Grammatical and Typographical Corrections page 4, change words in titles to lower case after the first word:

1. Roman II , under B, replace " Surrounding", with " surrounding"; letter B, replace " Exclusion" with " exclusion"; letter C, replace " Process Used to Develop This Rule" with " Process used to develop this rule"; letter D, replace " What We Proposed" with " What we proposed"

2. Roman III, under A, replace " Justification" with " justification" and " Today's Final Action" with " today's final action"; letter G, replace " Non emitting Units as Part of the Process Unit" with " non emitting units as part of the process unit"; letter I , number 1, replace " Assurance" with " assurance"; number 2, replace " Issues" with " issues"; letter K, replace " Other Options" with " other options"; number 1, replace " Maintenance, Repair, and Replacement" with " Maintenance, repair and replacement".

page 5, change words in titles to lower case after the first word:

3. first line, replace " Allowance" with " allowance"; number 2, replace " Capacity Based Option" with " Capacity based option"; number 3, replace " Age Based Option" with " Age based option"; Letter L, replace " List of Excluded Activities" with " list of excluded activities"; Letter M, replace " Exclusion for Energy Efficiency Projects" with " exclusion for energy efficiency projects"; Letter N, number 1, replace " Program" with " program"; Number 2, replace " Act" with " Act's" and delete the "?" at the end of the sentence.

page 5, heading IV. F of outline should read " Regulatory Flexibility Analysis"; replace current text.

page 10, beginning the 3rd sentence of the " Issues surrounding the RMRR exclusion" section, replace the words " It has" with the words " We have".

page 15, 1st sentence, delete the brackets at the beginning and end of the first full sentence of the page. The sentence, which begins " We also do not believe the outcomes ...", should remain.

page 17, end of first paragraph under section C, delete "( 61 FR 38250)".

page 22, 1st full paragraph, replace " EUSGUs" ( in 3 places on the page) with the term " steam electric generating facilities".

page 23, 2nd sentence of the 1st paragraph ( beginning " We are not specifically...") replace " rules provide" with " rule provides". page 39, 1st sentence of the 1st paragraph replace " allow" with " allows".

page 47, 1st full paragraph, 2nd sentence, delete the duplicate phrase " cost of pollution".

page 49, 5th full sentence replace " addressing" with " addresses".

page 49, 6th full sentence, after the word " support", insert " the proposition that"

page 54, 1st full sentence starting with " This is consistent..." delete the word " the" before the word " apply".

page 62, remove the paragraph indent on the sentence beginning with " To help illustrate these concepts...".

page 66, 1st paragraph 4th sentence omit " See 67 FR 80186".

page 75, last sentence replace" MRR" with " maintenance, repair and replacement".

page 79, last paragraph make lower case the phrase " Total Capital Investment".

page 80, 2nd paragraph make lower case the phrase " Hazardous Air Pollutant".

page 82, delete extra space between paragraphs.

page 83, delete extra space between "( 5 years)." and " Altogether" so as to make clear it's all one paragraph.

page 83, 2nd paragraph the sentence beginning with " The CAA contains..." insert a comma after the word " authority".

page 84, in the 1st sentence of the " Quantitative Analysis" section, delete the comma after the word " exclusion".

page 88, 1st line of the page, insert " a" after the word " that", change the first " to" to " part of" and insert " is" after the word " burden".

page 88, 3rd line of the page, replace " is" with " and that" and insert " this includes" after the word " least".

page 88, 1st full paragraph, 4th sentence, delete the word " as" after the words " actions they can take".

page 91, 1st full paragraph, 2nd sentence, insert ", thus," after " have" and transpose " further supported" to read " supported further". page 112, 2nd paragraph omit "{ check if that is what the citation refers to}", end of paragraph omit "{ not sure what the document being citied is}" and correct reference to Congressional conference report. The new sentence should read, " In moving the adoption of those amendments, the sponsor ( who was also the sponsor of the original 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments and who indicated that the technical amendments had been approved by by all members of the original 1977 Amendments conference committee) stated in a summary and statement of intent that he placed in the Congressional Record that this was a deliberate choice. As that summary explained, Congress intended the amendment " implement[ ed] the [ 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments] confrence agreement to cover ` modifications' as well as ` construction' by defining ` construction' in part C to conform to usage in other parts of the Act." 123 Cong. Rec. 36331 ( Nov. 1, 1977).".

page 115, end of full paragraph last sentence starting with See H. R. Rep. delete "{ add quotation if useful}" and insert after " 32,918" the following "( Sept. 21, 1970)" page 116, omit "{ add quotation if useful}", last sentence last word omit " or".

page 117, 1st word omit " components".

page 117, 1st line of the page, replace " does" with " do".

page 129, 2nd paragraph 3rd sentence omit " Cite".

page 131, in the 4th sentence of the paragraph starting " Nothing in the appellate...", replace the word " exclude" with the word " excluded".

page 130, footnote 14, the word " compelling" should be " competing".

page 135, last sentence of the top ( partial) paragraph, insert a closed parenthesis after the word " today" and delete the comma.

page 142, first paragraph, last sentence replace " effective" with " enforceable".

page 144, Section F title, replace " Act" with " Analysis" and delete remainder of heading; corrected heading will read " Regulatory Flexibility Analysis."

page 145, first paragraph, first sentence replace " I certify that" with " EPA has concluded that".

page 145, first paragraph, third sentence replace " certify" with " conclude".


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 208 (Friday, October 26, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65346-65351]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26417]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0799; FRL-9747-3]

Determination of Attainment for the Sacramento Nonattainment Area
for the 2006 Fine Particle Standard; California; Determination
Regarding Applicability of Clean Air Act Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to determine that the Sacramento
nonattainment area in California has attained the 2006 24-hour fine
particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS). This proposed determination is based upon complete, quality-
assured, and certified ambient air monitoring data showing that this
area has monitored attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS based on the 2009-2011 monitoring period. EPA is further
proposing that, if EPA finalizes this determination of attainment, the
requirements for this area to submit an attainment demonstration,
together with reasonably available control measures (RACM), a
reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, and contingency measures for
failure to meet RFP and attainment deadlines shall be suspended for so
long as the area continues to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before November 26,
2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2012-0799 by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal, at www.regulations.gov, please
follow the on-line instructions;
    2. Email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
    3. Mail or delivery to John Ungvarsky, Air Planning Office, AIR-2,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, California 94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments 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 Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and
should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email.
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send an email directly to EPA, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. 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: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region
IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. 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).
To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment
during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Ungvarsky,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we'',
``us'' or ``our'' are used, we mean EPA. We are providing the following
outline to aid in locating information in this proposal.

Table of Contents

I. What determination is EPA making?
II. What is the background for this action?
    A. PM2.5 NAAQS
    B. Designation of PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas
    C. How does EPA make attainment determinations?
III. What is EPA's analysis of the relevant air quality data?
    A. Monitoring Network and Data Considerations
    B. Evaluation of Current Attainment
IV. How does EPA's Clean Data Policy apply to this action?
    A. Application of EPA's Clean Data Policy to the 2006
p.m.2.5 NAAQS
    B. History and Basis of EPA's Clean Data Policy
V. EPA's Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What determination is EPA making?

    EPA is proposing to determine that the Sacramento nonattainment
area has clean data for the 2006 24-hour NAAQS for fine particles
(generally referring to particles less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers
in diameter, PM2.5). This determination is based upon
complete, quality-assured, and certified ambient air monitoring data
showing the area has monitored attainment of the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS based on 2009-2011 monitoring data. Preliminary data in EPA's Air
Quality System (AQS) for 2012 indicate that the area continues to
attain the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Based on this determination, we
are also proposing to suspend the obligations on the State of
California to submit certain state implementation plan (SIP) revisions
related to attainment of this standard for the Sacramento nonattainment
area for as long as the area continues to attain the standard.

II. What is the background for this action?

A. PM2.5 NAAQS

    Under section 109 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act''), EPA has
established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or
``standards'') for certain pervasive air pollutants (referred to as
``criteria pollutants'') and conducts periodic reviews of the NAAQS to
determine whether they should be revised or whether new NAAQS should be
established.
    On July 18, 1997, EPA revised the NAAQS for particulate matter to
add new standards for PM2.5, using PM2.5 as the
indicator for the pollutant. EPA established primary and secondary \1\
annual and 24-hour standards for PM2.5 (62 FR 38652). The
annual standard was set at 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/
m\3\), based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5
concentrations, and the 24-hour standard was set at 65 [mu]g/m\3\,
based on the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour
PM2.5 concentrations at each population-oriented monitor
within an area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For a given air pollutant, ``primary'' National Ambient Air
Quality Standards are those determined by EPA as requisite to
protect the public health, and ``secondary'' standards are those
determined by EPA as requisite to protect the public welfare from
any known or anticipated adverse effects associated with the
presence of such air pollutant in the ambient air. See CAA section
109(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA revised the level of the 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS to 35 [mu]g/m\3\, based on a 3-year average
of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. EPA also retained the
1997 annual PM2.5 standard at 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\ based on a 3-
year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, but with
tighter constraints on the spatial averaging criteria.

B. Designation of PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas

    Effective December 14, 2009, EPA established the initial air
quality designations for most areas in the United States for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. See 74 FR 58688; (November 13, 2009).
Among the various areas designated in 2009, EPA designated the
Sacramento \2\ area in California as nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS.\3\ The boundaries for this area are described
in 40 CFR 81.305.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Sacramento PM2.5 nonattainment area includes
Sacramento County, the western portions of El Dorado and Placer
counties, and the eastern portions of Solano and Yolo counties.
Other than the El Dorado County portion of the nonattainment area,
the Sacramento PM2.5 nonattainment area lies within the
Sacramento Valley Air Basin.
    \3\ With respect to the annual PM2.5 NAAQS, this area
is designated as ``unclassifiable/attainment.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Within three years of the effective date of designations, states
with areas designated as nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS are required to submit SIP revisions that, among other elements,
provide for implementation of reasonably available control measures
(RACM), reasonable further progress (RFP), attainment of the standard
as expeditiously as practicable but no later than five years from the
nonattainment designation (in this instance, no later than December 14,
2014), as well as contingency measures. See CAA section 172(a)(2),
172(c)(1), 172(c)(2), and 172(c)(9). Prior to the due date for
submittal of these SIP revisions, the State of California requested
that EPA make determinations that the Sacramento \4\ nonattainment area
has attained the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and that attainment-
related SIP submittal requirements are not applicable for as long as
the area continues to attain the standard. Today's proposal responds to
the State's request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ On May 2, 2012, James Goldstene, Executive Officer of the
California Air Resources Board, submitted a request to Jared
Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region IX, to find the
Sacramento PM2.5 nonattainment area had attained the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. How does EPA make attainment determinations?

    A determination of whether an area's air quality currently meets
the PM2.5 NAAQS is generally based upon the most recent
three years of complete, quality-assured data gathered at established
State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) in a nonattainment area
and entered into the AQS database. Data from air monitors operated by
state/local agencies in compliance with EPA monitoring requirements
must be submitted to AQS. Monitoring agencies annually certify that
these data are accurate to the best of their knowledge. Accordingly,
EPA relies primarily on data in AQS when determining the attainment
status of areas. See 40 CFR 50.13; 40 CFR part 50, appendix L; 40 CFR
part 53; 40 CFR part 58, and 40 CFR part 58, appendices A, C, D, and E.
All data are reviewed to determine the area's air quality status in
accordance with 40 CFR part 50, appendix N.
    Under EPA regulations in 40 CFR part 50, section 50.13 and in
accordance with appendix N, the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard
is met when the design value is less than or equal to 35 [micro]g/m\3\
(based on the rounding convention in 40 CFR part 50, appendix N) at
each monitoring site within the area.\5\ The PM2.5 24-hour
average is considered valid when 75 percent of the hourly averages for
the 24-hour period are available. Data completeness requirements for a
given year are met when at least 75 percent of the scheduled sampling
days for each quarter have valid data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The PM2.5 24-hour standard design value is the 3-
year average of annual 98th percentile 24-hour average values
recorded at each monitoring site [see 40 CFR part 50, appendix N,
section 1.0(c)], and the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is met when
the 24-hour standard design value at each monitoring site is less
than or equal to 35 [micro]g/m\3\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What is EPA's analysis of the relevant air quality data?

A. Monitoring Network and Data Considerations

    In the Sacramento PM2.5 nonattainment area, the agencies
responsible for assuring that the area meets air quality monitoring
requirements include CARB, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality
Management District (SMAQMD), Placer County Air Pollution Control
District (PCAPCD) and Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District
(YSAQMD). Both CARB and SMAQMD submit annual monitoring network plans
to EPA. SMAQMD network plans describe the monitoring network operated
by SMAQMD and CARB in Sacramento County, and CARB's network plans
describe the monitoring sites CARB operates, in addition to monitoring
sites operated by smaller air districts, namely, PCAPCD and YSAQMD.
These plans discuss the status of the air monitoring network, as
required under 40 CFR 58.10.

    Since 2007, EPA regularly reviews these annual plans for compliance
with the applicable reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 58. With
respect to PM2.5, EPA has found that the areas' network
plans, submitted by CARB and SMAQMD, meet the applicable requirements
under 40 CFR part 58. See EPA letters to CARB and SMAQMD approving
their annual network plans for years 2009, 2010, and
2011.6 7 EPA also concluded \8\ from its Technical System
Audit of the CARB Primary Quality Assurance Organization (PQAO)
(conducted during the summer of 2007), that the combined ambient air
monitoring network operated by CARB and the local air districts in
their PQAO (which includes SMAQMD, PCAPCD, and YSAQMD) currently meets
or exceeds the requirements for the minimum number of SLAMS for
PM2.5 in the Sacramento nonattainment area. CARB annually
certifies that the data it submits to AQS are complete and quality-
assured.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Letter from Joe Lapka, Acting Manager, Air Quality Analysis
Office, U.S. EPA Region IX, to Karen Magliano, Chief, Air Quality
Data Branch, Planning and Technical Support Division, CARB (November
24, 2009) (approving CARB's ``2009 Annual Monitoring Network Report
for Small Districts in California''); Letter from Matthew Lakin,
Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, U.S. EPA Region IX, to Karen
Magliano, Chief, Air Quality Data Branch, Planning and Technical
Support Division, CARB (October 29, 2010) (approving CARB's ``2010
Annual Monitoring Network Plan for the Small Districts in
California''); Letter from Matthew Lakin, Manager, Air Quality
Analysis Office, U.S. EPA Region IX, to Karen Magliano, Chief, Air
Quality Data Branch, Planning and Technical Support Division, CARB
(November 1, 2011) (approving CARB's ``2011 Annual Monitoring
Network Plan for the Small Districts in California'').
    \7\ Letter from Joe Lapka, Acting Manager, Air Quality Analysis
Office, U.S. EPA Region IX, to Larry Greene, Air Pollution Control
Officer, SMAQMD (September 29, 2009) (approving the 2009 Air
Monitoring Network Plan for the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality
Management District); Letter from Matthew Lakin, Manager, Air
Quality Analysis Office, U.S. EPA Region IX, to Larry Greene, Air
Pollution Control Officer, SMAQMD (November 1, 2010) (approving the
``Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District's 2010
Annual Monitoring Network Plan''); Letter from Matthew Lakin,
Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, U.S. EPA Region IX, to Larry
Greene, Air Pollution Control Officer, SMAQMD (October 31, 2011)
(approving the ``Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management
District's 2011 Annual Monitoring Network Plan'').
    \8\ See letter from Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, U.S.
EPA Region IX, to James Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB,
transmitting ``Technical System Audit of the California
Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board: 2007,'' with
enclosure, August 18, 2008.
    \9\ See, e.g., letter from Karen Magliano, Chief, Air Quality
Data Branch, Planning and Technical Support Division, CARB, to Jared
Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region IX, certifying
calendar year 2011 ambient air quality data and quality assurance
data, May 1, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There were five PM2.5 SLAMS located throughout the
Sacramento PM2.5 nonattainment area in calendar years 2009,
2010, and 2011. EPA defines specific monitoring site types and spatial
scales of representativeness to characterize the nature and location of
required monitors. For the five sites, the spatial scale is
neighborhood scale, and monitoring objective is population exposure. In
addition, the Sacramento-Del Paso Manor site has a monitoring objective
of highest concentration.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See CARB's 2011 Annual Monitoring Network Report for Small
Districts in California and SMAQMD's 2011 Annual Monitoring Network
Plan; U.S. EPA Air Quality System, Monitor Description Report,
September 14, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR part 50, EPA
has reviewed the quality-assured, and certified PM2.5
ambient air monitoring data as recorded in AQS for the applicable
monitoring period collected at the monitoring sites in the Sacramento
nonattainment area and determined that the data are complete.

B. Evaluation of Current Attainment

    EPA's evaluation of whether the Sacramento PM2.5
nonattainment area has attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
is based on our review of the monitoring data and takes into account
the adequacy \11\ of the PM2.5 monitoring network in the
nonattainment area and the reliability of the data collected by the
network as discussed in the previous section of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Meets the requirements of 40 CFR part 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 shows the PM2.5 design values for the Sacramento
nonattainment area monitors based on ambient air quality monitoring
data for the most recent complete three-year period (2009-2011). The
data show that the design value for the 2009-2011 period was equal to
or less than 35 [mu]g/m\3\ at the monitors. Therefore, we are proposing
to determine, based on the complete, quality-assured data for 2009-
2011, that the Sacramento area has attained the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 standard. Preliminary data available in AQS for 2012
indicate that the area continues to attain the standard.

    Table 1--2009-2011 24-Hour PM2.5 Monitoring Sites and Design Values for the Sacramento Nonattainment Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   98th Percentile ([mu]g/m\3\)       2009-2011
                                                AQS site     ---------------------------------------    Design
             Monitoring site                 identification                                             values
                                                  No.             2009         2010         2011       ([mu]g/
                                                                                m\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roseville................................        06-061-0006         21.3         20.3         23.0           22
Sacramento-Del Paso Manor................        06-067-0006         38.7         27.0         39.8        35\a\
Sacramento-1309 T Street.................        06-067-0010         27.2         27.3         45.1           33
Sacramento Health Dept--Stockton Blvd....        06-067-4001         34.9         26.5         44.8        35\a\
Woodland.................................        06-113-1003         27.4         18.6         25.8           24
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The average of the 98th percentile values for 2009-2011 equals 35.2 and 35.4 at the Del Paso Manor and
  Stockton Blvd. sites, respectively, but consistent with applicable rounding conventions in 40 CFR part 50,
  Appendix N, section 4.3, 24-hour standard design values are rounded to the nearest 1 [mu]g/m\3\ (decimals 0.5
  and greater are rounded up to the nearest whole number, and any decimal lower than 0.5 is rounded down to the
  nearest whole number).
Source: Design Value Report, August 31, 2012 (in the docket to this proposed action).

IV. How does EPA's Clean Data Policy apply to this action?

A. Application of EPA's Clean Data Policy to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS

    In April 2007, EPA issued its PM2.5 Implementation Rule
for the 1997 PM2.5 standard. 72 FR 20586; (April 25, 2007).
In March, 2012, EPA published implementation guidance for the 2006
PM2.5 standard. See Memorandum from Stephen D. Page,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
``Implementation Guidance for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)''
(March 2, 2012). In that guidance, EPA stated its view ``that the
overall framework and policy approach of the 2007 PM2.5
Implementation Rule continues to provide effective and

appropriate guidance on the EPA's interpretation of the general
statutory requirements that states should address in their SIPs. In
general, the EPA believes that the interpretations of the statute in
the framework of the 2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule are
relevant to the statutory requirements for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS * * *'' Id., page 1. With respect to the
statutory provisions applicable to 2006 PM2.5
implementation, the guidance emphasized that ``EPA outlined its
interpretation of many of these provisions in the 2007 PM2.5
Implementation Rule. In addition to regulatory provisions, the EPA
provided substantial general guidance for attainment plans for
PM2.5 in the preamble to the final the [sic] 2007
PM2.5 Implementation Rule.'' Id., page 2. In keeping with
the principles set forth in the guidance, and with respect to the
effect of a determination of attainment for the 2006 PM2.5
standard, EPA is applying the same interpretation with respect to the
implications of clean data determinations that it set forth in the
preamble to the 1997 PM2.5 standard and in the regulation
that embodies this interpretation. 40 CFR 51.1004(c).\12\ EPA has long
applied this interpretation in regulations and individual rulemakings
for the 1-hour ozone and 1997 8-hour ozone standards, the PM-10
standard, and the lead standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ While EPA recognizes that 40 CFR 51.1004(c) does not itself
expressly apply to the 2006 PM2.5 standard, the statutory
interpretation that it embodies is identical and is applicable to
both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. History and Basis of EPA's Clean Data Policy

    Following enactment of the CAA Amendments of 1990, EPA promulgated
its interpretation of the requirements for implementing the NAAQS in
the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the CAA
Amendments of 1990 (General Preamble) 57 FR 13498, 13564 (April 16,
1992). In 1995, based on the interpretation of CAA sections 171 and
172, and section 182 in the General Preamble, EPA set forth what has
become known as its ``Clean Data Policy'' for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
See Memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, ``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment
Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas
Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard'' (May 10,
1995). In 2004, EPA indicated its intention to extend the Clean Data
Policy to the PM2.5 NAAQS. See Memorandum from Steve Page,
Director, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, ``Clean
Data Policy for the Fine Particle National Ambient Air Quality
Standards'' (December 14, 2004).
    Since 1995, EPA has applied its interpretation under the Clean Data
Policy in many rulemakings, suspending certain attainment-related
planning requirements for individual areas, based on a determination of
attainment. See 60 FR 36723 (July 18, 1995) (Salt Lake and Davis
Counties, Utah, 1-hour ozone); 61 FR 20458 (May 7, 1996) (Cleveland-
Akron-Lorain, Ohio, 1-hour ozone); 61 FR 31832 (June 21, 1996) (Grand
Rapids, Michigan, 1-hour ozone); 65 FR 37879 (June 19, 2000)
(Cincinnati-Hamilton, Ohio-Kentucky, 1-hour ozone); 66 FR 53094
(October 19, 2001) (Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, Pennsylvania, 1-hour
ozone); 68 FR 25418 (May 12, 2003) (St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois, 1-
hour ozone); 69 FR 21717 (April 22, 2004) (San Francisco Bay Area,
California, 1-hour ozone); 75 FR 6570 (February 10, 2010) (Baton Rouge,
Louisiana, 1-hour ozone); 75 FR 27944 (May 19, 2010) (Coso Junction,
California, PM10).
    EPA also incorporated its interpretation under the Clean Data
Policy in several implementation rules. See Clean Air Fine Particle
Implementation Rule, 72 FR 20586 (April 25, 2007); Final Rule To
Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard--Phase
2, 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005). The Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) upheld EPA's rule embodying
the Clean Data Policy for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. NRDC v. EPA,
571 F.3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009). Other courts have reviewed and
considered individual rulemakings applying EPA's Clean Data Policy, and
have consistently upheld them in every case. Sierra Club v. EPA, 99
F.3d 1551 (10th Cir. 1996); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir.
2004); Our Children's Earth Foundation v. EPA, No. 04-73032 (9th Cir.
June 28, 2005 (Memorandum Opinion)), Latino Issues Forum v. EPA, Nos.
06-75831 and 08-71238 (9th Cir. March 2, 2009 (Memorandum Opinion)).
    EPA sets forth below a brief explanation of the statutory
interpretations in the Clean Data Policy. EPA also incorporates the
discussions of its interpretation set forth in prior rulemakings,
including the 1997 PM2.5 implementation rulemaking. See 72
FR 20586, at 20603-20605 (April 25, 2007). See also 75 FR 31288 (June
3, 2010) (Providence, Rhode Island, 1997 8-hour ozone); 75 FR 62470
(October 12, 2010) (Knoxville, Tennessee, 1997 8-hour ozone); 75 FR
53219 (August 31, 2010) (Greater Connecticut Area, 1997 8-hour ozone);
75 FR 54778 (September 9, 2010) (Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 1997 8-hour
ozone); 75 FR 64949 (October 21, 2010) (Providence, Rhode Island, 1997
8-hour ozone); 76 FR 11080 (March 1, 2011) (Milwaukee-Racine and
Sheboygan Areas, Wisconsin, 1997 8-hour ozone); 76 FR 31237 (May 31,
2011) (Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, Pennsylvania, 1997 8-hour ozone); 76
FR 33647 (June 9, 2011) (St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois, 1997 8-hour
ozone); 76 FR 70656 (November 15, 2011) (Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill,
North Carolina-South Carolina, 1997 8-hour ozone); 77 FR 31496 (May 29,
2012) (Boston-Lawrence-Worchester, Massachusetts, 1997 8-hour ozone).
See also, 75 FR 56 (January 4, 2010) (Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High
Point, North Carolina, 1997 PM2.5); 75 FR 230 (January 5,
2010) (Hickory-Morganton-Lenoir, North Carolina, 1997
PM2.5); 76 FR 12860 (March 9, 2011) (Louisville, Kentucky-
Indiana, 1997 PM2.5); 76 FR 18650 (April 5, 2011) (Rome,
Georgia, 1997 PM2.5); 76 FR 31239 (May 31, 2011)
(Chattanooga, Tennessee-Georgia-Alabama, 1997 PM2.5); 76 FR
31858 (June 2, 2011) (Macon, Georgia, 1997 PM2.5); 76 FR
36873 (June 23, 2011) (Atlanta, Georgia, 1997 PM2.5); 76 FR
38023 (June 29, 2011) (Birmingham, Alabama, 1997 PM2.5); 76
FR 55542 (September 7, 2011) (Huntington-Ashland, West Virginia-
Kentucky-Ohio, 1997 PM2.5); 76 FR 60373 (September 29, 2011)
(Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana, 1997 PM2.5); 77 FR 18922
(March 29, 2012) (Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle-York, Allentown,
Johnstown and Lancaster, Pennsylvania, 1997 PM2.5).
    The Clean Data Policy represents EPA's interpretation that certain
requirements of subpart 1 of part D of the Act are by their terms not
applicable to areas that are currently attaining the NAAQS.\13\ As
explained below, the specific requirements that are inapplicable to an
area attaining the standard are the requirements to submit a SIP that
provides for: attainment of the NAAQS; implementation of all reasonably
available control measures; reasonable further progress (RFP); and
implementation of contingency measures for failure to meet deadlines
for RFP and attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ This discussion refers to subpart 1 because subpart 1
contains the requirements relating to attainment of the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAA section 172(c)(1), the requirement for an attainment
demonstration, provides in relevant part that SIPs ``shall provide for
attainment

of the [NAAQS].'' EPA has interpreted this requirement as not applying
to areas that have already attained the standard. If an area has
attained the standard, there is no need to submit a plan demonstrating
how the area will reach attainment. In the General Preamble (57 FR
13564), EPA stated that no other measures to provide for attainment
would be needed by areas seeking redesignation to attainment since
``attainment will have been reached.'' See also Memorandum from John
Calcagni, ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' (September 4, 1992), at page 6.
    A component of the attainment plan specified under section
172(c)(1) is the requirement to provide for ``the implementation of all
reasonably available control measures as expeditiously as practicable''
(RACM). Since RACM is an element of the attainment demonstration, see
General Preamble (57 FR 13560), for the same reason the attainment
demonstration no longer applies by its own terms, RACM also no longer
applies to areas that EPA has determined have clean air. Furthermore,
EPA has consistently interpreted this provision to require only
implementation of such potential RACM measures that could advance
attainment.\14\ Thus, where an area is already attaining the standard,
no additional RACM measures are required. EPA's interpretation that the
statute requires only implementation of the RACM measures that would
advance attainment was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit (Sierra Club v. EPA, 314 F.3d 735, 743-745, 5th Cir.
2002) and by the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
(Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F.3d 155, 162-163, D.C. Cir. 2002). See also
the final rulemakings for Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, Pennsylvania, 66 FR
53096 (October 19, 2001) and St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois, 68 FR 25418
(May 12, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ This interpretation was adopted in the General Preamble,
see 57 FR 13498, and has been upheld as applied to the Clean Data
Policy, as well as to nonattainment SIP submissions. See NRDC v.
EPA, 571 F.3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009); Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F.3d
155 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAA section 172(c)(2) provides that SIP provisions in nonattainment
areas must require ``reasonable further progress.'' The term
``reasonable further progress'' is defined in section 171(1) as ``such
annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air
pollutant as are required by this part or may reasonably be required by
the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the
applicable NAAQS by the applicable date.'' Thus, by definition, the
``reasonable further progress'' provision under subpart 1 requires only
such reductions in emissions as are necessary to attain the NAAQS. If
an area has attained the NAAQS, the purpose of the RFP requirement has
been fulfilled, and since the area has already attained, showing that
the State will make RFP towards attainment ``[has] no meaning at that
point.'' General Preamble, 57 FR 13498, 13564 (April 16, 1992).
    CAA section 172(c)(9) provides that SIPs in nonattainment areas
``shall provide for the implementation of specific measures to be
undertaken if the area fails to make reasonable further progress, or to
attain the [NAAQS] by the attainment date applicable under this part.
Such measures shall be included in the plan revision as contingency
measures to take effect in any such case without further action by the
State or [EPA].'' This contingency measure requirement is inextricably
tied to the reasonable further progress and attainment demonstration
requirements. Contingency measures are implemented if reasonable
further progress targets are not achieved, or if attainment is not
realized by the attainment date. Where an area has already achieved
attainment, it has no need to rely on contingency measures to come into
attainment or to make further progress to attainment. As EPA stated in
the General Preamble: ``The section 172(c)(9) requirements for
contingency measures are directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by the
applicable date.'' See 57 FR 13564. Thus these requirements no longer
apply when an area has attained the standard.
    It is important to note that should an area attain the 2006
PM2.5 standard based on three years of data, its obligation
to submit an attainment demonstration and related planning submissions
is suspended only for so long as the area continues to attain the
standard. If EPA subsequently determines, after notice-and-comment
rulemaking, that the area has violated the NAAQS, the requirements for
the State to submit a SIP to meet the previously suspended requirements
would be reinstated. It is likewise important to note that the area
remains designated nonattainment pending a further redesignation
action.

V. EPA's Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment

    EPA is proposing to determine that the Sacramento nonattainment
area in California has attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
standard based on the most recent three years of complete, quality-
assured, and certified data for 2009-2011. Preliminary data available
in AQS for 2012 show that the area continues to attain the standard.
    EPA further proposes that, if its proposed determination of
attainment is made final, the requirements for the Sacramento
nonattainment area to submit an attainment demonstration and associated
RACM, a RFP plan, contingency measures, and any other planning SIPs
related to attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS would be
suspended for so long as the area continues to attain the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA's proposal is consistent and in keeping
with its long-held interpretation of CAA requirements, as well as with
EPA's regulations for similar determinations for ozone (see 40 CFR
51.918) and the 1997 fine particulate matter standards (see 40 CFR
51.1004(c)). As described below, any such determination would not be
equivalent to the redesignation of the area to attainment for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Any final action resulting from this proposal would not constitute
a redesignation to attainment under CAA section 107(d)(3) because we
have not yet approved a maintenance plan for the Sacramento
nonattainment area as meeting the requirements of section 175A of the
CAA or determined that the area has met the other CAA requirements for
redesignation. The classification and designation status in 40 CFR part
81 would remain nonattainment for the area until such time as EPA
determines that California has met the CAA requirements for
redesignating the Sacramento nonattainment area to attainment.
    If the Sacramento nonattainment area continues to monitor
attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA proposes that the
requirements for the area to submit an attainment demonstration and
associated RACM, a RFP plan, contingency measures, and any other
planning requirements related to attainment of the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS will remain suspended. If this proposed
rulemaking is finalized and EPA subsequently determines, after notice-
and-comment rulemaking in the Federal Register, that the area has
violated the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the basis for the suspension
of these attainment planning requirements for the Sacramento
nonattainment area would no longer exist, and the area would thereafter
have to address such requirements.
    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
document or on other relevant matters. We will accept comments from the
public on this proposal for the next 30 days. We

will consider these comments before taking final action.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action proposes to make a determination of attainment based on
air quality and to suspend certain federal requirements, and thus,
would not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State
law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive 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 disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed action does not have Tribal implications
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP obligations discussed herein do not apply to Indian
Tribes and thus this proposed action 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, Particulate matter, Nitrogen oxides, Sulfur oxides,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: October 15, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2012-26417 Filed 10-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 16220]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6632]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14338-000]

Spartanburg Water System; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On December 20, 2011, Spartanburg Water System (Spartanburg) filed
an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of
the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of a
hydropower project located on the Pacolet River in Spartanburg County,
South Carolina. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is
to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application
during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the
permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise
enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express
permission.
    The proposed project would consist of: (1) An existing 70.0-foot-
high, 700-foot-long roller-compacted concrete dam, owned by
Spartanburg; (2) a reservoir with a surface area of 1,050.0 acres and a
storage capacity of 23,000 acre-feet; (3) a 8.0-foot-diameter steel
penstock installed in the existing outlet conduit; (4) an 8-foot-
diameter butterfly valve located at the powerhouse; (5) a powerhouse
containing one generating unit with a total capacity of 1,600.0
kilowatts (kW), discharging directly into the dam's existing tailrace;
(6) a 1,100-foot-long, 4.16 kilo-volt (KV) transmission line to; (7) a
proposed substation; and (8) a 100-foot-long, 12 KV transmission line
to the point of interconnection. The project would have an estimated
average annual generation of 7,000 megawatt-hours (MWh) and the project
power would be sold.
    Applicant Contact: Ms. Sue Schneider, General Manager, Spartanburg
Water, 200 Commerce Street, P.O. Box 251, Spartanburg, South Carolina
29304.<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Michael Spencer<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202) 502-
6093.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file,
mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14338-000) in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: March 14, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-6632 Filed 3-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 2, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60683-60684]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23950]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0275; Airspace Docket No. 13-AGL-15];

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Mandan, ND

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class E airspace at Mandan, ND. Additional
controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Area Navigation
(RNAV) Standard Instrument Approach

Procedures at Mandan Municipal Airport. The airport's geographic
coordinates are also adjusted. This action enhances the safety and
management of Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) operations at the airport.

DATES: Effective date: 0901 UTC, December 12, 2013. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR Part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone 817-321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On July 12, 2013, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Class E airspace for the
Mandan, ND, area, creating additional controlled airspace at Mandan
Municipal Airport (78 FR 41890) Docket No. FAA-2013-0275. Interested
parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by
submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments
were received. Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph
6005 of FAA Order 7400.9X dated August 7, 2013, and effective September
15, 2013, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR Part 71.1. The
Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
Part 71 by amending Class E airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet
above the surface to accommodate new standard instrument approach
procedures at Mandan Municipal Airport, Mandan, ND. Airspace added
within a 30-mile radius of the final approach fix for the new RNAV
(GPS) RWY 31 instrument approach procedure provides adequate controlled
airspace for the safety and management of IFR operations at the
airport. Geographic coordinates are also to be updated to coincide with
the FAA's aeronautical database.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (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); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends controlled airspace at Mandan Municipal Airport, Mandan,
ND.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR Part 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9X, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 7, 2013, and effective September 15,
2013, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface.

* * * * *

AGL ND E5 Mandan, ND [Amended]

Mandan Municipal Airport, ND
    (Lat. 46[deg]46'05'' N., long. 100[deg]53'40'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 9.6-mile radius of Mandan Municipal Airport, and that
airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a
30-mile radius of lat. 46[deg]35'58'' N., long. 100[deg]43'26'' W.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on September 23, 2013.
David P. Medina,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2013-23950 Filed 10-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 154 (Monday, August 10, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48108-48110]
[FR Doc No: 2020-17480]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2020-0361]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation; North Atlantic Ocean, Ocean City, MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary special local
regulation for certain waters of the North Atlantic Ocean adjacent to
Ocean City, MD. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of
life on these navigable waters located at Ocean City, MD, during
activities associated with an air show event from August 13, 2020,
through August 16, 2020. This rule prohibits persons and vessels from
entering the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port Maryland-National Capital Region or the Coast Guard Patrol
Commander.

DATES: This rule is effective from August 13, 2020, through August 16,
2020. It will be enforced from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. each day the rule is in
effect.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2020-0361 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 MST2 Shaun Landante, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Maryland-
National Capital Region; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
PATCOM Coast Guard Patrol Commander
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)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because an NPRM would be impracticable and
contrary to the public interest. On June 16, 2020, the Town of Ocean
City, MD, notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting the 2020
Ocean City Air Show from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on August 16, 2020. The
annual air show consists of various types of military and civilian
aircraft performing low-flying, high-speed precision maneuvers and
aerial stunts. In addition to these two air show performance dates,
approach and circle maneuvers will be conducted by the U.S. Navy's Blue
Angels flight demonstration squadron aircraft between 10 a.m. and 5
p.m. on August 13, 2020, and a full practice show rehearsal will be
conducted by all air show performers from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on August
14, 2020. We must establish this safety zone by August 13, 2020, to
ensure the safety of particpants and nearby waterway users. Hazards
from the air show event include risks of injury or death resulting from
aircraft accidents, dangerous projectiles, hazardous materials spills,
falling debris, and near or actual contact among participants and
spectator vessels or waterway users if normal vessel traffic were to
interfere with the event. Additionally, such hazards include
participants operating near a designated navigation channel, as well as
operating adjacent to a popular summer beach area and its numerous
oceanside businesses.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest
because immediate action is needed to respond to the potential safety
hazards associated with the ``Ocean City Air Show '' event.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70041 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Sector
Maryland-National Capital Region (COTP) has determined that potential
hazards associated with the air show, to be held from August 13, 2020
through August 16, 2020, will be a safety concern for anyone intending
to participate in this event and for vessels that operate within
specified waters of the North Atlantic Ocean. This rule is needed to
protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable
waters within the safety zone for the duration of this event.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes special local regulations from 9 a.m. on
August 13, 2020, through 6 p.m. on August 16, 2020. The regulated area
will cover all navigable waters of the North Atlantic Ocean within an
area bounded by the following coordinates: Commencing at a point near
the shoreline in the vicinity of 33rd Street, Ocean City, MD, latitude
38[deg]21'48.8'' N, longitude 075[deg]04'10'' W,

thence eastward to latitude 38[deg]21'32'' N, longitude 075[deg]03'12''
W, thence south to latitude 38[deg]19'22.7'' N, longitude
075[deg]04'09.5'' W, thence west to latitude 38[deg]19'38.5'' N,
longitude 075[deg]05'05.4'' W, thence north along the shoreline to
point of origin, located adjacent to Ocean City, MD. The duration of
the zone and size of the regulated area are intended to ensure the
safety of life on these navigable waters before, during and after the
air show and its related activities, scheduled to take place from 10
a.m. on August 13, 2020, through 5 p.m. on August 16, 2020. No vessel
or person will be permitted to enter the regulated area without
obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

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 12866 and 13563 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. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on size, location and
duration of the regulated area, which will impact a small designated
area of the North Atlantic Ocean adjacent to Ocean City, MD for 36
total enforcement hours. The Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice
to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the status of the
regulated area. Moreover, the rule will allow vessels and persons to
seek permission to enter the regulated area.

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
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
IV.A above, this proposed 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 will affect your small
business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email 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.

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, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), 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
implementation of regulations within 33 CFR part 100 applicable to
organized marine events on the navigable waters of the United States
that could negatively impact the safety of waterway users and shore
side activities in the event area for 36 hours. It is categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1
of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Memorandum for
Record supporting this determination is available in the docket. For
instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email 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 100

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70041; 33 CFR 1.05-1.

0
2. Add Sec.  100.T05-0361 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.T05-0361  Ocean City Air Show, North Atlantic Ocean, Ocean
City, MD.

    (a) Regulated area. The regulations in this section apply to all
navigable waters of the North Atlantic Ocean within an area bounded by
the following coordinates: Commencing at a point near the shoreline in
vicinity of 33rd Street, Ocean City, MD, latitude 38[deg]21'48.8'' N,
longitude 075[deg]04'10'' W, thence eastward to latitude 38[deg]21'32''
N, latitude 075[deg]03'12'' W, thence south to latitude
38[deg]19'22.7'' N, longitude 075[deg]04'09.5'' W, thence west to
latitude 38[deg]19'38.5'' N, longitude 075[deg]05'05.4'' W, thence
north along the shoreline to point of origin, located adjacent to Ocean
City, MD. These coordinates are based on datum NAD 1983.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section--
    Captain of the Port (COTP) Maryland-National Capital Region means
the Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region
or any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been
authorized by the COTP to act on his behalf.
    Coast Guard Patrol Commander (PATCOM) means a commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard who has been
designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National
Capital Region.
    Official Patrol means any vessel assigned or approved by Commander,
Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region with a
commissioned, warrant, or petty officer on board and displaying a Coast
Guard ensign.
    Participant means all persons and vessels registered with the event
sponsor as participating in the Ocean City Air Show or otherwise
designated by the event sponsor as having a function tied to the event.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Except for participants and vessels already at
berth, everyone other than participants are prohibited from entering,
transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated
area described in paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by
the COTP Maryland-National Capital Region or PATCOM.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP Maryland-National
Capital Region at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> or on Marine Band
Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz) or the PATCOM on Marine Band
Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Those in the regulated area must
comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP
Maryland-National Capital Region, PATCOM, or official patrol.
    (3) Vessels are required to operate at a safe speed that minimizes
wake while within the regulated area in a manner that would not
endanger event participants or any other craft.
    (4) The air show aerobatics area located within the regulated area
described in paragraph (a) of this section is restricted to
participants.
    (5) The COTP Maryland-National Capital Region will provide notice
of the regulated area through advanced notice via Fifth Coast Guard
District Local Notice to Mariners, broadcast notice to mariners, and
on-scene official patrols.
    (d) Enforcement officials. The Coast Guard may be assisted with
marine event patrol and enforcement of the regulated area by other
Federal, State and local agencies.
    (e) Enforcement periods. This section will be enforced from 9 a.m.
to 6 p.m. on August 13, 2020, from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on August 14, 2020,
from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on August 15, 2020, and, from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on
August 16, 2020.

    Dated: August 4, 2020.
Joseph B. Loring,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Maryland-National
Capital Region.
[FR Doc. 2020-17480 Filed 8-7-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 149 (Wednesday, August 3, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51084-51086]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18323]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2016-4136; Special Conditions No. 25-621-SC]

Special Conditions: The Boeing Company Model 777-300ER Airplanes;
Dynamic Test Requirements for Single-Occupant Oblique (Side-Facing)
Seats with Inflatable Restraints

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued to The Boeing Company
(Boeing) for their Model 777-300ER airplane. This airplane has novel or
unusual design features associated with single-occupant oblique (side-
facing) seats equipped with inflatable restraints. The applicable
airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety
standards for occupants of seats installed at an angle of greater than
18 degrees, but substantially less than 90 degrees, to the vertical
plane containing the centerline of the airplane, nor for inflatable
restraints or related airbag devices. These special conditions contain
the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers
necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established
by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: This action is effective on Boeing on August 3, 2016. We must
receive your comments by September 19, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2016-4136
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/ and follow the online instructions for sending
your comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the
docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all
comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an
association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov/.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of
the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Shelden, Airframe and Cabin
Safety, ANM-115, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
425-227-2785; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA has determined that notice of, and
opportunity for prior public comment on, these special conditions are
impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay
issuance of the design approval and thus delivery of the affected
airplane. In addition, the substance of these special conditions has
been subject to the public-comment process in several prior instances
with no substantive comments received.
    The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making these
special conditions effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

Comments Invited

    We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by
sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
    We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for
comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments
we receive.

Background

    On December 24, 2015, Boeing Commercial Airplanes applied for a
design change to type certificate no. T00001SE for single-occupant
seats installed at an oblique angle to the vertical plane containing
the centerline of the airplane, and equipped with inflatable lapbelts,
in the Boeing Model 777-300ER airplane. The Model 777-300ER airplane is
a wide body, swept wing, conventional tail, twin-engine, turbofan-
powered, transport-category airplane.

Type Certification Basis

    The type certification basis for the Model 777-300ER airplane is 14
CFR part 25, effective February 1, 1965, as amended by Amendments 25-1
through 25-98, including special conditions 25-295-SC, 25-187A-SC, and
25-569-SC. In addition, the certification basis includes certain
special conditions, exemptions, or later amended sections of the
applicable part that are not relevant to these proposed special
conditions.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the Boeing Model 777-300ER airplane
because of a novel or unusual

design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions
of Sec.  21.16.
    Under the provisions of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR) 21.101, Boeing must show that the Model 777-300ER airplane, as
changed, continues to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations
listed in type certificate no. T00001SE or the applicable regulations
in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier
amendments as agreed upon by the FAA. These regulations will be
incorporated into type certificate no. T00001SE after type
certification approval of the 777-300ER.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Boeing Model 777-300ER airplane must comply with the
fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the
noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type
certification basis under Sec.  21.101.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Boeing Model 777-300ER airplane will incorporate the following
novel or unusual design features:
    The seating configuration proposed by Boeing in certification plan
no. 17174, revision A, ``Installation of B/E Aerospace Super-Diamond
Model Business Class Seats on WE736,'' consists of Super Diamond model
oblique (side-facing), business-class passenger seats installed in a
Boeing Model 777-300ER airplane. These seats will also incorporate
inflatable restraints.
    The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for occupants of seats installed in the
proposed configuration. To provide a level of safety equivalent to that
afforded to occupants of forward- and aft-facing seats, additional
airworthiness standards, in the form of special conditions, are
necessary. Although special conditions no. 25-187A-SC, 25-295-SC, and
25-569-SC already apply to the 777-300ER, they do not directly address
the complex occupant-loading conditions introduced by this oblique
(side-facing) seat configuration, nor do they reflect the latest
findings of on-going research.

Discussion

    Amendment 25-15 to part 25, dated October 24, 1967, introduced the
subject of side-facing seats, and a requirement that each occupant in a
side-facing seat must be protected from head injury by a safety belt
and a cushioned rest that will support the arms, shoulders, head, and
spine.
    Subsequently, Amendment 25-20, dated April 23, 1969, clarified the
definition of side-facing seats to require that each occupant of a seat
that is positioned at more than an 18-degree angle to the vertical
plane containing the airplane centerline must be protected from head
injury by a safety belt and an energy-absorbing rest that supports the
arms, shoulders, head, and spine; or by a safety belt and shoulder
harness that prevents the head from contacting injurious objects. The
FAA concluded that a maximum 18-degree angle would provide an adequate
level of safety based on tests that were performed at the time, and
thus adopted that standard.
    Amendment 25-64, dated June 16, 1988, revised the emergency-landing
conditions that must be considered in the design of the airplane. It
revised the static-load conditions in Sec.  25.561 and added a new
Sec.  25.562, requiring dynamic testing for all seats approved for
occupancy during takeoff and landing. The intent was to provide an
improved level of safety for occupants on transport-category airplanes.
Because most seating on transport-category airplanes is forward-facing,
the pass/fail criteria developed in Amendment 25-64 focused primarily
on forward-facing seats. Therefore, the testing specified in the rule
did not provide a complete measure of occupant injury in seats that are
not forward-facing. However, Sec.  25.785 does require that occupants
of all seats occupied during taxi, takeoff, and landing not suffer
serious injury as a result of the inertia forces specified in
Sec. Sec.  25.561 and 25.562.
    To address recent research findings and accommodate commercial
demand, the FAA developed a methodology to address all fully side-
facing seats (i.e., seats oriented in the airplane with the occupant
facing 90 degrees to the direction of airplane travel) and has
documented those requirements in a set of proposed new special
conditions. The FAA issued policy statement PS-ANM-25-03-R1 on November
12, 2012, titled, ``Technical Criteria for Approving Side-Facing
Seats,'' which conveys the injury criteria to be used in the special
conditions. Some of those criteria are applicable to oblique seats, but
others are not because the motion of an occupant in an oblique seat is
different from the motion of an occupant in a fully side-facing seat
during emergency-landing conditions.
    For shallower installation angles, the FAA has granted equivalent
level of safety (ELOS) findings for oblique seat installations on the
premise that an occupant's kinematics in an oblique seat during a
forward impact would result in the body aligning with the impact
direction. We predicted that the occupant response would be similar to
an occupant of a forward-facing seat, and would produce a level of
safety equivalent to that of a forward-facing seat. These ELOS findings
were subject to many conditions that reflected the injury-evaluation
criteria and mitigation strategies available at the time of issuance of
the ELOS. However, review of dynamic test results for many of these
oblique seat installations raised concerns that the premise was not
correct. Potential injury mechanisms exist that are unique to oblique
seats and are not mitigated by the ELOS self-alignment approach even if
the occupant appears to respond similarly to a forward-facing seat.
    These special conditions contain the additional safety standards
that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of
safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness
standards.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
Boeing Model 777-300ER airplane. These special conditions can be
applied to oblique seats installed in accordance with Boeing
certification plan no. 17174, revision A, ``Installation of B/E
Aerospace Super-Diamond Business Class Seats on WE736.''
    The FAA will amend these special conditions, or issue new special
conditions, should unusual occupant response in the required dynamic
tests, or additional research into occupant-injury mechanisms, indicate
that these special conditions are inadequate. Any future special
conditions would include due public notice for comment.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability.
    Under standard practice, the effective date of final special
conditions would be 30 days after the date of publication in the
Federal Register; however, as the certification date for the Boeing
Model 777-300ER airplane, as modified by Boeing, is imminent, the FAA
finds that good cause exists to make these special conditions effective
upon publication in the Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for Boeing Model 777-300ER airplanes
modified by Boeing.

Oblique (Side-Facing) Seats Special Conditions

    In addition to the requirements of Sec.  25.562:
1. Head Injury Criteria (HIC)
    Compliance with Sec.  25.562(c)(5) is required, except that, if the
anthropomorphic test device (ATD) has no apparent contact with the seat
and related structure but has contact with an airbag, a HIC unlimited
score in excess of 1000 is acceptable, provided the HIC15 score
(calculated in accordance with 49 CFR 571.208) for that contact is less
than 700.
2. Body-to-Wall/Furnishing Contact
    If a seat is installed aft of structure (e.g. interior wall or
furnishings) that does not provide a homogenous contact surface for the
expected range of occupants and yaw angles, then additional analysis
and tests may be required to demonstrate that the injury criteria are
met for the area which an occupant could contact. For example, if
different yaw angles could result in different airbag device
performance, then additional analysis or separate tests may be
necessary to evaluate performance.
3. Neck Injury Criteria
    a. The seating system must protect the occupant from experiencing
serious neck injury. The assessment of neck injury must be conducted
with the airbag device activated, unless there is reason to also
consider that the neck-injury potential would be higher for impacts
below the airbag-device deployment threshold.
    b. The Nij, calculated in accordance with 49 CFR
571.208, must be below 1.0, where Nij =Fz/
Fzc + My/Myc, and Nij
critical values are:

i. Fzc = 1530 lb for tension
ii. Fzc = 1385 lb for compression
iii. Myc = 229 lb-ft in flexion
iv. Myc = 100 lb-ft in extension

    c. In addition, peak upper-neck Fz must be below 937 lb
in tension and 899 lb in compression.
    d. Rotation of the head about its vertical axis relative to the
torso is limited to 105 degrees in either direction from forward-
facing.
    e. The neck must not impact any surface that would produce
concentrated loading on the neck.
4. Spine and Torso Injury Criteria
    a. The lumbar spine tension (Fz) cannot exceed 1200 lb.
    b. Significant concentrated loading on the occupant's spine, in the
area between the pelvis and shoulders during impact, including rebound,
is not acceptable. During this type of contact, the interval for any
rearward (X-axis direction) acceleration exceeding 20g must be less
than 3 milliseconds as measured by the thoracic instrumentation
specified in 49 CFR part 572, subpart E, filtered in accordance with
SAE International (SAE) Recommended Practice J211/1, ``Instrumentation
for Impact Test-Part 1-Electronic Instrumentation.''
    c. The occupant must not interact with the armrest or other seat
components in any manner significantly different than would be expected
for a forward-facing seat installation.
5. Pelvis Criteria
    Any part of the load-bearing portion of the bottom of the ATD
pelvis must not translate beyond the edges of the seat bottom seat-
cushion supporting structure.
6. Femur Criteria
    Axial rotation of the upper leg (about the Z-axis of the femur, per
SAE Recommended Practice J211/1) must be limited to 35 degrees in the
strike direction from the nominal seating position. Evaluation during
rebound need not be considered.
7. ATD and Test Conditions
    Longitudinal tests conducted to measure the injury criteria above
must be performed with the FAA Hybrid III ATD, as described in SAE
1999-01-1609, ``A Lumbar Spine Modification to the Hybrid III ATD For
Aircraft Seat Tests.'' The tests must be conducted with an undeformed
floor, at the most-critical yaw cases for injury, and with all lateral
structural supports (e.g. armrests or walls) installed.

Inflatable Lapbelt Special Conditions

    The inflatable lapbelts must meet special conditions no. 25-187A-
SC, ``Boeing Model 777 Series Airplanes; Seats with Inflatable
Lapbelts.''

    Note: As indicated in special conditions no. 25-187A-SC,
inflatable lapbelts must be shown to not affect emergency-egress
capabilities in the main aisle, cross-aisle, and passageway.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 8, 2016.
Michael Kaszycki,
Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-18323 Filed 8-2-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P