[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 223 (Friday, November 18, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 81765]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27845]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9030-3]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or http://www.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs)
Filed 11/07/2016 Through 11/11/2016
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9

    Notice:

Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its
comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html
EIS No. 20160269, Draft, USAF, IN, KC-46A Third Main Operating Base
(MOB-3) Beddown, Comment Period Ends: 01/03/2017, Contact: Hamid
Kamalpour<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20160270, Final, FTA, WA, Federal Way Link Extension, Review
Period Ends: 12/19/2016, Contact: Daniel Drais<PHONE_NUMBER>

EIS No. 20160271, Draft, BLM, ID, Bruneau-Owyhee Sage-Grouse Habitat
Project (BOSH), Comment Period Ends: 01/03/2017, Contact: Michael McGee
208-384-3464
EIS No. 20160272, Final Supplement, USFS, CO, Rulemaking for Colorado
Roadless Areas, Review Period Ends: 12/19/2016, Contact: Jason
Robertson<PHONE_NUMBER>

    Amended Notices:
EIS No. 20160200, Draft, USACE, NY, Atlantic Coast of New York, East
Rockaway Inlet to Rockaway Inlet and Jamaica Bay, Comment Period Ends:
12/02/2016, Contact: Robert J. Smith<PHONE_NUMBER>
Revision to Federal Register Notice Published 09/02/2016; Extending
Comment Period from 11/17/2016 to 12/02/2016

    Dated: November 15, 2016.
Karin Leff,
Acting Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal
Activities.
[FR Doc. 2016-27845 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 239 (Thursday, December 16, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71411-71412]
[FR Doc No: 2021-27149]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2021-1132; Airspace Docket No. 19-AAL-66]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of United States Area Navigation (RNAV) Route
T-241; Level Island, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend United States Area Navigation
(RNAV) route T-241 in the vicinity of Level Island, AK in support of a
large and comprehensive T-route modernization project for the state of
Alaska.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 31, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone:
1(800) 647-5527, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2021-1132; Airspace Docket No. 19-AAL-66 at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov. FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information,
you can contact the Rules and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is also available for
inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of FAA Order JO 7400.11F at NARA,
email: [email protected] or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher McMullin, Rules and
Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it would expand the availability of RNAV in Alaska and
improve the efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace
System (NAS) by lessening the dependency on ground based navigation.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2021-1132; Airspace Docket No. 19-AAL-66) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to FAA Docket No. FAA-2021-1132; Airspace Docket No. 19-AAL-66''. The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified comment
closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the comment
closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRM

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the Western Service Center, Operations
Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 2200 South 216th St.,
Des Moines, WA 98198.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective
September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F
lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service
routes, and reporting points.

Background

    In 2003, Congress enacted the Vision 100-Century of Aviation
Reauthorization Act (Pub. L. 108-176), which established a joint
planning and development office in the FAA to manage the work related
to the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). Today,
NextGen is an ongoing FAA-led modernization of the nation's air
transportation system to make flying safer, more efficient, and more
predictable.
    In support of NextGen, this proposal is part of a larger and
comprehensive T-route modernization project in the state of Alaska. The
project mission statement states: ``To modernize Alaska's Air

Traffic Service route structure using satellite based navigation
Development of new T-routes and optimization of existing T-routes will
enhance safety, increase efficiency and access, and will provide en
route continuity that is not subject to the restrictions associated
with ground based airway navigation.'' As part of this project, the FAA
evaluated the existing Colored Airway structure for: (a) Direct
replacement (i.e., overlay) with a T-route that offers a similar or
lower Minimum En route Altitude (MEA) or Global Navigation Satellite
System Minimum En route Altitude (GNSS MEA); (b) the replacement of the
colored airway with a T-route in an optimized but similar geographic
area, while retaining similar or lower MEA; or (c) removal with no
route structure (T-route) restored in that area because the value was
determined to be insignificant.
    The aviation industry/users have indicated a desire for the FAA to
transition the Alaskan en route navigation structure away from
dependency on Non-Directional Beacons (NDB), and move to develop and
improve the RNAV route structure. The FAA proposes to amend RNAV route
T-241 by extending the route from Level Island, AK (LVD) VHF
Omnidirectional Range/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) to a newly
developed waypoint (WP) ZIDRA WP. The proposed extension would provide
connectivity to the current T-266.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to amend RNAV
route T-241 in the vicinity of Level Island, AK in support of a large
and comprehensive T-route modernization project for the state of
Alaska. The proposed route is described below.
    T-241: The FAA proposes to amend T-241 by extending the route from
the Level Island, AK, (LVD) VOR/DME to the ZIDRA, AK, WP. The rest of
the route would remain unchanged.
    United States Area Navigation Routes are published in paragraph
6011 of FAA Order JO 7400.11F dated August 10, 2021, and effective
September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
The RNAV listed in this document would be published subsequently in FAA
Order JO 7400.11.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation
of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic
procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule,
when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10,
2021, and effective September 15, 2021, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6011 United States Area Navigation Routes

* * * * *

T-241 LATCH, AK to ZIDRA, AK [Amended]

LATCH, AK WP
    (Lat. 56[deg]00'45.21'' N, long. 134[deg]35'53.84'' W)
Level Island, AK (LVD) VOR/DME
    (Lat. 56[deg]28'03.75'' N, long. 133[deg]04'59.21'' W)
ZIDRA, AK WP
    (Lat. 56[deg]30'41.67'' N, long. 132[deg]28'52.38'' W)
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 9, 2021.
Margaret C. Flategraff,
Acting Manager, Rules and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2021-27149 Filed 12-15-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 231 (Thursday, December 1, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 74723-74724]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30910]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 575

[Docket No. NHTSA 2010-0025]
RIN 2127-AK51

New Car Assessment Program (NCAP); Safety Labeling

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Correcting amendments.

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

SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to a final rule (49 CFR
575.302), which was published in the Federal Register of Friday, July
29, 2011 (76 FR 45453). The final rule amended NHTSA's regulation on
vehicle labeling of safety rating information to reflect the enhanced
NCAP ratings program.

DATES: Effective Date: January 3, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may contact
Ms. Jennifer N. Dang, Office of Crashworthiness Standards (Telephone:
(202) 366-1740) (Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>). For legal issues, you may call
Mr. Edward Glancy, Office of the Chief Counsel (Telephone: (202) 366-
2992) (Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>). You may send mail to both of these
officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    NHTSA published in the Federal Register of July 29, 2011 (76 FR
45453), a final rule revising the agency's regulation on vehicle
labeling of safety rating information.

Need for Correction

    As published, the final regulation inadvertently contained several
errors.

    In the first sentence of section 575.302(b), pickup trucks were
incorrectly listed as an example of automobiles that are required by
the Automobile Information Disclosure Act (AIDA) to have Monroney
labels (price sticker labels). However, AIDA does not require Monroney
labels for pickup trucks.\1\ That sentence also included a minor
typographical error (the first use of the word ``are'' was extraneous).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ NHTSA provided a discussion of this issue in the preamble to
a final rule published in the Federal Register (71 FR 53572) on
September 12, 2006. See also chapter VIII, Automobile Information
Disclosure, Monograph, Consumer Protection Branch, Department of
Justice, available at http://www.justice.gov/civil/docs_forms/CPB_Monograph.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In section 575.302(e)(4)(iii), the regulatory text specifying
certain language for the label incorrectly indicated that the word
``only'' is to be in italics, when it should have indicated that the
word is to be capitalized. We note that the sample label shown in
Figure 2 to section 575.302 correctly shows the word capitalized.
    Also, separate from the July 2011 final rule, we identified certain
errors in the authority citation, which we are correcting.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 575

    Consumer protection, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Tires.

    Accordingly, 49 CFR part 575 is corrected by making the following
correcting amendments:

PART 575--CONSUMER INFORMATION

0
1. The authority citation for part 575 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32302, 32304A, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30123,
30166, 30168, and 32908, Pub. L. 104-414, 114 Stat. 1800, Pub. L.
109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, Pub. L. 110-140, 121 Stat. 1492, 15 U.S.C.
1232(g); delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

0
2. In Sec.  575.302, revise paragraphs (b) and (e)(4)(iii) to read as
follows:

Sec.  575.302  Vehicle labeling of safety rating information
(compliance required for model year 2012 and later vehicles
manufactured on or after January 31, 2012).

* * * * *
    (b) Application. This section applies to automobiles with a GVWR of
10,000 pounds or less, manufactured on or after January 31, 2012 that
have vehicle identification numbers that identify the vehicles to be
model year 2012 or later and that are required by the Automobile
Information Disclosure Act, 15 U.S.C. 1231-1233, to have price sticker
labels (Monroney labels), (e.g., passenger vehicles, station wagons,
passenger vans, and sport utility vehicles). Model Year 2012 or later
vehicles manufactured prior to January 31, 2012, at the manufacturer's
option, may be labeled according to the provisions of this Sec.
575.302 provided the ratings placed on the safety rating label are
derived from vehicle testing conducted by the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration under the enhanced NCAP testing and rating
program.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (iii) The words ``Based on the combined ratings of frontal, side
and rollover'' followed by the statement ``Should ONLY be compared to
other vehicles of similar size and weight'' (on the following line)
must be placed at the bottom of the overall vehicle score area and left
justified.
* * * * *

    Issued On: November 23, 2011.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2011-30910 Filed 11-30-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 135 (Monday, July 19, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37942-37948]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15097]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2019-0156; FRL-8697-01-R4]

Air Plan Approval; FL, GA, NC, SC; Interstate Transport (Prongs 1
and 2) for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: Through this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking
(``supplemental proposal'' or ``SNPRM''), the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is supplementing its proposed approval of state
implementation plan (SIP) submissions from Florida, Georgia, North
Carolina, and South Carolina (four Southeastern States), addressing the
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) interstate transport requirements for the
2015 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or
standard). Specifically, EPA is proposing to rely on updated analysis
using a 2021 analytic year to support the proposed finding that each
state's implementation plan contains adequate provisions to prohibit
emissions that will significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other state.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 18, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2019-0156, at www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from Regulations.gov. 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. 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, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on

making effective comments, please visit www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Evan Adams of the Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Adams can be
reached by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background for This Supplemental Proposal

    On December 30, 2019, EPA proposed to approve SIP submissions from
six Southeast States (i.e., Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina,
South Carolina, and Tennessee) \1\ as meeting the interstate transport
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), or the Good Neighbor
provision, for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 84 FR 71854. Refer to
the December 30, 2019, notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for an
explanation of the CAA requirements, the four-step framework that EPA
applies under the Good Neighbor provision for ozone NAAQS, a detailed
summary of the state submissions, and EPA's proposed rationale for
approval. See 84 FR 71854. The public comment period for the December
30, 2019, NPRM closed on January 29, 2020.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The submittals from these six southeastern states were
submitted separately under the following cover letters: Alabama
Department of Environmental Management dated August 20, 2018
(received by EPA on August 27, 2018); Florida Department of
Environmental Protection dated September 18, 2018 (received by EPA
on September 26, 2018); Georgia Environmental Protection Division
dated September 19, 2018 (received by EPA on September 24, 2018);
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality dated September
27, 2018 (received by EPA October 10, 2018); South Carolina
Department of Health and Environmental Control dated and received by
EPA on September 7, 2018; and Tennessee Department of Environment
and Conservation dated September 13, 2018 (received by EPA on
September 17, 2018).
    \2\ On March 24, 2020, former EPA Region 4 Administrator Mary
Walker signed a document (hereinafter referred to as the March 24,
2020 document) that EPA intended to become a final rule upon
publication in the Federal Register. However, the March 24, 2020
document was never published in the Federal Register. Further, on
January 19, 2021, former EPA Region 4 Administrator Mary Walker
signed a document (hereinafter referred to as the January 19, 2021
document), which EPA posted to its website at https://www.epa.gov/air-quality-implementation-plans/epas-approval-2015-8-hour-ozone-interstate-transport-requirements. EPA noted in that posting
``Notwithstanding the fact that the EPA is posting a pre-publication
version, the final rule will not be promulgated until published in
the Federal Register.'' EPA will not publish either the March 24,
2020 document or the January 19, 2021 document in the Federal
Register; therefore, neither document will result in a final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsequent to the December 30, 2019, proposal, two events occurred
which have caused EPA to adjust its analysis of the aforementioned SIP
submissions, and consequently, to issue this supplemental proposal.
First, on May 19, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) issued its ruling in
Maryland v. EPA, 958 F.3d 1185 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (Maryland). That case
involved EPA's denial of administrative petitions filed by the states
of Maryland and Delaware under CAA section 126(b), seeking to have EPA
impose emissions limits on sources in upwind states alleged to be
emitting in violation of the Good Neighbor Provision. The court held
that EPA must address Good Neighbor obligations consistent with the
2021 attainment date for downwind areas classified as being in Marginal
nonattainment under the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS, ``not at some later
date.'' 958 F.3d at 1203-04 (citing Wisconsin v. EPA, 938 F.3d 303, 314
(D.C. Cir. 2019) (Wisconsin)). The court disagreed with EPA that use of
a 2023 analytic year, consistent with the 2024 attainment date for
areas classified as being in Moderate nonattainment, was a proper
reading of the court's earlier decision in Wisconsin. Id. at 1204. In
light of the Maryland decision, EPA is evaluating these states' Good
Neighbor obligations using a 2021 analytic year, corresponding to the
2021 Marginal area attainment date under the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    Second, on October 30, 2020, EPA released and accepted public
comment on updated 2023 modeling that used the 2016 emissions platform
developed under the EPA/Multi-Jurisdictional Organization (MJO)/state
collaborative project as the primary source for the base year and
future year emissions data.\3\ On April 30, 2021, EPA published the
final Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Update using the
same modeling that was made publicly available in the proposed
rulemaking for the Revised CSAPR Update.\4\ Although that modeling
focused on the year 2023, EPA conducted an ``interpolation'' analysis
of these modeling results to generate air quality and contribution
values for the 2021 analytic year, consistent with the Maryland
holding, as the relevant analytic year for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Revised CSAPR Update, 86 FR 23054; see also Emissions
Modeling TSD titled ``Preparation of Emissions Inventories for the
2016v1 North American Emissions Modeling Platform.'' This TSD is
available in the docket for this proposed action and at https://www.epa.gov/air-emissionsmodeling/2016v1-platform. The underlying
modeling files are available on data drives in the Docket office for
public review. See the docket for the Revised CSAPR Update (EPA-HQ-
OAR-2020-0272). See also in the docket for this supplemental
proposal the document titled Air Quality Modeling Data Drives_Final
RCU.pdf for a file inventory and instructions on how to access the
modeling files.
    \4\ See 86 FR 23054.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This new modeling and analysis now provides the primary basis for
EPA's proposed approval of the Good Neighbor SIP submissions for
Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. By relying on the
updated modeling results, EPA is using the most current and technically
appropriate information as the primary basis for this proposed
rulemaking. As explained in greater detail in this supplemental
proposal, this new analysis indicates that in 2021, these four states
are not projected to impact any downwind states at or above a
contribution threshold of one percent of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS,
which is equivalent to 0.70 parts per billion (ppb). Thus, EPA is
proposing to approve these four states' submissions.
    Additionally, EPA previously proposed to approve infrastructure SIP
elements submitted to fulfill the interstate transport requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) by the states of Alabama and Tennessee
for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the December 30, 2019, NPRM
referenced above. This supplemental proposal does not address these
submissions, and EPA is deferring action on the referenced SIP
submissions from Alabama and Tennessee at this time.

II. EPA's Analysis

    On May 19, 2020, the D.C. Circuit issued the Maryland decision that
cited the Wisconsin decision in holding that EPA must assess the impact
of interstate transport on air quality at the next downwind attainment
date, including Marginal area attainment dates, in evaluating the basis
for EPA's denial of a petition under CAA section 126(b). See 958 F.3d
1185, 1203-04. The court noted that ``section 126(b) incorporates the
Good Neighbor Provision,'' and therefore ``the EPA must find a
violation [of section 126] if an upwind source will significantly
contribute to downwind nonattainment at the next downwind attainment
deadline. Therefore, EPA must evaluate downwind air quality at that
deadline, not at some later date.'' Id. at 1204 (emphasis added). EPA
interprets the court's holding in Maryland as requiring the Agency,
under the Good Neighbor provision, to address Good Neighbor obligations
by the next applicable attainment date for downwind areas, including a
Marginal

area attainment date under CAA section 181 for ozone nonattainment.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ EPA notes that the court in Maryland did not have occasion
to evaluate circumstances in which EPA may determine that an upwind
linkage to a downwind air quality problem exists at steps 1 and 2 of
the four-step interstate transport framework by a particular
attainment date, but for reasons of impossibility or profound
uncertainty the Agency is unable to mandate upwind pollution
controls by that date. See Wisconsin, 938 F.3d at 320. The D.C.
Circuit noted in Wisconsin that upon a sufficient showing, these
circumstances may warrant a certain degree of flexibility in
effectuating the implementation of the Good Neighbor provision. Such
circumstances are not at issue in this proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Marginal area attainment date for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS
is August 3, 2021.\6\ See CAA section 181(a); 40 CFR 51.1303; 83 FR
25776 (June 4, 2018, effective August 3, 2018). Historically, EPA has
considered the last full ozone season prior to the attainment date as
supplying an appropriate analytic year for assessing Good Neighbor
obligations. See, e.g., 81 FR 74540. While this would be 2020 for an
August 2021 attainment date (which falls within the 2021 ozone season
running from May 1 to September 30), in this circumstance, when the
2020 ozone season is wholly in the past, it is appropriate to focus on
2021 to address Good Neighbor obligations to the extent possible by the
2021 attainment date. EPA does not believe it would be appropriate to
select an analytic year that is wholly in the past because EPA
interprets the Good Neighbor provision as forward looking. See 85 FR
68964, 68981; see also Wisconsin, 938 F.3d at 322. Consequently, as
discussed further below, EPA is using the analytic year of 2021 in this
supplemental proposal to evaluate Good Neighbor obligations for
Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina with respect to
the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The December 30, 2019, NPRM incorrectly referred to the 2015
8-hour ozone NAAQS Marginal attainment date as August 2, 2021, and
the Moderate attainment date as August 2, 2024. See 84 FR 71857.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The December 30, 2019, NPRM proposing approval of the 2015 8-hour
ozone Good Neighbor SIPs for Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and
South Carolina predates the D.C. Circuit's decision in Maryland. This
decision also came after the close of the public comment period on the
December 30, 2019, NPRM. However, this decision bears directly on EPA's
action and its consideration of the comments received on the December
30, 2019, NPRM. As discussed above and in accordance with the Wisconsin
and Maryland decisions, the Agency considers 2021 to be the relevant
analytic year for the purpose of determining whether sources in
Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina will significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2015
8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other states.
    EPA is proposing to determine that the Florida, Georgia, North
Carolina, and South Carolina Good Neighbor SIP submissions for the 2015
8-hour ozone NAAQS are approvable using a 2021 analytic year. The SIP
submissions from Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina
rely on analysis of the year 2023 to show that they do not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other state. However, given the
holdings in Wisconsin and Maryland, analysis of that year is no longer
sufficient where the next attainment date for the 2015 8-hour ozone
NAAQS is in 2021.\7\ Nonetheless, the analysis EPA has conducted for
the 2021 analytic year corroborates the conclusion reached in each
state's submission and in the December 30, 2019, NPRM. In accordance
with the holdings in Wisconsin and Maryland, EPA's supplemental
analysis relies on 2021 as the relevant attainment year for evaluating
Good Neighbor obligations for Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and
South Carolina with respect to the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS using the
same four-step interstate transport framework described in the proposal
of this action. See 84 FR 71855.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ EPA recognizes that Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and
South Carolina as well as other states may have been influenced by
EPA's 2018 guidance memoranda (issued prior to the Wisconsin and
Maryland decisions) in making Good Neighbor submissions that relied
on EPA's modeling of 2023. When there are intervening changes in
relevant law or legal interpretation of CAA requirements, states are
generally free to withdraw, supplement, and/or re-submit their SIP
submissions with new analysis (in compliance with CAA procedures for
SIP submissions). While Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South
Carolina have not done this, as explained in this section, EPA's
proposed independent analysis concludes that the states' submissions
in this instance are approvable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In step 1, EPA identifies locations where the Agency expects there
to be nonattainment or maintenance receptors for the 2015 8-hour ozone
NAAQS based on analysis of ozone concentrations at individual
monitoring sites in the appropriate analytic year. Where EPA's analysis
shows that a monitoring site does not fall under the definition of a
nonattainment or maintenance receptor in the analytic year, that site
is excluded from further analysis under EPA's four-step interstate
transport framework.\8\ For monitoring sites that are identified as
nonattainment or maintenance receptors in the appropriate analytic
year, EPA proceeds to step 2 of the four-step interstate transport
framework by identifying whether emissions in upwind states contribute
to those receptors in amounts that exceed a contribution threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ While EPA has focused its analysis in this notice on the
year 2021, the Revised CSAPR Update modeling data in years 2023 and
2028 confirm that no new linkages to downwind receptors are
projected for these states in later years. EPA notes this is
consistent with an overall, long-term downward trend in emissions
from these states. See Revised CSAPR Update, 86 FR 23054; see also
Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document for the final
Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update,'' available in the
docket for this proposed action and at https://www.epa.gov/csapr/revised-cross-state-air-pollution-rule-update. The results of this
modeling are included in a spreadsheet in the docket for this
proposed action titled ``Ozone Design Values and Contributions for
the Revised CSAPR Update.xlsx''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's approach to identifying ozone nonattainment and maintenance
receptors in this supplemental proposal is consistent with the approach
described in the December 30, 2019, NPRM, and is the same approach used
in previous transport rulemakings. EPA's approach gives independent
consideration to both the ``contribute significantly to nonattainment''
and the ``interfere with maintenance'' prongs of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), consistent with the D.C. Circuit's direction in
North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 910-911 (2008) (holding that EPA
must give ``independent significance'' to each prong of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)).
    For the purpose of this supplemental proposal, EPA identifies
nonattainment receptors as those monitoring sites that are projected to
have average design values that exceed the NAAQS and that are also
measuring nonattainment based on the most recent monitored design
values. This approach is consistent with prior transport rulemakings,
such as CSAPR Update, where EPA defined nonattainment receptors as
those areas that both currently monitor nonattainment and that EPA
projects will be in nonattainment in the future compliance year.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). The Revised CSAPR Update
also used this approach. See 86 FR 23054 (April 30, 2021). This same
concept, relying on both current monitoring data and modeling to
define nonattainment receptor, was also applied in CAIR. See 70 FR
25241 (January 14, 2005). See also North Carolina, 531 F.3d at 913-
914 (affirming as reasonable EPA's approach to defining
nonattainment in CAIR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, in this supplemental proposal, EPA identifies a
receptor to be a ``maintenance'' receptor for purposes of defining
interference with maintenance, consistent with the method used in CSAPR
and upheld by the D.C. Circuit in EME Homer City

Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 136 (DC Cir. 2015).\10\
Specifically, monitoring sites with a maximum projected design value in
2021 that exceeds the NAAQS are identified as maintenance receptors in
2021. EPA's method of defining these receptors takes into account both
measured data and reasonable projections based on modeling
analysis.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). The CSAPR Update and
Revised CSAPR Update also used this approach. See 81 FR 74504
(October 26, 2016) and 86 FR 23054 (April 30, 2021).
    \11\ Further, as recognized by the court in Wisconsin, 938 F.3d
at 320, nonattainment areas that do not measure an exceedance of the
level of the standard in a given year, even if not sufficient to be
redesignated to attainment based on the three-year design value, may
qualify for up to two one-year extensions of their attainment dates,
as provided at CAA section 181(a)(5). Thus, simply providing the
value that would be needed in 2020 in order for an area to be
designated to attainment using the three-year average does not
present a complete picture of the likelihood that an area will be
``reclassified'' or ``bumped-up.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recognizing that nonattainment receptors are also, by definition,
maintenance receptors, EPA often uses the term ``maintenance-only'' to
refer to receptors that are not also nonattainment receptors.
Consistent with the methodology described above, monitoring sites with
a projected maximum design value that exceeds the NAAQS, but with a
projected average design value that is below the NAAQS, are identified
as maintenance-only receptors. In addition, those sites that are
currently measuring ozone concentrations below the level of the
applicable NAAQS, but are projected to be nonattainment based on the
average design value and that, by definition, are projected to have a
maximum design value above the standard are also identified as
maintenance-only receptors.
    Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina relied on the
modeling included in an EPA memorandum dated March 2018 (``March 2018
memorandum''),\12\ as well as state specific ozone precursor emission
trends, design values, and regulations, to develop their SIPs as EPA
had suggested. In the December 30, 2019, NPRM, EPA also relied on the
modeling results included in the March 2018 memorandum. See 84 FR
71855-71856, 71859-71861. However, EPA is now supplementing the
December 30, 2019, NPRM with newly available, updated modeling that was
developed using a 2016-based modeling platform prepared under the EPA/
Multi-Jurisdictional Organization/state collaborative) project.\13\ The
results of this updated modeling were released with the NPRM for the
Revised CSAPR Update on October 30, 2020, and finalized in the final
Revised CSAPR Update without changes. See 86 FR 23054 (April 30, 2021).
The updated modeling includes 2016 base year and 2023 projection year
model simulations that were analyzed to identify receptors and
determine interstate ozone contributions to these receptors in 2021.
Specifically, EPA developed an interpolation technique based on
modeling for 2023 and measured ozone data to determine ozone design
values for 2021. To estimate average and maximum design values for
2021, EPA first performed air quality modeling for 2016 and 2023 to
project measured 2016 design values to 2023. The 2023 design values
were then coupled with the corresponding 2016 measured design values to
estimate design values in 2021. The Air Quality Modeling technical
support document (TSD) developed in connection with the Revised CSAPR
Update, which is included in the docket for this supplemental proposal,
describes the modeling and interpolation for estimating design values
in 2021.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ ``Information on the Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),'' March 27, 2018, available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-03/documents/transport_memo_03_27_18_1.pdf and available in the docket for this
SNPRM.
    \13\ See 86 FR 23054. The results of this modeling are included
in a spreadsheet in the docket for this proposed action titled Ozone
Design Values and Contributions Revised CSAPR Update.xlsx. The
underlying modeling files are available on data drives in the Docket
office for public review under the docket for the Revised CSAPR
Update (EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0272). See also in the docket for this
proposed action the document titled Air Quality Modeling Data
Drives_Final RCU.pdf for a file inventory and instructions on how to
access the modeling files.
    \14\ See ``Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document for
the Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update,'' available in
the docket for this supplemental proposal and at https://www.epa.gov/csapr/revised-cross-state-air-pollution-rule-update.
This TSD was originally developed to support EPA's action in the
Revised CSAPR Update, as relating to outstanding Good Neighbor
obligations under the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. While developed in
this separate context, the data and modeling outputs, including
interpolated design values for 2021, may be evaluated with respect
to the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS and used in support of this
supplemental proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's analysis for this supplemental proposal, supported by the
modeling analysis completed in the Revised CSAPR Update, further
substantiates EPA's proposed approval in the December 30, 2019, NPRM.
To quantify the contribution of emissions from specific upwind states
on 2021 8-hour design values for the identified downwind nonattainment
and maintenance receptors, EPA first performed nationwide, state-level
ozone source apportionment modeling for 2023. The source apportionment
modeling provided contributions to ozone from precursor emissions of
anthropogenic nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) in each state, individually. The modeled 2023
contributions were then applied in a relative sense to the 2021 average
design value to estimate the contributions in 2021 from each state to
each receptor. Details on the source apportionment modeling and the
methods for determining contributions in 2021 are in the Air Quality
Modeling TSD in the docket.
    The 2021 design values and contributions were examined to determine
if Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina contribute at
or above the threshold of one percent of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS
(0.70 ppb) to any downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptor.\15\
Table 1 presents the highest contribution in 2021 from Florida,
Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina to a downwind nonattainment
or maintenance receptor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ This supplemental proposal relies on the same contribution
threshold of one percent of the NAAQS proposed in the December 30,
2019, NPRM. See 85 FR 68964.

  Table 1--Maximum Contribution From Each State to Downwind Nonattainment or Maintenance-Only Receptors in 2021
                                                      \16\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum                          Downwind receptor
               State                  contribution  ------------------------------------------------------------
                                          (ppb)              County                 State             AQS ID
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida............................            0.34  Galveston.............  TX                        481671034
Georgia............................            0.39  Fairfield.............  CT                         90011123
North Carolina.....................            0.69  Fairfield.............  CT                         90011123

South Carolina.....................            0.25  Fairfield.............  CT                         90011123
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the analysis of the updated modeling as described above,
EPA proposes to find that it is reasonable to conclude that Florida,
Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, individually, will not
contribute greater than one percent of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS to
any potential nonattainment or maintenance receptors in 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See data file titled Ozone Design Values and Contributions
Revised CSAPR Update.xlsx in the docket for this SNPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also analyzed ozone precursor emissions trends in Florida,
Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina to support the findings
from the air quality analysis. In evaluating emissions trends, EPA
first reviewed the information submitted by Florida, Georgia, North
Carolina, and South Carolina and then reviewed additional information
derived from EPA's National Emissions Inventory. EPA focused on state-
wide emissions of NOX and VOCs in Florida, Georgia, North
Carolina, and South Carolina.\17\ Combined, emissions from mobile
sources, electric generating units (EGUs), industrial facilities,
gasoline vapors, and chemical solvents are a large percentage of
anthropogenic emissions of ozone precursors. This evaluation looks at
both past emissions trends, as well as projected trends.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See 81 FR 74504, 74513-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in Table 2, from 2011 to 2023 annual total NOX
and VOC emissions are projected to decline in the following amounts,
respectively: By 56 percent and 35 percent in Florida; by 57 percent
and 27 percent in Georgia; by 53 percent and 18 percent in North
Carolina; and by 47 percent and 24 percent in South Carolina. The
projected reductions are a result of the implementation of existing
control programs that will continue to decrease NOX and VOC
emissions in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, as
indicated by EPA's most recent 2021 and 2023 projected emissions used
in the updated 2023 modeling.

               Table 2--Annual Emissions of NOX and VOC From Anthropogenic Sources in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina
                                                                  [Tons per year]18, 19
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Projected  Projected
                                            2011      2012      2013      2014      2015      2016      2017      2018      2019       2021       2023
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL NOX..................................   585,605   569,789   553,974   538,158   487,946   411,085   398,245   346,680   312,677    276,138    249,391
FL VOC..................................   637,315   598,992   560,669   522,345   506,276   473,769   454,694   442,470   430,246    419,961    411,321
GA NOX..................................   412,070   385,178   358,287   331,395   314,900   288,421   274,956   255,975   232,538    202,406    177,951
GA VOC..................................   338,259   325,680   313,101   300,523   306,404   290,702   286,047   276,886   267,724    244,549    240,387
NC NOX..................................   365,550   345,513   325,477   305,441   281,599   242,797   229,047   214,574   198,442    181,669    169,258
NC VOC \20\.............................   328,942   321,229   313,516   305,803   294,299   272,534   265,404   262,394   259,385    269,915    267,208
SC NOX..................................   205,952   194,924   183,896   172,868   160,064   157,222   148,786   139,694   128,656    114,238    107,420
SC VOC..................................   183,937   178,844   173,750   168,656   164,822   160,869   158,476   153,877   149,279    143,119    140,107
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The annual emissions data for the years 2011 through 2019 in Tables 2 and 3 were obtained from EPA's National Emissions Inventory website: https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissions-trends-data. Emissions from miscellaneous sources are not included in the state totals
  presented in Table 2. The emissions for 2021 and 2023 are based on the 2016 emissions modeling platform. See ``2005 thru 2019.2021_2023_2028 Annual
  State Tier1 Emissions_v3'' and the Emissions Modeling TSD in the docket for this proposed action.
\19\ Note that the methods used for calculating emissions for certain tier 1 categories in the NEI changed over time between 2005 and 2019 and certain
  methods used for the NEI differ from the methods used for the 2016 Emissions Platform. These methodological differences may result in some year-to-
  year inconsistencies in the emissions trends and the projected emissions trends.
\20\ EPA notes that for North Carolina, the projected VOC emissions are greater than historical emissions in recent years according to NEI data.
  However, EPA also notes that NOx emissions are the primary contributor to regional ozone formation in ozone transport, and for North Carolina, NOx
  emissions are projected to continue to decline. As a result of these NOx emissions reductions, North Carolina is projected to contribute below the one
  percent threshold in 2021 to projected nonattainment and maintenance receptors and is projected to continue to contribute below one percent in 2023
  and 2028, despite the greater projected VOC emissions. Projected ozone design values and contributions data for 2021, 2023, and 2028 can be found in
  the file ``Ozone Design Values And Contributions Revised CSAPR Update.xlsx'' in the docket for this action.

    As presented below in Table 3, onroad and nonroad mobile source
emissions collectively (i.e., mobile source emissions) comprise a large
portion of these states' total anthropogenic NOX and VOC
(i.e., 67 percent of the state total NOX and 36 percent to
state total VOC for Florida; 61 percent of the state total
NOX and 30 percent to state total VOC for Georgia; 57
percent of the state total NOX and 31 percent to state total
VOC for North Carolina; and 57 percent of the state total
NOX and 31 percent to state total VOC for South Carolina).

         Table 3--Annual Emissions of NOX and VOC From Onroad and Nonroad Mobile Sources in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina
                                                                     [Tons per year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Projected  Projected
                                            2011      2012      2013      2014      2015      2016      2017      2018      2019       2021       2023
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL NOX..................................   468,496   451,186   433,876   416,565   373,961   304,708   299,476   271,122   242,768    184,676    165,897

FL VOC..................................   351,631   325,059   298,486   271,914   255,262   222,173   202,502   190,278   178,054    155,760    145,133
GA NOX..................................   297,838   276,697   255,555   234,413   225,072   205,747   199,437   180,291   161,144    122,097    108,363
GA VOC..................................   171,049   157,722   144,394   131,067   134,296   115,940   108,633    99,471    90,309     72,285     67,187
NC NOX..................................   272,542   253,619   234,697   215,775   197,948   165,162   157,428   145,004   132,580    107,114     95,139
NC VOC..................................   176,370   162,257   148,144   134,032   124,615   104,938    99,959    96,950    93,940     88,486     81,551
SC NOX..................................   144,953   137,401   129,850   122,298   111,751   111,167   104,989    95,687    86,385     68,365     61,243
SC VOC..................................    86,955    82,634    78,312    73,991    70,288    66,464    64,202    59,603    55,005     46,372     42,789
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Control of Air Pollution From Motor Vehicles: Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards (79 FR 23414, April 28, 2014); Control of Hazardous
  Air Pollutants From Mobile Sources (72 FR 8428, February 26, 2007); Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle
  Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements (66 FR 5002, January 18, 2001); Control of Emissions of Air Pollution From Nonroad
  Diesel Engines and Fuel (69 FR 38957, June 29, 2004); Control of Emissions of Air Pollution From Locomotive Engines and Marine Compression-Ignition
  Engines Less Than 30 Liters per Cylinder (73 FR 25098, May 6, 2008); Control of Emissions From Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines and Equipment (73 FR
  59034, October 8, 2008); Control of Emissions From New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters per Cylinder (75 FR 22895, April 30,
  2010); Control of Air Pollution From Aircraft and Aircraft Engines, Emission Standards and Test Procedures (77 FR 36342, June 18, 2012).

    The large decrease in NOX emissions between 2016
emissions and projected 2023 emissions in Florida, Georgia, North
Carolina, and South Carolina are primarily driven by reductions in
emissions from onroad and nonroad mobile sources. As shown by the
mobile source emissions trends in Table 3, EPA projects that both VOC
and NOX emissions will continue declining out to 2023 as
newer vehicles and engines that are subject to the most recent,
stringent mobile source standards replace older vehicles and
engines.\21\
    In summary, based on the projected downward trend in projected
future emissions trends, in combination with the historical decline in
actual emissions, there is no evidence to suggest that the overall
emissions trend demonstrated in Table 2 would suddenly reverse or spike
in 2021 compared to historical emissions levels or those projected for
2023. Further, there is no evidence that the projected ozone precursor
emissions trends beyond 2021would not continue to show a decline in
emissions.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ EPA's normal practice is to only include changes in
emissions from final regulatory actions in its modeling because,
until such rules are finalized, any potential changes in
NOX or VOC emissions are speculative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This downward trend in emissions in Florida, Georgia, North
Carolina, and South Carolina adds support to the air quality analysis
presented above and indicates that the contributions from emissions
from sources in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina to
ozone receptors in downwind states will continue to decline and remain
below one percent of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Thus, based on this
supplemental analysis, EPA continues to propose to conclude that the
air quality and emissions analyses indicate that emissions from
Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina will not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other state.

III. Supplemental Proposed Actions

    In its December 30, 2019, NPRM, EPA originally proposed to find
that emissions from sources in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and
South Carolina will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other
state based on information for the analytic year 2023, consistent with
the 2024 Moderate area attainment date. Thus, EPA proposed to approve
the interstate transport portions of the infrastructure SIP submissions
from Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina as meeting
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2015 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.\23\ See 84 FR 71854.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ As mentioned in Section I above, EPA is deferring action on
Alabama's and Tennessee's Good Neighbor infrastructure SIP
submittals at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The analysis presented in this notice provides a new primary basis
for approval to supplement EPA's proposed finding in the December 30,
2019, NPRM. EPA continues to propose to find that emissions from
sources in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina will
not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other state. Thus,
EPA continues to propose to approve the interstate transport portions
of the infrastructure SIP submissions from Florida, Georgia, North
Carolina, and South Carolina as meeting CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
requirements for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. These actions merely
propose to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and do not
impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, these proposed actions:
     Are not significant regulatory actions 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);
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are 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.);
     Do 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);
     Do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not economically significant regulatory actions based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not significant regulatory actions subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National

Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with
the CAA; and
     Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    For South Carolina, because this proposed action merely proposes to
approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law, this action
for the state of South Carolina does not have Tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Therefore, this proposed action will not impose substantial direct
costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law. The Catawba Indian
Nation Reservation is located within the boundary of York County, South
Carolina. Pursuant to the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C.
Code Ann. 27-16-120 (Settlement Act), ``all state and local
environmental laws and regulations apply to the Catawba Indian Nation
and Reservation and are fully enforceable by all relevant state and
local agencies and authorities.'' The Catawba Indian Nation also
retains authority to impose regulations applying higher environmental
standards to the Reservation than those imposed by state law or local
governing bodies, in accordance with the Settlement Act.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: July 12, 2021.
John Blevins,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2021-15097 Filed 7-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 185 (Monday, September 24, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48308-48309]
[FR Doc No: 2018-20637]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OA-2008-0701; FRL-9982-82-OEI]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Information Collection
Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request;
Focus Groups as Used by EPA for Economics Projects (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), Focus Groups as Used by EPA for
Economics Projects (Renewal) (EPA ICR Number 2205.21, OMB Control
Number 2090-0028) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act.
This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved
through September 30, 2018. Public comments were previously requested
via the Federal Register on May 21, 2018 during a 60-day comment
period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public
comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its
estimated burden and cost to the public. An agency may not conduct or
sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before October 24,
2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID. EPA-HQ-OA-2008-
0701, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method), by email to [email protected] or by mail to: EPA Docket
Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to
[email protected]. Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for
EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless

the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nathalie Simon, National Center for
Environmental Economics, Office of Policy, (1809T), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is seeking
renewal of a generic information collection request (ICR) for the
conduct of focus groups and one-on-one interviews primarily related to
survey development for economics projects. Focus groups are groups of
individuals brought together for moderated discussions on a specific
topic or issue. These groups are typically formed to gain insight and
understanding of attitudes and perceptions held by the public
surrounding a particular issue. One-on-one interviews, as the term
implies, are individual interviews in which a respondent is generally
asked to review materials and provide feedback on their content and
design as well as the thought processes that the materials invoke.
Focus groups and one-on-one interviews (referred to collectively as
``focus groups'') used as a qualitative research tool have three major
purposes:
     To better understand respondents' attitudes, perceptions
and emotions in response to specific topics and concepts;
     to obtain respondent information useful for better
defining variables and measures in later quantitative studies; and
     to further explore findings obtained from quantitative
studies.
    Through these focus groups, the Agency will be able to gain a more
in-depth understanding of the public's attitudes, beliefs, motivations
and feelings regarding specific issues and will provide invaluable
information regarding the quality of draft survey instruments. Focus
group discussions are necessary and important steps in the design of a
quality survey. The target population for the focus group discussions
will vary by project, but will generally include members of the public.
Participation in the focus groups will be completely voluntary. Each
focus group will fully conform to federal regulations--specifically the
Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), the Hawkins-Stafford Amendments of
1988 (Pub. L. 100-297), and the Computer Security Act of 1987.
    Form numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Individuals.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary.
    Estimated number of respondents: 864 (total) over three years or
288 per year.
    Frequency of response: 1.
    Total estimated burden: 1,728 hours total or 576 per year. Burden
is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $20,920 (per year), includes $0 annualized
capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the estimates: There is a decrease of 1,017 hours in the
total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This decrease is based on new estimates of projected
use of this ICR for focus groups for the next three years provided by
the program offices at EPA.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2018-20637 Filed 9-21-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 185 (Monday, September 26, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58257-58259]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20736]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0093; Project Identifier AD-2021-00987-T;
Amendment 39-22164; AD 2022-18-13]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900
series airplanes. This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design
approval holder (DAH) indicating that certain web lap splices in the
center dome apex of the aft pressure bulkhead are subject to widespread
fatigue damage (WFD). This AD requires a general visual inspection for
existing repairs at the aft pressure bulkhead; repetitive detailed,
high frequency eddy current (HFEC), and low frequency eddy current
(LFEC) inspections; and repair if necessary. The FAA is issuing this AD
to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective October 31, 2022.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 31,
2022.

ADDRESSES:
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2022-0093; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this final rule, any comments received, and other
information. The address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data
Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA
90740-5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet myboeingfleet.com.
     You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available at
regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2022-0093.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill Ashforth, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing
Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes.
The NPRM published in the Federal Register on February 25, 2022 (87 FR
10755). The NPRM was prompted by an evaluation by the DAH indicating
that certain web lap splices in the center dome apex of the aft
pressure bulkhead are subject to WFD. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to
require a general visual inspection for existing repairs at the aft
pressure bulkhead; repetitive detailed, HFEC, and LFEC inspections; and
repair if necessary. The FAA is issuing this AD to address fatigue
cracks in the webs of the aft pressure bulkhead, which could result in
reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received comments from United Airlines and two individuals,
who supported the NPRM without change.
    The FAA received additional comments from Southwest Airlines (SWA),
Boeing, and Aviation Partners Boeing. The following presents the
comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Effects of Winglets on Accomplishment of the Proposed Actions

    Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing Supplemental
Type Certificate (STC) ST00830SE does not affect the actions specified
in the proposed AD.
    The FAA concurs with the commenter. The FAA has redesignated
paragraph (c) of the proposed AD as paragraph (c)(1) of this AD and
added paragraph (c)(2) to this AD to state that installation of STC
ST00830SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions
required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST00830SE

is installed, a ``change in product'' alternative method of compliance
(AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the
requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

Request To Revise Cause of Unsafe Condition

    Boeing requested that the FAA revise the SUMMARY of the NPRM and
paragraph (e) of the proposed AD. Boeing noted that the SUMMARY of the
NPRM and paragraph (e) of the proposed AD refer to WFD, but Boeing
contends that the unsafe condition was caused by pull up on the first
two fasteners at the web lap splices in the center dome apex. Boeing
explained that these fasteners, which are located adjacent to the area
where the aft web transitions over the forward web in the lap splice,
are subject to clamp-up stresses (which are pre-stresses during the
assembly). These stresses, combined with pressurization, will reduce
the fatigue life of the web at the center dome apex and potentially
cause early cracking in this location.
    The FAA partially agrees. The FAA agrees with Boeing that the
unsafe condition was discovered through clamp-up stresses, as well as
other non-WFD events. The WFD evaluation revealed that the area is
susceptible to WFD; as a result, this unsafe condition is related to
WFD. Therefore, the FAA maintains that the SUMMARY of this final rule
and paragraph (e) of this AD are correct in stating that the affected
areas are subject to WFD. The FAA has not changed this AD in this
regard.

Request for Clarification for Repairs Found in the Aft Pressure
Bulkhead

    SWA requested clarification regarding paragraph (h)(2) of the
proposed AD. SWA noted that in Table 1 of paragraph 3., Compliance, of
Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1403 RB, dated August 26,
2021, CONDITION 1 (ACTION 1) specifies to contact Boeing for any repair
found during the general visual inspection of the aft pressure
bulkhead. CONDITION 1 (ACTION 1) also references flag note (a), which
states:

    CONDITION 1 (ACTION 1) is not required for any repair found
during the General Visual Inspection of the APB [aft pressure
bulkhead] aft side in areas where a repair covers the affected
inspection zones provided that the installed repair was approved by
The Boeing Company Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) via
a FAA Form 8100-9 and inspections are accomplished in accordance
with the scheduled repair approval listed on the FAA Form 8100-9.

    SWA stated that its interpretation is that paragraph (h)(2) of the
proposed AD applies to all repairs found where the operator must
contact Boeing due to the repair not meeting the criteria listed in
flag note (a). SWA went on to observe that if the repairs found during
CONDITION 1 (ACTION 1) meet the requirements of flag note (a), then the
operator is not required to contact Boeing.
    The FAA provides the following clarification. SWA is correct in its
interpretation that paragraph (h)(2) of this AD applies to all
instances where the operator must contact Boeing for repair
instructions or for alternative inspections. If the repairs found
during the general visual inspection of the aft pressure bulkhead aft
side meet the requirements of flag note (a) of Table 1 of paragraph 3.,
Compliance, of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1403 RB, dated
August 26, 2021, then contacting Boeing is not required. The FAA has
not changed this AD in this regard.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments
received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as
proposed. Except for minor editorial changes, and any other changes
described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None
of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1403 RB,
dated August 26, 2021. This service information specifies procedures
for a general visual inspection for existing repairs at the aft
pressure bulkhead; repetitive detailed, HFEC, and LFEC inspections for
any crack; and repair of cracks if necessary. This service information
is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to
it through their normal course of business or by the means identified
in ADDRESSES.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 1,187 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
              Action                     Labor cost       Parts cost    Cost per  product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection for repairs............  1 work-hour x $85             $0  $85.................  $100,895.
                                     per hour = $85.
Repetitive detailed, HFEC, and      Up to 9 work-hours x           0  Up to $765 per        Up to $908,055 per
 LFEC inspections.                   $85 per hour = Up                 inspection cycle.     inspection cycle.
                                     to $765 per
                                     inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost
estimates for the on-condition repairs specified in this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the

distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

2022-18-13 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-22164; Docket No. FAA-
2022-0093; Project Identifier AD-2021-00987-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective October 31, 2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    (1) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -
700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes, certificated in any category,
as identified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1403 RB,
dated August 26, 2021.
    (2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC)
ST00830SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions
required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST00830SE
is installed, a ``change in product'' alternative method of
compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with
the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval
holder (DAH) indicating that certain web lap splices in the center
dome apex of the aft pressure bulkhead are subject to widespread
fatigue damage (WFD). The FAA is issuing this AD to address fatigue
cracks in the webs of the aft pressure bulkhead, which could result
in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    Except as specified by paragraph (h) of this AD: At the
applicable times specified in the ``Compliance'' paragraph of Boeing
Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1403 RB, dated August 26, 2021,
do all applicable actions identified in, and in accordance with, the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin
737-53A1403 RB, dated August 26, 2021.

    Note 1 to paragraph (g): Guidance for accomplishing the actions
required by this AD can be found in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-53A1403, dated August 26, 2021, which is referred to in Boeing
Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1403 RB, dated August 26, 2021.

(h) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    (1) Where the Compliance Time column of the table in the
``Compliance'' paragraph of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-
53A1403 RB, dated August 26, 2021, uses the phrase ``the original
issue date of the Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1403 RB,'' this AD
requires using ``the effective date of this AD.''
    (2) Where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1403 RB,
dated August 26, 2021, specifies contacting Boeing for repair
instructions or for alternative inspections: This AD requires doing
the repair, or doing the alternative inspections and applicable on-
condition actions, using a method approved in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request
to your principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office,
as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of
the certification office, send it to the attention of the person
identified in paragraph (j) of this AD. Information may be emailed
to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by The Boeing Company Organization Designation
Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle
ACO Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair
method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet
the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Bill Ashforth,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email: [email protected].

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1403 RB, dated
August 26, 2021.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-
5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, [email protected], or go to: archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on August 24, 2022.
Christina Underwood,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-20736 Filed 9-23-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: February 24, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 36)]
[Notices]
[Page 8319-8320]
[DOCID:fr24fe10-48]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12714-002]

H2O Providers, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

February 17, 2010.
    On November 3, 2009, and revised December 17, 2009 and February 2,
2010, H2O Providers, LLC filed an application for a preliminary permit,
pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study
the feasibility of the South Slope Pumped Storage Project, located on
Brush Hollow Creek, near Penrose, in Fremont, Pueblo, and El Paso
Counties, Colorado. The project would occupy Federal lands administered
by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. The final transmission line
corridor is still under evaluation, but portions may occupy Federal
lands administered by the U.S. Department of the Army. The sole purpose
of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder
priority to file a license application during the permit term. A
preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any
land disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters
owned by others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed South Slope Pumped Storage Project would consist of:
(1) An upper power reservoir with a storage capacity of approximately
6,000 acre-feet, retained by a 170-foot-high, 6,150-foot-long concrete-
faced dam embankment; (2) a lower power reservoir with a storage
capacity of approximately 6,400 acre-feet, retained by a 95-foot-high,
4,900-foot-long earth and rockfill embankment; (3) a reserve reservoir
that would store approximately 5,000 acre-feet, retained by a 100-foot-
high, 1,400-foot-long earth and rockfill embankment and a 7-foot-high,
140-foot-long earth saddle dam; (4) an approximately 28-foot-diameter,
1,400-foot-long steel-lined tunnel; (5) two 20-foot-diameter above-
ground penstocks; (6) two 75-foot-diameter, 240-foot-high concrete-
lined powerhouse silos, each with an approximately 216-MW reversible
turbine unit; (7) an approximately 0.25-mile-long concrete tailrace
channel connecting the powerhouse silos and the lower power reservoir;
(8) an approximately 30-mile-long, 230-kilovolt transmission line; (9)
a 2.5-foot-diameter, 5.3-mile-long pipeline to provide water to the
reserve reservoir from the Lester Atterbury Ditch diversion on the
north side of the Arkansas River; and (10) appurtenant facilities. The
proposed project would have an average annual generation of 946,000
megawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Mark Morley, H2O Providers LLC, 20 Boulder
Crescent, Second Floor, Colorado Springs, CO 80903; telephone: (719)
471-1742.
    FERC Contact: Jennifer Harper,<PHONE_NUMBER> or via e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications

(without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing
applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing
applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR
4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
(http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ferconline.asp) under the ``eFiling''
link. For a simpler method of submitting text only comments, click on
``Quick Comment.'' For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>call toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or,
for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly
encourages electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To
paper-file, mail an original and eight copies to: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-12714) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-3624 Filed 2-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 82 (Friday, April 27, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18414-18415]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08866]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0857]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; St. Johns River, Putnam County,
FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations; request for
comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Buffalo Bluff CSX Railroad Bridge
across the St. Johns River, mile 94.5, at Satsuma, Putnam County, FL.
This deviation will test a change to the drawbridge operation to
determine whether a permanent change from manned to remote operations
is feasible. This deviation will allow the bridge to operate remotely
from the CSX Railroad Bridge on the Ortega River (McGirts Creek)
located at mile 1.1 on the Ortega River.

DATES: This deviation is effective without actual notice from April 27,
2018 through 6 a.m. September 2, 2018. For the purposes of enforcement,
actual notice will be used from April 23, 2018, until April 27, 2018.
    Comments and related materials must reach the Coast Guard on or
before August 14, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2017-0857 using Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this test
deviation, call or email LT Allan Storm, Sector Jacksonville, Waterways
Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis

    The Buffalo Bluff CSX Railroad Bridge across the St. Johns River,
mile 94.5, in Satsuma, Putnam County, FL is a bascule bridge. It has a
vertical clearance of 7 feet at mean high water in the closed position
and a horizontal clearance of 90 feet. The bridge is currently manned
and maintained in the open position. This test deviation would provide
for the bridge to be remotely monitored and operated. Visual monitoring
of the waterway shall be maintained with the use of cameras and the
detection of vessels under the span shall be accomplished with
detection sensors. Marine radio communication shall be maintained with
mariners near the bridge for the safety of navigation. The remote
tender may also be contacted via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>. The span
is normally in the fully open position and will display green lights to
indicate that the span is fully open. When a train approaches, the
remote tender shall monitor for vessels approaching the bridge. The
remote tender shall warn approaching vessels via marine radio, channel
9 VHF of a bridge lowering. Provided the sensors do not detect a vessel
under the span, the tender shall initiate the span lowering sequence,
which includes the sounding of a horn and the displaying of red lights.
The span will remain in the down position for a minimum of eight
minutes or for the entire time the approach track circuit is occupied.
After the train has cleared the bridge track circuit, the span shall
open and the green lights will be displayed. This will allow vessels to
pass through the bridge while taking into account the reasonable needs
of other modes of transportation.
    The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through
our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating
schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their
transits to minimize any

impact caused by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

II. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, visit http://www.regulations.gov/privacynotice.
    Documents mentioned in this notice as being available in this
docket and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

    Dated: April 23, 2018.
Barry L. Dragon,
Director, Bridge Branch, Seventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2018-08866 Filed 4-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P