[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 29, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 59520]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18595]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER23-2684-000]

Steel Solar, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Steel Solar, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an
accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is September 12, 2023.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

    Dated: August 23, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-18595 Filed 8-28-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 74 (Tuesday, April 17, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 16913]
[FR Doc No: 2018-07953]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Eighty Eighth RTCA SC-147 Plenary Session Joint With EUROCAE WG-
75

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

ACTION: Eighty Eighth RTCA SC-147 Plenary Session Joint With EUROCAE
WG-75.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of Eighty Eighth RTCA SC-147 Plenary Session Joint with EUROCAE
WG-75.

DATES: The meeting will be held May 18, 2018 9:00 a.m.-3:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at: RTCA Headquarters, 1150 18th
Street NW, Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al Secen at [email protected] or 202-
330-0647, or The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW, Suite 910,
Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax at (202)
833-9434, or website at http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a meeting of the Eighty Eighth RTCA SC-147 Plenary
Session Joint with EUROCAE WG-75. The agenda will include the
following:

1. Thursday, May 17 (and Possibly Friday May 18), 2018
2. Opening Plenary Session
    A. Chairmen's Opening Remarks/Introductions
    B. DFO Statement and RTCA Policies
    C. Approval of Minutes from 87th Meeting of SC-147
    D. Approval of Agenda
    E. Future Meeting Scheduling
3. Updates on TSO Schedule, CERT Plan and Final Products (30 min/945-
1015)
4. SC-147 TOR Revisions
    A. Final MASPS for Interoperability of Collision Avoidance Systems
Language
5. ACAS XA/XO MOPS
6. Final Review and Comment/Open Consultation Overview
7. Working Group Comment Resolution Review and Status
8. Open Comments
    A. Discussion
9. ACAS XA/XO MOPS Approval Consideration
10. Next Steps
    A. Comment Resolution Implementation Work-Plan
    B. European Validation Process/Schedule
11. ACAS XU
    I. Report from ACAS XU WG
12. Summary and Adjourn
13. Note: Plenary May Continue to Friday, May 18th Only if All Business
is not Concluded on Thursday, May 17th.

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 12, 2018.
Michelle Swearingen,
Systems and Equipment Standards Branch, AIR-6B0, Policy and Innovation
Division, AIR-600, Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2018-07953 Filed 4-16-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: June 25, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 121)]
[Notices]
[Page 30356]
[DOCID:fr25jn09-96]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2009-0150]

Medical Review Board (MRB) Public Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of correction.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA notes two corrections on the Federal Register notice
announcing the Medical Review Board meeting scheduled for July 1, 2009
from 9 a.m.-4:20 p.m. at the U.S. Department of Transportation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical
Programs,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    On June 12, 2009, FMCSA published a Notice in the Federal Register
announcing a public meeting of the Medical Review Board to be held on
July 1, 2009 (74 FR 28093). The notice included two incorrect Web
sites. The first one is http://Docketinfo.dot.gov; the correct Web site
is http://www.regulations.gov. The second error was http://
www.fmcsa.dot.gov/mrb; the correct Web site is http://
mrb.fmcsa.dot.gov.

    Issued on: June 18, 2009.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. E9-14917 Filed 6-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: April 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 76)]
[Notices]
[Page 20835-20836]
[DOCID:fr21ap10-54]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings No. 2

April 08, 2010.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP09-1027-003.
    Applicants: White River Hub, LLC.
    Description: White River Hub, LLC submits Substitute First Revised
Sheet 242 et al to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 04/06/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100407-0201.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 19, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-1028-003.
    Applicants: Questar Southern Trails Pipeline Company.
    Description: Questar Southern Trails Pipeline Company submits Third
Substitute Revised Sheet 130 et al to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume
1.
    Filed Date: 04/06/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100407-0203.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 19, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-1029-003.
    Applicants: Questar Overthrust Pipeline Company.
    Description: Questar Overthrust Pipeline Company submits Fifth
Revised Sheet 1 et al to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 04/06/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100407-0202.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 19, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-1030-003.
    Applicants: Questar Pipeline Company.
    Description: Questar Pipeline Company submits First Revised Sheet
72 et al to FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 04/06/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100407-0204.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 19, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-468-001.
    Applicants: CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Comp.

    Description: CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company submits
Sixth Revised Sheet 729 et al to FERC Gas Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume
1.
    Filed Date: 04/06/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100407-0214.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 19, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-466-004.
    Applicants: Kern River Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: Kern River Gas Transmission Company submits Amendment
to Credit Settlement Agreement.
    Filed Date: 04/07/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100407-5110.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 19, 2010.

    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing 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. Such protests
must be filed on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all
the parties to the proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests 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 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>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-9130 Filed 4-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 14, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 51140]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19778]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD21-9-000]

The Office of Public Participation; Supplemental Notice of
Workshop on Technical Assistance

    On August 23, 2021, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office
of Public Participation (OPP) issued a notice of a September 16, 2021
virtual workshop to discuss, with the U.S. Department of Energy's
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), technical assistance in
electric proceedings. The workshop will no longer be held on September
16, 2021, but will be held on October 7, 2021, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:30
p.m. Eastern time.
    The workshop will include a panelist discussion on technical
assistance followed by facilitated break-out sessions for attendees to
discuss their technical assistance needs. The workshop will explore
barriers preventing the public, including consumers and consumer
advocates, from fully participating in Commission proceedings and
explore how OPP can facilitate technical assistance.
    The workshop will be open for the public to attend, and there is no
fee for attendance. Further details on the agenda, including
registration information, can be found on the PNNL website. Information
on this technical workshop will also be posted on the Calendar of
Events on the Commission's website, www.ferc.gov, prior to the event.
    The workshop will be accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please
send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free 1-866-208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY) or send a FAX to<PHONE_NUMBER> with
the required accommodations.
    For more information about the workshop, please contact Corey Cox
of the Commission's Office of Public Participation at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>This notice is issued and
published in accordance with 18 CFR 2.1.

    Dated: September 8, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-19778 Filed 9-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 22, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 35)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 8958-8962]
[DOCID:fr22fe06-14]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2005-CO-0004; FRL-8029-7]

Approval and Disapproval and Promulgation of Air Quality
Implementation Plans; Colorado; Affirmative Defense Provisions for
Startup and Shutdown; Common Provisions Regulation and Regulation No. 1

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is partially approving and partially disapproving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Colorado.
The revision establishes affirmative defense provisions for source
owners and operators for excess emissions during periods of startup and
shutdown. The affirmative defense provisions are contained in the State
of Colorado's Common Provisions regulation. The intended effect of this
action is to approve those portions of the rule that are approvable and
to disapprove those portions of the rule that are inconsistent with the
Clean Air Act. This action is being taken under section 110 of the
Clean Air Act. In addition, EPA is announcing that it no longer
considers the State of Colorado's May 27, 1998 submittal of revisions
to Regulation No. 1 to be an active SIP submittal. Those revisions,
which we proposed to disapprove on September 2, 1999 and October 7,
1999, would have provided

exemptions from existing limitations on opacity and sulfur dioxide
(SO2) emissions for coal-fired electric utility boilers
during periods of startup, shutdown, and upset. Since our proposed
disapproval, the State of Colorado has removed or replaced the
provisions in Regulation No. 1 that we proposed to disapprove, and has
instead pursued adoption of the affirmative defense provisions in the
State of Colorado's Common Provisions regulation that we are approving
today.

DATES: This final rule is effective March 24, 2006.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R08-OAR-2005-CO-0004. All documents in the docket are listed on
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index,

some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information (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 through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at

the Air and Radiation Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you contact the individual listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of
the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through
Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurie Ostrand, Air and Radiation
Program, Mailcode 8P-AR, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region
8, 999 18th Street, Suite 200, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466, (303) 312-
6437<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background of State Submittal
II. EPA Analysis of State Submittal
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words as follows:
    (i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air
Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (ii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
    (iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
    (iv) The words State or Colorado mean the State of Colorado, unless
the context indicates otherwise.

I. Background of State Submittal

    On July 31, 2002, the State of Colorado submitted a SIP revision
that added affirmative defense provisions for excess emissions during
startup and shutdown. These affirmative defense provisions are
contained in the Common Provisions Regulation at section II.J and were
adopted by the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) on August
16, 2001.
    On December 7, 2005 (70 FR 72741), we proposed to approve sections
II.J.1 through II.J.4 of the Common Provisions regulation and proposed
to disapprove section II.J.5 of the Common Provisions regulation. No
comments were received on the December 7, 2005 proposal. See the
December 7, 2005 notice of proposed rulemaking for additional
information.
    On December 7, 2005 (70 FR 72741) we also announced that we no
longer consider Colorado's May 27, 1998 submittal of revisions to
Regulation No. 1 to be an active submittal, and that we do not intend
to finalize our proposed disapprovals. The May 1998 Regulation
    No. 1 submittal would have provided exemptions from the existing
limitations on opacity and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions
for coal-fired electric utility boilers during periods of startup,
shutdown, and upset. We proposed to disapprove the May 1998 Regulation
No. 1 submittal on September 2, 1999 (64 FR 48127) and October 7, 1999
(64 FR 54601).

II. EPA Analysis of State Submittal

    EPA's interpretations of the Act regarding excess emissions during
malfunctions, startup and shutdown are contained in, among other
documents, a September 20, 1999 memorandum titled ``State
Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During
Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown,'' from Steven A. Herman, Assistant
Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and Robert
Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.\1\ That
memorandum indicates that because excess emissions might aggravate air
quality so as to prevent attainment and maintenance of the national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) or jeopardize the prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) increments, all periods of excess
emissions are considered violations of the applicable emission
limitation. However, the memorandum recognizes that in certain
circumstances states and EPA have enforcement discretion to refrain
from taking enforcement action for excess emissions. In addition, the
memorandum also indicates that states can include in their SIPs
provisions that would, in the context of an enforcement action for
excess emissions, excuse a source from penalties (but not injunctive
relief) if the source can demonstrate that it meets certain objective
criteria (an ``affirmative defense'').\2\ Finally, the memorandum
indicates that EPA does not intend to approve SIP revisions that would
recognize a state director's decision to bar EPA's or citizens' ability
to enforce applicable requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Earlier expressions of EPA's interpretations regarding
excess emissions during malfunctions, startup, and shutdown are
contained in two memoranda, one dated September 28, 1982, the other
February 15, 1983, both titled ``Policy on Excess Emissions During
Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and Malfunctions'' and signed by
Kathleen M. Bennett. However, the September 1999 memorandum directly
addresses the creation of affirmative defenses in SIPs and,
therefore, is most relevant to this action.
    \2\ EPA's September 20, 1999 memorandum indicates that the term
affirmative defense means, in the context of an enforcement
proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a defendant,
regarding which the defendant has the burden of proof, and the
merits of which are independently and objectively evaluated in a
judicial or administrative proceeding. See footnote 4 of the
attachment to the memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have evaluated Colorado's affirmative defense provisions for
startup and shutdown and find that, except for one paragraph, they are
consistent with our interpretations under the Act regarding the types
of affirmative defense provisions we can approve in SIPs. The
Affirmative Defense provisions in the Common Provisions Regulation,
sections II.J.1 through II.J.4 are consistent with the provisions for
startup and shutdown we suggested in our September 20, 1999 memorandum.
Thus, these provisions will provide sources with appropriate incentives
to comply with their emissions limitations and help ensure protection
of the NAAQS and increments and compliance with other Act requirements.
    However, we cannot approve the provisions in section II.J.5 of the
Common Provisions regulation. Section II.J.5 reads as follows:

    II.J.5. Affirmative Defense Determination: In making any
determination whether a source established an affirmative defense,
the Division shall consider the information within the notification
required in paragraph 2 of this section and any other information
the division deems necessary, which may

include, but is not limited to, physical inspection of the facility
and review of documentation pertaining to the maintenance and
operation of process and air pollution control equipment.

Under this language, the Division could make a determination outside
the context of an enforcement action, or at any time during an
enforcement action, that a source has established the affirmative
defense. If we were to approve section II.J.5, a court might conclude
that we had ceded the authority to the Division to make this
determination, not just for the State, but on behalf of EPA and
citizens as well. Consequently, a court might also view the Division's
determination that a source had established the affirmative defense as
barring an EPA or citizen action for penalties.
    As we stated in the September 1999 memoranda, we do not intend to
approve SIP language that would allow a state's decision to constrain
our or citizens' enforcement discretion. To do so would be inconsistent
with the regulatory scheme established in Title I of the Act, which
allows independent EPA and citizen enforcement of violations,
regardless of a state's decisions regarding those violations and any
potential defenses.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Section II.J.5 may be confusing the concept of affirmative
defense with the concept of enforcement discretion. By definition,
an affirmative defense is a defense that may be raised in the
context of an enforcement proceeding before an independent trier of
fact. Before pursuing an enforcement action, the state might
evaluate the likelihood that an owner/operator could prove the
elements of the affirmative defense, but this would go to the
state's exercise of enforcement discretion. While the state might
decide not to pursue an enforcement action based on such an
evaluation, if EPA or citizens were to pursue enforcement action, an
independent trier of fact might reach a conclusion different from
the state's, i.e., that the owner/operator had not proved the
elements of the affirmative defense.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act states that a SIP revision
cannot be approved if the revision would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress
towards attainment of the NAAQS or any other applicable requirements of
the Act. The Colorado SIP revision that is the subject of this document
does not interfere with the maintenance of the NAAQS or any other
applicable requirement of the Act. The July 31, 2002 submittal merely
adopts affirmative defense provisions for source owners and operators
for excess emissions during periods of startup and shutdown. These
provisions provide, that in the context of an enforcement action for
excess emissions, a source can be excused from penalties (but not
injunctive relief) if the source can demonstrate that it meets certain
objective criteria. Therefore, section 110(l) requirements are
satisfied.

III. Final Action

    We are approving sections II.J.1 through II.J.4 of the Common
Provisions Regulation submitted on July 31, 2002 for the reasons
expressed above. We are disapproving section II.J.5 of the Common
Provisions Regulation submitted on July 31, 2002 because this section
is inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.''

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., OMB must
approve all ``collections of information'' by EPA. The Act defines
``collection of information'' as a requirement for ``answers to * * *
identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or
more persons * * *'' 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). Because this final rule does
not impose an information collection burden, the Paperwork Reduction
Act does not apply.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
    This final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities because SIP approvals and disapprovals under
section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create
any new requirements but simply approve or disapprove requirements that
the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP
approval/disapproval does not create any new requirements, I certify
that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under
the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such
grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976);
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that this final action does not include a
Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or
more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or
to the private sector. This Federal action partially approves and
partially disapproves pre-existing requirements under State or local
law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs
to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector,
result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999),
revokes and replaces Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875
(Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by State and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies
that have federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order
to include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects 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.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may
not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes
substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by
statute, unless the Federal

government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with
State and local officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
    This final rule will not have substantial direct effects 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132,
because it merely partially approves and partially disapproves state
rules implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the
relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities
established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 6
of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This final rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes. This action does not involve or impose
any requirements that affect Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175
does not apply to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under
Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible
alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does
not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or
safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical.
    The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to
the use of VCS.

J. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
section 804(2). This rule will be effective March 24, 2006.

K. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 24, 2006. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2) of the Clean Air
Act.)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: January 30, 2006.
Robert E. Roberts,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart G--Colorado

0
2. Section 52.320 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(109) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (109) A revision to the State Implementation Plan was submitted by
the State of Colorado on July 31, 2002. The submittal revises the
Common Provisions regulation by adding affirmative defense provisions
for source owners and operators for excess emissions during periods of
startup and shutdown.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Common Provisions Regulation, 5 CCR 1001-2, sections II.J.1
through II.J.4, adopted August 16, 2001, effective September 30, 2001.

0
3. Section 52.329 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.329  Rules and regulations.

* * * * *
    (c) A revision to the State Implementation Plan was submitted by
the State of Colorado on July 31, 2002. The submittal revises the
Common Provisions regulation by adding

affirmative defense provisions for source owners and operators for
excess emissions during periods of startup and shutdown. The
affirmative defense provisions are contained in section II.J. As
indicated in 40 CFR 52.320(c)(109), EPA approved the affirmative
defense provisions contained in sections II.J.1 through II.J.4 of the
Common Provisions regulation, adopted August 16, 2001 and effective
September 30, 2001. Section II.J.5 of the Common Provisions regulation,
adopted August 16, 2001 and effective September 30, 2001, is
disapproved.

[FR Doc. 06-1567 Filed 2-21-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 155 (Friday, August 10, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39628-39630]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16732]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0706; Product Identifier 2018-NM-086-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Dassault Aviation Model FAN JET FALCON, and FAN JET FALCON
SERIES C, D, E, F, and G airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a
determination of the need for a revision to the airplane airworthiness
limitations to introduce changes to the maintenance requirements and
airworthiness limitations. This proposed AD would require revising the
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new
airworthiness limitations and maintenance requirements. We are
proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 24,
2018.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Dassault
Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South
Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0706; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-
5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD
docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2018-0706;
Product Identifier 2018-NM-086-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM because
of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this NPRM.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD
2018-0083, dated April 16, 2018 (referred to after

this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the
MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Dassault Aviation
Model FAN JET FALCON and FAN JET FALCON SERIES C, D, E, F, and G
airplanes. The MCAI states:

    The airworthiness limitations and certification maintenance
instructions for the Dassault Fan Jet Falcon aeroplanes, which are
approved by EASA, are currently defined and published in the
Dassault Fan Jet Falcon Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) chapter 5-
40. These instructions have been identified as mandatory for
continued airworthiness.
    Failure to accomplish these instructions could result in an
unsafe condition [among other things, fatigue cracking and damage in
principal structural elements; such fatigue cracking and damage
could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane].
    Consequently, EASA issued AD 2014-0021 [which corresponds to FAA
AD 2014-26-07, Amendment 39-18058 (80 FR 2815, January 21, 2015)
(``AD 2014-26-07'')] to require accomplishment of the maintenance
tasks, and implementation of the airworthiness limitations, as
specified in Dassault Fan Jet Falcon AMM chapter 5-40 Revision 15.
    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, Dassault issued Revision 17 of
the Dassault Fan Jet Falcon AMM chapter 5-40, which introduces new
and more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness
limitations.
    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the
requirements of EASA AD 2014-0021, which is superseded, and requires
accomplishment of the actions specified in Revision 17 of the
Dassault Fan Jet Falcon AMM chapter 5-40, (hereafter referred to as
`the ALS' in this [EASA] AD).

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0706.

Relationship Between Proposed AD and AD 2014-26-07

    This NPRM does not propose to supersede AD 2014-26-07. Rather, we
have determined that a stand-alone AD would be more appropriate to
address the changes in the MCAI. This proposed AD would require
revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to
incorporate new airworthiness limitations and maintenance requirements.
Accomplishment of the proposed actions would then terminate all of the
requirements of AD 2014-26-07.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Dassault has issued Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations, DGT
131028, Revision 17, dated September 2017, of the Dassault Aviation
Falcon 20 Maintenance Manual. This service information includes life
limits for certain components, including the engine front mounts and
the legs of the nose landing gear and main landing gear. In addition,
this service information describes maintenance tasks for, among other
systems, the air conditioning system and the passenger/crew door
warning system. This service information is reasonably available
because the interested parties have access to it through their normal
course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe
condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other
products of the same type design.

Proposed Requirements of This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require revising the maintenance or
inspection program, as applicable, to include new airworthiness
limitations and maintenance requirements.
    This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator
maintenance documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections).
Compliance with these actions is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For
airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in
the areas addressed by this proposed AD, the operator may not be able
to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this
situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request
approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph
(j)(1) of this proposed AD. The request should include a description of
changes to the required inspections that will ensure the continued
operational safety of the airplane.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI

    The MCAI specifies that if there are findings from the
airworthiness limitations section (ALS) tasks, corrective actions must
be accomplished in accordance with Dassault maintenance documentation.
However, this proposed AD does not include that requirement. Operators
of U.S.-registered airplanes are required by general airworthiness and
operational regulations to perform maintenance using methods that are
acceptable to the FAA. We consider those methods to be adequate to
address any corrective actions necessitated by the findings of ALS
inspections required by this proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 168 airplanes of U.S.
registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:
    We have determined that revising the maintenance or inspection
program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although we
recognize that this number may vary from operator to operator. In the
past, we have estimated that this action takes 1 work-hour per
airplane. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program
changes for their affected fleet(s), we have determined that a per-
operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate.
Therefore, we estimate the total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90
work-hours x $85 per work-hour).

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.
    This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated
by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as
authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order,
issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and
Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the
Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable
to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight
Division.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 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):

Dassault Aviation: Docket No. FAA-2018-0706; Product Identifier
2018-NM-086-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by September 24, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2014-26-07, Amendment 39-18058 (80 FR 2815,
January 21, 2015) (``AD 2014-26-07'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Dassault Aviation Model FAN JET FALCON, and
FAN JET FALCON SERIES C, D, E, F, and G airplanes, certificated in
any category, all serial numbers, except those on which the Dassault
Fan Jet Falcon Supplemental Structural Inspection Program (Service
Bulletin (SB) 730) has been embodied into the airplane's maintenance
program.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits
and Maintenance Checks.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination of the need for a
revision to the airplane airworthiness limitations to introduce
changes to the maintenance requirements and airworthiness
limitations. We are issuing this AD to address, among other things,
fatigue cracking and damage in principal structural elements; such
fatigue cracking and damage could result in reduced structural
integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Revision of Maintenance or Inspection Program

    Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the
airworthiness limitations specified in Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness
Limitations, DGT 131028, Revision 17, dated September 2017, of the
Dassault Aviation Falcon 20 Maintenance Manual (MM). The initial
compliance time for accomplishing the actions is at the applicable
time specified in Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations, DGT
131028, Revision 17, dated September 2017, of the Dassault Aviation
Falcon 20 MM; or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD;
whichever occurs later. Where the threshold column in the table in
paragraph B, Mandatory Maintenance Operations, of Chapter 5-40,
Airworthiness Limitations, DGT 131028, Revision 17, dated September
2017, of the Dassault Aviation Falcon 20 MM specifies a compliance
time in years, those compliance times are since the date of issuance
of the original French or European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
airworthiness certificate or date of issuance of the original French
or EASA export certificate of airworthiness.

(h) No Alternative Actions or Intervals

    After accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (g) of
this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may
be used unless the actions and intervals are approved as an AMOC in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j)(1) of this
AD.

(i) Terminating Action for AD 2014-26-07

    Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD
terminates all of the requirements of AD 2014-26-07.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (k)(2) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to: 9-ANM-116-AMOC-REQUESTS. Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA); or Dassault Aviation's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA AD 2018-0083, dated April 16, 2018, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet
at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2018-0706.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000,
South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines,
WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on July 27, 2018.
James Cashdollar,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-16732 Filed 8-9-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 108 (Monday, June 6, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36144-36145]
[FR Doc No: 2016-13177]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Chapter I

Notice of Policy on Evaluating Disputed Changes of Sponsorship at
Federally Obligated Airports

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

ACTION: Notice of policy.

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

SUMMARY: This document clarifies the FAA's legal authority and policy
for addressing disputed changes of sponsorship at federally obligated,
publicly owned airports. This document also explains the requirements
for state or local government entities to coordinate with the FAA when
contemplating actions that may impact an airport's ownership,
sponsorship, governance, or operations.

DATES: June 6, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin C. Willis, Manager, Airport
Compliance Division, ACO-100, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202) 267-
3085; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    This document clarifies the FAA's legal authority and policy for
monitoring and approving requests to change the sponsorship of, and/or
operational responsibility for, an airport from one public agency to
another public agency when there is a dispute surrounding the proposed
change.\1\ This document also describes the requirements for
coordination between the FAA and state or local governments
contemplating actions that may impact an airport's ownership,
sponsorship, governance, or operations, to ensure that such actions are
consistent with Federal requirements. Where the current sponsor/
operator and the proposed new sponsor/operator agree to a change of
sponsorship and/or operational control, Section IV of this document
does not apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The policy does not apply to a change of sponsorship or
ownership of a privately-owned airport, transfers under the Airport
Privatization Pilot Program, or changes when the Federal Government
exercises its right of reverter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. FAA Legal Authority and Responsibility

    While state or local legislative action, or a judicial action, as
the case may be, may seek to change an airport's ownership,
sponsorship, governance, or operations, only the FAA has the authority
to determine sponsor eligibility, approve and formally change airport
sponsorship, and approve and issue a new Airport Operating Certificate
pursuant to 14 CFR part 139. The FAA has a statutory obligation to
ensure that an airport sponsor/operator is capable of assuming all
grant assurances, safety compliance, and other Federal obligations, and
has the expertise to operate the airport. Specifically, an airport
sponsor/operator must meet the requirements set out in title 49 U.S.C.
44706, as implemented by 14 CFR part 139, for obtaining an Airport
Operating Certificate, (if applicable) or in 49 U.S.C. 47102, as
implemented by FAA Order 5100.38D (which includes provisions governing
sponsor eligibility for Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funding) and/
or 14 CFR part 158 (which governs the Passenger Facility Charge (PFC)
program pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 40117).
    The FAA's obligation extends to reviewing sponsor/operator
eligibility when state and local governments propose a change in the
airport governance structure to ensure that there is no ambiguity
regarding responsibility for Federal obligations and that any proposed
changes will not impact compliance with Federal law. (In the event of a
local or state dispute regarding sponsorship/operation of the airport,
the FAA will apply the policy set out in Section IV below.) If any
proposed changes give rise to such concerns by the FAA, the agency will
work with state and/or local government(s) to resolve the concerns or,
if the concerns cannot be addressed, deny the request.
    Airport sponsors and operators are required to maintain compliance
with Federal requirements at all times, and this document does not
preclude the FAA from taking enforcement action if a sponsor or
operator fails to fulfill its obligations, even if the FAA has approved
the transfer.

III. Coordination of Potential Actions To Change Sponsorship/Operations

    Any state or local legislative body or public agency considering
whether to take an action, such as drafting legislation, that would
impact airport ownership, sponsorship, governance, or operations should
(1) consult with and obtain the consent of the current sponsor/operator
(absent extraordinary circumstances, such as substantial evidence of
mismanagement on the part of the current sponsor/operator); \2\ and (2)
request technical assistance from the FAA about the interrelationship
between Federal and state or local requirements, and seek the FAA's
review and comment as early in the deliberative process as is
practicable. A failure to consult may cause FAA to deny a proposed
change to airport sponsorship and/or operating authority. In all cases,
final decisions regarding the proposed change will be made by FAA's
Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Consent from the current sponsor/operator before a change of
sponsorship or operational authority is a critical factor for the
FAA in determining whether safety, efficiency, and compliance with
grant assurances as required by Federal law will be fully satisfied
prior to, during, and after any transition period between sponsors/
operators. Even when consent is obtained, the FAA independently will
determine whether the proposed sponsor/operator is able to satisfy
Federal requirements for airport sponsorship or operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In seeking technical assistance, representatives of the existing
and/or proposed sponsors and operators must contact the appropriate
Regional Office or Airport District Office (ADO) as early in the
process as practicable. The Regional Office or ADO will inquire as to
whether the proposed change is disputed, and the FAA will not act upon
the proposed change until the dispute is resolved in accordance with
Section IV below. In the absence of a dispute or upon final resolution
of a dispute, the Regional Office or ADO will work with prospective
airport sponsors and operators to ensure understanding of and
compliance with the legal obligations associated with being an airport
sponsor or operator (including those under part 139 as well as the AIP
grant assurances and the PFC program requirements).
    As soon as Regional Offices and ADOs become aware of a proposed
change in ownership, sponsorship, governance, or operations, they must
alert the FAA Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis,
which will advise the Office of Airport Safety and Standards and Office
of Airport Planning and Programming. The Office of Airport Compliance
and Management Analysis is responsible for approving all changes to an
airport's ownership, sponsorship, governance, or operations. The Office
of Airport Safety and Standards is responsible for administering 14 CFR
part 139. The Regional Airport Safety and Standards Offices are
responsible for approving changes to the part 139 Airport Certification
Program Handbook. The Office of Airport Planning and Programming also
plays a role in determining sponsor eligibility, and

administers the AIP and PFC programs, as well as several associated
programs and requirements.

IV. FAA Policy on Disputed Changes to Airport Sponsorship or Operations

    The determination of whether to seek a new applicant for airport
sponsorship is a state or local decision. The FAA expects that all
disputes about whether to change airport sponsorship and/or operating
authority will be resolved through a legally-binding agreement between
the parties involved in the dispute or a final, non-reviewable legal
decision. While parties should seek technical assistance from the FAA
as early as practicable, parties are encouraged to wait until a dispute
has been resolved before submitting an application to the FAA seeking
the agency's approval of a change in sponsorship of, and/or operational
responsibility for, an airport. In matters in which a proposed change
is contested by a current sponsor or operator, the FAA will not act on
a part 139 application or a change of airport sponsorship and/or
operating authority until the dispute is definitively resolved to the
satisfaction of the FAA. Resolution may be demonstrated by issuance of
a final, non-reviewable judicial decision requiring such a change, by
the issuance of a consent letter between the existing airport sponsor
and/or operator and the proposed new sponsor and/or operator, or by
other legally definitive means deemed acceptable to the FAA.
    The FAA will accept an application for a change in airport
sponsorship/operation only upon a legally definitive resolution of a
dispute. At that time, the FAA will evaluate whether an application is
complete and whether the proposed airport sponsor/operator is capable
of assuming all grant assurances, safety compliance, and other Federal
obligations, and has the expertise to operate the airport as required
by law.

V. Reimbursement of Airport Investments

    In circumstances in which a change in sponsorship or operation of
an airport is approved and effectuated, the new airport sponsor and/or
operator should reimburse the prior sponsor for investments that have
been made by the prior sponsor of the airport but have not been fully
recouped at the time of the change in airport sponsorship. Any such
reimbursements must be consistent with the FAA's Policy and Procedures
Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue, 64 FR 7696 (Feb. 16, 1999).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 25, 2016.
Eduardo A. Angeles,
Associate Administrator for Airports.
[FR Doc. 2016-13177 Filed 6-1-16; 11:15 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 231 (Monday, December 4, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57135-57137]
[FR Doc No: 2017-26080]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 174

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0113; FRL-9970-43]

Bacillus thuringiensis Cry14Ab-1 Protein in or on Soybean;
Temporary Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a temporary exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for residues of the Bacillus thuringiensis
Cry14Ab-1 protein in or on soybean, when used as a plant-incorporated
protectant (PIP) in soybean plants, in accordance with the terms of
Experimental Use Permit (EUP) No. 264-EUP-151. Bayer CropScience LP.,
submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA), requesting the temporary tolerance exemption. This
regulation eliminates the need under FFDCA to establish a maximum
permissible level for residues of Cry14Ab-1 protein. The temporary
tolerance exemption expires on April 1, 2020.

DATES: This regulation is effective December 4, 2017. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before February 2, 2018,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0113, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert McNally, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone

number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 174 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file
an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0113 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
February 2, 2018. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0113, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional
instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more
information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background

    In the Federal Register of June 8, 2017 (82 FR 26641) (FRL-9961-
14), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance
petition (PP 6F8541) by Bayer CropScience LP., 2 T.W. Alexander Dr.,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. The petitioner requested that 40 CFR
part 180 be amended by establishing a temporary exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for residues of the plant-pesticide Bacillus
thuringiensis Cry14Ab-1 in or on soybean. That document referenced a
summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner Bayer CropScience
LP, which is available in the docket via http://www.regulations.gov.
There were no comments received in response to the Notice of Filing.
    EPA is establishing a temporary exemption that varies slightly from
the request, as explained in Unit III.C.

III. Final Rule

A. EPA's Safety Determination

    Section 408(r) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to establish a temporary
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues covered by
an experimental use permit issued under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. That section states that the provisions
of section 408(c)(2) of FFDCA apply to exemptions issued under FFDCA
section 408(r). Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to
establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal
limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA
determines that the exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of
FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty
that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide
chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all
other exposures for which there is reliable information.'' This
includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings
but does not include occupational exposure. Pursuant to FFDCA section
408(c)(2)(B), in establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the
factors set forth in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C), which require EPA to
give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the
pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance or tolerance
exemption and to ``ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no
harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the
pesticide chemical residue. . . .'' Additionally, FFDCA section
408(b)(2)(D) requires that EPA consider ``available information
concerning the cumulative effects of [a particular pesticide's] . . .
residues and other substances that have a common mechanism of
toxicity.''
    EPA evaluated the available toxicity and exposure data on Bacillus
thuringiensis Cry14Ab-1 and considered its validity, completeness, and
reliability, as well as the relationship of this information to human
risk. In summary, the available data does not indicate any adverse
effects due to toxicity or allergenicity of the Cry14Ab-1 protein. A
full explanation of the data upon which EPA relied and its risk
assessments based on that data can be found within the document
entitled ``Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) Considerations
for the Plant-Incorporated Protectant Pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis
Cry14Ab-1.'' This document, as well as other relevant information, is
available in the docket for this action as described under ADDRESSES.
    There is likely to be exposure to Cry14Ab-1 through consumption of
soybean plants containing the pesticide, and there is potential for
exposure in drinking water. There is unlikely to be residential or non-
occupational exposure due to incorporation within the plant and the
lack of availability at this time of the plant for residential uses.
    Although FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) provides for an additional
tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the case of
threshold effects, EPA has determined that there are no such

effects due to the lack of toxicity and allergenicity for this PIP. As
a result, an additional margin of safety for the protection of infants
and children is unnecessary.
    Based upon its evaluation, EPA concludes that there is reasonable
certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. population, including
infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of the
Cry14Ab-1 protein in or on soybean. This includes all anticipated
dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information. The Agency has arrived at this conclusion based on the
lack of toxicity and allergenicity for the Bacillus thuringiensis
Cry14Ab-1 protein. Therefore, a temporary exemption is established for
residues of this plant-incorporated protectant Bacillus thuringiensis
Cry14Ab-1 protein in or on soybean.

B. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes
because EPA is establishing a temporary exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance without any numerical limitation for which enforcement
is unnecessary.

C. Revisions to the Requested Tolerance Exemption

    EPA's final rule revises the request from ``plant-pesticide'' to
``plant-incorporated protectant'' to align with the Agency's language
published in 40 CFR 174.3; adds the term ``temporary'' to reflect that
this exemption is linked to the pending experimental use permit action,
and is published in part 174 rather than part 180, since PIP tolerance
exemptions are published in part 174.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition
submitted to EPA. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order
12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review
under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001); Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997); or Executive Order 13771, entitled ``Reducing
Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs'' (82 FR 9339, February 3,
2017). This action does not contain any information collections subject
to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.) nor does it require any special considerations under Executive
Order 12898, entitled ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR
7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance
exemption in this action, do not require the issuance of a proposed
rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes. As a result, this
action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, EPA has determined that this
action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal
governments, on the relationship between the national government and
the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, EPA has determined that
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999), and Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000), do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not
impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as
described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2
U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require EPA's consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

V. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 174

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: November 13, 2017.
Richard P. Keigwin, Jr.,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 174--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 174 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136-136y; 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. Add Sec.  174.538 to subpart W to read as follows:

Sec.  174.538  Bacillus thuringiensis Cry14Ab-1 protein in soybean;
temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.

    Residues of the protein Cry14Ab-1 in or on soybean are temporarily
exempt from the requirement of a tolerance when used as a plant-
incorporated protectant in soybean plants in accordance with the terms
of Experimental Use Permit No. 264-EUP-151. This temporary exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance expires on April 1, 2020.

[FR Doc. 2017-26080 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P