to address basic
SIP requirements to implement, maintain, and enforce a NAAQS in

general, and are not intended to address nonattainment plan
requirements for individual areas of a state that may be violating the
NAAQS.\1\ Infrastructure SIPs are due within three years of adoption or
revision of a particular NAAQS, according to CAA sections 110(a)(1) and
(2). The separate nonattainment plan SIP submissions to address the
emission limits and other control measures needed to attain a
particular NAAQS in an area designated nonattainment are due on a
separate schedule, pursuant to CAA section 172 and the various
pollutant-specific subparts 2 through 5 of part D.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 84 FR 14067, April 9, 2019, at page 14068.
    \2\ See 2013 infrastructure guidance: Stephen D. Page, Director,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. ``Guidance on
Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean
Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2).'' Memorandum to EPA Air
Division Directors, Regions 1-10, September 13, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment--Adequacy of Idaho's ozone monitoring network

    Summary--ICL stated that the EPA's approval of Idaho's SIP is
inconsistent with EPA's previous comments regarding Idaho's ambient air
monitoring network and compliance with CAA 110(a)(2)(B).
    Specifically, for the Idaho Falls metropolitan statistical area
(MSA), ICL cited the EPA's November 8, 2017, Air Monitoring Network
Plan approval letter that noted monitoring network deficiencies,
including a lack of a state and local air monitoring station (SLAMS)
for ozone in Idaho Falls. Additionally, ICL stated that, pursuant to 40
CFR part 58, appendix D, Table D-2, cities with a population size
greater than 50,000 with 3-year average ozone concentrations exceeding
85 percent of the NAAQS are required to have, at a minimum, one ozone
monitor. ICL asserted that Idaho Falls meets this criterion.
    ICL also referenced 40 CFR part 58, appendix D, Table D-2 and
asserted that the Pocatello MSA, with a population of 54,441 and 3-year
average ozone concentrations exceeding 85 percent of the NAAQS, is
required to have, at a minimum, one ozone monitor. ICL also stated that
Pocatello particularly needs a dedicated ozone monitor because the
EPA's Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping tool, EJSCREEN, shows
that the city of Pocatello is in the 90th percentile for ozone
concentrations relative to the rest of the State.
    ICL also cited the EPA's November 8, 2017, Air Monitoring Network
Plan approval letter that noted a lack of ozone monitoring in the
Logan, UT-ID MSA. ICL also noted that another developing metropolitan
area in Idaho, Twin Falls (population: 47,468), needs an ozone monitor
based on the criteria in 40 CFR part 58, appendix D, Table D-2.
    Response--The EPA disagrees that there are current deficiencies in
the ozone monitoring network in Idaho that require disapproval of the
State's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. First,
in the context of an infrastructure SIP submission, the EPA interprets
CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) to require states to have SIP provisions that
provide for the establishment and operation of ambient air quality
monitors, collecting and analyzing ambient air quality data, and making
these data available to the EPA upon request. In our proposed action,
we stated that Idaho has a comprehensive air quality monitoring network
plan, originally approved by the EPA into the Idaho SIP on July 28,
1982 (40 CFR 52.670). We also determined that the plan includes
statutory and regulatory authority to establish and operate an air
quality monitoring network, including ozone monitoring (84 FR 14067,
April 9, 2019, at page 14068). The EPA recently approved Idaho's
comprehensive monitoring network plan, further discussed in this
document, on January 16, 2020. In practice, Idaho operates an ozone
monitoring network, compiles and analyzes collected data, and submits
the data to the EPA's Air Quality System on a quarterly basis.
    Second, in the context of infrastructure SIP submissions, the EPA
considers whether the State has met the monitoring requirements for the
NAAQS at issue. With respect to monitor siting, Idaho regularly
assesses the adequacy of the State monitoring network for each NAAQS
pollutant and submits that assessment to the EPA for review (``Annual
Network Plan''). The Annual Network Plan provides details of the
State's air quality monitor system and evaluates whether the State's
ambient air quality monitoring network is achieving its monitoring
objectives, along with a discussion of any needed modifications. The
commenter pointed to specific ozone monitoring network issues
identified by the EPA in its November 2017 Annual Network Plan response
letter. We will explain further in this document how the State has
recently addressed each of the issues identified by the EPA concerning
the adequacy of the State's ozone monitoring network and cited in ICL's
comments on the proposed rulemaking. As a result, the EPA concludes
here that the State has satisfactorily addressed the issues that the
agency identified in the November 8, 2017, letter and do not present a
basis for a finding that Idaho's SIP does not meet the requirements of
CAA 110(a)(2)(B). These recent updates to Idaho's monitoring network
system are described as follows:
    The commenter expressed concerns about the potential need for
additional ozone monitors in various locations in Idaho. With respect
to the commenter's concerns about ozone monitoring in Idaho Falls, the
EPA likewise disagrees that this is necessary at this time. In the 2019
Annual Network Plan response letter, included in this docket, the EPA
granted a waiver of the requirement to install a State and Local Air
Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) ozone monitor in Idaho Falls through the
end of 2023. The EPA and Idaho will review the available eastern Idaho
ozone monitoring data for calendar years 2020 and 2021 to re-assess the
potential need to establish an ozone monitoring station in this MSA in
2023.
    With respect to ozone monitoring in Pocatello, the EPA notes that
the State has already addressed this concern. In Idaho's 2019 Annual
Network Plan, Idaho DEQ acknowledged, based on recent modeling, the
need to install an ozone monitor in Pocatello, ID. In accordance with
appendix D to 40 CFR part 58, Idaho has since installed a monitor in
that location.\3\ The EPA notes that while the commenter cited
information derived from the agency's EJSCREEN tool that combines
environmental and demographic indicators for a particular area, the
fact that Pocatello is in the 90th percentile for ozone concentrations
relative to the rest of the State, that statistical comparison is not a
monitor siting criteria under 40 CFR part 58, appendix D.\4\ The
relevant factors for ozone monitor siting are population size and
estimated ambient level relative to the ozone NAAQS (greater than or
equal to 85 percent of the ozone NAAQS), see 40 CFR part 58, appendix
D, Table D-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ DEQ expands air quality monitoring in Pocatello, Idaho
Department of Environmental Quality, news release, April 28, 2020,
https://www.deq.idaho.gov/news-archives/air-ozone-monitoring-pocatello-0420/.
    \4\ EJSCREEN is an environmental justice mapping and screening
tool that provides the EPA with a nationally consistent dataset and
approach for combining environmental and demographic indicators.
EJSCREEN users choose a geographic area; the tool then provides
demographic and environmental information for that area. See https:/
/www.epa.gov/ejscreen/what-
ejscreen#:~:text=EJSCREEN%20is%20an%20environmental%20justice,environ
mental%20information%20for%20that%20area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the commenter's concerns about monitoring in the
Logan, UT-ID area, the EPA disagrees with the commenter concerning the
need for an

ozone monitor at this point in time. Idaho recently requested, and the
EPA approved in a letter dated May 12, 2020, an agreement, consistent
with 40 CFR. part 58, appendix D, Section 2(e), to waive the
requirement to locate an ozone monitor in the Idaho portion of the
Logan, UT-ID MSA. This May 12, 2020, letter is included in the docket
for this action. Idaho demonstrated that monitoring by the State of
Utah currently meets the monitoring requirements for the Logan, UT-ID
MSA. This waiver is effective for five years (CY-2020 through CY-2024)
and is supported by modeling that demonstrates the location of maximum
ozone concentrations is expected to be in Cache County, Utah and not in
Franklin County, Idaho. Accordingly, the EPA agreed that additional
monitoring performed by Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
in Franklin County would not be necessary at this time to ensure the
adequacy of the Logan UT-ID MSA ozone monitoring network.
    Finally, with respect to the commenter's concerns about monitoring
in Twin Falls, Idaho, the EPA disagrees with the need for such a
monitor for purposes of the 2015 ozone NAAQS at this time. The ozone
design criteria for state and local air monitors, 40 CFR part 58,
appendix D, Section 4.1, directs states to operate ozone monitoring
sites for various locations depending upon area size (in terms of
population and geographic characteristics) and typical peak
concentrations. The MSAs that meet these criteria are discussed above.
Contrary to the commenter's assertions, Idaho is not required to locate
an additional monitor in the Twin Falls area because its population
does not exceed 50,000.
    Based on the resolution of the monitoring issues identified by the
commenter as described above, the EPA concludes that Idaho has met the
infrastructure SIP monitoring requirement of CAA section 110(a)(2)(B)
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, and is finalizing the proposed approval with
respect to this requirement.

Comment--Idaho's SO2 monitoring network and data

    Summary--An anonymous commenter stated that EPA guidance requires
that Idaho must have a fully approved monitoring network for all
pollutants for the EPA to approve the monitoring network requirements
in section 110(a)(2)(B). In particular, the commenter asserted that
sulfur dioxide (SO2) monitors in the State are not sited
correctly, and until monitor siting issues are addressed, the EPA
should not approve the Idaho infrastructure SIP submission for the 2015
ozone NAAQS for purposes of CAA section 110(a)(2)(F). The commenter
cited EPA statements related to SO2 NAAQS designations in
which the agency indicated that it did not have sufficient information
to determine whether existing monitors were located in an area of
maximum concentration around specific SO2 sources. The
commenter stated it was for this reason the EPA could not designate the
entire State as attainment for the SO2 NAAQS. The commenter
further asserted that by designating the State as ``unclassifiable/
attainment'' for the SO2 NAAQS, the EPA had determined that
Idaho does not have an adequate SO2 monitoring network.
    Response--The EPA disagrees with the commenter's interpretation of
the EPA's 2013 Guidance as it pertains to monitoring network
requirements. The EPA's Guidance does not interpret CAA section
110(a)(2)(B) to require consideration of the adequacy of an
SO2 NAAQS monitoring network in the context of evaluating
the State's infrastructure SIP submission for the ozone NAAQS.
    When the EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS, it triggers the
requirement for each state to submit an infrastructure SIP submission
that addresses basic SIP requirements for the implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of such standard. The infrastructure SIP
submission must meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2),
as applicable. The ozone NAAQS was revised on October 1, 2015, thus
triggering the requirement for Idaho to submit an infrastructure SIP
with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS, including addressing the
monitoring requirement of CAA section 110(a)(2)(B).
    Although some infrastructure SIP elements are not NAAQS specific,
e.g., CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to PSD permitting programs,
many other elements are NAAQS specific. The EPA interprets CAA section
110(a)(2)(B) to be such a NAAQS specific requirement, and thus only
requires states to address the relevant NAAQS in an infrastructure SIP
submission, which in this action is the 2015 ozone NAAQS.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 2013 infrastructure guidance: Stephen D. Page, Director,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. ``Guidance on
Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean
Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2).'' Memorandum to EPA Air
Division Directors, Regions 1--10, September 13, 2013. Page 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the EPA notes that it most recently revised the
SO2 NAAQS in 2010. Idaho submitted an infrastructure SIP
submission for purposes of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, and the EPA
approved the submission as meeting CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) for the
2010 SO2 NAAQS on August 11, 2014 (79 FR 46707). Because the
comments pertain to the SO2 NAAQS, they are outside of the
scope of this action, given that the EPA is not revisiting its prior
approval of the Idaho SO2 infrastructure SIP for CAA section
110(a)(2)(B).
    The commenter also expressed concern that Idaho has incorrectly
sited SO2 monitors and therefore they must be corrected in
order to comply with CAA section 110(a)(2)(F). CAA section 110(a)(2)(F)
requires owners or operators of stationary sources to monitor emissions
from such sources, provide periodic reports on the nature and amounts
of emissions and emissions-related data from such sources, and
correlate those reports with any emission limitations or standards
established pursuant to the CAA. The CAA further requires that those
reports shall be available at reasonable times for public inspection.
As previously explained, however, the infrastructure SIP submission at
issue in this action addresses the 2015 ozone NAAQS. As with CAA
section 110(a)(2)(B), however, the EPA interprets CAA section 110(2)(F)
in the context of infrastructure SIP submissions to pertain only to the
NAAQS at issue in such SIP submission, i.e., in this case with respect
to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Moreover, the EPA previously approved the
Idaho SIP for purposes of CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS on August 11, 2014, (79 FR 46707). The comment is,
thus, outside the scope of the present action.
    The EPA has considered the concerns raised by this commenter with
respect to CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) and section 110(a)(2)(F), but has
concluded that approval of Idaho's September 27, 2018, SIP submission
is appropriate for the reasons explained above.

Comment--Adequate resources

    Summary--An anonymous commenter stated that, in its proposed
approval of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E), the EPA failed to evaluate
adequate funding and resources necessary to carry out the functions
delegated to the State and required by the State to carry out the
functions of the SIP. The commenter asserts that the EPA must audit
Idaho's finances and accounting to make an affirmative determination as
to whether the State has the necessary funding and resources. The
anonymous commenter also stated that the EPA should affirmatively
determine whether Idaho actually has the necessary

personnel to carry out and operate programs required under the SIP,
rather than solely relying on the Idaho director's ability to hire
personnel.
    Response--CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) requires each state to
provide necessary assurances that the state will have adequate
personnel, funding, and authority under state law to carry out the SIP.
CAA section 110 does not mandate a specific methodology for the EPA to
evaluate the adequacy of resources to implement the SIP. See 76 FR
42549 (July 19, 2011), at 42554. The commenter did not identify a
specific factual basis for concerns that Idaho lacks adequate
personnel, funding, and authority under State law to carry out the SIP.
The EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that an audit of the
State's finances and accounting practices is required in order to
satisfy the requirements of 110(a)(2)(E)(i). The EPA's role in
approving a SIP submission is to determine whether the submission
addresses the necessary requirements of the Act, not to evaluate the
way in which a SIP is being implemented. See Montana Envtl. Info. Ctr.
v. Thomas, 902 F.3d 971, 978 (9th Cir. 2018).
    In our proposed action, we identified Idaho Code 39-106 as
providing the Idaho DEQ Director authority to hire personnel to carry
out duties of the department. According to Idaho DEQ's Fiscal Year 2019
Performance Report, Idaho DEQ received $56 million overall to perform
its core functions ($23 million from federal funds, $20 million from
State funds, and $13 million from other permit and fee programs).
Specifically, Idaho receives CAA sections 103 and 105 grant funds from
the EPA and provides State matching funds necessary to carry out SIP
requirements.
    The EPA finds that Idaho has provided the necessary assurances of
adequate sources of personnel, funding, and authority under State law
to implement its SIP for purposes of the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Therefore,
it is appropriate to finalize the proposed finding that Idaho's SIP
satisfies the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E).

III. Final Action

    The EPA is approving Idaho's September 27, 2018, infrastructure SIP
submission as meeting specific infrastructure requirements of the CAA.
We find that the Idaho SIP meets the following CAA section 110(a)(2)
infrastructure elements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS: (A), (B), (C),
(D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M), as
applicable.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve State choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because it does not involve technical standards; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 16, 2020. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: August 26, 2020.
Christopher Hladick,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart N--Idaho

0
2. In Sec.  52.670, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an
entry at the end of the table for ``Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure
Requirements--2015 ozone NAAQS.'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.670   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                   EPA--Approved Idaho Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Applicable
     Name of SIP provision          geographic or         State       EPA approval date          Comments
                                 nonattainment area  submittal date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 110(a)(2)                State-wide........       9/27/2018  9/16/2020, [Insert  Approves SIP for
 Infrastructure Requirements--                                        Federal Register    purposes of CAA
 2015 ozone NAAQS.                                                    citation].          sections 110(a)(2)(A),
                                                                                (B), (C), (D)(i)(II),
                                                                                (D)(ii), (E), (F),
                                                                                (G), (H), (J), (K),
                                                                                (L), and (M) for the
                                                                                2015 ozone NAAQS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2020-19207 Filed 9-15-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P