[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 155 (Monday, August 14, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54944-54946]
[FR Doc No: 2023-17354]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-1713; Project Identifier MCAI-2023-00781-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; ATR--GIE Avions de Transport
R[eacute]gional Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain ATR--GIE Avions de Transport R[eacute]gional Model ATR42-
500 and ATR72-212A airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports
of loose fasteners and cracks in the horizontal stabilizer (HS) left-
and right-hand leading edge lateral ribs, the box in between, the
center box upper panel, and HS forward back-up fitting. This proposed
AD would require an inspection of the HS affected areas for
discrepancies and applicable corrective action, as specified in a
European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is proposed for
incorporation by reference (IBR). The FAA is proposing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by September
28, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-1713; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this NPRM, the mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), any comments received, and other information. The
street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For EASA material that is proposed for IBR in this NPRM,
contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone
+49 221 8999 000; email [email protected]; website easa.europa.eu. You
may find this material on the EASA website ad.easa.europa.eu. It is
also available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1713.
     For ATR--GIE Avions de Transport R[eacute]gional service
information identified in this NPRM, contact ATR--GIE Avions de
Transport R[eacute]gional, 1 All[eacute]e Pierre Nadot, 31712 Blagnac
Cedex, France; telephone +33 (0) 5 62 21 62 21; fax +33 (0) 5 62 21 67
18; email continued.airworthiness@atr aircraft.com; website atr-
aircraft.com.
     You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South
216th Street, Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shahram Daneshmandi, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2023-1713; Project Identifier
MCAI-2023-00781-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to
Shahram Daneshmandi, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart
Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected]. Any commentary that the FAA receives which
is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public
docket for this rulemaking.

Background

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2023-0125, dated June 22, 2023 (EASA
AD 2023-0125) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe
condition for certain ATR--GIE Avions de Transport R[eacute]gional
Model ATR42-500 and ATR72-212A airplanes. The MCAI states that several
occurrences of loose fasteners and cracks on the HS left- and right-
hand leading edge lateral ribs, the box in between, the center box
upper panel, and HS forward back-up fitting have been reported.
Subsequent investigations identified possible manufacturing errors and
a list of horizontal tail planes that could be affected by similar
issues. This condition, if not detected and corrected, could reduce the
structural integrity of the airplane.
    The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on
these products. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1713.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2023-0125 specifies procedures for a one-time detailed
inspection of the HS left- and right-hand leading edge lateral ribs,
the box in between, the center box upper panel, and HS forward back-up
fitting for discrepancies (i.e., loose, missing, or incorrectly
installed fasteners, composite delamination, and a cracked fitting);
and applicable corrective action. The corrective action includes
contacting the manufacturer for repair instructions if any discrepancy
is detected during any inspection.
    ATR Service Bulletin ATR42-55-0020, dated March 2, 2023; and ATR
Service Bulletin ATR72-55-1013, dated March 2, 2023; identify the
affected airplane serial numbers.
    This material is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it
has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM
after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements in this NPRM

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in EASA AD 2023-0125 described previously, except for any differences
identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation
authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance
with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been
coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the
FAA proposes to incorporate EASA AD 2023-0125 by reference in the FAA
final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with
EASA AD 2023-0125 in its entirety through that incorporation, except
for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of
this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading
of a particular section in EASA AD 2023-0125 does not mean that
operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD
requirement refers to ``all required actions and compliance times,''
compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section
titled ``Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)'' in EASA AD 2023-
0125. Service information required by EASA AD 2023-0125 for compliance
will be available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1713
after the FAA final rule is published.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 16 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following
costs to comply with this proposed AD:
    Estimated costs for required actions

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 work-hours x $85 per hour = $680...........................              $0             $680          $10,880
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

ATR--GIE Avions de Transport R[eacute]gional: Docket No. FAA-2023-
1713; Project Identifier MCAI-2023-00781-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by September 28, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to ATR--GIE Avions de Transport R[eacute]gional
Model ATR42-500 and ATR72-212A airplanes, certificated in any
category, as identified in ATR Service Bulletin ATR42-55-0020, dated
March 2, 2023; or ATR Service Bulletin ATR72-55-1013, dated March 2,
2023; as applicable.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code: 55,
Stabilizers.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of loose fasteners and cracks in
the horizontal stabilizer (HS) left- and right-hand leading edge
lateral ribs, the box in between, the center box upper panel, and HS
forward back-up fitting. The FAA is issuing this AD to address
loose, missing, or incorrectly installed fasteners, composite
delamination, and cracks in the HS. The unsafe condition, if not
addressed, could result in reduced structural integrity of the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD: Comply
with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2023-0125, dated June 22, 2023 (EASA AD 2023-0125).

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2023-0125

    (1) Where paragraph (1) of EASA AD 2023-0125 refers to its
effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this
AD.
    (2) Where paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2023-0125 specifies to
``contact ATR for approved repair instructions and, within the
compliance time specified therein, accomplish those instructions
accordingly'' if any discrepancy is detected, for this AD if any
crack is detected, the crack must be repaired before further flight
using a method approved by the Manager, International Validation
Branch, FAA; or EASA; or ATR--GIE Avions de Transport
R[eacute]gional's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If
approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized
signature.
    (3) This AD does not adopt the ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD
2023-0125.

(i) No Reporting Requirement

    Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2023-0125
specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD
does not include that requirement.

(j) Additional AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Validation 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 International
Validation Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified
in paragraph (k) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your
appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or ATR--GIE Avions de Transport
R[eacute]gional's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If
approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized
signature.

(k) Additional Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Shahram Daneshmandi,
Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected].

(l) 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 this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2023-0125,
dated June 22, 2023.
    (ii) ATR Service Bulletin ATR42-55-0020, dated March 2, 2023.
    (iii) ATR Service Bulletin ATR72-55-1013, dated March 2, 2023.
    (3) For EASA AD 2023-0125, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3,
50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
[email protected]; website easa.europa.eu. You may find this EASA
AD on the EASA website ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) For ATR service information identified in this AD, contact
ATR--GIE Avions de Transport R[eacute]gional, 1 All[eacute]e Pierre
Nadot, 31712 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 (0) 5 62 21 62 21;
fax +33 (0) 5 62 21 67 18; email continued.airworthiness@atr
aircraft.com; website atr-aircraft.com.
    (5) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th
Street, Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (6) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
[email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on August 8, 2023.
Victor Wicklund,
Deputy Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-17354 Filed 8-11-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 14 (Wednesday, January 22, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 3742]
[FR Doc No: 2020-01002]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0059]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Extended
Operations (ETOPS) of Multi-Engine Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. A final rule published on January 16, 2007 codified
previous practices that permitted certificated air carriers to operate
two-engine airplanes over long range routes. The FAA uses this
information collection to ensure that aircraft for long range flights
are equipped to minimize diversions, to preclude and prevent diversions
in remote areas, and to ensure that all personnel are trained to
minimize any adverse impacts of a diversion.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by March 23, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Please send written comments:
    By Electronic Docket: www.regulations.gov (Enter docket number into
search field).
    By mail: Sandra Ray, Federal Aviation Administration, Policy
Integration Branch AFS-270, 1187 Thorn Run Road, Suite 200, Coraopolis,
PA 15108.
    By fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy McClain by email at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0718.
    Title: Extended Operations (ETOPS) of Multi-Engine Airplanes.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The final rule codified the previous practices that
permitted certificated air carriers to operate two-engine airplanes
over these long-range routes and extended the procedures for extended
operations to all passenger-carrying operations on routes beyond 180
minutes from an alternate airport. This option is voluntary for
operators and manufacturers. The FAA uses this information collection
to ensure that aircraft for long range flights are equipped to minimize
diversions, to preclude and prevent diversions in remote areas, and to
ensure that all personnel are trained to minimize any adverse impacts
of a diversion.
    Respondents: Approximately 20 Operators and 4 Manufacturers and 7
future operators.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: Burden per Operator varies
per operation.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 36,536 Hours.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 16, 2020.
Sandra L. Ray,
Aviation Safety Inspector, FAA, Policy Integration Branch, AFS-270.
[FR Doc. 2020-01002 Filed 1-21-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 163 (Monday, August 24, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51136-51141]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20771]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0805; FRL-9932-65-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Michigan and Wisconsin; 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS PSD and Visibility Infrastructure SIP Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving
elements of state implementation plan (SIP) submissions from Michigan
regarding Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Wisconsin
regarding visibility infrastructure requirements of section 110 of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2006 fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The
infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that the structural
components of each state's air quality management program are adequate
to meet the state's responsibilities under the CAA.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective October 23, 2015,
unless EPA receives adverse comments by September 23, 2015. If adverse
comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the
rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2009-0805 by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief, Attainment Planning and
Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano, Chief, Attainment Planning and
Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID. EPA-R05-OAR-2009-
0805. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.
We recommend that you telephone Sarah Arra, Environmental Scientist, at
(312) 886-9401 before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Arra, Environmental Scientist,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section is arranged as follows:

I. What is the background of these SIP submissions?
II. What is EPA's review of these SIP submissions?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background of these SIP submissions?

    This rulemaking addresses submissions from the Michigan Department
of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) and the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources (WDNR). The states submitted their infrastructure SIPs for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on the following dates: Michigan--
August 15, 2011, supplemented on July 9, 2012; Wisconsin--January 24,
2011, supplemented on March 28, 2011 and June 29, 2012.
    The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type
arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1),
states must make SIP submissions ``within 3 years (or such shorter
period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a
national primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision
thereof),'' and these SIP submissions are to provide for the
``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The
statute directly imposes on states the duty to make these SIP
submissions, and the requirement to make the submissions is not
conditioned upon EPA's taking any action other than promulgating a new
or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific
elements that ``[e]ach such plan'' submission must address. This
specific rulemaking is only taking action on the PSD elements of the
Michigan submittal and the visibility element of the Wisconsin
submittal. The majority of the other infrastructure elements were
addressed in a proposed rulemaking published August 2, 2012, (77 FR
45992). Final action was taken on those elements on October 29, 2012,
(77 FR 65478).\1\ The infrastructure elements for PSD are found in CAA
110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D), and 110(a)(2)(J) and will be discussed in
detail below. The infrastructure elements for visibility are also in
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D). For further discussion on the background of
infrastructure submittals, see 77 FR 45992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For Michigan, action was taken on sections 110(a)(2)(A)
through (H), and (J) through (M), except for the prevention of
significant deterioration requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II), and (J), the visibility portion of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II),
and the state board requirements in (E)(ii). For Wisconsin, action
was taken on sections 110(a)(2)(A) through (H), and (J) through (M),
except the prevention of significant deterioration requirements in
sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J), the visibility portion
of (D)(i)(II), and the state board requirements in (E)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What is EPA's review of these SIP submissions?

A. Michigan--PSD

    PSD infrasture elements are addressed in different sections of the
CAA: Sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and 110(a)(2)(J).
1. Section 110(a)(2)(C)--Program for Enforcement of Control Measures;
PSD
    States are required to include a program providing for enforcement
of all SIP measures and the regulation of construction of new or
modified stationary sources to meet new source review (NSR)
requirements under PSD and nonattainment new source review (NNSR)
programs. Part C of the CAA (sections 160-169B) addresses PSD, while
part D of the CAA (sections 171-193) addresses NNSR requirements.
    The evaluation of each state's submission addressing the
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) covers: (i)
Enforcement of SIP measures; (ii) PSD provisions that explicitly
identify oxides of nitrogen (NOX) as a precursor to ozone in
the PSD program; (iii) identification of precursors to PM2.5
and the identification of PM2.5 and PM10 \2\
condensables in the PSD program; (iv) PM2.5 increments in
the PSD program; and, (v) Greenhouse Gas(GHG) permitting and the
``Tailoring Rule.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ PM10 refers to particles with diameters between
2.5 and 10 microns, oftentimes referred to as ``coarse'' particles.
    \3\ EPA highlights this statutory requirement in an October 2,
2007, guidance document entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required
Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' and has
issued additional guidance documents, the most recent on September
13, 2013, ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan
(SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)''
(2013 memo).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(i) Enforcement of SIP Measures
    The enforcement of SIP measures provision was approved in the
October 29, 2012 rulemaking (77 FR 65478) for the 2006
PM2.5.
(ii): PSD Provisions That Explicitly Identify NOX as a
Precursor to Ozone in the PSD Program
    EPA's ``Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standard--Phase 2; Final Rule to Implement Certain Aspects
of the 1990 Amendments Relating to New Source Review and Prevention of
Significant Deterioration as They Apply in Carbon Monoxide, Particulate
Matter, and Ozone NAAQS; Final Rule for Reformulated Gasoline'' (Phase
2 Rule) was published on November 29, 2005 (see 70 FR 71612). Among
other requirements, the Phase 2 Rule obligated states to revise their
PSD programs to explicitly identify NOX as a precursor to
ozone (70 FR 71612 at 71679, 71699-71700). This requirement was
codified in 40 CFR 51.166.
    The Phase 2 Rule required that states submit SIP revisions
incorporating the requirements of the rule, including those identifying
NOX as a precursor to ozone, by June 15, 2007 (see 70 FR
71612 at 71683, November 29, 2005).
    EPA approved revisions to Michigan's PSD SIP reflecting these
requirements on April 4, 2014 (see 79 FR 18802), and therefore finds
that Michigan has met the set of infrastructure SIP requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
(iii): Identification of Precursors to PM2.5 and the
Identification of PM2.5 and PM10 Condensables in
the PSD Program
    On May 16, 2008 (see 73 FR 28321), EPA issued the Final Rule on the
``Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate
Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)'' (2008 NSR Rule).
The 2008 NSR Rule finalized several new requirements for SIPs to
address sources that emit direct PM2.5 and other pollutants
that contribute to secondary PM2.5 formation. One of these

requirements is for NSR permits to address pollutants responsible for
the secondary formation of PM2.5, otherwise known as
precursors. In the 2008 rule, EPA identified precursors to
PM2.5 for the PSD program to be sulfur dioxide
(SO2) and NOX (unless the state demonstrates to
the Administrator's satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that
NOX emissions in an area are not a significant contributor
to that area's ambient PM2.5 concentrations). The 2008 NSR
Rule also specifies that volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are not
considered to be precursors to PM2.5 in the PSD program
unless the state demonstrates to the Administrator's satisfaction or
EPA demonstrates that emissions of VOCs in an area are significant
contributors to that area's ambient PM2.5 concentrations.
    The explicit references to SO2, NOX, and VOCs
as they pertain to secondary PM2.5 formation are codified at
40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i)(b) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)(i)(b). As part of
identifying pollutants that are precursors to PM2.5, the
2008 NSR Rule also required states to revise the definition of
``significant'' as it relates to a net emissions increase or the
potential of a source to emit pollutants. Specifically, 40 CFR
51.166(b)(23)(i) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)(i) define ``significant'' for
PM2.5 to mean the following emissions rates: 10 tons per
year (tpy) of direct PM2.5; 40 tpy of SO2; and 40
tpy of NOX (unless the state demonstrates to the
Administrator's satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that NOX
emissions in an area are not a significant contributor to that area's
ambient PM2.5 concentrations). The deadline for states to
submit SIP revisions to their PSD programs incorporating these changes
was May 16, 2011 (see 73 FR 28321 at 28341).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EPA notes that on January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the D.C. Circuit, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA,
706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir.), held that EPA should have issued the 2008
NSR Rule in accordance with the CAA's requirements for
PM10 nonattainment areas (Title I, Part D, subpart 4),
and not the general requirements for nonattainment areas under
subpart 1. As the subpart 4 provisions apply only to nonattainment
areas, EPA does not consider the portions of the 2008 rule that
address requirements for PM2.5 attainment and
unclassifiable areas to be affected by the court's opinion.
Moreover, EPA does not anticipate the need to revise any PSD
requirements promulgated by the 2008 NSR Rule in order to comply
with the court's decision. Accordingly, EPA's approval of Michigan's
infrastructure SIP as to elements (C),(D)(i)(II), or (J) with
respect to the PSD requirements promulgated by the 2008
implementation rule does not conflict with the court's opinion.
    The court's decision with respect to the nonattainment NSR
requirements promulgated by the 2008 implementation rule also does
not affect EPA's action on the present infrastructure action. EPA
interprets the CAA to exclude nonattainment area requirements,
including requirements associated with a nonattainment NSR program,
from infrastructure SIP submissions due three years after adoption
or revision of a NAAQS. Instead, these elements are typically
referred to as nonattainment SIP or attainment plan elements, which
would be due by the dates statutorily prescribed under subparts 2
through 5 under part D, extending as far as 10 years following
designations for some elements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2008 NSR Rule did not require states to immediately account for
gases that could condense to form particulate matter, known as
condensables, in PM2.5 and PM10 emission limits
in NSR permits. Instead, EPA determined that states had to account for
PM2.5 and PM10 condensables for applicability
determinations and in establishing emissions limitations for
PM2.5 and PM10 in PSD permits beginning on or
after January 1, 2011. This requirement is codified in 40 CFR
51.166(b)(49)(i)(a) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)(i)(a). Revisions to states'
PSD programs incorporating the inclusion of condensables were required
be submitted to EPA by May 16, 2011 (see 73 FR 28321 at 28341).
    EPA approved revisions to Michigan's PSD SIP reflecting these
requirements on April 4, 2014 (see 79 FR 18802), and therefore proposes
that Michigan has met this set of infrastructure SIP requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
(iv): PM2.5 increments in the PSD program
    On October 20, 2010, EPA issued the final rule on the ``Prevention
of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5
Micrometers (PM2.5)--Increments, Significant Impact Levels
(SILs) and Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC)'' (2010 NSR
Rule). This rule established several components for making PSD
permitting determinations for PM2.5, including a system of
``increments'' which is the mechanism used to estimate significant
deterioration of ambient air quality for a pollutant. These increments
are codified in 40 CFR 51.166(c) and 40 CFR 52.21(c), and are included
in the table below.

Table 1--PM2.5 Increments Established by the 2010 NSR Rule in Micrograms
                             Per Cubic Meter
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Annual
                                           arithmetic      24-hour max
                                              mean
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class I...............................               1                2
Class II..............................               4                9
Class III.............................               8               18
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2010 NSR Rule also established a new ``major source baseline
date'' for PM2.5 as October 20, 2010, and a new trigger date
for PM2.5 as October 20, 2011. These revisions are codified
in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(14)(i)(c) and (b)(14)(ii)(c), and 40 CFR
52.21(b)(14)(i)(c) and (b)(14)(ii)(c). Lastly, the 2010 NSR Rule
revised the definition of ``baseline area'' to include a level of
significance of 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter, annual average, for
PM2.5. This change is codified in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(15)(i)
and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(15)(i).
    On April 4, 2014 (79 FR 18802), EPA finalized approval of the
applicable infrastructure SIP PSD revisions; therefore, we are
proposing that Michigan has met this set of infrastructure SIP
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.
(v): GHG permitting and the ``Tailoring Rule''
    With respect to CAA Sections 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), EPA interprets
the CAA to require each state to make an infrastructure SIP submission
for a new or revised NAAQS that demonstrates that the air agency has a
complete PSD permitting program meeting the current requirements for
all regulated NSR pollutants. The requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) may also be satisfied by demonstrating the air
agency has a complete PSD permitting program correctly addressing all
regulated NSR pollutants. Michigan has shown that it currently has a
PSD program in place that covers all regulated NSR pollutants,
including GHGs.
    On June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision
addressing the application of PSD permitting requirements to GHG
emissions. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection
Agency, 134 S.Ct. 2427. The Supreme Court said that the EPA may not
treat GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a
source is a major source required to obtain a PSD permit. The Court
also said that the EPA could continue to require that PSD permits,
otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs,
contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of Best
Available Control Technology (BACT).
    In order to act consistently with its understanding of the Court's
decision pending further judicial action to effectuate the decision,
the EPA is not continuing to apply EPA regulations that would require
that SIPs include permitting requirements that the Supreme Court found
impermissible. Specifically, EPA is not applying the

requirement that a state's SIP-approved PSD program require that
sources obtain PSD permits when GHGs are the only pollutant (i) that
the source emits or has the potential to emit above the major source
thresholds, or (ii) for which there is a significant emissions increase
and a significant net emissions increase from a modification (e.g. 40
CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v)).
    EPA anticipates a need to revise Federal PSD rules and for many
states to revise their existing SIP-approved PSD programs in light of
the Supreme Court opinion. The timing and content of subsequent EPA
actions with respect to the EPA regulations and state PSD program
approvals are expected to be informed by additional legal process
before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit. At this juncture, EPA is not expecting states to have revised
their PSD programs for purposes of infrastructure SIP submissions and
is only evaluating such submissions to ensure that the state's program
correctly addresses GHGs consistent with the Supreme Court's decision.
    At present, EPA is proposing that Michigan's SIP is sufficient to
satisfy sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) with respect to GHGs
because the PSD permitting program previously approved by EPA into the
SIP continues to require that PSD permits (otherwise required based on
emissions of pollutants other than GHGs) contain limitations on GHG
emissions based on the application of BACT. Although the approved
Michigan PSD permitting program may currently contain provisions that
are no longer necessary in light of the Supreme Court decision, this
does not render the infrastructure SIP submission inadequate to satisfy
Section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J). The SIP contains the
necessary PSD requirements at this time, and the application of those
requirements is not impeded by the presence of other previously-
approved provisions regarding the permitting of sources of GHGs that
EPA does not consider necessary at this time in light of the Supreme
Court decision.
    For the purposes of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure
SIPs, EPA reiterates that NSR Reform regulations are not within the
scope of these actions. Therefore, we are not taking action on existing
NSR Reform regulations for Michigan. EPA approved Michigan's minor NSR
program on May 6, 1980 (see 45 FR 29790); and since that date, MDEQ and
EPA have relied on the existing minor NSR program to ensure that new
and modified sources not captured by the major NSR permitting programs
do not interfere with attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
    Certain sub-elements in this section overlap with elements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), section 110(a)(2)(E) and section 110(a)(2)(J).
These links will be discussed in the appropriate areas below.
2. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--Interstate transport
    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires that SIPs include provisions
prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state
from interfering with measures required to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality or to protect visibility in another state.
    EPA notes that Michigan's satisfaction of the applicable
infrastructure SIP PSD requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
have been detailed in the section addressing section 110(a)(2)(C). EPA
further notes that the proposed actions in that section related to PSD
are consistent with the proposed actions related to PSD for section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and they are reiterated below.
    EPA has previously approved revisions to Michigan's SIP that meet
certain requirements obligated by the Phase 2 Rule and the 2008 NSR
Rule. These revisions included provisions that: Explicitly identify
NOX as a precursor to ozone, explicitly identify
SO2 and NOX as precursors to PM2.5,
and regulate condensable PM2.5 and PM10 in
applicability determinations and establishing emissions limits. EPA has
also previously approved revisions to Michigan's SIP that incorporate
the PM2.5 increments and the associated implementation
regulations including the major source baseline date, trigger date, and
level of significance for PM2.5 per the 2010 NSR Rule. EPA
is proposing that Michigan's SIP contains provisions that adequately
address the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    States also have an obligation to ensure that sources located in
nonattainment areas do not interfere with a neighboring state's PSD
program. One way that this requirement can be satisfied is through an
NNSR program consistent with the CAA that addresses any pollutants for
which there is a designated nonattainment area within the state.
    Michigan's EPA-approved NNSR regulations found in Part 2 of the
SIP, specifically in Michigan Administrative Code sections R 336.1220
and R 336.1221, are consistent with 40 CFR 51.165, or 40 CFR part 51,
appendix S. Therefore, EPA proposes that Michigan has met all of the
applicable PSD requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for
transport prong 3 related to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
3. Section 110(a)(2)(J)--Consultation With Government Officials; Public
Notifications; PSD; Visibility Protection
    States must meet applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C)
related to PSD. MDEQ's PSD program in the context of infrastructure
SIPs has already been discussed in the paragraphs addressing section
110(a)(2)(C) and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and EPA notes that the proposed
actions for those sections are consistent with the proposed actions for
this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J). Therefore, EPA proposes that
Michigan has met all of the infrastructure SIP requirements for PSD
associated with section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS.

B. Wisconsin--Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--Interstate Transport

    With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility
protection of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), states are subject to
visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C of the
CAA (which includes sections 169A and 169B, addressing visibility
protection). The 2013 Memo states that these requirements can be
satisfied by an approved SIP addressing reasonably attributable
visibility impairment, if required, or an approved SIP addressing
regional haze.
    On August 7, 2012, EPA published its final approval of Wisconsin's
regional haze plan (see 77 FR 46952). Therefore, EPA is proposing that
Wisconsin has met the visibility protection requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving the PSD related infrastructure requirements for
Michigan's 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS submittals found in CAA sections
110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J). EPA is also approving the visibility
related infrastructure requirements for Wisconsin's 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS submittals found in CAA section 110
(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
    We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we
view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse
written comments are filed. This rule will be effective October 23,
2015 without

further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written comments by
September 23, 2015. If we receive such comments, we will withdraw this
action before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document
that will withdraw the final action. All public comments received will
then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed
action. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties
interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.
Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. If we do
not receive any comments, this action will be effective October 23,
2015.

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 CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, 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 and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by October 23, 2015. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: August 10, 2015.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  52.1170, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by revising
the entry for ``Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the
2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1170  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                       EPA-Approved Michigan Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Applicable
    Name of nonregulatory SIP         geographic or          State       EPA approval date         Comments
            provision              nonattainment area   submittal date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure  Statewide...........      8/15/2011,  8/24/2015, [Insert   This action
 Requirements for the 2006 24-                                7/9/2012   page number where    addresses the
 Hour PM2.5 NAAQS.                                                       the document         following CAA
                                                                         begins].             elements:
                                                                                110(a)(2)(A), (B),
                                                                                (C), (D)(i)(II),
                                                                                (D)(ii), (E), (F),
                                                                                (G), (H), (J),
                                                                                (K), (L), and (M).
                                                                                We are not taking
                                                                                action on the
                                                                                visibility
                                                                                protection
                                                                                requirements of
                                                                                (D)(i)(II) and the
                                                                                state board
                                                                                requirements of
                                                                                (E)(ii). We will
                                                                                address these
                                                                                requirements in a
                                                                                separate action.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. Section 52.2591 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.2591  Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements.

* * * * *
    (c) Approval and Disapproval -- In a January 24, 2011, submittal,
supplemented on March 28, 2011, and June 29, 2012, Wisconsin certified
that the State has satisfied the infrastructure SIP requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(A) through (H), and (J) through (M) for the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is approving Wisconsin's submission
addressing the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A),
(B), (C) with respect to enforcement and the GHG permitting threshold
PSD requirement, (D)(i)(II) with respect to the GHG permitting
threshold PSD requirement and visibility protection, (D)(ii), (E)
except for state board requirements, (F) through (H), (J) except for
narrow prevention of significant deterioration requirements, and (K)
through (M). We are not finalizing action on (D)(i)(I), the state board
requirements of (E)(ii), and the PSD requirement of NOX as a
precursor to ozone in (C), (D)(i)(II), and (J). We will address these
requirements in a separate action. We are disapproving narrow portions
of Wisconsin's infrastructure SIP submission addressing the relevant
prevention of significant deterioration requirements of the 2008 NSR
Rule (identifying PM2.5 precursors and the regulation of
PM2.5 and PM10 condensables in permits) with
respect to section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-20771 Filed 8-21-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 158 (Tuesday, August 16, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50724-50725]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20752]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP11-523-000; PF10-20-000]

Sawgrass Storage, L.L.C.; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on July 27, 2011, Sawgrass Storage, L.L.C.
(Sawgrass), having its principal place of business at 3333 Warrenville
Road, Suite 300, Lisle, IL, 605432, filed an application in Docket No.
CP11-523-000 pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and
Parts 157 and 284 of the Commission's Regulations, for a certificate of
public convenience and necessity to construct and operate its Sawgrass
Storage Project. The Sawgrass Storage Project consists of the
construction and operation of a depleted gas production reservoir
natural gas storage facility in Lincoln and Union Parishes, Louisiana
with a total capacity of 30 Bcf and a maximum daily injection and
withdrawal rate of 300 MMcf/d; 5 wellpads with a total of up to 16
horizontally drilled wells; 5 observation wells; approximately 5.5
miles of 20/24-inch-diameter gathering pipeline; a Gas Handling
Facility with approximately 19,000 horsepower of compression;
approximately 14 miles of 30-inch-diameter mainline pipeline; an
interconnect with Midcontinent Express Pipeline's interstate pipeline
system, and other appurtenant facilities. Also, Sawgrass seeks a
blanket certificate pursuant Subpart G of 18 CFR Part 284 to provide
open-access firm and interruptible natural gas storage services and hub
services. Finally, Sawgrass requested authorization to provide the
proposed storage and hub service at market-based rates, all as more
fully set forth in the application, which is on file with the
Commission and open to public inspection. This filing may also be
viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link.
Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket
number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Stephen Cittadine, Vice President, Sawgrass Storage, LLC, 3333
Warrenville Road, Suite 300, Lisle, IL 60532 by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    On June 14, 2010, the Commission staff granted Sawgrass' request to
use the pre-filing process and assigned Docket No. PF10-20-000 to staff
activities involving the Sawgrass Storage Project. Now, as of the
filing of this application on July 27, 2011, the NEPA Pre-Filing
Process for this project has ended. From this time forward, this
proceeding will be conducted in Docket No. CP11-523-000, as noted in
the caption of this Notice.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's regulations, 18 CFR
157.9, within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission's staff will
either complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of
    Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate,
among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission's staff
issuance of the EA

for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public
record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to reach a final decision on a request for federal
authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission
staff's EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a) (1) (iii) and the
instructions on the Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing'' link.
    Comment Date: August 30, 2011.

    Dated: August 9, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-20752 Filed 8-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: April 2, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 63)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 16670-16671]
[DOCID:fr02ap10-13]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9 and 721

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0918; FRL-8816-9]
RIN 2070-AB27

1-Propene, 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-; Withdrawal of Significant New
Use Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is withdrawing a significant new use rule (SNUR)
promulgated under section 5(a)(2) of the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) for the chemical substance identified as 1-Propene, 2,3,3,3-
tetrafluoro- (CAS No. 754-12-1), which was the subject of
premanufacture notice (PMN) P-07-601. EPA published the SNUR using
direct final rulemaking procedures. EPA received a notice of intent to
submit adverse comments on the rule. Therefore, the Agency is
withdrawing the SNUR, as required under the expedited SNUR rulemaking
process. Elsewhere in today's Federal Register, EPA is publishing
(under separate notice and comment rulemaking procedures) a proposed
SNUR for this substance.

DATES: This final rule is effective April 2, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information contact: Colby
Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, Environmental Assistance Division
(7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address: TSCA-
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For technical information contact: Karen Chu, Chemical Control
Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    A list of potentially affected entities is provided in the Federal
Register of February 1, 2010 (75 FR 4983) (FRL-8438-4). If you have
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

II. What Rule is Being Withdrawn?

    In the Federal Register of February 1, 2010 (75 FR 4983), EPA
issued several direct final SNURs, including a SNUR for the chemical
substance that is the subject of this withdrawal. These direct final
rules were issued pursuant to the procedures in 40 CFR part 721,
subpart D. In accordance with 40 CFR 721.170(d)(4)(i), EPA is
withdrawing the rule issued for 1-Propene, 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro- (PMN P-
07-601; CAS No. 754-12-1) at 40 CFR 721.10182 because the Agency
received a notice of intent to submit adverse comments. Elsewhere in
today's Federal Register, EPA is proposing a SNUR for this chemical
substance via notice and comment rulemaking.
    For further information regarding EPA's expedited process for
issuing SNURs, interested parties are directed to 40 CFR part 721,
subpart D, and the Federal Register of July 27, 1989 (54 FR 31314). The
record for the direct final

SNUR for the chemical substance being withdrawn was established at EPA-
HQ-OPPT-2008-0918. That record includes information considered by the
Agency in developing the rule and the notice of intent to submit
adverse comments.

III. How Do I Access the Docket?

    To access the electronic docket, please go to http://
www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions to access docket
ID no. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0918. Additional information about the Docket
Facility is provided under ADDRESSES in the Federal Register document
of February 1, 2010 (75 FR 4983). If you have questions, consult the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

IV. What Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Apply to this Action?

    This final rule revokes or eliminates an existing regulatory
requirement and does not contain any new or amended requirements. As
such, the Agency has determined that this withdrawal will not have any
adverse impacts, economic or otherwise. The statutory and executive
order review requirements applicable to the direct final rule were
discussed in the Federal Register document of February 1, 2010 (75 FR
4983). Those review requirements do not apply to this action because it
is a withdrawal and does not contain any new or amended requirements.

V. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register.
This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 9
    Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 721
    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 25, 2010.
Barbara A. Cunningham,
Acting Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR parts 9 and 721 are amended as follows:

PART 9--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136-136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003,
2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318, 1321, 1326, 1330,
1342, 1344, 1345 (d) and (e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR,
1971-1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g,
300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-1, 300j-2,
300j-3, 300j-4, 300j-9, 1857 et seq., 6901-6992k, 7401-7671q, 7542,
9601-9657, 11023, 11048.

0
2. The table in Sec.  9.1 is amended by removing under the undesignated
center heading ``Significant New Uses of Chemical Substances'' Sec.
721.10182.

PART 721--[AMENDED]

0
3. The authority citation for part 721 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2604, 2607, and 2625(c).

Sec.  721.10182  [Removed]

0
4. Remove Sec.  721.10182.

[FR Doc. 2010-7194 Filed 4-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 166 (Wednesday, August 27, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51071-51074]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19677]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0176; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-066-AD;
Amendment 39-17951; AD 2014-16-27]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX airplanes. This AD was prompted by
our determination of the need for a revision to the airplane
airworthiness limitations to introduce a corrosion prevention control
program, among other changes, to the maintenance requirements and
airworthiness limitations. This AD requires revising the maintenance or
inspection program, as applicable, to include the maintenance tasks and
airworthiness limitations specified in the Airworthiness Limitations
section of the airplane maintenance manual. We are issuing this AD to
prevent reduced structural integrity of the airplane, and prevent
reduced controllability of the airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective October 1, 2014.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 1,
2014.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0176; or in person at the
Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Dassault
Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201-
440-6700; Internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com. You may view this
referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Dassault Aviation
Model FALCON 900EX airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on March 31, 2014 (79 FR 17942).
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2013-0052, dated March 4, 2013 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Dassault
Aviation Model FALCON 900EX airplanes. The MCAI states:

    The airworthiness limitations and maintenance requirements for
the Falcon 900EX type design relating to Falcon 900EX Easy, Falcon
900LX and Falcon 900DX variants, are included in Aircraft
Maintenance Manual (AMM) chapter 5-40 and are approved by the
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA).
    EASA issued AD 2008-0221 [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/
easaad20080221Corrected.pdf/
AD2008-02211] to require accomplishment of the
maintenance tasks and implementation of the airworthiness
limitations, as specified in Dassault Aviation Falcon 900EX Easy/
900LX/900DX AMM chapter 5-40 referenced DGT 113875 at revision 3.
    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, Dassault Aviation issued
revision 7 of Falcon 900EX Easy/900LX/900DX AMM chapter 5-40, which
contains new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or
airworthiness limitations and introduces, among others, the
following changes:

--Tasks renumbering,
--Introduction of a Corrosion Prevention Control Program (CPCP),
--Revised overhaul limits for screwjack of flap actuators -3
version;
--Revised interval for checking the screw/nut play on screwjack of
flap actuators -3 version;
--Removal of service life limit for screwjack of flap actuators;
--Test of flap asymmetry protection system, with an extended
inspection interval;
--Inspection procedures of fuselage and wings;
--Check of overpressure tightness on pressurization control
regulating valves. Compliance with this check is required by EASA AD
2008-0072, but AMM chapter 5-40 DGT 113875 at revision 7 introduces
an extended inspection interval;
--Check of overpressure relief valve vacuum supply lines. The
maintenance tasks and airworthiness limitations, as specified in the
Falcon 900EX Easy/900LX/900DX AMM chapter 5-40, have been identified
as mandatory actions for continued airworthiness of the Falcon EX
Easy, Falcon 900LX and Falcon 900DX variants of the F900EX type
design. Failure to comply with AMM chapter 5-40 at revision 7 may
result in an unsafe condition.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires the
implementation of the maintenance tasks and airworthiness
limitations, as specified in the Dassault Aviation Falcon 900EX
Easy/900LX/900DX AMM chapter 5-40 DGT 113875 at revision 7.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0176-0002.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (79 FR 17942, March 31,
2014) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

``Contacting the Manufacturer'' Paragraph in This AD

    Since late 2006, we have included a standard paragraph titled
``Airworthy Product'' in all MCAI ADs in which the FAA develops an AD
based on a foreign authority's AD.
    The MCAI or referenced service information in an FAA AD often
directs the owner/operator to contact the manufacturer for corrective
actions, such as a repair. Briefly, the Airworthy Product paragraph
allowed owners/operators to use corrective actions provided by the
manufacturer if those actions were FAA-approved. In addition, the
paragraph stated that any actions approved by the State of Design
Authority (or its delegated agent) are considered to be FAA-approved.
    In the NPRM (79 FR 17942, March 31, 2014), we proposed to prevent
the use of repairs that were not specifically developed to correct the
unsafe condition, by requiring that the repair approval provided by the
State of Design Authority or its delegated agent specifically refer to
this FAA AD. This change was intended to clarify the method of
compliance and to provide operators with better visibility of repairs
that are specifically developed and approved to correct the unsafe
condition. In addition, we proposed to change the phrase ``its
delegated agent'' to include a design approval holder (DAH) with State
of Design Authority design organization approval (DOA), as applicable,
to refer to a DAH authorized to approve required repairs for the
proposed AD.
    No comments were provided to the NPRM (79 FR 17942, March 31, 2014)
about these proposed changes. However, a comment was provided for an
NPRM having Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-101-AD (78 FR 78285,
December 26, 2013). The commenter stated the following: ``The proposed
wording, being specific to repairs, eliminates the interpretation that
Airbus messages are acceptable for approving minor deviations
(corrective actions) needed during accomplishment of an AD mandated
Airbus service bulletin.''
    This comment has made the FAA aware that some operators have
misunderstood or misinterpreted the Airworthy Product paragraph to
allow the owner/operator to use messages provided by the manufacturer
as approval of deviations during the accomplishment of an AD-mandated
action. The Airworthy Product paragraph does not approve messages or
other information provided by the manufacturer for deviations to the
requirements of the AD-mandated actions. The Airworthy Product
paragraph only addresses the requirement to contact the manufacturer
for corrective actions for the identified unsafe condition and does not
cover deviations from other AD requirements. However, deviations to AD-
required actions are addressed in 14 CFR 39.17, and anyone may request
the approval for an alternative method of compliance to the AD-required
actions using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    To address this misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the
Airworthy Product paragraph, we have changed the paragraph and retitled
it ``Contacting the Manufacturer.'' This paragraph now clarifies that
for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a
manufacturer, the actions must be accomplished using a method approved
by the FAA, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), or Dassault
Aviation's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).
    The Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph also clarifies that, if
approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized
signature. The DOA signature indicates that the data and information
contained in the document are EASA-approved, which is also FAA-
approved. Messages and other information provided by the manufacturer
that do not contain the DOA-authorized signature approval are not EASA-
approved, unless EASA directly approves the manufacturer's message or
other information.
    This clarification does not remove flexibility previously afforded
by the Airworthy Product paragraph. Consistent with long-standing FAA
policy, such flexibility was never intended for required actions. This
is also consistent with the recommendation of the Airworthiness
Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee to increase
flexibility in complying with ADs by identifying those actions in
manufacturers' service instructions that are ``Required for
Compliance'' with ADs. We continue to work with manufacturers to
implement this recommendation. But once we determine that an action is
required, any deviation from the requirement must be approved as an
alternative method of compliance.
    Other commenters to the NPRM having Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-
101-AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013) pointed out that in many cases
the foreign manufacturer's service bulletin and the foreign authority's
MCAI might have been issued some time before the FAA AD. Therefore, the
DOA might have provided U.S. operators with an approved repair,
developed with full awareness of the unsafe condition, before the FAA
AD is issued. Under these circumstances, to comply with the FAA AD, the
operator would be required to go back to the manufacturer's DOA and
obtain a new approval document, adding time and expense to the
compliance process with no safety benefit.
    Based on these comments, we removed the requirement that the DAH-
provided repair specifically refer to this AD. Before adopting such a
requirement, the FAA will coordinate with affected DAHs and verify they
are prepared to implement means to ensure that their repair approvals
consider the unsafe condition addressed in this AD. Any such
requirements will be adopted through the normal AD rulemaking process,
including notice-and-comment procedures, when appropriate.
    We also have decided not to include a generic reference to either
the ``delegated agent'' or ``DAH with State of Design Authority design
organization approval,'' but instead we have provided the specific
delegation approval granted by the State of Design Authority for the
DAH throughout this AD.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described
previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these
minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (79 FR 17942, March 31, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition;
and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 17942, March 31, 2014).
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 78 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
               Action                        Labor cost           Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance program revision........  1 work-hour X $85 per               N/A              $85           $6,630
                                       hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0176; or in person at the
Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information.
The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-
5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2014-16-27 Dassault Aviation: Amendment 39-17951. Docket No. FAA-
2014-0176; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-066-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective October 1, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2002-23-20, Amendment 39-12964 (67 FR 71098,
November 29, 2002); and AD 2010-26-05, Amendment 39-16544 (75 FR
79952, December 21, 2010).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX
airplanes, certificated in any category, serial number (S/N) 97 and
S/N 120 and higher (Falcon 900EX Easy, Falcon 900LX and Falcon 900DX
variants).

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a revision to the airplane airworthiness
limitations to introduce the corrosion prevention control program,
among other changes, to the maintenance requirements and
airworthiness limitations. We are issuing this AD to prevent reduced
structural integrity of the airplane, and prevent reduced
controllability of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Revision of Maintenance or Inspection Program

    Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the
information specified in Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations,
DGT 113875, Revision 7, dated September 2012, of the Falcon 900 EX
EASy, Falcon 900LX, and Falcon 900 DX Maintenance Manual. The
initial compliance time for accomplishing the actions specified in
Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations, DGT 113875, Revision 7,
dated September 2012, of the Falcon 900 EX EASy, Falcon 900LX, and
Falcon 900 DX Maintenance Manual, is within the applicable times
specified in the maintenance manual or 30 days after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs later, except as provided by
paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(4) of this AD.
    (1) The term ``LDG'' in the ``First Inspection'' column of any
table in the service information means total airplane landings.
    (2) The term ``FH'' in the ``First Inspection'' column of any
table in the service information means total flight hours.
    (3) The term ``FC'' in the ``First Inspection'' column of any
table in the service information means total flight cycles.
    (4) The term ``M'' in the ``First Inspection'' column of any
table in the service information means months.

(h) Terminating Action

    Accomplishing paragraph (g) of this AD terminates the
requirements of paragraph (a) of AD 2002-23-20, Amendment 39-12964
(67 FR 71098, November 29, 2002); and paragraph (g)(1) of AD 2010-
26-05, Amendment 39-16544 (75 FR 79952, December 21, 2010); for
DASSAULT AVIATION Model FALCON 900EX airplanes, S/N 97 and S/N 120
and higher.

(i) No Alternative Actions and Intervals

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

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to

approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request
to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District
Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the
International Branch, send it to ATTN: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace
Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information may be emailed
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC,
notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal
inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district
office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter
must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Dassault Aviation's EASA
Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the
approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(k) Related Information

    Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI)
EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0053, dated March 4, 2013, for
related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-
0176-0002.

(l) 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 this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations, DGT 113875,
Revision 7, dated September 2012, of the Falcon 900 EX EASy, Falcon
900LX, and Falcon 900 DX Maintenance Manual.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Dassault Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 7, 2014.
Victor Wicklund,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-19677 Filed 8-26-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P