[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 52 (Tuesday, March 18, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14992-14996]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04838]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0327; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-161-AD;
Amendment 39-17794; AD 2014-05-21]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding airworthiness directive (AD) 2008-11-04 for
all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500
series airplanes. AD 2008-11-04 required repetitive inspections for
cracking in and around the upper and lower hinge cutouts of the forward
entry and forward galley service doorways, and corrective actions if
necessary. This new AD reduces the inspection threshold for cracking in
and around the galley service doorway hinge cutouts, adds inspections
of certain repaired structure at the forward entry and galley service
doorway upper and lower hinge cutouts, expands the inspection area at
the forward entry and galley service doorway upper and lower hinge
cutouts, and removes certain airplanes from the applicability. This AD
was prompted by multiple reports of cracks in the skin and/or bear
strap at the forward galley service doorway hinge cutouts, and multiple
reports of cracking under the repairs installed at the hinge cutouts.
We are issuing this AD to detect and correct such cracking, which could
result in rapid decompression of the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective April 22, 2014.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of April 22,
2014.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of June
25, 2008 (73 FR 29421, May 21, 2008).

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.
O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
extension 1; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2013-
0327; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-
5527) is Docket Management Facility, 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: Alan Pohl, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to supersede AD 2008-11-04, Amendment 39-15526 (73 FR 29421,
May 21, 2008). AD 2008-11-04 applied to all The Boeing Company Model
737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. The NPRM
published in the Federal Register on April 16, 2013 (78 FR 22439). The
NPRM was prompted by multiple reports of cracks in the skin and/or bear
strap at the forward galley service doorway hinge cutouts, and multiple
reports of cracking under the repairs installed at the hinge cutouts.
The NPRM proposed to reduce the inspection threshold for cracking in
and around the galley service doorway hinge cutouts, add inspections of
certain repaired structure at the forward entry and galley service
doorway upper and lower hinge cutouts, expand the inspection area at
the forward entry and galley service doorway upper and lower hinge
cutouts, and remove certain airplanes from the applicability. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct such cracking, which could result
in rapid decompression of the airplane.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal
(78 FR 22439, April 16, 2013) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request to Add Service Information

    Southwest Airlines (SWA) and Boeing requested we add a provision to
the NPRM (78 FR 22439, April 16, 2013) to specify that performing a
repair in accordance with ``Boeing 737-300/ -400/-500 Structural Repair
Manual (SRM) 53-10-01, Repair 14 and Repair 15'' is considered
terminating action for the requirements of paragraph (j) of the NPRM
for the repaired location. Boeing stated that the repairs are in the
referenced SRM, and those repairs incorporate the procedures specified
in Note 10 of paragraph 3.A., ``General Information,'' of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1200,
Revision 2, dated September 12, 2012.
    We agree that certain SRM repairs meet the conditions specified in
Note 10 of paragraph 3.A., ``General Information,'' of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1200,
Revision 2, dated September 12, 2012. However, to include SRM repairs
in this final rule would unnecessarily delay issuance of the final
rule. Boeing may apply for a global alternative method of compliance
(AMOC) on behalf of the affected operators in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (p) of this final rule. We have not
changed this final rule in this regard.

Request to Allow Terminating Action for Inspections

    All Nippon Airways (ANA) stated that no further action should be
necessary if the repair meets the conditions specified in Note 10 of
paragraph 3.A., ``General Information,'' of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1200, Revision 2, dated
September 12, 2012, and that this should be addressed in paragraph
(k)(3) of the NPRM (78 FR 22439, April 16, 2013), which terminates
paragraph (g) of the NPRM.
    We agree with the commenter's request. The conditions provided in
Note 10 of paragraph 3.A., ``General Information,'' of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1200,
Revision 2, dated September 12, 2012, ensure that the non-SRM repairs
were developed to preclude further cracking.
    We note that there is no paragraph (k)(3) in the NPRM (78 FR 22439,
April 16, 2013), and infer that ANA meant to request that a new
paragraph (k)(3) be added to this final rule. Instead, we have added
new paragraph (n) to this final rule and redesignated subsequent
paragraphs accordingly. New paragraph (n) of this final rule states
that the inspections required by paragraph (j) of this final rule may
be terminated at areas with repairs installed prior to the effective
date of this final rule if those repairs meet the conditions specified
in Note 10 of paragraph 3.A., ``General Information,'' of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1200,
Revision 2, dated September 12, 2012.

Request to Include AMOC Approval

    Boeing requested that we modify paragraph (o)(4) of the NPRM (78 FR
22439, April 16, 2013) (paragraph (p)(4) in this final rule) to include
the additional conditions shown in Note 10 of paragraph 3.A., ``General
Information,'' of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service
Bulletin 737-53A1200, Revision 2, dated September 12, 2012. Boeing
stated that the paragraph should state that AMOCs approved previously
for paragraphs (f) and (i) of AD 2008-11-04, Amendment 39-15526 (73 FR
29421, May 21, 2008), are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding
provisions of paragraphs (g) and (i) of the NPRM, provided that the
repairs meet the criteria of Note 10 of paragraph 3.A., ``General
Information,'' of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service
Bulletin 737-53A1200, Revision 2, dated September 12, 2012. Boeing
stated that the conditions provided in Note 10 of paragraph 3.A.,
``General Information,'' of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Service Bulletin 737-53A1200, Revision 2, dated September 12, 2012,
ensure that the repairs were developed to preclude post-modification
cracking.
    We do not agree with the commenter's request. The commenter's
concerns are adequately addressed in paragraph (k)(2) of this final
rule, which requires additional actions when repairs do not meet the
conditions specified in Note 10 of paragraph 3.A., ``General
Information,'' of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service
Bulletin 737-53A1200, Revision 2, dated September 12, 2012, whether or
not the repair was approved previously as an AMOC for AD 2008-11-04,
Amendment 39-15526 (73 FR 29421, May 21, 2008). We have not changed
this final rule in this regard.

Request to Add AMOC Approval for Paragraph (g) of the NPRM (78 FR
22439, April 16, 2013)

    ANA requested that we add a new paragraph (o)(5) to the NPRM (78 FR
22439, April 16, 2013) to clarify that AMOCs approved previously for
the requirements of paragraph (f) of AD 2008-11-04, Amendment 39-15526
(73 FR 29421, May 21, 2008), are approved as AMOCs for paragraph (g) of
the NPRM. ANA stated that if the repair meets the criteria specified in
Note 10 of paragraph 3.A., ``General Information,'' of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1200,
Revision 2, dated September 12, 2012, then the inspection required by
paragraph (g) of the NPRM should be terminated even if an AMOC
statement in FAA Form 8100-9 (Statement of Compliance with
Airworthiness Standards) is not the same as paragraph (o)(4) of the
NPRM. ANA asserted that a new AMOC to the NPRM will be necessary if the
AMOC statement only refers to paragraph (f) of AD 2008-11-04, Amendment
39-15526 (73 FR 29421, May 21, 2008).
    We do not agree. Paragraph (p)(4) of this final rule (which was
designated as paragraph (o)(4) of the NPRM (78 FR 22439, April 16,
2013)), as currently worded, addresses ANA's concern. A repair which
has an AMOC for only paragraph (f) of AD 2008-11-04, Amendment 39-15526
(73 FR 29421, May 21, 2008), would be approved as an AMOC for the
corresponding provisions of paragraph (g) of this final rule.
    Further, we understand ANA to mean that this particular repair
satisfies the conditions specified in Note 10 of paragraph 3.A.,
``General Information,'' of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Service Bulletin 737-53A1200, Revision 2, dated September 12, 2012. If
this is the case, then new paragraph (n) of this final rule, discussed
previously, means that this repair satisfies the requirements of
paragraph (j) of this final rule, which would terminate the inspection
requirements of paragraph (f) of AD 2008-11-04, Amendment 39-15526 (73
FR 29421, May 21, 2008) in the repaired area. We have not changed this
final rule in this regard.

Request to Change Optional Terminating Action Paragraph (i) of the NPRM
(78 FR 22439, April 16, 2013)

    SWA requested that we delete Note 1 to paragraph (i) of the NPRM
(78 FR 22439, April 16, 2013), which states that ``Guidance on repairs
can be found in Boeing 737-100/-200 SRM 53-30-1, Figure 20, 21, 31, or
32; or Boeing 737-300/-400/-500 SRM 53-10-01, Repair 5, 6, or 8; as
applicable.'' SWA noted that Boeing 737-300/-500 SRM 53-10-01, Repairs
5, 6, and 8 have been removed as they are no longer applicable. SWA
stated that the NPRM (78 FR 22439, April 16, 2013) is in error when it
states that guidance on repairs can be found in these locations.
    We agree with SWA's request. Subsequent to the issuance of AD 2008-
11-04, Amendment 39-15526 (73 FR 29421, May 21, 2008), Boeing removed
the noted SRM repairs from the 737-300/-400/-500 SRMs. For the Boeing
737-100/200 SRM, the noted repairs were not removed, but each page was
watermarked OBSOLETE. For clarity, we have deleted Note 1 to paragraph
(i) of this final rule.
    Boeing requested that we not retain paragraph (i) from AD 2008-11-
04, Amendment 39-15526 (73 FR 29421, May 21, 2008). Boeing asserted
that paragraph (i) of AD 2008-11-04 provides terminating actions for
airplanes on which areas were repaired in accordance with ``Boeing 737-
100/ -200 SRM 53-30-1, Figures 20, 21, 31, or 32; or Boeing 737-300/-
400/-500 SRM 53-10-01, Repair 5, 6, or 8.'' Boeing stated that allowing
the repairs listed in paragraph (i) of the NPRM (78 FR 22439, April 16,
2013) as terminating action would conflict with Boeing Service Bulletin
737-53A1200, Revision 2, dated September 12, 2012, and paragraph (k) of
the NPRM. Boeing added that Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1200,
Revision 2, dated September 12, 2012, requires follow-on inspections
for SRM repairs, which are required based on fleet reports showing
crack susceptibility after the repair has been installed. Boeing stated
that new repairs are now provided in the SRM.
    We disagree with the commenter's request. Paragraph (i) of AD 2008-
11-04, Amendment 39-15526 (73 FR 29421, May 21, 2008), is not retained
as written in AD 2008-11-04, but rather it is retained ``. . . with
revised method of compliance language. . . .'' Paragraph (i) states,
``The inspections specified in paragraph (g) of this AD may be
terminated at areas repaired using a method approved in accordance with
the procedures specified in paragraph (p) [AMOC] of this AD.'' Thus,
operators cannot continue to install the noted obsolete/removed repairs
specified previously in AD 2008-11-04. Boeing has addressed repairs
installed previously by providing inspections for them in Boeing
Service Bulletin 737-53A1200, Revision 2, dated September 12, 2012.
These inspections are mandated by paragraph (k) of this final rule. We
have not changed this final rule in this regard.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (78 FR 22439, April 16, 2013) for correcting the unsafe condition;
and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 22439, April 16, 2013).
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 547 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost        Parts cost      Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspections [actions retained      Up to 73 work-hours              $0  Up to $6,205 per     Up to $3,394,135
 from AD 2008[dash]11[dash]04,      x $85 per hour =                     inspection cycle.    per inspection
 Amendment 39[dash]15526 (73 FR     $6,205 per                                                cycle.
 29421, May 21, 2008)].             inspection cycle.
Inspection [new action]..........  Up to 34 work-hours               0  Up to $2,890 per     Up to $1,580,830
                                    x $85 per hour =                     inspection cycle.    per inspection
                                    $2,890 per                                                cycle.
                                    inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

Authority for this Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2008-11-04, Amendment 39-15526 (73 FR 29421, May 21, 2008), and adding
the following new AD:

2014-05-21 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-17794; Docket No. FAA-
2013-0327; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-161-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective April 22, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2008-11-04, Amendment 39-15526 (73 FR
29421, May 21, 2008).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -
200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any
category, as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1200,
Revision 2, dated September 12, 2012.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by multiple reports of cracks in the skin
and/or bear strap at the forward galley service doorway hinge
cutouts, and multiple reports of cracking under the repairs
installed at the hinge cutouts. We are issuing this AD to detect and
correct such cracking, which could result in rapid decompression of
the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Repetitive Inspections

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (f) of AD
2008-11-04, Amendment 39-15526 (73 FR 29421, May 21, 2008). Except
as provided by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, at the applicable times
specified in paragraph 1.E. ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-53A1200, dated April 13, 2006, do external detailed,
low frequency eddy current (LFEC), high frequency eddy current
(HFEC), and HFEC rotary probe inspections, as applicable, for cracks
in and around the upper and lower hinge cutouts of the forward entry
and forward galley service doorways, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1200, dated April 13, 2006, except as provided by paragraphs
(h)(2) and (i) of this AD. Do not exceed the applicable repetitive
interval for the previous inspection, as specified in Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-53A1200, dated April 13, 2006, as Option A or
Option B. Repair any crack before further flight using a method
approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(p) of this AD. Accomplishment of the actions required by paragraph
(j) of this AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph.

(h) Retained Exceptions to Service Bulletin Specifications

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraphs (g) and
(h) of AD 2008-11-04, Amendment 39-15526 (73 FR 29421, May 21,
2008).
    (1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1200, dated April
13, 2006, specifies a compliance time after the release date of that
service bulletin, this AD requires compliance within the specified
compliance time after June 25, 2008 (the effective date of AD 2008-
11-04, Amendment 39-15526 (73 FR 29421, May 21, 2008)).
    (2) Although Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1200, dated
April 13, 2006, specifies contacting Boeing for information about
installing an optional preventive modification that would terminate
the repetitive inspections specified in paragraph (g) of this AD,
this AD requires that any terminating action be done by using a
method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (p) of this AD.

(i) Retained Optional Terminating Action

    This paragraph restates the optional terminating action
specified paragraph (i) of AD 2008-11-04, Amendment 39-15526 (73 FR
29421, May 21, 2008), with revised method of compliance language and
removal of note 1 to paragraph (i) of this AD. The inspections
specified in paragraph (g) of this AD may be terminated at areas
repaired using a method approved in accordance with the procedures
specified in paragraph (p) of this AD.

(j) New Repetitive Inspections and Repair

    Except as required by paragraph (l)(1) of this AD, at the
applicable times specified in Paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of
Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1200, Revision 2, dated September 12,
2012: Do an external and internal detailed inspection, HFEC
inspection, and HFEC hole probe inspection, at the forward entry and
galley service doorway upper and lower hinge cutouts for cracking in
the skin, bonded doubler, bearstrap, and frame outer chord, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service
Bulletin 737-53A1200, Revision 2, dated September 12, 2012, except
as required by paragraph (m) of this AD. Options provided in Boeing
Service Bulletin 737-53A1200, Revision 2, dated September 12, 2012,
for accomplishing the inspections are acceptable for compliance with
the corresponding requirements of this paragraph. Repeat the
applicable inspections thereafter at the applicable times specified
in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-
53A1200, Revision 2, dated September 12, 2012. If any crack is
found, before further flight, repair using a method approved in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (p) of this
AD. Accomplishment of the initial

inspections terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.

(k) New Actions for Airplanes With Certain Repairs Installed

    (1) For airplanes with any structural repair manual (SRM) repair
specified in paragraphs (k)(1)(i) through (k)(1)(vii) of this AD
installed, at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1200, Revision 2,
dated September 12, 2012: Do an external and internal detailed
inspection, HFEC inspection, and LFEC inspection, at the forward
entry and galley service doorway upper and lower hinge cutouts for
cracking in the skin, bearstrap, and frame outer chord, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service
Bulletin 737-53A1200, Revision 2, dated September 12, 2012, except
as required by paragraph (l)(2) of this AD. Repeat the inspection
thereafter at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1200, Revision 2,
dated September 12, 2012. If any crack is found, before further
flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (p) of this AD.
    (i) Repair specified in Boeing 737-100/ -200 SRM 53-30-03,
Figure 21.
    (ii) Repair specified in Boeing 737-100/200 SRM 53-30-03, Figure
31.
    (iii) Repair 5 specified in Boeing 737-300 SRM 53-10-01; Repair
5 specified in Boeing 737-400 SRM 53-10-01; or Repair 5 specified in
Boeing 737-500 SRM 53-10-01; installed at the upper or lower hinge
cutout.
    (iv) Repair specified in Boeing 737-100/200 SRM 53-30-03, Figure
20.
    (v) Repair 6 specified in Boeing 737-300 SRM 53-10-01; Repair 6
specified in Boeing 737-400 SRM 53-10-01; or Repair 6 specified in
Boeing 737-500 SRM 53-10-01.
    (vi) Repair 8 specified in Boeing 737-300 SRM 53-10-01; Repair 8
specified in Boeing 737-400 SRM 53-10-01; or Repair 8 specified in
Boeing 737-500 SRM 53-10-01.
    (vii) Repair specified in Boeing 737-100/200 SRM 53-30-03,
Figure 32.
    (2) For airplanes with any repair installed at the forward entry
doorway or forward galley doorway, upper or lower hinge cutout, that
does not meet the conditions specified in Note 10 of paragraph 3.A.,
``General Information,'' of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1200, Revision 2, dated September 12,
2012: Except as required by paragraph (l) of this AD, at the
applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of
Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1200, Revision 2, dated September 12,
2012, contact the Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA, for instructions, using
the procedures specified in paragraph (p) of this AD, and do the
actions required by the FAA.

(l) New Exception to Service Bulletin Specifications

    (1) Where Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1200, Revision 2, dated
September 12, 2012, specifies a compliance time after the issue date
of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1200, Revision 1, dated July 7,
2011, this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance
time after the effective date of this AD.
    (2) Where Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1200, Revision 2, dated
September 12, 2012, specifies to contact Boeing for further
instructions, this AD requires contacting the Manager, Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, for instructions and doing
the actions required by the FAA, using the procedures specified in
paragraph (p) of this AD.

(m) Exception for Group 5 Airplanes

    For Group 5 airplanes identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-
53A1200, Revision 2, dated September 12, 2012: Before further
flight, contact the Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA, for instructions,
using the procedures specified in paragraph (p) of this AD, and do
the actions required by the FAA.

(n) Terminating Actions

    The inspections required by paragraph (j) of this AD may be
terminated at areas with repairs installed prior to the effective
date of this AD, provided the repairs meet the conditions specified
in Note 10 of paragraph 3.A., ``General Information,'' of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1200,
Revision 2, dated September 12, 2012.

(o) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraphs (j) and (k) of this AD, if those actions were performed
before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-53A1200, Revision 1, dated July 7, 2011, which is not
incorporated by reference in this AD.

(p) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the
ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph
(q)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO to make
those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must
meet the certification basis of the airplane and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) AMOCs approved previously for paragraphs (f) and (i) of AD
2008-11-04, Amendment 39-15526 (73 FR 29421, May 21, 2008), are
approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraphs (g)
and (i) of this AD.

(q) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Alan Pohl,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA
98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference may be obtained at the addresses specified
in paragraphs (r)(5) and (r)(6) of this AD.

(r) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
April 22, 2014.
    (i) Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1200, Revision 2, dated
September 12, 2012.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on
June 25, 2008 (73 FR 29421, May 21, 2008).
    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1200, dated April 13,
2006.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (5) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; phone: 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (6) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (7) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 19, 2014.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-04838 Filed 3-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 99 (Friday, May 22, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 29699]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12477]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. TX14-1-000]

Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on May 11, 2015, Consolidated Edison Company of
New York, Inc. (Con Edison) filed a joint offer of settlement to amend
its March 18, 2014 filed application for an order directing Cogen
Technologies Linden Venture, L.P. to modify the physical connection
that currently exists between its transmission facilities and those of
Con Edison.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on June 1, 2015.

    Dated: May 18, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-12477 Filed 5-21-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 178 (Friday, September 15, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43361-43362]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19702]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0439; FRL-9967-70-OW]

Request for Public Comments To Be Sent to Versar, Inc., on an
Interim List of Perchlorate in Drinking Water Expert Peer Reviewers and
Draft Peer Review Charge Questions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing a
request for public comment on an interim list of peer review candidates
and materials that relate to the expert peer review to support EPA's
Safe Drinking Water Act decision making for perchlorate. This request
is one of two Federal Register notices being published concurrently,
seeking public comment on two separate sets of materials. This notice
requests comments to be sent to EPA's contractor, Versar, Inc., on the
interim list of peer review candidates and the draft charge questions.
Versar, Inc., will consider the comments received on this notice in
selecting the final peer review panel, which will collectively provide
appropriate expertise spanning the subject matter areas covered by the
draft report and, to the extent feasible, best provide a balance of
perspectives. EPA will consider comments received on this notice to
help inform the final peer review panel's charge. The companion notice
requests comments (to be sent to EPA) on a draft report entitled
``Draft Report: Proposed Approaches to Inform the Derivation of a
Maximum Contaminant Level Goal for Perchlorate in Drinking Water''
(draft MCLG Approaches Report).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 6, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments to Versar, Inc., no later than October
6, 2017 by one of the following methods:
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(subject line: Perchlorate
Peer Review)
     Mail: Versar, Inc., 6850 Versar Center, Springfield, VA
22151 (ATTN: Tracey Cowen).
    Please be advised that public comments are subject to release under
the Freedom of Information Act.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions concerning the interim list
of expert peer review candidates and draft peer review charge questions
should be directed to Versar, Inc., at 6850 Versar Center, Springfield,
VA 22151; by email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(subject line: Perchlorate
Peer Review); or by phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> (ask for Tracey Cowen).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Process of Obtaining Candidate Reviewers

    EPA announced a public nomination period from March 1, 2016, to
March 31, 2016, in the Federal Register (81 FR 10617; March 1, 2016),
during which members of the public were able to nominate scientific
experts with knowledge and experience in one or more of the following
areas: (1) Physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK),
physiologically-based pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PBPK/PD) and/or
biologically based dose-response (BBDR) modeling, (2) fetal and
neonatal thyroid endocrinology (clinical and experimental), (3) iodide
homeostasis, and (4) perchlorate toxicology and mode of action or
adverse outcome pathway. On June 3, 2016, in the Federal Register (81
FR 35760), EPA invited the public to also nominate scientific experts
with knowledge and experience in one or

more of the following areas of human health risk assessment: (1) An
understanding of thyroid function (preferably in the sensitive life
stages of interest), (2) the importance of maternal thyroid hormone
homeostasis in each stage of gestation, (3) hypothyroxinemia, (4)
neurodevelopmental assessment indices for young children including the
Bayley's Scale, (5) the toxicity of perchlorate, (6) epidemiological
assessment techniques, and (7) statistics.
    Versar, Inc., considered the nominated peer review candidates and
also conducted an independent search for scientific experts to augment
the list of publically-nominated candidates.
    Selection Process: Versar, Inc., considered and screened all
candidates against the selection criteria described in the March 1,
2016, and June 3, 2016, Federal Register notices (81 FR 10617 and 81 FR
35760, respectively), which included the candidates being free of any
conflict of interest and being available to participate in-person in a
two-day, public, peer review meeting in the Washington, DC, area.
Versar, Inc., narrowed the list of potential reviewers for the second
panel to 12 candidates. EPA is now soliciting comments on the interim
list of 12 candidates.
    EPA requests that the public provide relevant information or
documentation on the experts that the contractor should consider in
evaluating these candidates. Once the public comments on the interim
list of candidates have been reviewed and considered, the contractor
will select the final list of peer reviewers.
    Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers: Peer reviewers will be charged
with evaluating and preparing written comments on EPA's draft MCLG
Approaches Report. Versar, Inc., will provide reviewers with a summary
and compilation of public comments on the draft MCLG Approaches Report
submitted to EPA's docket (ID number EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0438) during the
45-day public comment period, for their consideration. Reviewers will
participate in a two-day meeting expected to be held in the Washington,
DC, metro area, projected to occur in late fall of 2017 (exact date to
be determined), to discuss the scientific basis supporting these
materials. Following the meeting, Versar, Inc., will provide a report
to EPA, summarizing the peer reviewers' evaluation of the scientific
and technical merit of the draft MCLG Approaches Report and the peer
reviewers' full responses to the charge questions. EPA will make the
final peer review report available to the public (exact date to be
determined). In preparing the final MCLG Approaches Report, EPA will
consider the peer review report as well as the written public comments
submitted to the docket.

II. Interim List of Peer Reviewers

    Versar, Inc., is considering the following candidates for the peer
review panel. Biosketches are available through the EPA docket at
http://www.regulations.gov (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0439). After
review and consideration of public comments and consultation with EPA's
Scientific Integrity Official, Versar, Inc., will select from this
list, the final list of peer reviewers, who will, collectively, best
provide expertise spanning the previously mentioned areas of knowledge
and experience and, to the extent feasible, best provide a balance of
perspectives. EPA will announce the peer review panel meeting date,
location and registration details, along with the final list of peer
reviewers selected by Versar, Inc., at least 30 days prior to the
meeting.

Name of Nominee, Degree, Place of Employment

1. Hugh A. Barton, Ph.D., Pfizer, Inc.
2. Nancy Carrasco, M.D., Yale School of Medicine
3. Jonathan Chevrier, Ph.D., McGill University Faculty of Medicine
4. Claude Emond, Ph.D., University of Montreal
5. Dale Hattis, Ph.D., George Perkins Marsh Institute, Clark University
6. Judy S. LaKind, Ph.D., LaKind Associates, LLC
7. Angela M. Leung, M.D., M.Sc., UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine
8. Paul H. Lipkin, M.D., Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
9. Elizabeth N. Pearce, M.D., M.Sc., Boston Medical Center/Boston
University School of Medicine
10. Stephen M. Roberts, Ph.D., University of Florida
11. Joanne F. Rovet, Ph.D., The Hospital for Sick Children (Toronto)
12. Craig Steinmaus, M.D., M.P.H., University of California, Berkeley

III. Draft Peer Review Charge Questions

    The draft peer review charge questions are available through the
EPA docket at http://www.regulations.gov (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2016-
0439).

    Dated: September 6, 2017.
Michael H. Shapiro,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Water.
[FR Doc. 2017-19702 Filed 9-14-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 140 (Thursday, July 21, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43598-43601]
[FR Doc No: 2011-18176]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2011-0451; FRL-9440-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Plans: State of Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving an April 20, 2011, request from the State of
Missouri to exempt sources of Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) in the
Missouri portion of the St. Louis (MO-IL) metropolitan 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area from the Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements for
NOX Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for
purposes of attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS). The Missouri NOX RACT waiver
request for its portion of the St. Louis metropolitan 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area is based on the most recent three years of complete,
quality-assured ozone monitoring data, which demonstrate that
additional reductions of NOX emissions in the Area would not
contribute to attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective September 19, 2011
without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comments by August
22, 2011. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing
the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2011-0451, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or Hand Delivery or Courier: Lachala Kemp, Air Planning and
Development Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 901 North 5th
Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-
2011-0451. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov. or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA

cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket. All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th
Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. EPA requests that you contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The interested persons wanting to examine
these documents should make an appointment with the office at least 24
hours in advance. The Regional Office's official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8 to 4:30 excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lachala Kemp, Air Planning and
Development Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 901
N. 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101 at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by e-mail
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' or
``our'' refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by
addressing the following questions:

Table of Contents

I. What action is EPA taking?
II. State Petition
III. EPA Review of the Petition
    A. Has this ozone nonattainment area attained the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS?
    B. EPA's Analysis of Missouri's NOX RACT Waiver
Petition
IV. What is the effect of this action?
V. EPA's Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving an April 20, 2011, request from the State of
Missouri to exempt sources of NOX in the Missouri portion of
the St. Louis (MO-IL) metropolitan 8-hour ozone nonattainment area from
the CAA requirements for NOX RACT for purposes of attaining
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\1\ The St. Louis (MO-IL) metropolitan 8-
hour ozone nonattainment (hereafter referred to as the ``St. Louis
Area'' or ``Area'') includes the counties of Franklin, Jefferson, St.
Charles, and St. Louis as well as St. Louis City in Missouri; and the
counties of Madison, Monroe, St. Clair, and Jersey in Illinois. The
State's NOX RACT waiver request is based on the most recent
three years of complete, quality-assured ozone monitoring data, which
demonstrate that additional reduction of NOX emissions in
the Missouri portion of the St. Louis ozone nonattainment area would
not contribute to attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in this
ozone nonattainment areas. See 76 FR 33647 (June 9, 2011) for more
information about this monitoring data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA previously approved Missouri's NOX RACT rules
submitted to meet its obligations under the 1-hour ozone standard.
See, 65 FR 31482, May 18, 2000. Today's action does not affect these
State Implementation Plan (SIP)-approved rules, which remain in
effect. This action relates only to Missouri's obligations with
respect to NOX RACT related to the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because we view
this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no relevant adverse
comments. EPA notes that the technical basis for this rule was its
previous final determination on June 9, 2011 (76 FR 33647) that the St.
Louis (MO-IL) metropolitan 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area has
attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA received no comments during
that particular rulemaking. However, in the proposed rules section of
this Federal Register publication, we are publishing a separate
document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if
relevant adverse comments are received. This rule will be effective on
September 19, 2011 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse
comments by August 22, 2011. If we receive relevant adverse comments,
we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing
the public that the rule will not take effect. We will address all
public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule.
We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any
parties interested in commenting must do so now. Please note that if we
receive adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this
rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the
rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not
the subject of an adverse comment.

II. State Petition

    On April 20, 2011, Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR)
submitted a request for a NOX RACT waiver for the St. Louis
metropolitan ozone nonattainment area. This NOX RACT waiver
was requested for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. MDNR based its
NOX RACT waiver request on quality-assured ozone air quality
data for 2008-2010, which demonstrate that the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
has been attained in the St. Louis (MO-IL) metropolitan area without
the implementation of additional NOX RACT controls in the
Missouri portion of the area.

III. EPA Review of the Petition

A. Has this ozone nonattainment area attained the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS?

    An area may be considered in attainment with the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS if there are no violations of the NAAQS, as determined in
accordance with 40 CFR 50.10 and appendix I, based on the most recent
three years of complete, quality-assured air quality monitoring data.
To attain this standard, the average of the annual fourth-highest daily
maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations are measured and recorded
at each monitoring site over the most recent 3-year period (the
monitoring site's ozone design value) must not exceed the ozone
standard. Based on an ozone data rounding convention described in 40
CFR part 50, appendix I, the 1997 8-hour ozone standard is attained if
the area's ozone design value is 0.084 parts per million (ppm) or less.
The data must be collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40
CFR part 58, and must be recorded in EPA's Air Quality System. The
monitoring network collecting the data must meet the applicable
requirements of 40 CFR part 58. The data supporting attainment of the
standard must meet the minimum data completeness requirements in 40 CFR
part 50, appendix I.
    The monitors and design values are displayed in Table 1. The table
summarizes the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour ozone
concentrations and their 3-year (2008-2010) averages for all monitors
in the St. Louis (MO-IL) metropolitan area. These data reflect peak
ozone concentrations quality assured and reported by the States of
Illinois and Missouri.

           Table 1--Annual Fourth-Highest Daily Maximum 8-Hour Ozone Concentrations and 3-Year Averages in ppm for the St. Louis (MO-IL) Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2008 4th  high  2009 4th  high  2010 4th  high     2008-2010
               State                         County                    Monitor                 (ppm)           (ppm)           (ppm)      average  (ppm)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois...........................  Jersey................  Jerseyville, 17-083-1001...           0.069           0.068           0.072           0.069
                                     Madison...............  Alton, 17-119-0008.........           0.068           0.067           0.080           0.071
                                                             Maryville, 17-119-1009.....           0.070           0.074           0.074           0.072
                                                             Wood River, 17-119-3007....           0.067           0.066           0.070           0.067
                                     St. Clair.............  East St. Louis, 17-163-0010           0.064           0.069           0.072           0.068
Missouri...........................  Jefferson.............  Arnold West, 29-099-00019..            0.70           0.070           0.077           0.072
                                     St. Charles...........  Orchard Farm, 29-183-1004..           0.072           0.073           0.077           0.074
                                                             West Alton, 29-183-1002....           0.076           0.071           0.084           0.077
                                     St. Louis.............  Maryland Heights, 29-189-             0.069           0.070           0.076           0.071
                                                              0014.
                                                             Pacific, 29-189-0005.......           0.064           0.064           0.069           0.065
                                     St. Louis City........  Blair Street, 29-510-0085..           0.073           0.065           0.071           0.069
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Review of the 2008-2010 ozone concentrations and site-specific
ozone design values (3-year averages) shows that all of the monitoring
sites were attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS during this period.
Therefore, based on the most recent three years of complete, quality
assured ozone monitoring data, the 1997 8-hour ozone standard has been
attained in the area. Review of preliminary data from the 2011 ozone
season indicates that the area continues to attain the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. See 76 FR 33647.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In today's action, EPA is not reopening its final
determination of attainment described in the June 9, 2011 final
rule, but is merely explaining the technical basis for our
conclusion that a NOX emission control exemption is
appropriate for the area based on the area's attainment of the ozone
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. EPA's Analysis of Missouri's NOX RACT Waiver Petition

    EPA's guidance document, ``Guidance on Limiting Nitrogen Oxides
(NOX) Requirements Related to 8-Hour Ozone Implementation,''
sets forth the criteria for demonstrating that further NOX
emission reductions in an ozone nonattainment area will not contribute
to ozone NAAQS attainment.\3\ The guidance provides that three
consecutive years of monitoring data documenting ozone levels attaining
the ozone NAAQS in areas in which a state has not implemented certain
NOX emission controls is adequate to demonstrate that the
additional NOX emission reductions will not aid in achieving
attainment of the ozone NAAQS. As described in the guidance document,
approval of the NOX emission control exemption is granted by
EPA on a contingent basis. The NOX emission control
exemption continues only as long as the state's monitoring data
continues to demonstrate attainment of the ozone NAAQS.\4\ If, prior to
redesignation of the area to attainment of the ozone NAAQS, the area
violates the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, as defined at 40 CFR 50.10 and
appendix I, EPA will undertake rulemaking to withdraw the
NOX emission control exemption, and the area would once
again be subject to the NOX emission control requirements
under section 182(f) of the CAA.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Steven D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, ``Guidance on Limiting Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
Requirements Related to 8-Hour Ozone Implementation,'' Memorandum to
EPA Air Directors, Regions I-X, January 14, 2005 (found at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/guide8hr-oz.pdf).
    \4\ Id. at 21.
    \5\ Id. at 21-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's review of the ozone monitoring data and Missouri's
NOX emission control exemption request shows that Missouri
has complied with the requirements for a NOX RACT exemption
in the State's 8-hour ozone nonattainment area under section 182(f) of
the CAA consistent with the guidelines contained in EPA's January 14,
2005, guidance document. Therefore, EPA has determined that the State
of Missouri qualifies for exemption from the NOX RACT
requirements for the Missouri portion of the St. Louis (MO-IL)
metropolitan ozone nonattainment area for the purposes of attaining the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

IV. What is the effect of this action?

    The section 182(f) NOX RACT exemption is based on a
finding by EPA that additional reductions of NOX would not
contribute to attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the St.
Louis (MO-IL) metropolitan nonattainment area. The Area has three
consecutive years of ozone levels attaining the ozone standard, and
preliminary 2011 ozone data show that the 1997 8-hour ozone standard
continues to be attained in the area.
    While EPA is waiving the requirements to control NOX
emissions through additional NOX RACT controls in the
Missouri portion of the St. Louis nonattaiment area, EPA recognizes
that there are other benefits to controlling NOX emissions.
These benefits include reducing acid deposition, reducing nitrogen
deposition in sensitive wetlands, estuaries, and their watersheds, and
mitigating ozone transport to downwind ozone nonattainment areas.
Missouri will continue to be required to control NOX
emissions from certain NOX sources under other CAA programs,
such as the Acid Rain program in title IV of the CAA, for purposes of
achieving these environmental benefits. This NOX RACT waiver
will not affect other existing and pending NOX emission
control requirements for Missouri that are needed to achieve these
environmental benefits. In addition, as noted above, this action does
not affect the NOX RACT controls in the St. Louis area
previously approved by EPA relating to the 1-hour ozone standard.
    In addition, EPA notes that an approval of this waiver request is
solely for purposes of the CAA requirements to meet the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. The waiver would not apply for purposes of the ozone NAAQS
promulgated in 2008 (March 27, 2008, 73 FR 16435) or for purposes of
any future ozone NAAQS EPA may promulgate. To the extent that section
182(f) may apply to the St. Louis area for purposes of the 2008 or any
future ozone NAAQS, the State would need to submit a NOX
RACT SIP or would need to demonstrate that a waiver is appropriate for
purposes of that different ozone NAAQS.

V. EPA's Action

    EPA is approving Missouri's request to exempt the Missouri portion
of the St. Louis 8-hour ozone nonattainment area

from the section 182(f) NOX RACT requirement. This approval
is based on EPA's review of the data showing that the requirements of
section 182(f)(1)(A), as elaborated upon in EPA's guidance for section
182(f) exemptions, have been met for the St. Louis (MO-IL) metropolitan
ozone nonattainment area. If EPA subsequently determines through
notice-and-comment rulemaking that the Area has violated the 1997 8-
hour ozone standard, the basis for this exemption would no longer
exist, and the area would thereafter have to address the pertinent
requirements.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    In reviewing a request from the State to exempt sources of
NOX in the Missouri portion of the St. Louis (MO-IL)
metropolitan 8-hour ozone nonattainment area from the CAA requirements
for NOX RACT for purposes of attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided they meet the
criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Therefore,
this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the 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 exemption does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined in 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by March 16, 2009. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: July 12, 2011.
Karl Brooks,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart AA--Missouri

0
2. Section 52.1342 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1342   Control strategy: Ozone.

    (a) Determination of attainment. EPA has determined, as of June 9,
2011, that the St. Louis (MO-IL) metropolitan 1997 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This
determination, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.918, suspends the
requirements for this area to submit an attainment demonstration,
associated reasonably available control measures, reasonable further
progress, contingency measures, and other plan elements related to
attainment of the standards for as long as the area continues to meet
the 1997 Ozone NAAQS.
    (b) Approval. EPA is approving an April 20, 2011, request from the
State of Missouri for a waiver from the Clean Air Act requirement for
Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) in the Missouri portion of the St. Louis (MO-IL)
metropolitan 8-hour ozone nonattainment area for purposes of attaining
the 1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard.

[FR Doc. 2011-18176 Filed 7-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P