[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 22 (Wednesday, February 2, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 5660]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02046]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 1

[Docket No. FDA-2019-N-3325]
RIN 0910-AH31

Laboratory Accreditation for Analyses of Foods; Correction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS).

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is correcting a
final rule that appeared in the Federal Register on December 3, 2021.
The document amended our regulations to establish a program for the
testing of food in certain circumstances by accredited laboratories, as
required under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The final rule
published with some editorial and inadvertent errors. This document
corrects those errors.

DATES: Effective February 1, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stacie Hammack, Food and Feed
Laboratory Operations, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Food and Drug
Administration, 60 8th Street NE, Atlanta, GA 30309,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of Friday, December
3, 2021, in FR Doc. 2021-25716, appearing on page 68728, the following
corrections are made:

PART 1--GENERAL ENFORCEMENT REGULATIONS

Subpart R [Corrected]

0
1. On page 68817, in the second column, in part 1, subpart R, the table
of contents entry for Sec.  1.1124 is corrected to read ``What are the
records requirements for a recognized accreditation body?''.

0
2. On page 68823, in the first column, in part 1, subpart R, the
undesignated heading between Sec. Sec.  1.1125 and 1.1130 is corrected
to read ``FDA Oversight of Recognized Accreditation Bodies''.

Sec.  1.1131  [Corrected]

0
3. On page 68823, in the second column, Sec.  1.1131(a)(2) is corrected
by removing ``ISO/IEC 17011:2017 section 9.5'' and adding ``ISO/IEC
17011:2017(E) section 9.5'' in its place.

    Dated: January 25, 2022.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-02046 Filed 2-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: October 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 202)]
[Notices]
[Page 61744]
[DOCID:fr19oc06-54]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-18-000]

Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in
FERC Gas Tariff

October 13, 2006.
    Take notice that on October 10, 2006 Eastern Shore Natural Gas
Company (Eastern Shore) tendered for filing revised tariff sheets,
proposed to be effective October 1, 2006:

Sixty-First Revised Sheet No. 7.
Sixty-First Revised Sheet No. 8.

    Eastern Shore states that copies of its filing have been mailed to
its customers and interested state commissions.
    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 and 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 in accordance with the provisions of
section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not 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 14 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 e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-17487 Filed 10-18-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 614-615]
[FR Doc No: 2010-33267]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63619; File No. SR-Phlx-2010-181]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change as Modified by Amendment No. 1
Thereto by NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC Relating to Active SQF Port Fee

December 29, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on December 16, 2010, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Exchange submitted an amendment to the proposed rule change on December
29, 2010 (``Amendment No. 1'') to clarify the purpose of the proposed
fee change. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Active Specialized Quote Feed
(``SQF'') Port Fee to create a tiered schedule of fees.
    While changes to the Exchange's Fee Schedule pursuant to this
proposal are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated this
proposal to be operative for trades occurring on and after January 3,
2011.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=PHLXfilings, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Active SQF
Port Fees to establish a tiered schedule of fees.\3\ SQF is an
interface that enables specialists, Streaming Quote Traders (``SQTs'')
and Remote Streaming Quote Traders (``RSQTs'') to connect and send
quotes into Phlx XL. The Exchange released SQF 6.0 on October 11,
2010.\4\ The Exchange anticipates that member organizations will
utilize both SQF 5.0 and SQF 6.0 for a period of time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Active SQF ports refer to ports that receive inbound quotes
at any time within that month.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63034 (October 4,
2010), 75 FR 62441 (October 8, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-124).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the Exchange assesses an Active SQF Port Fee of $500 per
month per port. The Exchange would propose to eliminate the $500 Active
Port Fee and instead assess members an Active Port Fee as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Cost per port
               Number of Active SQF Ports                    per month
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0-4.....................................................            $350
5-18....................................................           1,250
19-40...................................................           2,350
40 and over.............................................           3,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to cap the Active SQF Port Fees at $40,000
per month through March 31, 2011 (``Cap''). On April 1, 2011, there
will no longer be a Cap in effect for the Active SQF Port Fee. The
purpose of the Cap is to ensure member organizations are not assessed
fees in excess of the Active SQF Port fees, which fees would have been
charged under the fixed rate of $500 per month per port, during the
transition from SQF 5.0 to SQF 6.0.\5\ The Exchange believes that
member organizations will utilize less SQF 6.0 ports than SQF 5.0 ports
and that all member organizations should have transitioned to SQF 6.0
by March 31, 2011. The Exchange believes that the proposed tiered
Active SQF Port Fees will create a more efficient use of Exchange
resources by providing members an incentive to utilize the minimum
number of ports necessary for their business. The Exchange believes
that all members will benefit from a faster and more efficient system
if ports are efficiently utilized by members.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63034 (October 4,
2010), 75 FR 62441 (October 8, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-124).
    \6\ See Amendment No. 1 (adding the preceding two sentences).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange will continue to account for the number of SQF
interfaces in order that member organizations are not assessed port
fees for use of the prior version of the interface (SQF 5.0) while
transitioning to (and paying for) the new version (SQF 6.0).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63145 (October 21,
2010), 75 FR 66168 (October 21, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-143) (a proposal
to amend the Active SQF Port Fee so that member organizations are
not assessed a fee for use of SQF 5.0 active ports to the extent the
member is paying for the same (or greater) number of SQF 6.0 active
ports).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While changes to the Exchange's Fee Schedule pursuant to this
proposal are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated this
proposal to be operative on January 3, 2011.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \8\ in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \9\ in particular, in that
it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees and other charges
among Exchange members and other persons using its facilities. The
Exchange believes that assessing fees at the aforementioned rates is
equitable because the fee would be applied equally to all members. The
Exchange also believes that the proposal is reasonable because through
the transition period the Exchange is proposing a Cap to ensure members
are not burdened by proposed tiered schedule of fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \10\ and paragraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 \11\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2010-181 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2010-181. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2010-181 and should be
submitted on or before January 26, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-33267 Filed 1-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 141 (Wednesday, July 23, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42745-42752]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17323]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0486; FRL-9914-26-Region-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Commonwealth
of Kentucky: New Source Review for Fine Particulate Matter
(PM2.5)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve changes to the Kentucky State Implementation Plan (SIP),
submitted by the Commonwealth of Kentucky, through the Kentucky
Division for Air Quality (KDAQ) to EPA on January 31, 2013. The SIP
revision modifies the Commonwealth's New Source Review (NSR),
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), and Nonattainment New
Source Review (NNSR) regulations to adopt into the Kentucky SIP Federal
NSR permitting requirements for the implementation of the fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS). All of the changes in Kentucky's January 31, 2013
SIP submission are necessary to comply with Federal requirements. EPA
is proposing approval of the Commonwealth's January 31, 2013 revision
to the Kentucky SIP because the Agency has preliminarily determined
that the changes are consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).
Additionally, EPA is proposing to convert two conditional approvals for
SIP infrastructure requirements (related to Kentucky's permitting
program) to full approval under the CAA.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 22, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No EPA-R04-
OAR-2013-0486, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0486 Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. Lynorae Benjamin, Chief,
Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours
of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2013-0486. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or
email information that you consider to be CBI

or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding the Kentucky
SIP, contact Ms. Twunjala Bradley, Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For information regarding NSR,
contact Ms. Yolanda Adams, Air Permits Section, at the same address
above. Telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For information regarding PM2.5
NAAQS, contact Mr. Joel Huey, Regulatory Development Section, at the
same address above. Telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What action is EPA proposing?
II. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?
III. EPA's Conversion of Conditional Approval of the Commonwealth's
SIP
IV. What is EPA's analysis of the Commonwealth's SIP revision?
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA proposing?

    On January 31, 2013, KDAQ submitted a SIP revision to EPA for
approval into the Kentucky SIP to adopt Federal requirements for NSR
permitting. The Commonwealth's SIP revision makes changes to the
regulations at Kentucky's Air Quality Regulations, 401 KAR 51:001--
Definitions for 401-KAR Chapter 51; 401 KAR 51:017--Prevention of
significant deterioration of air quality and 401 KAR 51:052--Review of
new sources in or impacting upon nonattainment areas to adopt NSR
requirements related to the implementation of the PM2.5 \1\
NAAQS as promulgated in the rulemakings entitled ``Implementation of
the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less Than
2.5 Micrometers,'' Final Rule, 73 FR 28321 (May 16, 2008) (hereafter
referred to as the NSR PM2.5 Rule) and ``Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5
Micrometers (PM2.5)--Increments, Significant Impact Levels
(SILs) and Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC),'' Final Rule, 75
FR 64864 (October 20, 2010) (hereafter referred to as the
``PM2.5 PSD Increments-SILs-SMC Rule'') to comply with
Federal NSR permitting regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 and 51.165.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Airborne particulate matter (PM) with a nominal aerodynamic
diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (a micrometer is one-millionth
of a meter, and 2.5 micrometers is less than one-seventh the average
width of a human hair) are considered to be ``fine particles'' and
are also known as PM2.5. Fine particles in the atmosphere
are made up of a complex mixture of components including sulfate;
nitrate; ammonium; elemental carbon; a great variety of organic
compounds; and inorganic material (including metals, dust, sea salt,
and other trace elements) generally referred to as ``crustal''
material, although it may contain material from other sources. The
health effects associated with exposure to PM2.5 include
potential aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease
(i.e., lung disease, decreased lung function, asthma attacks and
certain cardiovascular issues). On July 18, 1997, EPA revised the
NAAQS for PM to add new standards for fine particles, using
PM2.5 as the indicator. Previously, EPA used
PM10 (inhalable particles smaller than or equal to 10
micrometers in diameter) as the indicator for the PM NAAQS. EPA
established health-based (primary) annual and 24-hour standards for
PM2.5, setting an annual standard at a level of 15.0
micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\) and a 24-hour standard at
a level of 65 [micro]g/m\3\. See 62 FR 38652. At the time the 1997
primary standards were established, EPA also established welfare-
based (secondary) standards identical to the primary standards. The
secondary standards are designed to protect against major
environmental effects of PM2.5, such as visibility
impairment, soiling, and materials damage. On October 17, 2006, EPA
revised the primary and secondary 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5
to 35 [micro]g/m\3\ and retained the existing annual
PM2.5 NAAQS of 15.0 [micro]g/m\3\. See 71 FR 61236. On
January 15, 2013, EPA published a final rule revising the annual
PM2.5 NAAQS to 12 [micro]g/m\3\. See 78 FR 3086.
    \2\ EPA's regulations governing the implementation of NSR
permitting programs are contained in 40 CFR sections 51.160-.166;
52.21, .24; and part 51, Appendix S. The CAA NSR program is composed
of three separate programs: PSD, NNSR, and Minor NSR. PSD is
established in part C of title I of the CAA and applies in areas
that meet the NAAQS--``attainment areas''--as well as areas where
there is insufficient information to determine if the area meets the
NAAQS--``unclassifiable areas.'' The NNSR program is established in
part D of title I of the CAA and applies in areas that are not in
attainment of the NAAQS--``nonattainment areas.'' The Minor NSR
program addresses construction or modification activities that do
not qualify as ``major'' and applies regardless of the designation
of the area in which a source is located. Together, these programs
are referred to as the NSR programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Commonwealth's January 31, 2013 SIP submission
satisfies EPA's multiple conditional approvals of the PSD-related
requirements for sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and
110(a)(2)(J) of Kentucky's infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. As a result, EPA is
proposing to convert from conditional approval to full approval KDAQ's
infrastructure requirements related to its PSD program. More details on
EPA's conditional approvals are discussed in section III of this
rulemaking.
    EPA is not, however, proposing action to approve into the Kentucky
SIP the PM2.5 SILs and SMC thresholds and provisions
promulgated in EPA's PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule, 75
FR 64864 (October 20, 2010).\3\ More information regarding EPA's
decision to not take action on these provisions is provided below in
section II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the portions of
the PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule addressing the SMC
and SILs (and remanded the SILs portion to EPA for further
consideration). See Sierra Club v. EPA, 705 F.3d 458 (D.C. Cir.
2013).

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

II. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?

    Today's proposed action to revise the Kentucky SIP relates to EPA's
NSR PM2.5 Rule and the PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-
SMC Rule. Together these two rules address the NSR permitting
requirements needed to implement the PM2.5 NAAQS. The
Commonwealth's January 31, 2013 revision adopts into the Kentucky SIP
the PSD and NNSR requirements promulgated in these two rules to be
consistent with Federal regulations. More detail on the NSR
PM2.5 Rule, PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule,
the PM2.5 NAAQS and the NSR program can be found in EPA's
May 16, 2008 and October 20, 2010 final rules and are summarized below.
See 73 FR 28321 and 75 FR 64864, respectively.

A. NSR PM2.5 Implementation Rule

    On May 16, 2008, EPA finalized the NSR PM2.5 Rule to
implement the PM2.5 NAAQS for the NSR permitting program.
See 73 FR 28321. The NSR PM2.5 Rule revised the Federal NSR
program requirements to establish the framework for implementing
preconstruction permit review for the PM2.5 NAAQS in both
attainment and nonattainment areas (NAA). Specifically, the NSR
PM2.5 Rule established the following NSR provisions to
implement the PM2.5 NAAQS: (1) required NSR permits to
address directly emitted PM2.5 and certain precursor
pollutants; (2) established significant emission rates for direct
PM2.5 and precursor pollutants (including sulfur dioxide
(SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOX); (3) established
NNSR PM2.5 emission offsets; and (4) required states to
account for gases that condense to form particles (condensables) in
PM2.5 and PM10 applicability determinations and
emission limits in PSD and NNSR permits; and (5) provided a
grandfathering provision in the federal program for certain pending
PM2.5 permit applications.\4\ Additionally, the NSR
PM2.5 Rule authorized states to adopt provisions in their
NNSR rules that would allow interpollutant offset trading.\5\ The
Commonwealth's January 31, 2013 SIP revision addresses a portion of the
PSD and NNSR provisions established in EPA's May 16, 2008 NSR
PM2.5 Rule. A few key issues described in greater detail
below include the NSR PM2.5 litigation and the PM
condensable correction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ On May 18, 2011, EPA took final action to repeal the
PM2.5 grandfathering provision at 40 CFR 52.21(i)(1)(xi).
This final action ended the use of the 1997 PM10
Surrogate Policy for PSD permits under the Federal PSD program at 40
CFR 52.21. See 76 FR 28646. In effect, any PSD permit applicant
previously covered by the grandfathering provision (for sources that
completed and submitted a permit application before July 15, 2008)
that did not have a final and effective PSD permit before the
effective date of the repeal would no longer be able to rely on the
1997 PM10 Surrogate Policy to satisfy the PSD
requirements for PM2.5 unless the application included a
valid surrogacy demonstration. The final rule also confirmed that
states with SIP-approved PSD permitting programs could no longer
rely on the PM10 Surrogate Policy to satisfy the PSD
requirements for PM2.5. The Commonwealth's January 31,
2013 SIP revision does not rely on the PM10 Surrogate
Policy. For more information on the PM10 Surrogate and
Grandfathering Policy, see 76 FR 28646 (May 18, 2011), as well as an
August 12, 2009, final order on a title V petition describing the
use of PM10 as a surrogate for PM2.5 entitled
``In re Louisville Gas & Electric Company, Petition No. IV-2008-3,
Order on Petition.''
    \5\ The Commonwealth's January 31, 2013 SIP submission did not
adopt the NNSR interpollutant offset trading provisions EPA codified
at 51.165(a)(11). The preferred trading ratios announced in the rule
preamble were the subject of a petition to reconsider which was
granted by the Administrator. As a result of the reconsideration,
EPA issued a memorandum on June 20, 2011, providing that the ratios
were no longer supported by the agency as being presumptively
approvable for adoption in SIPs containing NNSR programs for
PM2.5. See EPA's June 20, 2011 Memorandum entitled
``Revised Policy to Address Reconsideration of Interpollutant
Trading Provisions for Fine Particles (PM2.5)'' at http://www.epa.gov/nsr/guidance.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. PM2.5 Implementation Rule(s) Litigation
    On January 4, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit issued a judgment \6\ that remanded EPA's
April 25, 2007 \7\ and May 16, 2008 PM2.5 implementation
rules implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. See Natural
Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). The
court found that because the statutory definition of PM10
(see section 302(t) of the CAA) included particulate matter with an
aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 micrometers, it
necessarily includes PM2.5. EPA had developed the 2007 and
2008 (or NSR PM2.5 Rule) rules consistent with the general
NAA requirements of subpart 1 of Part D, title I, of the CAA. Relative
to subpart 1, subpart 4 of Part D, title I, includes additional
provisions that apply to PM10 NAA and is more specific about
what states must do to bring areas into attainment through, among other
things, the establishment of a two tier classification system for NAA
(moderate or serious). The court concluded that since subpart 4 of the
CAA generally applies to PM10, EPA should have also followed
the more prescriptive subpart 4 structure for the PM2.5
implementation rules. The court ordered EPA to repromulgate the
implementation rules pursuant to subpart 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, American
Lung Association, and Medical Advocates for Healthy Air challenged
before the D.C. Circuit EPA's April 25, 2007 (72 FR 20586) Rule
entitled ``Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule,'' that
established detailed implementation regulations to assist states
with the development of SIPs to demonstrate attainment for the 1997
annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and the separate May 16,
2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule (the subject of today's proposed
rulemaking). Today's proposed rulemaking only pertains to the
impacts of the court's decision on the May 16, 2008 NSR
PM2.5 Rule and not the April 25, 2007 implementation rule
as the Commonwealth's January 31, 2013 SIP revision proposes to
adopt the NSR permitting provisions established in the NSR
PM2.5 Rule.
    \7\ ``Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule'' (hereafter
referred to as the 2007 Rule); Final Rule, 72 FR 20586 (April 25,
2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, subpart 4 includes section 189(e) of the CAA, which
requires the control of major stationary sources of PM10
precursors (and hence under the court decision, PM2.5
precursors) ``except where the Administrator determines that such
sources do not contribute significantly to PM10 levels which
exceed the standard in the area.''
    Subpart 4 pertains exclusively to particulate matter NAA, and the
Court did not address EPA's implementation of the PM2.5
NAAQS under part C or the PSD program. Thus, EPA does not interpret the
court's decision as affecting implementation of the PSD requirements
established in the May 16, 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule and does not
anticipate the need to revise any PSD requirements promulgated in the
NSR PM2.5 Rule in order to comply with the court's decision.
    On June 2, 2014, EPA published a final rule \8\ which, in part,
sets a December 31, 2014 deadline for states to make any remaining
required attainment-related and NNSR SIP submissions, pursuant to and
considering the application of subpart 4. See 79 FR 31566. Further
analysis of this litigation in relation to Kentucky's SIP revision is
discussed in section IV.A. The Court's January 4, 2013, decision can be
found in the docket for today's proposed rulemaking using Docket ID:
EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0486.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The final rule entitled ``Identification of Nonattainment
Classification and Deadlines for Submission of State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Provisions for the 1997 Fine Particle (PM2.5)
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.'' This final rule also identifies the
initial classification of current 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
nonattainment areas as moderate and the EPA guidance and relevant
rulemakings that are currently available regarding implementation of
subpart 4 requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. ``Condensable PM'' Correction
    In the NSR PM2.5 Rule, EPA revised the definition of
``regulated NSR pollutant'' for PSD to add a paragraph providing that
``particulate matter (PM) emissions, PM2.5 emissions and
PM10

emissions'' shall include gaseous emissions from a source or activity
which condense to form particulate matter at ambient temperatures and
that on or after January 1, 2011, such condensable particulate matter
shall be accounted for in applicability determinations and in
establishing emissions limitations for PM, PM2.5 and
PM10 in permits. See 73 FR 28321. A similar paragraph added
to the NNSR rule does not include ``particulate matter (PM)
emissions.'' See 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xxxvii)(D).
    On October 25, 2012, EPA took final action to amend the definition
of ``regulated NSR pollutant'' promulgated in the NSR PM2.5
Rule regarding the PM condensable provision at 40 CFR
51.166(b)(49)(vi), 52.21(b)(50)(i) and EPA's Emissions Offset
Interpretative Ruling. See 77 FR 65107. The rulemaking removed the
inadvertent requirement in the NSR PM2.5 Rule that the
measurement of condensable ``particulate matter emissions'' be included
as part of the measurement and regulation of ``particulate matter
emissions.'' The term ``particulate matter emissions'' includes
filterable particles that are larger than PM2.5 or
PM10 and is an indicator measured under various New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) (40 CFR part 60).\9\ The Commonwealth's
January 31, 2013 SIP revision adopts EPA's definition for regulated NSR
pollutant requiring states to consider condensables (at 40 CFR
51.166(b)(49)(vi)), excluding the term ``particulate matter
emissions.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In addition to the NSPS for PM, it is noted that states
regulated ``particulate matter emissions'' for many years in their
SIPs for PM, and the same indicator has been used as a surrogate for
determining compliance with certain standards contained in 40 CFR
part 63, regarding National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. PM2.5 PSD-Increment-SILs-SMC Rule

    The October 20, 2010 final rulemaking established PM2.5
increments pursuant to section 166(a) of the CAA to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality in areas meeting the NAAQS. Today's action
pertains only to the PM2.5 increments (and relevant related
implementing provisions) promulgated in the October 20, 2010, rule.\10\
The Commonwealth's January 31, 2013 SIP revision adopts NSR changes
promulgated in the PM2.5 PSD Increments-SILs-SMC Rule to be
consistent with the Federal NSR regulations and to appropriately
implement the State's NSR program for the PM2.5 NAAQS. For
the reasons explained below, EPA is not proposing in this rulemaking to
take action to approve the Commonwealth's proposed revisions related to
the SILs (at paragraph (k)(2) of section 51.166 and 52.21) and SMC (at
paragraph (i)(5) of section 51.166 and 52.21) promulgated in the
PM2.5 PSD Increments-SILs-SMC Rule into the Kentucky SIP.
The SILs and SMC portions of the PM2.5 PSD Increments-SILs-
SMC Rule were vacated (and in the case of the SILs, also remanded to
EPA) by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 705
F.3d 458 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The October 20, 2010, rule also established
PM2.5 SILs and SMC. See 75 FR 64864, 64900. These two
provisions were the subject of litigation by the Sierra Club. See
section IV of this rulemaking for more information on the litigation
or in the docket for today's proposed action using docket ID: EPA-
R04-OAR-2013-0486.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. What are PSD increments?
    As established in part C of title I of the CAA, EPA's PSD program
protects public health from adverse effects of air pollution by
ensuring that construction of new or modified sources in attainment or
unclassifiable areas does not lead to significant deterioration of air
quality while simultaneously ensuring that economic growth will occur
in a manner consistent with preservation of clean air resources. Under
section 165(a)(3) of the CAA, a PSD permit applicant must demonstrate
that emissions from the proposed construction and operation of a
facility ``will not cause, or contribute to, air pollution in excess of
any maximum allowable increase or allowable concentration for any
pollutant.'' In other words, when a source applies for a permit to emit
a regulated pollutant in an area that is designated as attainment or
unclassifiable for a NAAQS, the state and EPA must determine if
emissions of the regulated pollutant from the source will cause
significant deterioration in air quality. Significant deterioration
occurs when the amount of the new pollution exceeds the applicable PSD
increment, which is the ``maximum allowable increase'' of an air
pollutant allowed to occur above the applicable baseline concentration
\11\ for that pollutant. Therefore, an increment is the mechanism used
to estimate ``significant deterioration'' of air quality for a
pollutant in an area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Section 169(4) of the CAA provides that the baseline
concentration of a pollutant for a particular baseline area is
generally the air quality at the time of the first application for a
PSD permit in the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For purposes of calculating increment consumption, a baseline area
for a particular pollutant includes the attainment or unclassifiable
area in which the source is located as well as any other attainment or
unclassifiable area in which the source's emissions of that pollutant
are projected (by air quality modeling) to result in an ambient
pollutant increase of at least 1 microgram per meter cubed ([mu]g/m\3\)
(annual average). See 40 CFR 52.21(b)(15)(i). Under EPA's existing
regulations, the establishment of a baseline area for any PSD increment
results from the submission of the first complete PSD permit
application and is based on the location of the proposed source and its
emissions impact on the area. Once the baseline area is established,
subsequent PSD sources locating in that area need to consider that a
portion of the available increment may have already been consumed by
previous emissions increases. In general, the submittal date of the
first complete PSD permit application in a particular area is the
operative ``minor source baseline date'' after which new sources must
evaluate increment consumption.\12\ On or before the date of the first
complete PSD application, emissions generally are considered to be part
of the baseline concentration, except for certain emissions from major
stationary sources. Most emissions increases that occur after the minor
source baseline date will be counted toward the amount of increment
consumed. Similarly, emissions decreases after the applicable baseline
date restore or expand the amount of increment that is available. See
75 FR 64864. As described in the PM2.5 PSD Increments-SILs-
SMC Rule, and pursuant to the authority under section 166(a) of the
CAA, EPA promulgated numerical increments for PM2.5 as a new
pollutant \13\ for which NAAQS were established after August 7,
1977,\14\ and derived 24-hour and annual PM2.5 increments
for the three area classifications (Class I, II and III). See 75 FR
64864 at 64869 and the ambient air

increment table at 40 CFR 51.166(c)(1) and 52.21(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Baseline dates are pollutant-specific. That is, a complete
PSD application establishes the baseline date only for those
regulated NSR pollutants that are projected to be emitted in
significant amounts (as defined in the regulations) by the
applicant's new source or modification. Thus, an area may have
different baseline dates for different pollutants.
    \13\ EPA generally characterized the PM2.5 NAAQS as a
NAAQS for a new indicator of PM. EPA did not replace the
PM10 NAAQS with the NAAQS for PM2.5 when the
PM2.5 NAAQS were promulgated in 1997. EPA rather retained
the annual and 24-hour NAAQS for PM10 (retaining
PM10 as an indicator of coarse particulate matter),and
treated PM2.5 as a new pollutant for purposes of
developing increments even though EPA had already developed air
quality criteria for PM generally. See 75 FR 64864 (October 20,
2010).
    \14\ EPA interprets section 166(a) to authorize EPA to
promulgate pollutant-specific PSD regulations meeting the
requirements of section 166(c) and 166(d) for any pollutant for
which EPA promulgates a NAAQS after 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to PSD increments for the PM2.5 NAAQS, the
PM2.5 PSD Increments-SILs-SMC Rule amended the definition at
40 CFR 51.166 and 52.21 for ``major source baseline date'' and ``minor
source baseline date'' (including trigger dates) to establish the
PM2.5 NAAQS specific dates associated with the
implementation of PM2.5 PSD increments. See 75 FR 64864. In
accordance with section 166(b) of the CAA, EPA required the states to
submit revised implementation plans to EPA for approval (to adopt the
PM2.5 PSD increments) within 21 months from promulgation of
the final rule (by July 20, 2012). Regardless of when a state submits
its revised SIP, the emissions from major sources subject to PSD for
PM2.5 for which construction commenced after October 20,
2010 (major source baseline date), consume PM2.5 increment
and should be included in the increment analyses occurring after the
minor source baseline date is established for an area under the state's
revised PSD program. See 75 FR 64864. As discussed above, the
Commonwealth's January 31, 2013 SIP revision adopts the
PM2.5 PSD increment permitting requirements, including the
implementing regulations discussed above, promulgated in the
PM2.5 PSD Increments-SILs-SMC Rule.
2. SILs and SMC Litigation
    For background purposes, the SILs and SMC portions of the
PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule, which EPA is not taking
action on today, are numerical values that represent thresholds of
insignificant modeled source impacts or monitored (ambient)
concentrations, respectively. EPA established such values to be used as
screening tools by a major source subject to PSD to determine the
subsequent level of analysis and data gathering required for a PSD
permit application for emissions of PM2.5.
    The Sierra Club challenged EPA's authority to implement the
PM2.5 SILs and SMC for PSD purposes as promulgated in the
October 20, 2010 PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule. See
Sierra Club v. EPA, 705 F.3d 458. On January 22, 2013, D.C. Circuit
granted a request from EPA to vacate and remand to the Agency the
portions of the October 20, 2010 rule addressing the SILs for
PM2.5 (found in paragraph (k)(2) in 40 CFR 51.166 and
52.21), except for the parts codifying the PM2.5 SILs in the
NSR rule at 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2), so that the EPA could voluntarily
correct an error in the provisions. Id. at 463-66. The Court also
vacated parts of the PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule
establishing the PM2.5 SMC, finding that the Agency had
exceeded its statutory authority with respect to these provisions. See
id. at 469. On December 9, 2013, EPA issued a final rulemaking to
remove the vacated and remanded PM2.5 SILs and the vacated
PM2.5 SMC provisions from 40 CFR 51.166 and 52.21.\15\ See
78 FR 73698.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Final Rule entitled ``Prevention of Significant
Deterioration for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers--
Significant Impact Levels and Significant Monitoring Concentration:
Removal of Vacated Elements.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The D.C. Circuit's decision can be found in the docket for today's
rulemaking at http://www.regulations.gov using docket ID: EPA-R04-OAR-
2013-0486.
    The Commonwealth's January 31, 2013 SIP revision adopts both the
PM2.5 SIL and SMC screening tools promulgated in EPA's
October 20, 2010, PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule.
However, as a result of the vacatur of these provisions, EPA is not
taking action at this time on any portions of KDAQ's SIP submission
regarding the PM2.5 SILs and SMC provisions as codified at
40 CFR 51.166 and 52.21. EPA will consider the Commonwealth's January
31, 2013 submission regarding the PM2.5 SILs and SMC
thresholds in an action separate from today's rulemaking.

III. EPA's Conversion of Conditional Approvals for the Commonwealth's
Infrastructure SIP

    In addition to adopting required NSR permitting regulations for the
implementation of the PM2.5 NAAQS, the Commonwealth's
January 31, 2013 SIP revision also satisfies EPA's conditional approval
of the Commonwealth's 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5,
and 2008 8-hour ozone 110(a)(2) infrastructure SIPs \16\ with respect
to the PSD-related requirements \17\ of sections 110(a)(2)(C),
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 3) and 110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA. Kentucky
submitted multiple SIP submissions to EPA for approval to address the
110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP requirements for the 1997 annual and 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (August 26, 2008 and July 17, 2012,
respectively), and the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (July 7, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The CAA requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP for
the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each NAAQS
promulgated by EPA, which is commonly referred to as an
``infrastructure'' SIP. Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA,
states are required to submit SIPs meeting the applicable
requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years after
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or within such shorter period
as EPA may prescribe. On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated the primary
1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS as 15 [micro]g/m\3\
and 65 [micro]g/m\3\ respectively. See 62 FR 38652. On October 17,
2006, EPA strengthened the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS to 35
[micro]g/m\3\. See 71 FR 61144. On March 27, 2008, EPA revised the
NAAQS for ozone based on an 8-hour average concentrations to 0.075
parts per million (ppm). See 73 FR 16436.
    \17\ There are four separate PSD related rulemakings that states
are required to adopt and have approved into their SIP in order to
maintain a comprehensive SIP-approved PSD permitting program and
comply with the PSD and enforcement requirements of 110(a)(2)
Infrastructure requirements for sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II)
and (J) of the CAA. These include: 1) ``Final Rule To Implement the
8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard--Phase 2 Rule;
Final Rule'' (which codified NOX as an ozone precursor
for NSR) (70 FR 71612, November 29, 2005); 2) ``Prevention of
Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule;
Final Rule'' (75 FR 31514, June 3, 2010); 3) the NSR
PM2.5 Rule and; 4) the PM2.5 PSD Increment-
SILs-SMC Rule (only as it relates to PM2.5 Increments).
See 77 FR 46352 (August 3, 2012), 78 FR 3867 (January 17, 2013) and
77 FR 72291 (December 5, 2012). Kentucky's January 31, 2013
submission satisfies two of the four required PSD rulemakings
mentioned above including the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule and the
PM2.5 Increments-SILs-SMC Rule (only as it relates to the
PSD increments). EPA approved the remaining PSD requirements for the
Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule and the Phase 2 Rule on December 29,
2010 (75 FR 81868) and on September 15, 2010 (75 FR 55988),
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 3, 2012, Kentucky submitted a letter requesting that EPA
conditionally approve the Commonwealth's infrastructure SIP submissions
with respect to PSD-related requirements for sections 110(a)(2)(C) and
110(a)(2)(J) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.\18\
Additionally, the Commonwealth submitted another correspondence on
December 19, 2012, requesting conditional approval for PSD-related
requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and
110(a)(2)(J) for the 2008 lead and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS
infrastructure submissions.\19\ Both letters documented the
Commonwealth's commitment to adopt and submit the PSD-related
provisions needed to comply with sections 110(a)(2)(C),
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 3) and 110(a)(2)(J) all in accordance with
section 110(k)(4) of the CAA to ensure a comprehensive PSD program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ EPA also relied upon Kentucky's July 3, 2012 commitment to
address the PSD-related requirements as the basis for conditionally
approving the Commonwealth's 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
infrastructure SIPs as they relate to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
See 78 FR 18241 (March 26, 2013). EPA had already conditionally
approved the Commonwealth's infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 and
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for the PSD-related requirements related
to sections 110(a)(2)(C) and (J) on October 3, 2012. See 77 FR
60307.
    \19\ EPA has not taken action on the Commonwealth's 2008 lead
Infrastructure SIP submission but will consider the action in a
separate rulemaking.

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

    EPA took action to approve in part and conditionally approve in
part portions of the Commonwealth's infrastructure SIP submissions for
the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on October 3, 2012, March 7,
2013, and March 26, 2013. See 77 FR 60307, 78 FR 14681, and 78 FR
18241, respectively. EPA's conditional approval of the Commonwealth's
PSD requirements for the section 110(a)(2) infrastructure SIPs
committed Kentucky to adopt and submit to EPA within one year of
publication of the final conditional approvals the required NSR
permitting regulations promulgated in the NSR PM2.5 Rule and
the PM2.5 PSD increments established in the 2010
PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule. As stated above, the
submission of the applicable portions of these rules into the Kentucky
SIP is necessary to comply with the PSD-related requirements of
sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 3) and 110(a)(2)(J)
of the infrastructure SIP for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    The Commonwealth's January 31, 2013 SIP revision satisfies the
conditions listed in EPA's previous conditional approvals for the
infrastructure submissions. Therefore, EPA is proposing action to
convert its conditional approvals with respect to the PSD-related
requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and
110(a)(2)(J) for the 2008 8-hour ozone, and the 1997 annual and 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS to full approval.

IV. What is EPA's analysis of the Commonwealth's SIP revision?

    The Commonwealth currently has a SIP-approved NSR program for new
and modified stationary sources found at 401 KAR Chapter 51. KDAQ's PSD
preconstruction regulations are found at 401 KAR Chapters 51:001 \20\
and 51:017 and apply to major stationary sources or modifications
constructed in areas designated attainment or unclassifiable/attainment
as required under part C of title I of the CAA with respect to the
NAAQS. The Commonwealth's NNSR regulations are found at Chapter 51:052
and apply to the construction and modification of any major stationary
source of air pollution in or impacting upon a nonattainment area, as
required by Part D of title I of the CAA. The Commonwealth's January
31, 2013 SIP submission includes changes to Chapter 51 that adopt into
the State's NSR permitting program provisions promulgated in the NSR
PM2.5 Rule and the PSD increments established in the
PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC rule. These changes to the
Commonwealth's regulations became state effective on December 7, 2012.
EPA is proposing to approve the changes to Chapter 51 into the
Commonwealth's SIP to be consistent with Federal NSR regulations (at 40
CFR 51.166) and the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The Commonwealth's 401 KAR Chapter 51:001 codifies
definitions that apply to sources applying for construction permits
in both attainment/unclassifiable and nonattainment areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. NSR PM2.5 Implementation Rule

    The Commonwealth's January 31, 2013 SIP revision establishes that
the Commonwealth's existing NSR permitting program requirements for PSD
and NNSR apply to the PM2.5 NAAQS and certain precursors.
Specifically, the SIP revision adopts the following NSR
PM2.5 Rule PSD and NNSR provisions into the Kentucky SIP:
(1) the requirement for PSD and NNSR permits to address directly
emitted PM2.5 and precursor pollutants (sulfur dioxide
(SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) (as codified at
40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xxxvii)(C) and 51.166(b)(49)); (2) the significant
emission rates for direct PM2.5 and precursor pollutants
(SO2 and NOx) (as codified at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(x)(A) and
51.166(b)(23)(i)); (3) the NNSR PM2.5 emission offsets (as
codified at 51.165(9)(i)) and (4) the PSD and NNSR requirement that
condensable PM10 and PM2.5 emissions be accounted
for in PSD applicability determinations and in establishing emissions
limitations for permitting (as codified at 40 CFR
51.165(a)(1)(xxxvii)(D) and 51.166(b)(49)). For the reasons discussed
below, the EPA is proposing to approve these revisions into the
Commonwealth's SIP.
    As discussed above in section II, the DC Circuit in Natural
Resources Defense Council v. EPA issued a decision that remanded the
EPA's NSR PM2.5 Rule rule implementing the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS. Relevant here, the NSR PM2.5 Rule
promulgated NSR requirements for implementation of PM2.5 in
both nonattainment areas and attainment/unclassifiable areas. The court
found that EPA erred in implementing the PM2.5 NAAQS in
these rules solely pursuant to the general implementation provisions of
subpart 1 of part D of title I of the Clean Air Act, rather than
pursuant to the additional implementation provisions specific to
particulate matter nonattainment areas in subpart 4. The Court ordered
the EPA to ``repromulgate these rules pursuant to Subpart 4 consistent
with this opinion.'' 706 F.3d at 437.
    On June 2, 2014, the EPA issued a final rulemaking that begins to
address the remand. See 79 FR 31566. Upon its effective date, the final
rule classifies all existing PM2.5 nonattainment areas as
``Moderate'' nonattainment areas and sets a deadline of December 31,
2014, for states to submit any SIP submissions, including NNSR SIPs,
that may be necessary to satisfy the requirements of subpart 4, part D,
title I of the CAA with respect to PM2.5 nonattainment
areas.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ EPA a deadline of December 31, 2014, for the states to
submit any additional attainment related SIP elements that may be
needed to meet the applicable requirements of subpart 4 for areas
currently designated nonattainment for the 1997 and/or 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS, and to submit SIPs addressing the NNSR
requirements in subpart 4. EPA believes that this period provides a
relatively brief but reasonable amount of time for states to
ascertain whether and to what extent any additional submissions are
needed for a particular 1997 or 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
nonattainment area, and to develop, adopt and submit any such SIPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a separate rulemaking process which will follow the June 2014
rule, EPA is evaluating the requirements of subpart 4 as they pertain
to NNSR for PM2.5 emissions. In particular, subpart 4
includes section 189(e) of the CAA, which requires the control of major
stationary sources of PM10 precursors ``except where the
Administrator determines that such sources do not contribute
significantly to PM10 levels which exceed the standard in
the area.'' Under the court's decision in NRDC, section 189(e) of the
CAA also applies to PM2.5.
    Kentucky's submission of revisions to its NNSR regulations at
Chapters 51:001 and 51:052 identify SO2 as a
PM2.5 precursor and NOX as a presumed
PM2.5 precursor while volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and
ammonia are presumed not to be PM2.5 precursors for a
PM2.5 NAA in the Commonwealth. These revisions, although
consistent with the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule as developed
consistent with subpart 1 of the Act, may not contain the elements
necessary to satisfy the CAA requirements when evaluated under the
subpart 4 statutory requirements. In particular, Kentucky's submission
does not include the regulation of VOCs and ammonia as PM2.5
precursors, nor does it include a demonstration consistent with section
189(e) showing that major sources of those precursor pollutants would
not contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels exceeding the
standard in the area. For these reasons, EPA cannot conclude at this
time that this part of Kentucky's NNSR submission of revisions to
Chapters 51:001 and 51:052 satisfies all of the requirements of subpart
4 as they pertain to PM2.5 NNSR permitting.

    Although the revisions to Kentucky's NNSR regulations at Chapters
51:001 and 51:052 may not contain all of the necessary elements to
satisfy the CAA requirements when evaluated under the subpart 4
provisions, the revisions themselves represent a strengthening of the
currently-approved Kentucky NNSR SIP which does not address
PM2.5 at all. As a result of the June 2, 2014 final rule,
Kentucky would have until December 31, 2014, to make any additional
submission necessary to address the requirements of subpart 4,
including addressing the PM2.5 precursors of VOC and ammonia
for NNSR permitting purposes. EPA is approving the NNSR revisions to
Kentucky's NNSR permitting program without listing the absence of
either the regulation or evaluation of VOCs and ammonia as
PM2.5 precursors as a deficiency at this time.
    Finally, as subpart 4 includes requirements only pertinent to NAA,
EPA does not consider the portions of the 2008 rule that address
requirements for PM2.5 attainment and unclassifiable areas
to be affected by the court's opinion in NRDC v. EPA. Moreover, EPA
does not anticipate the need to revise any PSD requirements promulgated
in the NSR PM2.5 Rule in order to comply with the court's
decision. Accordingly, EPA's approval of Kentucky's PSD SIP and
infrastructure SIP Elements (C), (D)(i)(II), or (J) with respect to the
PSD requirements promulgated by the NSR PM2.5 Rule is not
inconsistent with the court's opinion.

B. PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule Provisions

    The Commonwealth's January 31, 2013 SIP revision adopts into the
Kentucky SIP at Chapter 51 the following PSD provisions promulgated in
the PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule: (1) PSD increments
for PM2.5 annual and 24-hour NAAQS pursuant to section
166(a) of the CAA; (2) PM2.5 SILs to be used as a screening
tool to evaluate the impact a proposed major source or modification may
have on the NAAQS or PSD increment; and (3) PM2.5 SMC, also
used as a screening tool, to determine the level of data gathering
required of a major source in support of its PSD permit application for
PM2.5 emissions.
    Regarding the PM2.5 increments, the SIP revision changes
include: 1) the PM2.5 increments as promulgated at 40 CFR
51.166(c)(1) and (p)(4) (for Class I Variances); and 2) amendments to
the terms ``major source baseline date'' (at 40 CFR
51.166(b)(14)(i)(c)), ``minor source baseline date'' (including
establishment of the ``trigger date'') (at section 51.166(b)(14)(ii))
and ``baseline area'' (as amended at 51.166(b)(15)(i)). These changes
provide for the implementation of the PM2.5 PSD increments
for the PM2.5 NAAQS in the state's PSD program. In today's
action, EPA is proposing to approve the Commonwealth's January 31, 2013
SIP revision to address the PM2.5 PSD increment provisions
promulgated in the PM2.5 PSD Increments-SILs-SMC Rule. As
discussed above, EPA is not taking action to approve into the
Commonwealth's SIP the PM2.5 SILs and SMC as established in
the PM2.5 PSD-Increment-SILs-SMC Rule due to the DC
Circuit's January 22, 2013 decision to vacate and remand to EPA the
SILs and vacate the SMCs. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 705 F.3d 458.
    EPA has made the preliminary determination to approve the
aforementioned PSD permitting provisions promulgated in the
PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule into the Kentucky SIP to
implement the NSR program for the PM2.5 NAAQS.

C. Conversion of Conditional Approvals for the Commonwealth's
Infrastructure SIP

    As discussed above in section III, Kentucky's January 31, 2013 SIP
revision also satisfies the conditions listed in EPA's previous
conditional approvals for the Commonwealth's 2008 8-hour ozone, and
1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure SIP
submissions. Therefore, EPA is proposing action to convert its
conditional approvals with respect to the PSD-related requirements of
sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110(a)(2)(J) to full
approvals. Given that the Commonwealth's January 31, 2013 SIP revision
fulfills the conditional approval requirements for conversion to a full
approval, the conditional approval language at section 52.919(a)-(c) of
40 CFR part 52, included in EPA's final conditional approvals published
on October 3, 2012 (77 FR 60307), March 7, 2013 (78 FR 14681) and March
26, 2013 (78 FR 18241) are no longer necessary. Thus, EPA is also
proposing to remove the conditional approval language at 40 CR 52.919,
contingent upon EPA's full approval of the Commonwealth's January 31,
2013 SIP revision, to reflect that the infrastructure SIPs for the
Commonwealth's 2008 8-hour ozone, and 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS have been fully approved.

V. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve portions of the Commonwealth's January
31, 2013 SIP revision adopting Federal regulations amended in the May
16, 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule and the October 20, 2010
PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC rule with the exception of the
PM2.5 SILs and SMCs provisions. Final approval of the
Commonwealth's January 31, 2013 SIP would also satisfy the requirements
upon which EPA conditionally approved several Kentucky infrastructure
requirements related to the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 and the 2008
8-hour Ozone NAAQS. As such, EPA is also proposing today, contingent
upon full approval of the Commonwealth's January 31, 2013 SIP revision,
to convert EPA's previous conditional approval of the Commonwealth's
infrastructure requirements related to PSD requirements for the
PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS to a full approval. EPA has made the
preliminary determination that the Commonwealth's January 31, 2013 SIP
revision, with regard to aforementioned proposed actions, are
approvable because they are consistent with section 110 of the CAA and
EPA regulations.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by Commonwealth law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: July 14, 2014.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2014-17323 Filed 7-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Posted:  October 16, 2003    4:50 p.m.

	           UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

             OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

                  WASHINGTON, D.C.

_______________________________

In the Matter of

Aerolineas Argentinas, S.A.

Docket OST-2003-15092

________________________________

									Served: October 16, 2003

NOTICE EXTENDING RESPONSE DATES

On October 15, 2003, the Department issued, and served via email, a show
cause order proposing to require Aerolineas Argentinas, S.A. to remit
into a U.S. escrow account, on a per flight basis, the difference
between what it actually pays for services at Buenos Airlines Ezeiza
airport and the higher amounts it would be paying if it were not
benefitting from discriminatorily favorable treatment vis-à-vis U.S.
carriers.   The order afforded interested parties 7 calendar days from
the date of service of the order to file comments and 5 calendar days
thereafter to submit replies.

On October 16, 2003, counsel for Aerolineas Argentinas stated that he
did not receive the order until October 16, not on October 15, 2003, due
to an error in the email address.  In these circumstances, we are
extending the comment period for responses to the show-cause order by
one day (i.e. until October 23, 2003) and also for the corresponding
reply date by one day (i.e. until October 28, 2003).

Therefore, acting under authority assigned in 14 CFR 385.16, we extend
the response date for comments on Order 2003-10-18 to October 23, 2003,
and the date for replies thereto until October 28, 2003.

We will serve this notice by email on all parties listed in Order
2003-10-18.

By:

							PAUL L. GRETCH

							Director, Office of

							  International Aviation

(SEAL)

Dated: October 16, 2003

An electronic version of this notice is available on the World Wide Web
at

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp


[Federal Register: May 22, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 100)]
[Notices]
[Page 29760-29761]
[DOCID:fr22my08-50]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2008-D-0293]

Draft Guidance for Industry: Considerations for Allogeneic
Pancreatic Islet Cell Products; Availability

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the

availability of a draft document entitled ``Guidance for Industry:
Considerations for Allogeneic Pancreatic Islet Cell Products'' dated
May 2008. The draft guidance document is intended to provide
recommendations to manufacturers, sponsors, and clinical investigators
involved in the transplantation of allogeneic pancreatic islet cell
products for clinical investigations of the treatment of type 1
diabetes mellitus. The draft guidance is intended to provide assistance
by identifying the types of data and information obtained during
investigational new drug studies that may be helpful in establishing
the safety, purity, and potency of a biological product in a biologics
license application (BLA).

DATES: Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the agency considers your comment on this
draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the
guidance, submit written or electronic comments on the draft guidance
by August 20, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the draft
guidance to the Office of Communication, Training, and Manufacturers
Assistance (HFM-40), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research
(CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, suite 200N,
Rockville, MD 20852-1448. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to
assist the office in processing your requests. The draft guidance may
also be obtained by mail by calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or 301-827-
1800. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access
to the draft guidance document.
    Submit written comments on the draft guidance to the Division of
Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630
Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments
to http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Valerie A. Butler, Center for
Biologics Evaluation and Research (HFM-17), Food and Drug
Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, suite 200N, Rockville, MD 20852-
1448,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft document entitled
``Guidance for Industry: Considerations for Allogeneic Pancreatic Islet
Cell Products'' dated May 2008. The draft guidance document is intended
to provide recommendations to manufacturers, sponsors, and clinical
investigators involved in the transplantation of allogeneic pancreatic
islet cell products for clinical investigations of the treatment of
type 1 diabetes mellitus. The draft guidance is intended to provide
assistance with the types of data and information that may be obtained
during investigational new drug studies to assist in establishing the
safety, purity, and potency of a biological product in a BLA. However,
the guidance is not intended to identify all of the product,
preclinical, and clinical data that may be needed to successfully
support a BLA.
    The draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when
finalized, will represent FDA's current thinking on this topic. It does
not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not
operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used
if such approach satisfies the requirement of the applicable statutes
and regulations.

II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    The draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The
collections of information in 21 CFR part 211 has been approved under
0910-0139; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 312 has been
approved under 0910-0014; the collections of information in 21 CFR
parts 601 and 610 have been approved under 0910-0338; and the
collections of information in 21 CFR part 1271 has been approved under
0910-0543 and 0910-0559.

III. Comments

    The draft guidance is being distributed for comment purposes only
and is not intended for implementation at this time. Interested persons
may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES)
written or electronic comments regarding the draft guidance. Submit a
single copy of electronic comments or two paper copies of any mailed
comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy. Comments
are to be identified with the docket number found in the brackets in
the heading of this document. A copy of the draft guidance and received
comments are available for public examination in the Division of
Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
    Please note that on January 15, 2008, the FDA Division of Dockets
Management Web site transitioned to the Federal Dockets Management
System (FDMS). FDMS is a Government-wide, electronic docket management
system. Electronic comments or submissions will be accepted by FDA only
through FDMS at http://www.regulations.gov.

IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidance
at either http://www.fda.gov/cber/guidelines.htm or http://
www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: May 13, 2008.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. E8-11516 Filed 5-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 73 (Wednesday, April 16, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21385-21387]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07672]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 2014 /
Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0216; Directorate Identifier 2013-SW-045-AD;
Amendment 39-17818; AD 2014-07-04]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation
(Sikorsky) Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Sikorsky Model S-92A helicopters. This AD requires, initially and each
time the clamps are removed, inspecting for chafing between the
electrical wires and the hydraulic lines and, if there is chafing
between the wires or lines, before further flight, replacing the
unairworthy wires or lines with airworthy wires or lines. Also, this AD
requires inspecting each clamp for correct installation, and if a clamp
is incorrectly installed or missing, before further flight, correctly
installing the clamps. This AD is prompted by chafing between high
voltage electrical wiring and hydraulic lines that led to two fires in
the top deck of the helicopter, which does not have fire detection nor
extinguishing capability. The actions specified by this AD are intended
to detect any chafing between the electrical wires and the hydraulic
lines that could result in a fire and subsequent loss of control of the
helicopter.

DATES: This AD becomes effective May 1, 2014.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain document listed in this AD as of May 1, 2014.
    We must receive comments on this AD by June 16, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations Office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, any incorporated by reference
service information, the economic evaluation, any comments received,
and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations
Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments
will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Sikorsky
Aircraft Corporation, Customer Service Engineering, 124 Quarry Road,
Trumbull, CT 06611; telephone 1-800-Winged-S or<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may review the referenced service
information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Caspar Wang, Aviation Safety Engineer,
Boston Aircraft Certification Office, Engine & Propeller Directorate,
FAA, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to
provide your comments prior to it becoming effective. However, we
invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written
comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the
economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that resulted
from adopting this AD. The most helpful comments reference a specific
portion of the AD, explain the reason for any recommended change, and
include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain
duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written
comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should
submit them only one time. We will file in the docket all comments that
we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public
contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking during the
comment period. We will consider all the comments we receive and may
conduct additional rulemaking based on those comments.

Discussion

    We are adopting a new AD for Sikorsky Model S-92A helicopters. This
AD requires, initially and each time the clamps are removed, inspecting
for chafing between the electrical wires and the hydraulic lines and,
if there is chafing between the wires and lines, before further flight,
replacing the unairworthy wires or lines with airworthy wires or lines.
Also, this AD requires inspecting each clamp for correct installation,
and if a clamp is incorrectly installed or missing, before further
flight, correctly installing the clamps.
    This AD is prompted by chafing between high voltage electrical
wires and hydraulic lines that led to two fires in the top deck of the
helicopter, which does not have fire detection nor extinguishing
capability. The chafing occurred because of improper clamp installation
after maintenance was performed in the top deck. A redesign eliminated
the need for clamping in newer Model S-92A helicopters. However,
because of the high volume of maintenance performed in the area where
the fire occurred immediately following maintenance involving

removing and installing the clamps, more detailed instructions are
necessary for correct installation of the clamps in the older model
helicopters. The actions specified by this AD are intended to detect
any chafing between the electrical wires and the hydraulic lines that
could result in a fire and subsequent loss of control of the
helicopter.

FAA's Determination

    We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other helicopters of the same type
design.

Related Service Information

    Sikorsky has issued Alert Service Bulletin No. 92-20-001, dated
October 27, 2005 (ASB) to specify a one-time installation of clamps to
provide additional clearance between the electrical harnesses on the
upper deck and the hydraulic lines.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires:
     Within 5 hours time-in-service (TIS), inspecting the
electrical wires and the hydraulic lines in the affected area for
evidence of chafing. If there is chafing between electrical wires and
the hydraulic lines, this AD requires, before further flight, replacing
unairworthy wires or lines with airworthy wires or lines.
     Within 5 hours TIS, inspecting each clamp for correct
installation. If clamps are incorrectly installed or missing, before
further flight, install clamps by following the Accomplishment
Instructions of the ASB.
     After each maintenance that requires removing clamps, this
AD requires repeating the previous inspections.

Differences Between This AD and the Service Information

    The service information specifies a one-time installation of the
clamps between the electrical harnesses on the upper deck and the
hydraulic lines within 30 days. This AD requires, within 5 hours TIS,
inspecting each clamp for correct installation, and within 5 hours TIS
and after each maintenance that requires removing clamps, inspecting
the electrical wires and the hydraulic lines for chafing. This AD
applies to S/N 920006 through 920084, and the service bulletin applies
to S/N 920006 through 920022.

Interim Action

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

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 20 helicopters of U.S.
Registry.
    We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order
to comply with this AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work hour.
An initial inspection of the clamps will take .5 work hour. Inspecting
and reclamping will take 2 work hours at a parts cost of $25 per
helicopter. Inspecting and replacing the electrical wires will take 2
work hours at a parts cost of $7,500 per helicopter. Inspecting and
replacing the hydraulic lines will take 3 work hours at a parts cost of
$500 per helicopter. Based on these estimates, the total cost per
helicopter is $8,663, and the total cost of compliance for the U.S.
fleet is $173,250, assuming the clamps, electrical wires, and hydraulic
lines are replaced.
    According to Sikorsky's service information, the costs of this AD
may be covered under warranty thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage by Sikorsky.
Accordingly, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    Providing an opportunity for public comments before adopting these
AD requirements would delay implementing the safety actions needed to
correct this known unsafe condition. Therefore, we find that the risk
to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment before
adopting this rule because the required corrective actions must be done
within 5 hours TIS, a very short time period based on the average
flight-hour utilization rate of these helicopters.
    Since an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate
adoption of this AD, we determined that notice and opportunity for
public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good
cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

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 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, 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 to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; 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.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2014-07-04 Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation: Amendment 39-17818; Docket
No. FAA-2014-0216; Directorate Identifier 2013-SW-045-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Model S-92A helicopters, serial numbers 92006
through 920084, certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as an installation that
does not provide adequate clearance to prevent chafing between the
high voltage electrical wires and hydraulic lines. This condition
could result in fire and subsequent loss of control of the
helicopter.

(c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective May 1, 2014.

(d) Compliance

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

(e) Required Actions

    (1) Within 5 hours time-in-service, inspect the electrical wires
and the hydraulic lines in the upper deck of the helicopter for
chafing between electrical wires and hydraulic lines. If there is
chafing between electrical wires and hydraulic lines, before further
flight, replace the unairworthy wires or lines with airworthy wires
or lines.
    (2) Within 5 hours TIS, inspect each clamp for correct
installation as shown in Figures 1 through 14 of Sikorsky Aircraft
Corporation Alert Service Bulletin No. 92-20-001, dated October 27,
2005 (ASB). If clamps are incorrectly installed or missing, before
further flight, install clamps by following the Accomplishment
Instructions, paragraph 3.A.(4) through 3.A.(17) of the ASB.
    (3) After each maintenance that requires removing clamps, comply
with paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this AD.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, may
approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Caspar Wang,
Aviation Safety Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office,
Engine & Propeller Directorate, FAA, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, Massachusetts 01803; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

 (h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 2910 Main
Hydraulic System.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Alert Service Bulletin No. 92-
20-001, dated October 27, 2005.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation service information
identified in this AD, contact Customer Service Engineering, 124
Quarry Road, Trumbull, CT 06611; telephone 1-800-Winged-S or 203-
416-4299; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663,
Fort Worth, Texas 76137. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on March 28, 2014.
Kim Smith,
Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-07672 Filed 4-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69413-69414]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27677]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9903-05-OCFO]

Meeting of the Environmental Financial Advisory Board; Public
Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of open meeting of the Environmental Financial Advisory
Board.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
Environmental Financial Advisory Board (EFAB) will hold a public
meeting on December 12-13, 2013. EFAB is an EPA advisory committee
chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) to provide
advice and recommendations to EPA on creative approaches to funding
environmental programs, projects, and activities. This meeting,
originally scheduled for October 22-23, 2013, is rescheduled because of
the government shutdown.
    The purpose of this meeting is to hear from informed speakers on
environmental finance issues, proposed legislation, and EPA priorities;
to discuss activities, progress, and preliminary recommendations with
regard to current EFAB work projects; and to consider requests for
assistance from EPA offices.
    Environmental finance discussions, and presentations are expected
on the following topics: tribal environmental programs; transit-
oriented development in sustainable communities, energy efficiency/
green house gas emissions reduction; drinking water pricing and
infrastructure investment; and green infrastructure.
    The meeting is open to the public; however, seating is limited. All
members of the public who wish to attend the meeting must register in
advance no later than Friday December 6, 2013.

DATES: The full board meeting will be held on Thursday, December 12,
2013 from 9:00 a.m. to 5 p.m., EST and Friday, December 13, 2013 from
9-12 noon., EST.

ADDRESSES: Potomac Yard North, 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Suite 4120,
Arlington, VA 22202.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on access or services
for individuals with disabilities, or to request accommodations for a
person with a disability, please contact Sandra Williams, U.S. EPA, at
(202) 564-4999 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>at least 10 days prior to
the meeting, to allow as

much time as possible to process your request.

    Dated: November 12, 2013.
Joshua Baylson,
Associate Chief Financial Officer.
[FR Doc. 2013-27677 Filed 11-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P