[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 98 (Tuesday, May 21, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29683-29687]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12088]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0272; FRL-9816-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Kentucky;
Approval of Revisions to the Jefferson County Portion of the Kentucky
SIP; Emissions During Startups, Shutdowns, and Malfunctions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve part of a revision to the Kentucky
State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by the Commonwealth of
Kentucky, through the Kentucky Division for Air Quality (KDAQ), on
March 22, 2011. The proposed revision was submitted by KDAQ on behalf
of the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District (District),
which has jurisdiction over Jefferson County, Kentucky. The portion of
the revision that EPA is proposing for approval modifies the Regulation
entitled, ``Emissions During Startups, Shutdowns, Malfunctions and
Emergencies'' in the Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky SIP. EPA
is proposing approval of this portion of the March 22, 2011, SIP
revision because the Agency has determined that it is in accordance
with the requirements for SIP provisions under the Clean Air Act (CAA
or Act). EPA will act on the other portions of KDAQ's March 22, 2011,
submittal, which are severable and unrelated, in a separate action.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 20, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2013-0272, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0272, Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday
through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. ``EPA-R04-OAR-
2013-0272.'' EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov
or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an email comment directly to EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the
EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy

form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that, if
at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to
4:30, excluding federal holidays.

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

Table of Contents

I. What action is EPA proposing?
II. What is the background of the Jefferson County rule on startups,
shutdowns, malfunctions (SSM) and emergencies?
III. What is EPA's evaluation of the revisions to the Jefferson
County SSM Rule?
IV. Why is EPA proposing this action and what is the effect of this
proposed action?
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA proposing?

    EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Jefferson County
portion of the Kentucky SIP to incorporate revisions to Jefferson
County Regulation 1.07, ``Emissions During Startups, Shutdowns,
Malfunctions and Emergencies'' (referred to hereafter as the
``Jefferson County SSM rule'').\1\ The revision modifies all seven
sections of the existing version of Regulation 1.07 currently in the
EPA-approved SIP for Jefferson County. EPA believes that the changes to
the Jefferson County SSM rule are consistent with CAA requirements that
apply to excess emissions during startup, shutdown and malfunction
(SSM) events. In addition, EPA believes that these changes will correct
existing concerns about the prior version of the Jefferson County SSM
rule in the SIP for this Area, as explained below. Please refer to the
docket for this rulemaking for the complete text of the adopted
provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In 2003, the City of Louisville and Jefferson County
governments merged and the ``Jefferson County Air Pollution Control
District'' was renamed the ``Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control
District.'' However, each of the regulations in the Jefferson County
portion of the Kentucky SIP still has the subheading ``Air Pollution
Control District of Jefferson County.'' Thus, to be consistent with
the terminology used in the SIP, we refer throughout this notice to
regulations contained in Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky
SIP as the ``Jefferson County'' regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What is the background of the Jefferson County Rule on startups,
shutdowns, malfunctions (SSM) and emergencies?

    The regulation of emissions from stationary sources is a part of
the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District's program for
attaining and maintaining compliance with the national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS) and for meeting other CAA requirements. The
current EPA-approved SIP for the Jefferson County area incorporates a
prior version of the Jefferson County SSM rule that includes certain
provisions applicable to excess emissions from such sources during
startup, shutdown, malfunction, and emergency events. EPA published
approval of the original version of this rule on January 25, 1980. See
45 FR 6092. On February 11, 1999, Kentucky submitted multiple changes
to the Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky SIP, which EPA approved
on October 23, 2001. See 66 FR 53658. Among other elements, Kentucky's
February 11, 1999, submittal included several changes to the Jefferson
County SSM rule. The submittal added to this rule a definition of
``Emergency'' in Section 1, Definitions, and a new Section 5,
Emergencies, which contains an affirmative defense provision for
emergencies that is very similar to the affirmative defense provision
of the title V operating permit regulations. See 40 CFR 70.7(g).
Additionally, the February 11, 1999, submittal modified Section 2,
Excess Emissions, of the rule such that excess emissions would not be
deemed in violation of otherwise applicable emission limits in the SIP
if, based upon a showing by the owner or operator of the source and an
affirmative determination by the District, certain requirements
regarding startups and shutdowns, malfunctions, and emergencies are
satisfied. Those requirements, as revised by the February 11, 1999,
submittal, are specified in the following sections of the Jefferson
County SSM rule: Section 3, Startup or Shutdown; Section 4,
Malfunctions; Section 5, Emergencies; Section 6, Initial Notification
and Reporting Requirements for Malfunctions and Emergencies; and
Section 7, Extended Malfunctions and Emergencies.
    Acknowledging deficiencies in the Jefferson County SSM rule, the
District proactively adopted changes on June 21, 2005. The District
adopted these changes with the intent of correcting inconsistencies
between its rule and the CAA and EPA guidance,\2\ regarding SIP
provisions that apply to the treatment of excess emissions that may
occur during source startup, shutdown, maintenance, and malfunction
events. These changes were included in the March 22, 2011, SIP revision
provided to EPA by KDAQ. The most salient features of these latest
changes to Jefferson County Regulation 1.07 include: (1) Changing the
name of the regulation from ``Emissions During Startups, Shutdowns,
Malfunctions and Emergencies'' to ``Excess Emissions During Startups,
Shutdowns, and Upset Conditions;'' (2) clarifying that excess emissions
from a process or process equipment due to startup, shutdown or upset
condition shall be deemed in violation of the applicable emission
standards; (3) removing the authority of the District to grant
discretionary exemptions from compliance with SIP emission standards
during SSM events; (4) augmenting the source excess emission reporting
requirements to assist the District in evaluating whether ambient
standards and goals have been exceeded and whether enforcement actions
are needed to protect public health and welfare; and (5) removing the
provisions that created exemptions for excess emissions during
emergencies based upon factors comparable to an affirmative defense.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The District's Regulatory Impact Analysis for the June 21,
2005, changes to the SSM rule references the following memoranda as
part of the basis for the revisions to its SSM rule: ``Policy on
Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and
Malfunctions,'' Kathleen M. Bennett, September 28, 1982; ``Policy on
Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and
Malfunctions,'' Kathleen M. Bennett, February 15, 1983; and ``State
Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During
Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown,'' Steven A. Herman, September
20, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What is EPA's evaluation of the revisions to the Jefferson County
SSM Rule?

    EPA has evaluated the revised version of the Jefferson County SSM
rule submitted as part of the March 22, 2011, SIP submission from KDAQ
on behalf of the District. Based upon this evaluation, EPA believes
that the District has made several significant changes that make the
Jefferson County SSM rule consistent with CAA requirements and with EPA
guidance on SIP provisions relevant to the treatment of excess
emissions during SSM events.

    First, the District has explicitly provided that excess emissions
from sources due to startup, shutdown, or upset (i.e., malfunction)
events are not exempt from compliance with applicable emission limits.
Revised Section 2.2 of the Jefferson County SSM rule clearly provides
that excess emissions during such events ``shall be deemed in violation
of the applicable emission standard.'' This provision is consistent
with EPA's longstanding interpretation of the CAA to prohibit SIP
provisions that include any exemptions for excess emissions during SSM
events and requiring that such emissions be treated as violations.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See, e.g., ``State Implementation Plans (SIPs): Policy
Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and
Shutdown,'' sent by Steven A. Herman, Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and Robert Perciasepe,
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to the Regional
Administrators, Regions I-X, on Sept. 20, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the District has substantially revised the Jefferson County
SSM rule in order to alter provisions that previously had the effect of
providing an exemption for emissions during SSM events through the
exercise of director's discretion by the District. The prior version of
the rule contained factors that the District could consider in the
decision whether or not to grant such a discretionary exemption.
Revised Section 2.3 removes the authority of the District to grant
discretionary exemptions from compliance with SIP emission standards
and in its place provides an ``enforcement discretion'' provision that
provides specific factors for state personnel in their own exercise of
enforcement discretion for violations related to startup, shutdown, and
upset events. These factors are intended to apply only to the District
and do not affect EPA enforcement or citizen enforcement--both of which
are separately authorized by the CAA.\4\ These factors include
consideration of the duration and frequency of the emissions;
operation/maintenance practices; whether there is a recurring pattern;
certain public health impacts associated with the excess emissions,
among other factors. Notably, these factors are also not intended to,
and do not, operate as an affirmative defense.\5\ This revised
provision is consistent with EPA's longstanding interpretation of the
CAA to permit SIP provisions that address the exercise of enforcement
discretion by state personnel, so long as they do not impinge upon the
enforcement discretion of EPA or citizens.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ On May 9, 2013, Jefferson County provided EPA with a letter
clarifying and confirming that the factors included in Regulation
1.07, Section 2.3, are intended to be discretionary factors that
Jefferson County may consider as part of its own enforcement
discretion and that the rule does not intend to or purport to apply
to any other agency or the public. This letter is a part of the
basis for EPA's action upon the SIP submission and part of the
record for the action to be appropriately reflected in the CFR.
    \5\ EPA notes that revised Section 3.4 of the Jefferson County
SSM rule provides that either startup or shutdown that is
necessitated by an upset shall be considered part of the upset.
Provision 2.3, which sets forth enforcement discretion factors,
refers to Section 3.6 and 4.4 and thus the Jefferson County SSM rule
treats startups following a malfunction event in the same manner as
it treats all excess emissions for purposes of enforcement
discretion. In the context of an enforcement discretion provision,
as opposed to an affirmative defense provision for malfunctions, the
Jefferson County SSM rule is consistent with the CAA and EPA's
policy and guidance.
    \6\ See ``Policy on Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown,
Maintenance, and Malfunctions,'' sent by Kathleen M. Bennett,
Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise, and Radiation, to the
Regional Administrators, Regions I-X on Feb. 15, 1983 (indicating
the CAA would allow appropriately drawn enforcement discretion
provisions in SIPs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, the District has also substantially revised the Jefferson
County SSM rule to remove provisions that previously included specific
treatment for excess emissions during emergencies. The prior version of
the rule included provisions that together appeared to provide an
exemption for excess emissions that occurred during emergencies, if the
source could meet certain factors that were structured as an
affirmative defense. The District has removed the definition of
``emergency'' that previously appeared in Section 1.1 and removed the
provisions applicable to emergencies in Section 5. The prior version of
the Jefferson County SSM rule could have operated to exempt excess
emissions during such events, and to provide a bar not just to monetary
penalties, but also a bar to injunctive relief for the resulting
violations of SIP emission standards. Moreover, the factors for the
affirmative defense were not consistent with EPA's guidance for
affirmative defense provisions for malfunctions.\7\ Removal of these
provisions from the Jefferson County SSM rule is thus consistent with
EPA's longstanding guidance concerning SIP provisions, both with
respect to exemptions for excess emissions and with respect to
affirmative defense provisions that would be consistent with CAA
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See ``State Implementation Plans (SIPs): Policy Regarding
Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown,'' sent
by Steven A. Herman, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance, and Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation, to the Regional Administrators, Regions I-X,
on Sept. 20, 1999 (indicating that the CAA would allow appropriately
drawn affirmative defense provisions in SIPs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fourth, the District has revised the provisions of the Jefferson
County SSM rule to update and expand the notification requirements for
sources in the event of excess emissions related to startup, shutdown,
and upset conditions. These provisions relate to the timing and nature
of notification that the source is required to make to the District and
may be germane to the District's exercise of enforcement discretion
under revised Section 2.3. EPA believes that these updated notification
provisions will likely enhance compliance and enforcement efforts
within the Jefferson County area and that they otherwise are consistent
with CAA requirements because they do not purport to affect the
exercise of enforcement discretion by EPA or other parties.
    Finally, the District substantially revised the Jefferson County
SSM rule with respect to ``extended'' malfunctions and emergencies.
Section 9 of the prior version of the rule appeared to allow sources to
continue to operate for extended periods of time in the event of a
malfunction or emergency, without legal consequence, so long as the
source obtained prior authorization from the District. Revised Section
5 of the rule now makes unequivocally clear that, even if the District
authorizes continued operation during such an event following a
specified process, the excess emissions that occur during that extended
period of time remain violations of the applicable SIP emission
standards. The revised provision states that the authorization by the
District ``shall neither constitute an affirmative defense for
violations caused by excess emissions nor preempt the rights of the EPA
or any person to take action under federal, state, or local law.'' EPA
believes Revised Section 5 in conjunction with revised Section 2.2 thus
makes clear that any excess emissions during such periods constitute
violations of the applicable SIP emission standards and that the
District, EPA, or others using the citizen suit provision of the CAA
may still pursue appropriate enforcement action against the source. The
revised provision is thus consistent with EPA's longstanding
interpretation of the CAA to prohibit SIP provisions that include
exemptions for excess emissions during SSM events and requiring that
such emissions be treated as violations.
    EPA believes that the revisions to the Jefferson County SSM rule
are consistent with the requirements of both section 110(l) and section
193. Under

section 110(l), EPA is prohibited from approving any SIP revision that
would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment
and reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirements of
the CAA. In this action, EPA believes that the revisions do not
interfere with such requirements and in fact strengthen the existing
SIP by removing or revising various provisions related to excess
emissions during SSM events that included automatic exemptions,
director discretion exemptions, affirmative defense provisions, and
other provisions that were inconsistent with CAA requirements and would
have interfered with effective enforcement of the SIP. Because all of
these changes are improvements to the prior version of the Jefferson
County SSM rule, and because they are themselves consistent with the
requirements of the CAA as interpreted in EPA guidance for SIP
provisions, EPA is proposing to find that the revision is consistent
with the requirements of section 110(l).
    Similarly, CAA section 193 prohibits EPA from approving SIP
revisions to certain SIP control requirements in effect prior to
November 15, 1990, unless the modification insures equivalent or
greater emission reductions. The revision at issue in this action does
pertain to control requirements that, at least in part, predate
November 15, 1990, and thus compliance with section 193 is required.
Because all of the revisions are improvements to the prior version of
the Jefferson County SSM rule, and because the revised provisions are
themselves consistent with the requirements of the CAA as interpreted
in EPA guidance for SIP provisions, EPA is proposing that the revision
is also consistent with the requirements of section 193. As a result of
the improved effectiveness of the enforcement program associated with
emissions during SSM, and the explicit determination that such
emissions are violations of applicable emission limits, the revision is
expected to produce equivalent or greater emission reductions and is
thus consistent with CAA section 193.
    Based upon the foregoing analysis, EPA is proposing to approve the
changes to the Jefferson County SSM rule contained in the March 22,
2011, SIP submission from KDAQ on behalf of the District. EPA has
determined that the specific changes to the rule are consistent with
CAA requirements for SIP provisions that address excess emissions
during SSM events, and with EPA guidance concerning such provisions.
EPA requests comment on this proposal, and in particular requests
comments on its view that the revisions to the Jefferson County SSM
rule are consistent with CAA requirements for SIP provisions.
    EPA notes that in a separate rulemaking action, published on
February 22, 2013, EPA identified several deficiencies associated with
the Jefferson County SSM rule including: (1) the rule did not consider
all excess emissions above SIP emission limits to be ``violations;''
(2) the rule included insufficiently bounded director's discretion
provisions regarding whether an excess emissions event constituted a
violation and thus creating impermissible discretionary exemptions from
SIP emission limits; (3) the rule provided an impermissible exemption
for excess emissions that occur during ``emergencies;'' and (4) the
rule contained affirmative defense provisions that are not consistent
with CAA requirements. See 78 FR 12460, 12507-12508. Today's action
proposing approval of Jefferson County's revised SSM rule is separate
from the February 22, 2013, action. EPA's action in this proposal does
not reopen the public comment period associated with the separate
February 22, 2013, action; nor does today's action purport to revise or
amend that separate proposed action. EPA will be taking a separate
final action on the February 22, 2013, proposed rulemaking. Today's
action only proposes to approve the revised Jefferson County SSM Rule
into the SIP as consistent with the CAA and CAA policy and guidance,
for the reasons explained above.

IV. Why is EPA proposing this action and what is the effect of this
proposed action?

    The purpose of today's action is to propose approval of changes to
Regulation 1.07 in the Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky SIP.
The District determined that the current SIP-approved rule required
changes in light of EPA policy memoranda regarding excess emissions
from stationary sources, and voluntarily provided a revision to KDAQ
who submitted the revised rule to EPA for approval in 2011. The changes
to Regulation 1.07, which are being proposed for inclusion into the SIP
today, revise the Jefferson County SSM rule to make it consistent with
the CAA.
    If finalized, today's action would approve part of the revision to
the Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky SIP submitted by KDAQ, on
behalf of the District, on March 22, 2011. Approval of this revision
would change the name of the regulation to ``Excess Emissions During
Startups, Shutdowns, and Upset Conditions;'' clarify that excess
emissions due to startup, shutdown or upset condition shall be deemed
in violation of the applicable emission standards; augment the source
excess emission reporting requirements to improve air quality
management; remove the authority of the District to grant discretionary
exemptions from compliance with SIP emission standards during SSM
events; remove the affirmative defense provision for emergencies; and
explicitly state that the District's decision not to exercise its own
enforcement discretion would not preempt enforcement by EPA or other
parties. Today's action does not make any changes or propose any
findings related to EPA's completely separate rulemaking action
regarding the current SIP-approved version of the Jefferson County SSM
rule proposed on February 22, 2013 (78 FR 12460).

V. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the portion of Kentucky's March 22,
2011, SIP revision pertaining to Jefferson County Regulation 1.07,
``Emissions During Startups, Shutdowns, Malfunctions and Emergencies.''
This revision renames the regulation ``Excess Emissions During
Startups, Shutdowns, and Upset Conditions'' and makes numerous changes
to the Jefferson County SSM rule to bring it into compliance with the
CAA and EPA guidance regarding SIP provisions for the correct treatment
of excess emissions from sources during SSM events.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, 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 Commonwealth 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 Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the Commonwealth, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: May 9, 2013.
 A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2013-12088 Filed 5-20-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 189 (Friday, September 28, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49077-49078]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21128]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Number: PR18-82-000.
    Applicants: Banquete Hub LLC.
    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b),(e)/: Baseline Filing--
Banquete Hub SOC and the Errata to be effective 10/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 9/19/18.
    Accession Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>92.
    Comments/Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1192-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Compliance filing TETLP OFO September 2018 Penalty
Disbursement Report.
    Filed Date: 9/20/18.

    Accession Number: 20180920-5031.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/2/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1193-000.
    Applicants: Enable Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Fuel Tracker Filing Effective
November 1, 2018 to be effective 11/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 9/20/18.
    Accession Number: 20180920-5047.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/2/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1194-000.
    Applicants: Enable Mississippi River Transmission, LLC.
    Description: 2018 Annual Penalty Revenue Credit Filing.
    Filed Date: 9/20/18.
    Accession Number: 20180920-5151.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/2/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1195-000.
    Applicants: Enable Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Annual Report of Total Penalty Revenue Credits of
Enable Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Filed Date: 9/20/18.
    Accession Number: 20180920-5152.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/2/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1196-000.
    Applicants: Enable Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Annual Report of Linked Firm Service Penalty Revenue
Credits of Enable Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Filed Date: 9/20/18.
    Accession Number: 20180920-5153.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/2/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1197-000.
    Applicants: Enable Mississippi River Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 2018 MRT Annual Fuel Filing to
be effective 11/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 9/20/18.
    Accession Number: 20180920-5157.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/2/18.

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

    Dated: September 24, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-21128 Filed 9-27-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 166 (Monday, August 27, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43525-43527]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18453]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2018-0742]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Upper Mississippi River, Mile Markers 751.2 to
751.8, Alma, WI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
certain navigable waters of the Upper Mississippi River. The safety
zone is necessary to protect persons, vessels, and the marine
environment from potential hazards created by a demolition project
taking place on the bank of the Upper Mississippi River near Alma, WI.
Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless
specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Upper
Mississippi River or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from September 28, 2018, through October
15, 2018.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2018-0742 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Lieutenant Commander Christian Barger, Waterways
Management Division, Sector Upper Mississippi River, U.S. Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi River
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that
good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. It is
impracticable because we must establish this safety zone by September
28, 2018, and we lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment
period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule. The
NPRM process would delay the establishment of the safety zone and
compromise public safety.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231. The Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi River (COTP) has
determined that potential hazards associated with the equipment to be
used in the demolition of a 700 foot tall chimney at the Dairyland
Power Cooperative Station will be a safety concern for anyone on a six-
tenths of a mile stretch of the Upper Mississippi River at the time the
chimney is toppled. This rule is needed to protect persons, vessels,
and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety
zone before, during, and after the demolition.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from September 28,
2018 through October 15, 2018. The safety zone will cover all navigable
waters of the Upper Mississippi River between mile markers 751.2 and
751.8, adjacent to the eastern river bank, where the demolition of a
700-foot chimney will take place. The Coast Guard was informed that the
demolition itself would take approximately 30 minutes on one day and
that all debris should be contained and is not expected to enter the
waterway. The period of enforcement of this safety zone will be two
hours before, thirty minutes during, and thirty minutes after the
demolition. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the
public through Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM), Local Notices to
Mariners (LNM), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs), or
through other means of public notice, as appropriate, at least 3 hours
in advance of the enforcement period. The duration of the zone is
intended to protect persons, vessels, and the marine

environment on these navigable waters during the chimney demolition.
    No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the temporary safety
zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated
representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant,
or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to Sector Upper
Mississippi River, U.S. Coast Guard. A designated representative may be
a Patrol Commander (PATCOM). The PATCOM may be aboard either a Coast
Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The Patrol Commander may be
contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) by the call sign ``PATCOM''.
Vessels requiring entry into this safety zone must request permission
from the COTP or a designated representative. They may be contacted on
VHF-FM Channel 16 or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>. All persons and
vessels permitted to enter this safety zone must transit at their
slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions issued by the
COTP or the designated representative. The COTP or a designated
representative will inform the public of the enforcement times and
dates for this safety zone through Broadcast Notices to Mariners
(BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Safety Information
Marine Broadcasts (SIMBs), as appropriate.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 13563 (``Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review'') and 12866 (``Regulatory Planning and Review'') direct
agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts,
and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (``Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs'') directs agencies to
reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that ``for
every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be
identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be
prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.''
    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this
rule a ``significant regulatory action,'' under section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. As this
rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from
the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum
``Guidance Implementing Executive Order 13771, Titled `Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs''' (April 5, 2017).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and duration of the safety zone. This safety zone impacts
less than a one-mile stretch of the Upper Mississippi River for
approximately three hours on one day. Moreover, the Coast Guard will
issue a Safety Marine Information Broadcast (SMIB) via VHF-FM marine
channel 16 about the zone and the rule would allow vessels to seek
permission to enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

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

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

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

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

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

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T08-0724 to read as follows:

Sec.  165. T08-0742  Safety Zone; Mile Markers 751.2 to 751.8, Upper
Mississippi River, Alma, WI.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters of the Mississippi River between mile marker (MM) 751.2 and MM
751.8, Alma, WI.
    (b) Effective period. This section will be enforced from September
28, 2018 through October 15, 2018.
    (c) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced for three
hours on one day, two hours prior to, thirty minutes during, and thirty
minutes after the completion of demolition at the Dairyland Power
Cooperative Station in Alma, WI. The Captain of the Port Sector Upper
Mississippi River (COTP) or a designated representative will inform the
public of the enforcement through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs),
Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs) and/or Safety Marine Information
Broadcasts (SMIBs) or other means of public notice at least three hours
in advance of the enforcement of this safety zone.
    (d) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this part, persons and vessels are prohibited from
entering the safety zone unless authorized by the COTP or a designated
representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant,
or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the
operational control of USCG Sector Upper Mississippi River. A
designated representative may be a Patrol Commander (PATCOM). The
PATCOM may be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary
vessel. The Patrol Commander may be contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM
(156.8 MHz) by the call sign ``PATCOM''.
    (2) Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or pass through the
zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated
representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM channel 16 or by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply
with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative.
    (e) Informational broadcasts. The COTP or a designated
representative will inform the public through Broadcast Notices to
Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs) and/or Safety Marine
Information Broadcasts (SMIBs) or other means of public notice of the
enforcement period for the temporary safety zone as well as any changes
in the dates and times of enforcement.

    Dated: August 21, 2018.
Stormer, Scott A.,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi
River.
[FR Doc. 2018-18453 Filed 8-24-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 41 (Thursday, March 1, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12501-12503]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4955]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 65

[Docket ID FEMA-2012-0003; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1244]

Changes in Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Interim rule.

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

SUMMARY: This interim rule lists communities where modification of the
Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) is appropriate because
of new scientific or technical data. New flood insurance premium rates
will be calculated from the modified BFEs for new buildings and their
contents.

DATES: These modified BFEs are currently in effect on the dates listed
in the table below and revise the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) in
effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
    From the date of the second publication of these changes in a
newspaper of local circulation, any person has ninety (90) days in
which to request through the community that the Deputy Federal
Insurance and Mitigation Administrator reconsider the changes. The
modified BFEs may be changed during the 90-day period.

ADDRESSES: The modified BFEs for each community are available for
inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each
community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The modified BFEs are not listed for each
community in this interim rule. However, the address of the Chief
Executive Officer of the community where the modified BFE
determinations are available for inspection is provided.
    Any request for reconsideration must be based on knowledge of
changed conditions or new scientific or technical data.
    The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance
with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.,
and with 44 CFR part 65.
    For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is
shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
    The modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management
measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show
evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or to remain
qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP).
    These modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management
criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required.
They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any
existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain
management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter
requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other
Federal, State, or regional entities. The changes in BFEs are in
accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
    National Environmental Policy Act. This interim rule is
categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10,
Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not
been prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are
not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-
612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
    Regulatory Classification. This interim rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This interim rule involves no
policies

that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This interim rule
meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 65

    Flood insurance, Floodplains, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 65 is amended to read as follows:

PART 65--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 65 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp., p. 376.

Sec.  65.4  [Amended]

0
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  65.4 are amended
as follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Date and name of
         State and county           Location and case No.     newspaper where     Chief executive officer   Effective date of  modification   Community
                                                           notice was published         of community                                             No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama:
    Jefferson.....................  City of Birmingham     December 2, 2011;     The Honorable William      April 9, 2012..................       010116
                                     (11-04-6751P).         December 9, 2011;     Bell, Mayor, City of
                                                            The Birmingham News.  Birmingham, 710 North
                                                                                20th Street, Birmingham,
                                                                                AL 35203.
    Jefferson.....................  City of Mountain       December 2, 2011;     The Honorable Lawrence     April 9, 2012..................       010128
                                     Brook (11-04-6751P).   December 9, 2011;     Terry Oden, Mayor, City
                                                            The Birmingham News.  of Mountain Brook, 3928
                                                                                Montclair Road, Mountain
                                                                                Brook, AL 35213.
    Jefferson.....................  Unincorporated areas   December 2, 2011;     The Honorable David        April 9, 2012..................       010217
                                     of Jefferson County    December 9, 2011;     Carrington, President,
                                     (11-04-6751P).         The Birmingham News.  Jefferson County
                                                                                Commission, 716 Richard
                                                                                Arrington, Jr. Boulevard
                                                                                North, Birmingham, AL
                                                                                35203.
Arizona:
    Coconino......................  City of Flagstaff (11- October 27, 2011;     The Honorable Sara         March 2, 2012..................       040020
                                     09-0801P).             November 3, 2011;     Presler, Mayor, City of
                                                            The Arizona Daily     Flagstaff, 211 West
                                                            Sun.                  Aspen Avenue, Flagstaff,
                                                                                AZ 86001.
    Maricopa......................  City of Peoria (11-09- December 8, 2011;     The Honorable Bob          November 29, 2011..............       040050
                                     3985P).                December 15, 2011;    Barrett, Mayor, City of
                                                            The Arizona           Peoria, 8401 West Monroe
                                                            Business Gazette.     Street, Peoria, AZ 85345.
Colorado:
    Arapahoe......................  City of Centennial     December 8, 2011;     The Honorable Cathy Noon,  April 13, 2012.................       080315
                                     (11-08-0818P).         December 15, 2011;    Mayor, City of
                                                            The Littleton         Centennial, 13133 East
                                                            Independent.          Arapahoe Road,
                                                                                Centennial, CO 80112.
    Arapahoe......................  City of Centennial     December 8, 2011;     The Honorable Cathy Noon,  April 13, 2012.................       080315
                                     (11-08-1095P).         December 15, 2011;    Mayor, City of
                                                            The Littleton         Centennial, 13133 East
                                                            Independent.          Arapahoe Road,
                                                                                Centennial, CO 80112.
    Routt.........................  Town of Hayden (11-08- November 6, 2011;     The Honorable Jim          March 12, 2012.................       080157
                                     0603P).                November 13, 2011;    Haskins, Mayor, Town of
                                                            The Steamboat Pilot   Hayden, 178 West
                                                            & Today.              Jefferson Avenue,
                                                                                Hayden, CO 81639.
    Weld..........................  City of Fort Lupton    November 9, 2011;     The Honorable Tommy        March 15, 2012.................       080183
                                     (11-08-0714P).         November 16, 2011;    Holton, Mayor, City of
                                                            The Greeley Tribune.  Fort Lupton, 130 South
                                                                                McKinley Avenue, Fort
                                                                                Lupton, CO 80621.
    Weld..........................  Unincorporated areas   November 9, 2011;     The Honorable Douglas      March 15, 2012.................       080266
                                     of Weld County (11-    November 16, 2011;    Rademacher, Chairman,
                                     08-0714P).             The Greeley Tribune.  Weld County Board of
                                                                                Commissioners, 1150 O
                                                                                Street, Greeley, CO
                                                                                80631.
Florida:
    Lee...........................  Unincorporated areas   December 7, 2011;     The Honorable John         November 29, 2011..............       125124
                                     of Lee County (12-04-  December 14, 2011;    Manning, Chairman, Lee
                                     0347P).                The News-Press.       County Board of
                                                                                Commissioners, 2120 Main
                                                                                Street, Fort Myers, FL
                                                                                33901.
    Orange........................  City of Orlando (11-   December 5, 2011;     The Honorable Buddy Dyer,  November 22, 2011..............       120186
                                     04-8600P).             December 12, 2011;    Mayor, City of Orlando,
                                                            The Orlando           400 South Orange Avenue,
                                                            Sentinel.             Orlando, FL 32802.
New Mexico:
    Chaves........................  City of Roswell (11-   November 17, 2011;    The Honorable Del Jurney,  March 23, 2012.................       350006
                                     06-0142P).             November 24, 2011;    Mayor, City of Roswell,
                                                            The Roswell Daily     425 North Richardson
                                                            Record.               Avenue, Roswell, NM
                                                                                88202.
    Chaves........................  Unincorporated areas   November 17, 2011;    The Honorable Stanton L.   March 23, 2012.................       350125
                                     of Chaves County (11-  November 24, 2011;    Riggs, Chaves County
                                     06-0142P).             The Roswell Daily     Manager, 1 Saint Mary's
                                                            Record.               Place, Roswell, NM 88203.
    Santa Fe......................  Unincorporated areas   November 29, 2011;    The Honorable Virginia     November 23, 2011..............       350069
                                     of Santa Fe County     December 6, 2011;     Vigil, Chairman, Santa
                                     (11-06-0697P).         The Santa Fe New      Fe County Commissioners,
                                                            Mexican.              102 Grant Avenue, Santa
                                                                                Fe, NM 87501.
New York:
    Dutchess......................  Town of Dover (12-02-  November 23, 2011;    The Honorable Ryan         May 3, 2012....................       361335
                                     0166P).                November 30, 2011;    Courtien, Supervisor,
                                                            The Poughkeepsie      Town of Dover, 126 East
                                                            Journal.              Duncan Hill Road, Dover
                                                                                Plains, NY 12522.
North Carolina:
    Dare..........................  Unincorporated areas   September 8, 2011;    The Honorable Warren       August 30, 2011................       375348
                                     of Dare County (11-    September 15, 2011;   Judge, Chairman, Dare
                                     04-5020P).             The Coastland Times.  County Board of
                                                                                Supervisors, 954
                                                                                Marshall C. Collins
                                                                                Drive, Manteo, NC 27954.

    Orange........................  Town of Chapel Hill    November 23, 2011;    The Honorable Mark         March 29, 2012.................       370180
                                     (10-04-6903P).         November 30, 2011;    Kleinschmidt, Mayor,
                                                            The Chapel Hill       Town of Chapel Hill, 405
                                                            Herald.               Martin Luther King Jr.
                                                                                Boulevard, Chapel Hill,
                                                                                NC 27514.
    Stanly........................  City of Albemarle (11- November 3, 2011;     The Honorable Elbert L.    March 9, 2012..................       370223
                                     04-3287P).             November 10, 2011;    Whitley, Jr., Mayor,
                                                            The Stanly News &     City of Albemarle, 144
                                                            Press.                North 2nd Street,
                                                                                Albemarle, NC 28001.
    Stanly........................  Unincorporated areas   November 3, 2011;     Mr. Andy Lucas, Stanly     March 9, 2012..................       370361
                                     of Stanly County (11-  November 10, 2011;    County Manager, 1000
                                     04-3287P).             The Stanly News &     North 1st Street, Suite
                                                            Press.                10, Albemarle, NC 28001.
Texas:
    Denton........................  City of Denton (11-06- November 17, 2011;    The Honorable Mark A.      November 10, 2011..............       480194
                                     3838P).                November 24, 2011;    Burroughs, Mayor, City
                                                            The Denton Record-    of Denton, 215 East
                                                            Chronicle.            McKinney Street, Denton,
                                                                                TX 76201.
    Guadalupe.....................  City of Schertz (11-   November 28, 2011;    The Honorable Harold       April 3, 2012..................       480269
                                     06-1933P).             December 5, 2011;     Baldwin, Mayor, City of
                                                            The Daily             Schertz, 1400 Schertz
                                                            Commercial Recorder.  Parkway, Schertz, TX
                                                                                78154.
    Guadalupe.....................  City of Selma (11-06-  November 28, 2011;    The Honorable Tom Daly,    April 3, 2012..................       480046
                                     1933P).                December 5, 2011;     Mayor, City of Selma,
                                                            The Daily             9375 Corporate Drive,
                                                            Commercial Recorder.  Selma, TX 78154.
    Tarrant.......................  City of Southlake (11- November 10, 2011;    The Honorable John         March 16, 2012.................       480612
                                     06-2709P).             November 17, 2011;    Terrell, Mayor, City of
                                                            The Fort Worth Star-  Southlake, 1400 Main
                                                            Telegram.             Street, Suite 270,
                                                                                Southlake, TX 76092.
    Wichita.......................  City of Wichita Falls  November 29, 2011;    The Honorable Glenn        April 4, 2012..................       480662
                                     (11-06-1179P).         December 6, 2011;     Barham, Mayor, City of
                                                            The Times Record      Wichita Falls, 1300 7th
                                                            News.                 Street, Wichita Falls,
                                                                                TX 76301.
Virginia:
    Loudoun.......................  Unincorporated areas   November 30, 2011;    The Honorable Scott K.     April 5, 2012..................       510090
                                     of Loudoun County      December 7, 2011;     York, Chairman, Loudoun
                                     (11-03-0738P).         The Loudoun Times     County Board of
                                                            Mirror.               Supervisors, 1 Harrison
                                                                                Street, Leesburg, VA
                                                                                20175.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')
    Dated: February 15, 2012.
Sandra K. Knight,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2012-4955 Filed 2-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 55 (Friday, March 20, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15933-15935]
[FR Doc No: 2020-05848]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0882; Product Identifier 2018-SW-113-AD; Amendment
39-19873; AD 2020-05-23]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Airbus Helicopters Model AS332C, AS332C1, AS332L, and AS332L1
helicopters. This AD requires inspecting the attachment screws of each
main gearbox (MGB) suspension bar rear attachment fitting, and
depending on the outcome, applying a sealing compound, performing
further inspections, and replacing affected parts. This AD was prompted
by reports of an elongated attachment screw and loss of tightening
torque of the nut. The actions of this AD are intended to address an
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective April 24, 2020.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain document listed in this AD as of April 24, 2020.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX
75052; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at
https://www.airbus.com/helicopters/services/technical-support.html. You
may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321,
Fort Worth, TX 76177. It is also available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
0882.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FAA-2019-0882; 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 European Union
Aviation Safety Agency (previously European Aviation Safety Agency)
(EASA) AD, any service information that is

incorporated by reference, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations is Docket
Operations, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety
Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA,
10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    On November 8, 2019, at 84 FR 60349, the Federal Register published
the FAA's notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend
14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Airbus Helicopters
Model AS332C, AS332C1, AS332L, and AS332L1 helicopters, delivered to
the first owner or customer before September 1, 2018, and with
attachment screws part number (P/N) 330A22013520 installed with MGB
right hand (RH) side rear attachment fitting P/N 330A22270207 and left
hand (LH) side rear attachment fitting P/N 330A22270206 of the MGB
suspension bars. The NPRM proposed to require inspecting each screw on
the RH and LH rear attachment by identifying the number of threads
``F'' that extend beyond the nut. If there are 2 or less threads on
each affected part, or if there are 3 or more threads on any affected
part with a thread height less than 5 mm (0.196 in), the NPRM proposed
to require applying a sealing compound on the nuts, and convex and
concave washers. If there are 3 or more threads on any affected part
with a thread height of 5 mm (0.196 in) or more, the NPRM proposed to
require removing the nut and inspecting the convex and concave washers
for bent parts and corrosion. If any washers are bent or corroded, the
NPRM proposed to require removing the washers from service. If the
length ``L'' measurement of any attachment screw is greater than 59.3
mm (2.334 in), the NPRM proposed to require replacing the attachment
fitting and the set of four screws. The proposed requirements were
intended to prevent structural failure of an MGB attachment fitting,
detachment of an MGB suspension bar, and subsequent loss of control of
the helicopter.
    The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD No. 2018-0282, dated December 19,
2018 (EASA AD 2018-0282), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent
for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe
condition for Airbus Helicopters Model AS332C, AS332C1, AS332L, and
AS332L1 helicopters. EASA advises that occurrences were reported of
elongated attachment screws and loss of tightening torque of the nut
installed on the affected part. EASA also advises that an investigation
is ongoing to determine the root cause of this event. EASA states this
condition could lead to structural failure of an MGB rear attachment
fitting and possibly result in detachment of an MGB suspension bar.
Accordingly, EASA AD 2018-0282 requires a one-time inspection of each
attachment screw for the number of threads that protrude beyond its
bolt and depending on the outcome, applying a sealing compound on the
nuts, and convex and concave washers; measuring the height of the
protruding threads; inspecting the tightening torque of the nuts;
inspecting the upper and lower convex and concave washers; measuring
and inspecting removed attachment screws; and replacing affected parts.
EASA AD 2018-0282 also requires reporting information to Airbus
Helicopters. EASA states EASA AD 2018-0282 is considered to be an
interim action and further AD action may follow.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this AD. Benjamin Pico and Patrick Imperatrice commented
that they support the NPRM.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by EASA and are approved for
operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral
agreement with the European Union, EASA has notified the FAA of the
unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA is issuing this AD after
evaluating all information provided by EASA and determining the unsafe
condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters
of these same type designs and that air safety and the public interest
require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.

Interim Action

    The FAA considers this AD interim action. The design approval
holder is currently developing a modification that will address the
unsafe condition identified in this AD. Once this modification is
developed, approved, and available, the FAA might consider additional
rulemaking.

Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD requires the operator to perform a torque check and
report the value to Airbus, whereas this AD does not.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin No.
AS332-53.02.04, Revision 0, dated November 21, 2018, which specifies
checking the number of threads that protrude beyond the bolt of the
attachment screws on the RH and LH rear attachment fittings of the MGB.
This service information also specifies a one-time inspection of the
affected parts and depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable
corrective actions.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects14 helicopters of U.S.
Registry. The FAA estimates that operators may incur the following
costs in order to comply with this AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85
per work-hour.
    Inspecting the number of threads and applying a sealing compound
takes about 3 work-hours for an estimated cost of $255 per helicopter
and $3,570 for the U.S. fleet.
    Replacing an attachment fitting and the set of four screws takes
about 16 work-hours and parts cost $6,330 for an estimated replacement
cost of $7,690.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2020-05-23 Airbus Helicopters: Amendment 39-19873; Docket No. FAA-
2019-0882; Product Identifier 2018-SW-113-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Model AS332C, AS332C1,
AS332L, and AS332L1 helicopters, certificated in any category,
delivered to the first owner or customer before September 1, 2018,
and with attachment screws part number (P/N) 330A22013520 installed
with main gearbox (MGB) right hand (RH) side rear attachment fitting
P/N 330A22270207 and left hand (LH) side rear attachment fitting P/N
330A22270206 of the MGB suspension bars.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as elongation of the
attachment screws and loss of tightening torque of the nut. This
condition could result in structural failure of an MGB attachment
fitting, detachment of an MGB suspension bar, and subsequent loss of
control of the helicopter.

(c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective April 24, 2020.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

    Within 110 hours time-in-service, remove the sealing compound
and inspect each screw on the RH and LH rear attachment fitting by
identifying the number of threads ``F'' that extend beyond the nut
as shown in Detail ``B'' of Figure 2 of Airbus Helicopter Alert
Service Bulletin No. AS332-53.02.04, Revision 0, dated November 21,
2018 (ASB AS332-53.02.04).
    (1) If there are 2 or less threads on each of the four screws;
or there are 3 or more threads on any screw with a thread height
``H'' less than 5 mm (0.196 in), before further flight, apply a
sealing compound on the nuts, and convex and concave washers.
    (2) If there are 3 or more threads on any screw with a thread
height ``H'' of 5 mm (0.196 in) or more, before further flight, do
the following, and for more than one screw, do one at a time while
working in a cross pattern: Remove from service the nut; and remove
the screw from the helicopter and measure the length ``L'' of the
screw as shown in Detail ``D'' of Figure 2 of ASB AS332-53.02.04.
    (i) If any washers are bent or corroded, before further flight,
remove from service the washers.
    (ii) If the length ``L'' measurement is less than or equal to
59.3 mm (2.334 in) for each screw removed as required by paragraph
(e)(2) of this AD, visually inspect the screw for corrosion and
cracks.
    (A) For each screw with corrosion or a crack, before further
flight, replace the screw with an airworthy screw.
    (B) For any screw with no corrosion or cracks, before further
flight, re-install the screw and washers. Install a new nut and
apply sealant.
    (iii) If the length ``L'' measurement is greater than 59.3 mm
(2.334 in) for any screw removed as required by paragraph (e)(2) of
this AD, before further flight, replace the rear attachment fitting
that the screw was removed from and its set of four screws, washers,
and nuts, and apply sealant as shown in Figures 2 and 3 of ASB
AS332-53.02.04.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards
Branch, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to:
Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management
Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy.,
Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, the FAA suggests
that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal
inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office
or certificate holding district office, before operating any
aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(g) Additional Information

    The subject of this AD is addressed in European Union Aviation
Safety Agency (previously European Aviation Safety Agency) (EASA) AD
No. 2018-0282, dated December 19, 2018. You may view the EASA AD on
the internet at https://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FAA-2019-
0882.

(h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6320, Main Rotor
Gearbox.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin No. AS332-
53.02.04, Revision 0, dated November 21, 2018.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at
https://www.airbus.com/helicopters/services/technical-support.html.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-
321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on March 16, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
 Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-05848 Filed 3-19-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 26, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44753-44754]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20533]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0129; FRL-9967-64-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Louisiana;
Regional Haze State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is amending our recent proposal
to approve a revision to the Louisiana State Implementation Plan (SIP)
for regional haze submitted for parallel processing on August 24, 2017.
On July 13, 2017, we proposed to approve a SIP revision by the State of
Louisiana through the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
(LDEQ) to address certain Best Available Retrofit Technology
requirements under Regional Haze for the Entergy R. S. Nelson facility
(Nelson), which is an electric generating unit in Calcasieu Parish. We
now amend that proposal, by proposing to approve a compliance date
three years from the effective date of the final EPA approval of the
SIP revision for Nelson to meet an emission limit for sulfur dioxide
(SO2) emissions.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before October 26, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2017-0129, at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact Jennifer Huser, 214-665-
7347<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), and some may not be publicly available at either location
(e.g., CBI).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Huser,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To inspect the hard copy materials, please
schedule an appointment with Ms. Huser or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-665-
7253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

I. Background

    Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a
multitude of sources and activities which are located across a broad
geographic area and emit fine particles (PM2.5) (e.g.,
sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust)
and their precursors. Fine particle precursors, such as SO2,
react in the atmosphere to form PM2.5, which also impair
visibility by scattering and absorbing light. The CAA's visibility
protection program helps to protect clear views in national parks and
wilderness areas identified as ``Class I Federal areas'' (CAA section
169A, 40 CFR 51 subpart P and 40 CFR 81 subpart D). Vistas in these
areas are often obscured by visibility-impairing pollutants caused by
emissions from numerous sources located over a wide geographic area.
The program requires SIPs to address visibility-impairing pollutants.
For more information on regional haze, visibility protection, and SIPs
please see our May 19, 2017 and July 13, 2017 Federal Register
proposals for Louisiana EGUs discussed below. These proposals can be
accessed through regulations.gov (docket EPA-R06-OAR-207-0129).
    On May 19, 2017, we published a proposal to approve a Louisiana SIP
revision to address regional haze requirements for EGUs with the
exception of the Entergy R. S. Nelson EGU (Entergy Nelson) in Calcasieu
Parish (82 FR 22936). On July 13, 2017, we published a proposal to
approve a proposed Louisiana SIP revision

submitted for parallel processing to address regional haze requirements
for Entergy Nelson (82 FR 32294). In the July 13, 2017 action, we
proposed to approve an SO2 emissions limit of 0.6 pounds per
million British Thermal Units (lbs/MMBtu) at Entergy Nelson Unit 6. The
compliance date we proposed to approve was no later than the effective
date of our approval of a final SIP. On August 24, 2017, Louisiana
submitted a letter explaining its intent to revise the compliance date
in its SIP for Entergy Nelson Unit 6 based on a public comment received
during the State's comment period. On June 21, 2017, Entergy, the owner
and operator of Nelson, submitted a comment to LDEQ on the proposed
SIP. The comment letter requests a three-year period for the transition
to the proposed SO2 limit for Nelson Unit 6. Entergy's
letter explains that coal contracts are in place for the next three
years. Entergy requests this longer compliance time to allow the
company's fuel procurement to transition to new mines with lower sulfur
coal. As a result, Louisiana's revised compliance date for Entergy
Nelson Unit 6 to meet the SO2 emissions limit is three years
from the effective date of our approval of the SIP revision.

II. The EPA's Evaluation

    We sent clarifying questions via email to Entergy regarding their
need for three years to comply with the emission limit of 0.6 lbs/
MMBtu. The questions and Entergy's response are included in the docket.
A compliance date of three years from the effective date of our
approval of the SIP revision allows time for Entergy Nelson to ensure
that Unit 6 is able to continuously meet a SO2 emissions
limit of 0.6 lbs/MMBtu once the emission limit becomes enforceable. We
believe this is a reasonable basis to allow three years for Nelson Unit
6 to comply with this limit, and this change meets the requirement that
BART be installed and operational ``as expeditiously as practicable,
but in no event later than five years after approval of the [SIP].'' 40
CFR 51.308(e)(1)(v). As a result, we propose to approve this SIP
revision when it is submitted to EPA.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA amends our proposal to approve a Louisiana regional haze SIP
revision submitted on August 24, 2017 to allow a compliance date three
years from the effective date of the final EPA approval of the SIP
revision for Unit 6 of the Entergy Nelson EGU to meet a SO2
emissions limit of 0.6 lbs/MMBtu.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this action, we are proposing to include in a final rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are proposing to incorporate by
reference revisions to the Louisiana regulations as described in the
Proposed Action section above. We have made, and will continue to make,
these documents generally available electronically through
www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the EPA Region 6 office.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011) and 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because this action does not involve technical standards; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation
land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the
proposed 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).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: September 20, 2017.
Samuel Coleman,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2017-20533 Filed 9-25-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P