[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 114 (Thursday, June 15, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27451-27456]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12469]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0215; FRL-9963-78-Region 9]

Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, South Coast Air
Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve revisions to the South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD or District) portion of the California State Implementation
Plan (SIP). These revisions concern the District's demonstration
regarding Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) requirements
for the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
in the South Coast Air Basin and Coachella Valley ozone nonattainment
areas. The EPA had previously proposed to partially approve and
partially disapprove SCAQMD's RACT SIP demonstration. However, since
publication of the proposed rule, SCAQMD has addressed the identified
deficiency that was the basis for the proposed partial disapproval by
completing additional analysis and by submitting the analysis to the
EPA as a supplement to the RACT demonstration. Because the supplemental
analysis adequately addresses the deficiency, the EPA is withdrawing
the previous proposed action and is now proposing full approval of
SCAQMD's RACT SIP demonstration for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, as recently
supplemented. The action proposed herein is based on a public draft
version of the SCAQMD RACT supplement, and the EPA will not take final
action until submittal of the final version of the SCAQMD RACT
supplement as a revision of the California SIP.

DATES:  Any comments must arrive by July 17, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2016-0215 at https://www.regulations.gov/, or via email to Andrew
Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For
comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be removed or
edited from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA
may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish
to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission
methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stanley Tong, EPA Region IX, (415)
947-4122<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What documents did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of these documents?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted documents?
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action
    A. How is the EPA evaluating the submitted documents?
    B. Do the documents meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. Public Comment and Proposed Action
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What documents did the State submit?

    On June 6, 2014, the SCAQMD adopted the ``2016 AQMP) Reasonably
Available Control Technology (RACT) Demonstration'' (``2016 AQMP RACT
SIP''), and on July 18, 2014, the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
submitted it to the EPA for approval as a revision to the California
SIP. On January 18, 2015, the submittal of the 2016 AQMP RACT SIP was
deemed complete by operation of law.
    On May 22, 2017, CARB submitted the District's public draft version
of the ``Supplemental RACM/RACT Analysis for the NOX RECLAIM
Program'' (``2017 RACT Supplement'') along with a request for parallel
processing.\1\ The District prepared the 2017 RACT Supplement to
address a deficiency that the EPA had identified in the 2016 AQMP RACT
SIP and that was the basis for the EPA's proposed partial disapproval
of that submittal published on November 3, 2016 (81 FR 76547). The 2017
RACT Supplement includes additional emissions analysis, two negative
declarations, and certain conditions from permits for two specific
stationary sources located in Coachella Valley. As noted in footnote 1
of this document, under our parallel processing procedure, the EPA
proposes action on a public draft version of a SIP revision but will
take final action only after the final version is adopted and submitted
to the EPA for approval. In this instance, we are proposing action
based on the public draft version of the 2017 RACT Supplement submitted
by CARB on May 22, 2017 and will not take final action until the final
version of the 2017 RACT

Supplement is adopted and submitted to the EPA. CARB's May 22, 2017
letter indicates that the District Board is scheduled to consider
approval of the 2017 RACT Supplement and associated documents on July
7, 2017, and if it is approved, CARB will submit the final package to
the EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Under the EPA's ``parallel processing'' procedure, the EPA
proposes rulemaking action concurrently with the state's proposed
rulemaking. If the state's proposed rule is changed, the EPA will
evaluate that subsequent change and may publish another notice of
proposed rulemaking. If no significant change is made, the EPA will
publish a final rulemaking on the rule after responding to any
submitted comments. Final rulemaking action by the EPA will occur
only after the rule has been fully adopted by California and
submitted formally to the EPA for incorporation into the SIP. See 40
CFR part 51, appendix V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Are there other versions of these documents?

    There are no previous versions of the documents described above in
the SCAQMD portion of the California SIP for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted documents?

    Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides
(NOX) together produce ground-level ozone, smog and
particulate matter (PM), which harm human health and the environment.
Section 110(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'') requires states to
submit regulations that control VOC and NOX emissions. CAA
sections 182(b)(2) and (f) require that SIPs for 1-hour ozone
nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above implement RACT for
any source covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines \2\ (CTG)
document and for any major source of VOC or NOX. The EPA's
implementing regulations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS extend the same RACT
requirement to areas classified as moderate or above for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. See 40 CFR 51.1112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ CTGs are used to help define VOC RACT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SCAQMD is subject to the RACT requirement as it is authorized
under state law to regulate stationary sources in the South Coast Air
Basin (``South Coast''), which is classified as an extreme
nonattainment area, and in the Coachella Valley portion of Riverside
County (``Coachella Valley''), which is classified as a severe-15
nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (40 CFR 81.305); 77
FR 30088 at 30101 and 30103 (May 21, 2012). Therefore, the SCAQMD must,
at a minimum, adopt RACT-level controls for all sources covered by a
CTG document and for all major non-CTG sources of VOC or NOX
within the two nonattainment areas. Any stationary source that emits or
has the potential to emit at least 10 tons per year of VOC or
NOX is a major stationary source in an extreme ozone
nonattainment area (CAA section 182(e) and (f)), and any stationary
source that emits or has the potential to emit at least 25 tons per
year of VOC or NOX is a major stationary source in a severe
ozone nonattainment area (CAA section 182(d) and (f)).
    Section III.D of the preamble to the EPA's final rule to implement
the 2008 ozone NAAQS (80 FR 12264, March 6, 2015) discusses RACT
requirements. It states, in part, that RACT SIPs must contain adopted
RACT regulations, certifications where appropriate that existing
provisions are RACT, and/or negative declarations that no sources in
the nonattainment area are covered by a specific CTG source category,
and that states must submit appropriate supporting information for
their RACT submissions as described in the EPA's implementation rule
for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. See id., at 12278; 70 FR 71612, at 71652
(November 29, 2005).
    The submitted documents provide SCAQMD's analyses of its compliance
with the CAA section 182 RACT requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. CARB also intends the 2017 RACT Supplement to address the EPA's
April 14, 2016 (81 FR 22025) disapproval of the reasonably available
control measures/RACT (RACM/RACT) demonstration for the South Coast for
the 2006 fine PM (PM2.5) NAAQS. Today's rulemaking addresses
the RACT requirement for the 2008 ozone standard, not the RACM/RACT
requirement for the PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA will address the
latter requirement in a separate rulemaking. The EPA's technical
support documents (TSDs) evaluating the 2016 AQMP RACT SIP and the 2017
RACT Supplement have more information about the District's submissions
and the EPA's evaluation thereof.

II. The EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action

A. How is the EPA evaluating submitted documents?

    SIP rules must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not
interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA section
110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements in
nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions
reductions (see CAA section 193). Generally, SIP rules must require
RACT for each category of sources covered by a CTG document as well as
each major source of VOC or NOX in ozone nonattainment areas
classified as moderate or above (see CAA section 182(b)(2) and (f), and
40 CFR 51.1112). The SCAQMD regulates an extreme ozone nonattainment
area (i.e., the South Coast Air Basin) and a severe ozone nonattainment
area (i.e., Coachella Valley) (see 40 CFR 81.305), so the District's
rules must implement RACT.
    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate
enforceability, revision/relaxation and rule stringency requirements
for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:

1. ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,''
57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992);
2. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January 11,
1990);
3. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook);
4. ``State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the
General Preamble; Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 Implementation of
Title I; Proposed Rule,'' (the NOX Supplement), 57 FR
55620, November 25, 1992;
5. Memorandum from William T. Harnett to Regional Air Division
Directors, (May 18, 2006), ``RACT Qs & As--Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACT) Questions and Answers'';
6. ``Implementation of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Ozone: State Implementation Plan Requirements'' (80 FR
12264; March 6, 2015); and
7. ``Final Rule to Implement the 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard -Phase 2'' (70 FR 71612; November 29, 2005).

B. Do the documents meet the evaluation criteria?

    The 2016 AQMP RACT SIP and 2017 RACT Supplement build on the
District's previous RACT SIP demonstrations: The 2006 RACT SIP (73 FR
76947, December 18, 2008), the 2007 AQMP (77 FR 12674, March 1, 2012)
and the 2012 AQMP (79 FR 52526, September 3, 2014). The 2016 AQMP RACT
SIP concludes, after a review and evaluation of more than 30 rules
recently developed by other ozone nonattainment air districts, that
SCAQMD's current rules meet the EPA's criteria for RACT acceptability
and inclusion in the SIP for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The 2017 RACT
Supplement adds to the 2016 AQMP RACT SIP by including two negative
declarations, and by including certain permit conditions for two major
NOX sources in Coachella Valley, and by providing a
demonstration for how District rules meet the RACT requirement for
major NOX sources in the South Coast.

1. CTG Source Categories--South Coast and Coachella Valley
    With regards to CTG source categories, based on its research of the
District's permit databases and telephone directories for sources in
the District for the 2007 AQMP, the 2012 AQMP, and the 2016 AQMP RACT
SIP, the SCAQMD concluded that all identified sources subject to a CTG
are subject to District rules that establish control requirements
meeting or exceeding RACT. Because District rules apply in both the
South Coast and Coachella Valley, the District's conclusion in this
regard extends to both nonattainment areas.
    Where there are no existing sources covered by a particular CTG
document, states may, in lieu of adopting RACT requirements for those
sources, adopt negative declarations certifying that there are no such
sources in the relevant nonattainment area. The SCAQMD did not include
any negative declarations in the 2016 AQMP RACT SIP; however,
subsequent to its 2016 AQMP RACT SIP submittal, the EPA had several
discussions with the SCAQMD and concluded there may be two CTG
categories where the District has no sources applicable to the CTGs:
(1) Surface Coating Operations at Shipbuilding and Ship Repair
Facilities CTG; and (2) the paper coating portion of the 2007 Paper,
Film, and Foil Coatings CTG. Based on further investigation, the
District has agreed that negative declarations for the two CTG
categories are warranted and has included them in the 2017 RACT
Supplement.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ SCAQMD, ``Negative Declaration for Control Techniques
Guidelines of Surface Coating Operations at Shipbuilding and Ship
Repair Facilities, and Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings,'' May 2017,
included at the back of the 2017 RACT Supplement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on our review and evaluation of the documentation provided by
the SCAQMD in the 2016 AQMP RACT SIP (and earlier plans) and in the
2017 RACT Supplement, we agree that existing District rules approved in
the SIP meet or are more stringent than the corresponding CTG limits
and applicability thresholds for each category of VOC sources covered
by a CTG document, other than the two CTG documents discussed above. As
discussed in our TSD, we conclude that existing District rules require
the implementation of RACT for each category of VOC sources covered by
a CTG document (other than the two discussed above) located in the
South Coast and Coachella Valley. For the Surface Coating Operations at
Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Facilities CTG and the paper coating
portion of the 2007 Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings CTG, we have
reviewed the District's evaluation of its sources as described in the
2017 RACT Supplement and concur with the District's findings. As such,
we propose approval of the District's two negative declarations
included in the 2017 RACT Supplement.
2. Major Stationary Sources of VOC or NOX Emissions (Other
than RECLAIM Facilities)--South Coast and Coachella Valley
    With respect to major stationary sources of VOC or NOX
emissions, the District provided supplemental information identifying
21 new major Title V sources since its 2006 RACT SIP certification and
provided a list of equipment at these facilities that emit greater than
5 tons per year. The District concluded that all the identified
equipment were covered by command-and-control VOC or NOX
rules that implement RACT. The District's efforts to identify all new
major sources appears to be thorough, and we agree that the District's
command-and-control VOC and NOX rules approved in the SIP
require implementation of RACT for all major non-CTG VOC and
NOX sources in the South Coast and Coachella Valley to which
those rules apply. Generally, major NOX sources in the South
Coast and two major NOX sources in Coachella Valley are not
subject to the District's command-and-control rules, but are subject to
a set of rules establishing a cap-and-trade program.\4\ Our evaluation
of these sources for compliance with the RACT requirement is covered in
the following sections of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Certain sources such as fire-fighting facilities, police
facilities, and public transit remain covered under SCAQMD's
command-and-control rules and are exempted from the cap-and-trade
program. See Rule 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. RECLAIM Facilities in the South Coast
    Within the South Coast, major NOX sources are included
in SCAQMD's Regulation XX (``Regional Clean Air Incentives Market
(RECLAIM)'') program. The District adopted the RECLAIM program in 1993
to reduce emissions from the largest stationary sources of
NOX and sulfur oxides (SOX) emissions through a
market-based trading program that establishes annual declining
NOX and SOX allocations (also called ``facility
caps'') and allows covered facilities to comply with their facility
caps by installing pollution control equipment, changing operations, or
purchasing RECLAIM trading credits (RTCs) from the RECLAIM market.
Section 40440 of the California Health and Safety Code (CH&SC) requires
the District to monitor advances in best available retrofit control
technology (BARCT) and periodically to reassess the overall facility
caps to ensure that the facility caps are equivalent, in the aggregate,
to BARCT emission levels imposed on affected sources.\5\ Facilities
subject to RECLAIM are exempted from a number of District command-and-
control (also referred to as ``prohibitory'') rules that otherwise
apply to sources of NOX and SOX emissions in the
South Coast.\6\ With certain exceptions, facilities located outside of
the South Coast but within SCAQMD jurisdiction (e.g., facilities in
Coachella Valley) are not included in the RECLAIM program. As of the
2015 compliance year, the most recent compliance year fully audited,
there are approximately 268 facilities in the RECLAIM NOX
program.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ BARCT is defined as ``an emission limitation that is based
on the maximum degree of reduction achievable taking into account
environmental, energy, and economic impacts by each class or
category of source.'' CH&SC section 40406. For the purposes of
comparison, the EPA defines RACT as the lowest emission limitation
that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of
control technology that is reasonably available considering
technological and economic feasibility. 44 FR 53762 (September 17,
1979). As such, we generally find that BARCT level of control meets
or exceeds RACT level of control.
    \6\ See District Rule 2001 (``Applicability''), as amended May
6, 2005. Exemptions from RECLAIM, such as the exemption for certain
facilities located in Coachella Valley, are listed in Rule 2001(i).
    \7\ See page 4 of the 2017 RACT Supplement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under longstanding EPA interpretation of the CAA, a market-based
cap and trade program may satisfy RACT requirements by ensuring that
the level of emission reductions resulting from implementation of the
program will be equal, in the aggregate, to those reductions expected
from the direct application of RACT on all affected sources within the
nonattainment area.\8\ The EPA approved the RECLAIM program into the
California SIP in June 1998 based in part on a conclusion that the
NOX emission caps in the program satisfied the RACT
requirements of CAA section 182(b)(2) and (f) for covered
NOX emission sources in the aggregate.\9\ In 2005 and 2010,
the District adopted revisions to the RECLAIM program, which the EPA
approved in 2006 and 2011, respectively, based in part on conclusions
that the revisions continued

to satisfy RACT requirements.\10\ We refer to the current
NOX RECLAIM program as approved into the SIP as the ``2010
RECLAIM program.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 59 FR 16690 (April 7, 1994) and the EPA, ``Improving Air
Quality with Economic Incentive Programs,'' EPA-452/R-01-001
(January 2001), at Section 16.7 and 80 FR 12264, 12279 (March 6,
2015).
    \9\ 61 FR 57834 (November 8, 1996) and 63 FR 32621 (June 15,
1998).
    \10\ 71 FR 51120 (August 29, 2006) and 76 FR 50128 (August 12,
2011).
    \11\ The RECLAIM program is codified by the District in
Regulation XX, which includes a number of individual rules, such as
Rule 2001 (``Applicability'') and Rule 2002 (``Allocations for
Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) and Oxides of Sulfur
(SOX)'' and many others. Herein, we refer to the ``2010
RECLAIM program,'' because the most recent SIP-approved RECLAIM rule
amendments were adopted by the District on November 5, 2010. The
2010 amendments only affected certain sections of Rule 2002
pertaining to SOX emissions, and thus, the ``2010 RECLAIM
program'' reflects other amendments by the District that we approved
prior to that time and that were unaffected by the 2010 amendments.
For instance, with respect to NOX allocations, the most
recent SIP-approved amendments that are part of the ``2010 RECLAIM
program'' were adopted by the District on January 7, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2016 AQMP RACT SIP relies on the 2010 RECLAIM program to
satisfy the RACT requirements for major NOX sources in the
South Coast. With respect to such sources, we initially concluded, as
described in our November 3, 2016 proposed rule, 81 FR 76547, at 76549,
that the 2016 AQMP RACT SIP had failed to demonstrate that the 2010
RECLAIM program had achieved NOX emissions reductions equal,
in the aggregate, to those reductions expected from the direct
application of RACT on all major NOX sources in the South
Coast. We based our initial conclusion on information contained in
SCAQMD's December 2015 Draft Final Staff Report (``2015 staff report'')
revising Regulation XX that indicated that further reductions in the
NOX RECLAIM emissions cap were needed to achieve BARCT.\12\
Given that BARCT level of control by definition meets or exceeds RACT
level of control, we could have safely concluded that the 2010 RECLAIM
program meets RACT level of control if it had been demonstrated to
meet, in the aggregate, BARCT level of control. In light of the
information in the 2015 staff report, however, there was evidence that
the RECLAIM program had not achieved BARCT level of control, and thus
we had inadequate basis to conclude that the 2010 RECLAIM program had
achieved RACT level of control. The use of the BARCT level of control,
rather than RACT, as the criterion for approval or disapproval was
necessary for the purposes of the November 3, 2016 proposed rule
because no specific demonstration of RECLAIM as meeting the RACT
requirement had been submitted as part of the 2016 AQMP RACT SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Draft Final Staff Report, Proposed Amendments to Regulation
XX Regional Clean Air Initiatives Market (RECLAIM) NOX
RECLAIM, December 4, 2015 http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/Agendas/Governing-Board/2015/2015-dec4-030.pdf?sfvrsn=9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to our November 3, 2016 proposed partial disapproval of
the South Coast RACT demonstration, and also to respond to the EPA's
April 14, 2016 disapproval of the South Coast RACM/RACT demonstration
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, both of which were premised on the
same deficient showing with respect to major NOX sources in
the South Coast that are subject to RECLAIM, the District has provided,
in the 2017 RACT Supplement, a specific demonstration of how the 2010
RECLAIM program has achieved, in the aggregate, RACT level of control
for major NOX sources in the South Coast. In the 2017 RACT
Supplement, the District has also evaluated the amendments in the
RECLAIM program adopted by the District in 2015 and 2016 for compliance
with the RACT requirement.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ On March 17, 2017, CARB submitted amended RECLAIM rules
reflecting revisions adopted by the District on December 4, 2015
(significant revisions reducing total NOX RTC holdings by
12 tpd by 2022), February 5, 2016 (minor revisions to certain
definitions), and October 7, 2016 (new provisions intended to
prevent the majority of facility shutdown credits from entering the
market) to the EPA as a revision to the California SIP. The EPA has
recently proposed to approve the amended rules. See 82 FR 25996
(June 6, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the NOX RECLAIM program was first adopted, RECLAIM
facilities were issued NOX annual allocations that declined
annually from 1993 until 2003 and remained constant after 2003. The
ending RTC allocation (for all program sources) in 2003 was set at 34.2
tons per day (tpd). The annual allocations reflected the levels of
BARCT to be in place at the RECLAIM facilities, and were the result of
a BARCT analysis conducted in 1993.
    As noted above, state law also requires the District to monitor
advances in BARCT and to periodically reassess the overall facility
caps to ensure that RECLAIM facilities achieve the same or greater
emission reductions that would have occurred under a command-and-
control approach. In 2005, the District examined the RECLAIM program
and found that additional reduction opportunities existed due to the
advancement of control technology.
    As part of the 2005 NOX BARCT reassessment, the District
examined the most stringent emission limits in other air pollution
control district rules and other requirements for equipment categories
in the RECLAIM program in an effort to determine the appropriate mass
emission reductions to reflect BARCT. District staff also examined
types of retrofit technologies that had been achieved in practice
regardless of whether these controls are required in SIP approved
rules. As a result, the District identified new BARCT levels for six
source categories in the NOX RECLAIM program and established
a new ending RTC allocation of 26.5 tpd, which represented the
allowable programmatic emissions after BARCT implementation. The
methodology for determining the ending RTC allocation relied on using
actual emissions that are adjusted for growth and BARCT. Under amended
rules adopted by the District in 2005, the facility annual allocations
(in the aggregate) were reduced in annual increments from 34.2 tpd to
26.5 tpd between 2007 and 2011.
    To demonstrate that the 2010 RECLAIM program (reflecting 2005
NOX RECLAIM rule amendments) implemented RACT, the District
re-examined the BARCT reevaluation that it conducted in 2005 and
determined that, for certain source categories, the BARCT allocation
level was essentially equivalent to RACT, but that, for certain other
source categories, the BARCT allocation level was beyond RACT because
there were no other rules in the District itself or any other
California air district for these specific categories that were more
stringent than the limits established under the original RECLAIM
program in 1993 (and fully implemented by 2003). The District re-
calculated a hypothetical ending annual RTC allocation (of 30.9 tpd)
reflecting RACT implementation (rather than BARCT) and determined that,
based on audited actual NOX emissions in 2012, the 2010
RECLAIM program achieved a 16% reduction in actual NOX
emissions from RECLAIM sources from 2006 to 2012 whereas only a 9.6%
reduction (i.e., 34.2 tpd down to 30.9 tpd) was necessary to meet the
RACT requirement. On that basis, the District concludes, in the 2017
RACT Supplement, that the 2010 RECLAIM program met the RACT requirement
for major NOX sources in the South Coast.
    We have reviewed the District's evaluation of the 2010 RECLAIM
program for compliance with the RACT requirement and find that the
District's approach, assumptions, and calculation methods are
reasonable. Based on the District's analysis, we conclude that the
NOX RECLAIM program, as amended in 2005, provided for
NOX reductions equivalent, in the aggregate, to those
reductions expected from the direct application of RACT on all major
NOX sources in the South Coast.
    However, the emissions limits that form the basis for the
District's re-examination of the RECLAIM program as described above are
predicated on the

2005 BARCT reevaluation of the program. To comply with the RACT
requirement for the 2008 ozone standard, for which designations were
promulgated in 2012, the RECLAIM program had to be re-evaluated post-
2012 for potential improvements in control technology since 2005. In
2015, the District conducted such a reevaluation and amended the
RECLAIM rules to establish a new ending RTC allocation of 14.5 tpd
(reflecting BARCT implementation) to be achieved incrementally from
2017 through 2022.
    In the 2017 RACT Supplement, the District also provides a
demonstration of how the RECLAIM program, as amended in 2015, meets the
RACT requirement in the aggregate. To do so, the District performed a
similar type of analysis as that described above for the 2005 RECLAIM
amendments to determine a hypothetical ending RTC allocation reflecting
RACT implementation (rather than BARCT) of 14.8 tpd. Because the ending
RTC allocation (adopted by the District in 2015 and implementing BARCT)
of 14.5 tpd is less than (i.e., more stringent than) the hypothetical
RTC allocation (implementing RACT) of 14.8 tpd, the District concludes
that the program as amended in 2015 meets the RACT requirement.
    We have reviewed the District's approach, assumptions, and methods
to the updated RECLAIM program and agree that, as amended in 2015, the
RECLAIM program provides for emissions reductions equivalent, in the
aggregate, to those reductions expected from the direct application of
RACT on all major NOX sources in the South Coast and thereby
meets the RACT requirement for such sources for the purposes of the
2008 ozone standard.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ While not required for our evaluation of the 2016 AQMP RACT
SIP and 2017 RACT Supplement for compliance with the RACT
requirement for the South Coast and Coachella Valley for the 2008
ozone standard, we also take note of several recent developments
that pertain to the RECLAIM program. On March 3, 2017, the District
adopted the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan and in so doing
directed staff to modify the 2016 AQMP NOX RECLAIM
measure to achieve an additional 5 tpd NOX emission
reduction as soon as feasible, and not later than 2025, to
transition the RECLAIM program to a command-and-control regulatory
structure requiring BARCT level controls as soon as practicable. See
SCAQMD, Resolution No. 17-2 (``A Resolution of the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD or District) Governing Board
certifying the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for
the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP or Plan), and adopting
the 2016 AQMP, which is to be submitted into the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP)''), March 3, 2017, page 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also agree with the District that RECLAIM rule amendments in
October 2016 help to ensure the success of the program in achieving
BARCT-equivalent (and RACT-equivalent) reductions by preventing the
majority of facility shutdown RTCs from entering the market and
delaying the installation of pollution controls at other NOX
RECLAIM facilities.
4. RECLAIM Facilities in Coachella Valley
    As noted above, unlike major NOX sources in the South
Coast, major NOX sources in Coachella Valley are generally
not eligible to participate in the RECLAIM program but rather are
subject to the District's prohibitory rules.\15\ The RECLAIM rules,
however, establish an exception for electric generating facilities in
Coachella Valley that submit complete permit applications on or after
January 1, 2001. Such facilities may elect to enter the RECLAIM
program, and to date, two facilities in Coachella Valley have elected
to enter the program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ District Regulation XX (``Regional Clean Air Incentives
Market (RECLAIM)'', Rule 2001 (``Applicability''), paragraph
(i)(1)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our November 3, 2016 proposed rule, we did not extend the
deficiency we identified in the RACT demonstration for the South Coast
to Coachella Valley because we found that the two RECLAIM facilities
that are located there were both equipped with control technology that
meets or exceeds RACT level of control.\16\ The basic premise for our
proposed conclusion in this regard was that the RACT requirement was
met through permit conditions requiring RACT level of control because
such permit conditions are enforceable because they were issued under
SIP-approved New Source Review (NSR) rules. However, our rationale was
mistaken. Generally, NSR permit conditions alone are not sufficient to
meet the RACT requirement even where the conditions require control
technology that represent RACT level of control because permit
conditions are subject to revision outside of the SIP revision process
and because permits can expire whereas SIP limits must be permanent
until revised or rescinded through a SIP revision. On the other hand,
permit conditions that require RACT level of control at a given
facility may suffice to meet the RACT requirement if they are submitted
as a SIP revision and approved into the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See footnote 8 of our November 3, 2016 proposed rule at 81
FR 76547, at 76549.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In subsequent communications with the District, we noted our
mistaken rationale with respect to RACT compliance and the two
Coachella Valley facilities. In response, the District reviewed the
permits for the facilities and included the relevant permit conditions
for each as appendices A and B to the 2017 RACT Supplement. The permit
conditions submitted by the District pertain to specified
NOX emission limits ranging from 2.5 to 5 parts per million
(ppm) for the gas turbines, control technology (selective catalytic
reduction (SCR)), and monitoring, among other elements. The District's
analysis indicates that SCR is generally identified as an emission
control technology to achieve ``best available control technology''
emission limits in the range of 2 to 5 ppm for gas turbines, and thus
the controls meet or exceed the requirements for RACT. We have reviewed
the permit conditions (and SCAQMD's analysis) and find that they
provide for RACT level of control (or better) at the two RECLAIM
facilities in Coachella Valley. As such, we propose to approve the
permit conditions as part of the SIP.

C. Public Comment and Proposed Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, and based on the
rationale discussed above, the EPA proposes to approve the 2016 AQMP
RACT SIP and 2017 RACT Supplement, including the RACT demonstrations
provided in the two documents, negative declarations for two CTG source
categories, and certain permit conditions for two power plants in
Coachella Valley, because we believe they fulfill the RACT SIP
requirements under CAA sections 182(b) and (f) and 40 CFR 51.1112 for
the South Coast and Coachella Valley for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. As noted
above, our proposed action relies upon our evaluation of the public
draft version of the 2017 RACT Supplement and we will not take final
action until it is adopted and submitted to us as a revision to the
California SIP. If the 2017 RACT Supplement that we have evaluated were
to be revised significantly prior to adoption and submittal, we will
need to reconsider our proposed action accordingly. We are withdrawing
our previous proposal (61 FR 76547, November 3, 2016) to partially
approve and partially disapprove the 2016 AQMP RACT SIP and are now
proposing full approval because we have concluded that the 2016 AQMP
RACT SIP, as supplemented by the 2017 RACT Supplement, now meets the
relevant CAA requirements.\17\ If you submitted

comments on our previous proposed action and believe that those
comments remain relevant, you will need to resubmit your comments
within the public comment period for today's proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Although we are withdrawing our November 3, 2016 proposed
action, our TSD associated with that proposed action still contains
pertinent information that summarizes our evaluation of SCAQMD's
2016 AQMP RACT SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until July
17, 2017. If we take final action to approve the submitted documents,
our final action will incorporate them into the federally-enforceable
SIP.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference certain permit conditions for two stationary sources in
Coachella Valley as described above in preamble. The EPA has made, and
will continue to make, these materials available through
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve SIP
revisions as meeting federal requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     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 Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: June 7, 2017.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2017-12469 Filed 6-14-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Personal Communication: Between Chris Goebel, National Association of Chemical Recyclers, and Industrial Economics, Incorporated Date: May 20, 1997 Content: Chris Goebel answered questions regarding the proportion of hazardous waste that is recycled or used as fuel by chemical recyclers and waste burning kilns. According to Mr. Goebel, an estimated 55 percent of waste received by members of the National Association of Chemical Recyclers is recycled, often at solvent recovery facilities. Cement kilns burn approximately 45 percent of the hazardous waste that they receive for fuel.


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:   To whom it concerns:

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to.  I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. An e-cigarette has been the only product, including trying smoking cessation medications, that I have successfully used and been able to quit smoking. I see positive changes in my health and quality of life.  I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 251 (Friday, December 30, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 82234-82238]
[FR Doc No: 2011-33592]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0943; FRL-9614-6]
RIN 2060-AQ55

Amendments to Delegation of Authority Provisions in the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is taking action to propose amendments to the New
Source Review (NSR) Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
program that would correct certain outdated language that currently
limits EPA's ability to delegate the Federal PSD program to interested
Indian tribes. This action proposes changes that would provide
consistency with the current Federal PSD regulatory requirements by
allowing the EPA to delegate the PSD program to interested tribes for
their attainment areas. The regulations already authorize
administrative delegation, and EPA has in the past delegated
administration of the PSD program to states and local governments for
their attainment areas. The EPA is proposing to delete a restriction on
tribes' ability to take delegation of the PSD program and to include
tribes, along with state and locals, in another section to make it
clear that tribes may voluntarily take direct delegation of the NSR
program in areas that are currently attaining the national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS). The rule would not impose any new
requirements. The EPA is also proposing to correct a minor
typographical error.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 28, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0943, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2010-0943 in the subject line of the message.
     Fax: Send comments to<PHONE_NUMBER>, attention Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0943.
     Mail: Amendments to Delegation of Authority Provisions in
the PSD program Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode:
6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0943.
     Hand Delivery: The EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room,
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460,
Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0943. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0943. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means the 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 the EPA without going
through http://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, the 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 the EPA cannot read your comment due
to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the
EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should
avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be
free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Amendments to
Delegation of Authority Provisions in the PSD Program Docket, EPA/DC,
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. 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 Air
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regina Chappell, Outreach and
Information Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Mail Code C-304-03, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: (919)
541-0942; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The supplementary information in this
preamble is organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to the EPA?
    1. Submitting CBI
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
    C. Where can I get a copy of this document?
II. Background Information for Proposed Rule
    A. What is the New Source Review Program?
    B. What is the statutory authority and regulatory approach for
this proposed action?
    C. Why is this action needed?
III. Summary of Proposed Amendments
IV. Summary of Impacts of Proposed Amendments
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Generally, this rule only applies to tribal governments. It removes
a restriction relating to delegation of the Federal NSR PSD program and
allows, but does not require, interested tribes to request such
delegation for sources in their attainment areas. It does not make
changes to the underlying Federal PSD program requirements and thus
should not have significant impact on new or modified sources.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to the EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to the EPA
through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or
all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in
a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk
or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or
CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to
one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed
as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following
address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02),
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0943.
    2. Tips for Preparing Comments. When submitting comments, remember
to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives,
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

C. Where can I get a copy of this document?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this action will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW).
Following signature, a copy of this final action will be posted in the
regulations and standards section of the NSR home page located at
http://www.epa.gov/nsr/, on the Tribal air home page at http://www.epa.gov/oar/tribal and on the Technology Transfer Network (TTN)
policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the
following address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides
information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution
control.

II. Background Information for Proposed Amendments

A. What is the New Source Review Program

    The major NSR program contained in parts C and D of title I of the
Clean Air Act is a preconstruction review and permitting program
applicable to new major sources and major modifications at such
sources. In areas meeting the

NAAQS (``attainment'' areas) or for which there is insufficient
information to determine whether they meet the NAAQS
(``unclassifiable'' areas), the NSR requirements under part C of title
I of the Act apply. We call this portion of the major NSR program the
``Prevention of Significant Deterioration'' or PSD program. In areas
not meeting the NAAQS and in ozone transport regions (OTR), the major
NSR program is implemented under the requirements of part D of title I
of the Act. We call this program the ``nonattainment'' major NSR
program. We have promulgated rules in 40 CFR 52.21 to implement PSD in
portions of the country that do not have approved state or tribal PSD
programs. This proposed action makes corrections to the PSD program in
40 CFR 52.21.

B. What is the statutory authority and regulatory approach for this
proposed action?

    The authority for this proposed action is Clean Air Act Section
301(a). EPA notes that Clean Air Act Section 301(d) (which postdates
the original regulation that established 52.21(u)) and its implementing
regulations under the Tribal Authority Rule (TAR) at 40 CFR 49.6 and
49.7 allow tribes to seek approval for such programs covering their
reservations or other areas within their jurisdiction. These provisions
also establish the criteria tribes must meet and the types of
information that must be included in tribal applications to obtain
eligibility to administer tribal programs, including Tribal
Implementation Plans and tribal NSR programs. The TAR allows tribes to
seek approval for such programs covering their reservations or other
areas within their jurisdiction.
    However, although section 301(d) of the Act and the TAR authorize
the EPA to review and approve tribal programs, neither the Act nor the
regulations require EPA approval of tribal programs as the sole
mechanism available for tribal agencies to take on permitting
responsibilities. Some tribes may choose not to develop tribal NSR
programs for submission to the EPA for approval under the TAR, but may
still wish to assist the EPA in implementing all or some portion of the
Federal PSD program for their area of Indian country. Accordingly, we
are exercising our discretion to propose corrections for 40 CFR 52.21,
which will remove a restriction that had prevented EPA from delegating
administration of the Federal PSD program to interested tribal agencies
for their attainment areas. By administering the Federal program
through a delegation, tribal agencies may remain appropriately involved
in implementation of an important air quality program and may develop
their own capacity to manage such programs in the future should they
choose to do so. Removing this restriction is consistent with EPA's
existing and well-established procedures for delegating administration
of Federal CAA programs, including existing provisions at 40 CFR 52.21
(u)--which already provides for administrative delegation to state and
local agencies, but which currently prevents delegation to interested
tribes--40 CFR 71.4(j) and 71.10 (Federal operating permits), 40 CFR
49.122 (Federal air rules for Indian reservations in the Pacific
Northwest), and 40 CFR 49.161 and 49.173 (NSR rules for Indian
country).

C. Why is this action needed?

    This action will enable EPA to delegate the Federal PSD program (40
CFR 52.21(u)) to interested Indian tribes. This action is consistent
with existing PSD regulatory requirements, which already provide for
delegation of administration of the program, and makes that opportunity
available to tribes by allowing EPA to delegate administration of the
PSD program to interested tribes.

III. Summary of Proposed Amendments

    We are proposing to amend the NSR PSD program provisions at 40 CFR
52.21, paragraph (u) Delegation of Authority. In paragraph (u)(1), we
are correcting an erroneous cross reference and deleting a cross
reference that is no longer needed. In paragraph (u)(2)(i), the current
provisions state that the delegate agency shall consult with the
appropriate state and local air pollution control agency. We are
proposing to include tribes along with state and local air pollution
control agencies in this provision to provide equivalent involvement
for tribal air pollution control agencies. The paragraph (u)(3)
provision for reviewing a source or modification located on an Indian
Reservation states that the review authority shall not be redelegated
other than to an EPA Regional Office except where the state has assumed
jurisdiction over such land would no longer be in effect upon EPA
amending subsection (u). We are proposing to delete paragraph (u)(3) to
remove this restriction which had prevented EPA from delegating the PSD
program to interested tribes, and to redesignate current paragraph
(u)(4) as new paragraph (u)(3). These amendments will provide
appropriate opportunities for interested tribes to seek delegation of
the Federal PSD program over relevant sources and modifications in
their areas.

IV. Summary of Impacts of Proposed Amendments

    This action will allow, but not require, interested tribes to take
direct delegation of the Federal PSD program. It does not make changes
to the underlying Federal requirement (meaning the requirement that the
EPA must implement the program where delegation does not occur) and
thus should not have a significant impact on new or modifying sources.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under the Executive Orders 12866 and
13563 (76 FR 3281, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden.
This action only allows tribes to implement an existing program. This
action does not change the underlying Federal requirements; it will
allow interested tribes to accept delegation. However, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the information
collection requirements contained in the existing regulations 40 CFR
52.21 under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq., and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0003. The OMB
control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR
part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule would 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.
    For the purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR 121.201;
(2) a small

governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town,
school district, or special district with a population of less than
50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities will not incur any adverse impacts as a result of this rule
because this action does not create any new requirements or burdens. No
costs are associated with these amendments to part 52. This proposed
rule will not impose any requirements on small entities. We continue to
be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small
entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for state, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or
tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this action is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
    This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203
of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action will
allow tribes to voluntarily take delegation of the PSD requirements but
does not require them to do so.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It 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. The EPA has implementing authority
for 40 CFR part 52 for Indian country. This action allows interested
tribes to take delegation of the Federal program if they choose; it
does not modify the responsibility of the EPA to implement the program
where no delegation occurs. Thus, EO 13132 does not apply to this
action.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between the EPA and state and local
governments, the EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed
action from state and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    Subject to the Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000) EPA may not issue a regulation that has tribal 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 tribal governments, or
the EPA consults with tribal officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation and develops a tribal summary impact
statement.
    The EPA has concluded that this action will have tribal
implications. However, it will neither impose substantial direct
compliance costs on tribal governments, nor preempt Tribal law. This
proposed rule does not impose any requirements on tribes so it does not
impose substantial direct costs. However, it does support tribal self-
governance by enabling tribes to implement the Federal PSD program as
the EPA's delegate, if they choose.
    The EPA consulted with tribal officials early in the process of
developing this regulation to permit them to have meaningful and timely
input into its development. Tribal consultation was offered in a
consultation letter to all federally recognized tribes on November 10,
2011. We will provide consultation to those tribes who request
consultation. We have also participated in various tribal meetings
attended by tribal environmental professionals, i.e., National Tribal
Air Association (NTAA), National Tribal Forum (NTF). We have received
no adverse comments when this proposal was presented at those various
meetings. The EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this
proposed action from tribal officials.

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

    The EPA Interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1977) as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not
establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or
safety risks.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (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(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specification, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs the EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, the EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary
consensus standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    The EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. This proposed rule imposes no new requirements but does
allow interested tribes to accept delegation of the existing Federal
program.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Air pollution control, Environmental protection, Indians, Indians--
law, and Indians--tribal government.

    Dated: December 22, 2011.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR part 52 as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

    2. Amend Sec.  52.21 by revising paragraphs (u)(1) and (u)(2)(i)
and by removing paragraph (u)(3) and redesignating paragraph (u)(4) as
paragraph (u)(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.21  Prevention of significant deterioration of air quality.

* * * * *
    (u) Delegation of authority. (1) The Administrator shall have the
authority to delegate his responsibility for conducting source review
pursuant to this section, in accordance with paragraph (u)(2) of this
section.
    (2) * * *
    (i) Where the delegate agency is not an air pollution control
agency, it shall consult with the appropriate state, tribe, and local
air pollution control agency prior to making any determination under
this section. Similarly, where the delegate agency does not have
continuing responsibility for managing land use, it shall consult with
the appropriate state, tribe, and local agency primarily responsible
for managing land use prior to making any determination under this
section.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-33592 Filed 12-29-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 239 (Friday, December 11, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 79826-79828]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26047]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 27

[Docket No. FAA-2020-1102; Notice No. 27-052-SC]

Special Conditions: Garmin International, Inc., Bell Textron
Canada Limited Model 505 Helicopter, Visual Flight Rules Autopilot and
Stability Augmentation System

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Bell Textron
Canada Limited (BTCL) Model 505 helicopter. This helicopter as modified
by Garmin International, Inc. (Garmin), will have a novel or unusual
design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in
the airworthiness standards for helicopters. This design feature is
associated with the installation of an autopilot and stability
augmentation system (AP/SAS). The applicable airworthiness regulations
do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design
feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety
standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a
level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing
airworthiness standards.

DATES: Send comments on or before January 11, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by Docket No. FAA-2020-1102 using
any of the following methods:
     Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/ and follow the online instructions for sending
your comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as
described in the following paragraph, and other information as
described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments it receives,
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the
docket website, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all
comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an
association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-19478).
    Confidential Business Information: CBI is commercial or financial
information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by
its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552),
CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to
these special conditions contain commercial or financial information
that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as
private, and that is relevant or responsive to these special
conditions, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of these special conditions. Submissions containing CBI should
be sent to Andy Shaw, Continued Operational Safety Section, AIR-682,
Rotorcraft Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division, Aircraft
Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood
Pkwy, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. Any commentary
that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will
be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of
the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andy Shaw, Continued Operational
Safety Section, AIR-682, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, Policy and
Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone
(817) 222-5384; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Reason for No Prior Notice and Comment Before Adoption

    The FAA has determined, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B)
and 553(d)(3), that notice and opportunity for prior public comment
hereon are unnecessary because substantially identical special
conditions have been previously subject to the public comment process
in several prior instances such that the FAA is satisfied that new
comments are unlikely. For the same reason, the FAA finds that good
cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon issuance. The
FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views
that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities
for comment.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Special conditions number          Company and helicopter model
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. 27-048-SC \1\.........................  Bell Helicopter Textron
                                             Canada Limited Bell Model
                                             505 helicopter.
No. 27-046-SC \2\.........................  Robinson Helicopter Company
                                             Model R66 helicopter.

No. 27-043-SC \3\.........................  Airbus Helicopters Model
                                             AS350B2 and AS350B3
                                             helicopters.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 84 FR 64233, November 21, 2019.
\2\ 84 FR 30050, June 26, 2019.
\3\ 82 FR 57685, December 07, 2017.

Comments Invited

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

Background

    On December 18, 2019, Garmin applied for a supplemental type
certificate (STC) to install an AP/SAS in the BTCL Model 505
helicopter. The BTCL Model 505 helicopter is a 14 CFR part 27 normal
category, single turbine engine, conventional helicopter designed for
civil operation. This helicopter model can carry up to four passengers
with one pilot and has a maximum gross weight (MGW) of up to 4,475
pounds, depending on the model configuration. The major design features
include a two-blade main rotor, an anti-torque tail rotor system, skid
landing gear, and a visual flight rule (VFR) basic avionics
configuration. Garmin proposes to modify this model helicopter by
installing an AP/SAS.
    The AP/SAS provides attitude stabilization in two or three axes
(pitch and roll with optional yaw) and higher-level AP functions such
as altitude hold, heading command, and navigation tracking. However,
the possible failure conditions for this system, and their effect on
the continued safe flight and landing of the helicopter, are more
severe than those envisioned by the present rules.
    The effect on safety is not adequately covered under 14 CFR 27.1309
for the application of new technology and the new application of
standard technology. Specifically, the present provisions of Sec.
27.1309(c) do not adequately address the safety requirements for
systems whose failures could result in catastrophic or hazardous/
severe-major failure conditions or complex systems whose failures could
result in major failure conditions in VFR rotorcraft. The current
regulations are inadequate because when Sec.  27.1309(c) was
promulgated, it was not envisioned that this type of VFR rotorcraft
would use systems that are complex or whose failure could result in
``catastrophic'' or ``hazardous/severe-major'' effects on the
rotorcraft. This inadequacy is particularly true with the application
of new technology, a new application of standard technology, or other
applications not envisioned by the rule that affect safety.

Type Certification Basis

    Under 14 CFR 21.101, Garmin must show that the BTCL Model 505
helicopter, as changed, continues to meet the applicable regulations
listed in Type Certificate Number R00008RD or the applicable regulation
in effect on the date of application for the change. The regulations
listed in the type certificate are commonly referred to as the
``original type certification basis.'' The regulations listed in Type
Certificate Number R00008RD are as follows:
    For approved MGW configuration of 1670 kg (3680 lb.) internal
loading and 2030 kg (4475 lbs.) external loading:
14 CFR part 27, dated October 2, 1964, amendment 27-1 through 27-47
14 CFR part 36 Amendment 36-1 through 36-30
    Equivalent Level of Safety Findings issued against:
(a) FAA Cover Issue Paper CIP-01
(b) 14 CFR part 27.307(b)(5) Proof of Structure Landing Gear Drop Test
(c) 14 CFR part 27.723 Landing Gear Shock Absorption Tests
(d) 14 CFR part 27.725 Landing Gear Limit Drop Test
(e) 14 CFR part 27.727 Landing Gear Reserve Energy Absorption Drop Test
(f) 14 CFR part 27.995(d) Fuel Shut-off Valve
(g) 14 CFR part 27.1545(b)(2) Airspeed Indicator
    The Administrator has determined that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (e.g., 14 CFR part 27) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the BTCL Model 505 helicopter type
certificate number R00008RD because of a novel or unusual design
feature. Therefore, special conditions are prescribed under the
provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should Garmin apply for an STC to modify any other
model included on the same type certificate to incorporate the same
novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also
apply to the other model under Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the BTCL Model 505 helicopter must comply with the noise
certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type
certification basis under Sec.  21.101.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The BTCL Model 505 helicopter will incorporate the following novel
or unusual design features: An AP/SAS. An AP system is a system used to
control an aircraft trajectory without constant input from the pilot.
This system allows the pilot to focus on other aspects of the
operation, such as weather and other flight associated systems. SAS is
another type of automatic flight control system; however, instead of
maintaining the aircraft on a predetermined attitude or flight path,
the SAS will reduce pilot workload by dampening the rotorcraft's
buffeting regardless of the attitude or flight path.

Discussion

    The BTCL Model 505 helicopter's type certification basis as
modified by Garmin does not contain adequate airworthiness standards
for the AP/SAS. The FAA requires these special conditions to comply
with airworthiness standards. The FAA requires that Garmin provide the
FAA with a systems safety assessment (SSA) for the final AP/SAS
installation configuration to adequately address the safety objectives
established by a functional hazard assessment (FHA). This assessment
will ensure that all failure conditions and their effects are
adequately addressed for the installed AP/SAS. The SSA process is part
of the overall safety assessment process discussed in FAA Advisory
Circular 27-1B, Certification of Normal Category Rotorcraft, and
Society of Automotive Engineers document Aerospace Recommended Practice
4761, Guidelines and Methods for Conducting the Safety Assessment
Process on Civil Airborne Systems and Equipment.
    These special conditions require that the AP/SAS installed on the
BTCL Model 505 helicopter meet the requirements to adequately address
the failure effects identified by the FHA, and subsequently verified by
the SSA, within the defined design integrity requirements.
    Failure conditions are classified according to the severity of
their effects on the rotorcraft. Radio Technical

Commission for Aeronautics, Inc. (RTCA) Document DO-178C, Software
Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification,
provides software design assurance levels most commonly used for the
major, hazardous/severe-major, and catastrophic failure condition
categories. The AP/SAS equipment must be qualified for the expected
installation environment. The test procedures prescribed in RTCA
Document DO-160G, Environmental Conditions and Test Procedures for
Airborne Equipment, are recognized by the FAA as acceptable
methodologies for finding compliance with the environmental
requirements. Equivalent environment test standards may also be
acceptable.
    The environmental qualification provides data to show that the AP/
SAS can perform its intended function under the expected operating
condition. Some considerations for environmental concerns are
installation locations and the resulting exposure to environmental
conditions for the AP/SAS equipment, including considerations for other
equipment that may be environmentally affected by the AP/SAS equipment
installation. The level of environmental qualification must be related
to the severity of the considered failure conditions and effects on the
rotorcraft.
    These special conditions contain the additional safety standards
that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of
safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness
standards.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
BTCL Model 505 helicopter. Should Garmin apply at a later date for a
STC to modify any other model included on Type Certificate Number
R00008RD to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these
special conditions would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature
on the BTCL Model 505 helicopter. It is not a rule of general
applicability and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for
approval of this feature on the helicopter.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 27

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

Authority Citation

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

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

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the supplemental type certification basis for Bell Textron Canada
Limited (BTCL) Model 505 helicopters, as modified by Garmin
International, Inc.
    Instead of the requirements of 14 CFR Sec.  27.1309(b) and (c), the
following must be met for certification of the autopilot and stability
augmentation system installed on BTCL Model 505 helicopters:
    (a) The equipment and systems must be designed and installed so
that any equipment and systems do not adversely affect the safety of
the rotorcraft or its occupants.
    (b) The rotorcraft systems and associated components considered
separately and in relation to other systems must be designed and
installed so that:
    (1) The occurrence of any catastrophic failure condition is
extremely improbable;
    (2) The occurrence of any hazardous failure condition is extremely
remote; and
    (3) The occurrence of any major failure condition is remote.
    (c) Information concerning an unsafe system operating condition
must be provided in a timely manner to the crew to enable them to take
appropriate corrective action. An appropriate alert must be provided if
immediate pilot awareness and immediate or subsequent corrective action
is required. Systems and controls, including indications and
annunciations, must be designed to minimize crew errors that could
create additional hazards.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas on November 19, 2020.
Jorge Castillo,
Manager, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-26047 Filed 12-9-20; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 117 (Tuesday, June 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 36557]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14496]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4119-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2013-0001]

Iowa; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Iowa (FEMA-4119-DR), dated May 31, 2013, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: May 31, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated May 31, 2013, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Iowa resulting from severe storms, straight-line winds, and
flooding during the period of April 17-30, 2013, is of sufficient
severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act,
42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare
that such a major disaster exists in the State of Iowa.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Direct
Federal assistance is authorized. Consistent with the requirement
that Federal assistance is supplemental, any Federal funds provided
under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation
will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Joe M. Girot, of FEMA is appointed
to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Iowa have been designated as
adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Appanoose, Cedar, Clinton, Davis, Decatur, Des Moines, Iowa,
Johnson, Keokuk, Lee, Lucas, Marion, Monroe, Muscatine, Ringgold,
Van Buren, Wapello, Warren, and Wayne Counties. Direct federal
assistance is authorized.
    All counties within the State of Iowa are eligible to apply for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2013-14496 Filed 6-17-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 81 (Thursday, April 26, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 18371]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08828]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736.

Extension:
    Rule 12d2-1, SEC File No. 270-098, OMB Control No. 3235-0081.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information provided for in Rule 12d2-1 (17 CFR 240.12d2-1) under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78b et seq.) (``Act''). The
Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information to
the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') for extension and
approval.
    On February 12, 1935, the Commission adopted Rule 12d2-1 \1\
(``Suspension of Trading'') to establish the procedures by which a
national securities exchange may suspend from trading a security that
is listed and registered on the exchange under Section 12(d) of the
Act.\2\ Under Rule 12d2-1, an exchange is permitted to suspend from
trading a listed security in accordance with its rules, and must
promptly notify the Commission of any such suspension, along with the
effective date and the reasons for the suspension.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 98 (February 12,
1935).
    \2\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 7011 (February 5,
1963), 28 FR 1506 (February 16, 1963).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any such suspension may be continued until such time as the
Commission may determine that the suspension is designed to evade the
provisions of Section 12(d) of the Act and Rule 12d2-2 thereunder.\3\
During the continuance of such suspension under Rule 12d2-1, the
exchange is required to notify the Commission promptly of any change in
the reasons for the suspension. Upon the restoration to trading of any
security suspended under Rule 12d2-1, the exchange must notify the
Commission promptly of the effective date of such restoration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Rule 12d2-2 prescribes the circumstances under which a
security may be delisted from an exchange and withdrawn from
registration under Section 12(b) of the Act, and provides the
procedures for taking such action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The trading suspension notices serve a number of purposes. First,
they inform the Commission that an exchange has suspended from trading
a listed security or reintroduced trading in a previously suspended
security. They also provide the Commission with information necessary
for it to determine that the suspension has been accomplished in
accordance with the rules of the exchange, and to verify that the
exchange has not evaded the requirements of Section 12(d) of the Act
and Rule 12d2-2 thereunder by improperly employing a trading
suspension. Without Rule 12d2-1, the Commission would be unable to
fully implement these statutory responsibilities.
    There are 21 national securities exchanges \4\ that are subject to
Rule 12d2-1. The burden of complying with Rule 12d2-1 is not evenly
distributed among the exchanges, however, since there are many more
securities listed on the New York Stock Exchange, Inc., the NASDAQ
Stock Market, and NYSE American LLC than on the other exchanges.\5\
There are approximately 964 responses \6\ under Rule 12d2-1 for the
purpose of suspension of trading from the national securities exchanges
each year, and the resultant aggregate annual reporting hour burden
would be, assuming on average one-half reporting hour per response, 482
annual burden hours for all exchanges. The related internal compliance
costs associated with these burden hours are $103,871 per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchanges are BOX Options Exchange LLC, Cboe BYX
Exchange, Inc., Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc., Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc.,
Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc., Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc., Cboe Exchange,
Inc., Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., Investors Exchange LLC, Miami
International Securities Exchange, MIAX PEARL, LLC, Nasdaq BX, Inc.,
Nasdaq GEMX, LLC, Nasdaq ISE, LLC, Nasdaq MRX, LLC, Nasdaq PHLX LLC,
The Nasdaq Stock Market, New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE Arca,
Inc., NYSE American LLC, NYSE National, Inc.
    \5\ In fact, some exchanges do not file any trading suspension
reports in a given year.
    \6\ The 964 figure was calculated by averaging the numbers for
compliance in 2016 and 2017, which are 1,002 and 925, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: Pamela Dyson, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or send an email
to: [email protected].

    Dated: April 23, 2018.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-08828 Filed 4-25-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P