[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 93 (Wednesday, May 13, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28523-28524]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10006]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0355; Airspace Docket No. 20-AGL-18]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Jackson and
Lakeview, MI

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend the Class D airspace and Class E
airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Jackson
County Airport-Reynolds Field, Jackson, MI, and the Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Lakeview Airport-
Griffith Field, Lakeview, MI. The FAA is proposing this action as the
result of airspace reviews caused by the decommissioning of the Jackson
and Muskegon VHF omnidirectional range (VOR) navigation aids, which
provided navigation information for the instrument procedures these
airports, as part of the VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) Program.
The geographic coordinates of the airports and the name of Jackson
County Airport-Reynolds Field would also be updated to coincide with
the FAA's aeronautical database. Airspace redesign is necessary for the
safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at
these airports.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 29, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone
(202) 366-9826, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2020-0355/Airspace Docket No. 20-AGL-18, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the
proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in
the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except federal holidays.
    FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11D at NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would amend the Class D airspace and Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface at Jackson County Airport-
Reynolds Field, Jackson, MI, and the Class E airspace extending upward
from 700 feet above the surface at Lakeview Airport-Griffith Field,
Lakeview, MI, to support IFR operations at these airports.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2020-0355/
Airspace Docket No. 20-AGL-18.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic
Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective
September 15, 2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11D lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by:
    Amending the Class D airspace at Jackson County Airport-Reynolds
Field, Jackson, MI, by updating the geographic coordinates of the
airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; and replacing
the outdated term ``Airport/Facility Directory'' with ``Chart
Supplement'';
    Amending the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface within a 6.5-mile (decreased from a 7-mile) radius of
Jackson County Airport-Reynolds Field (previously the Jackson VOR/DME);
updating the name and geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide
with the FAA's aeronautical database; and removing the Jackson VOR/DME
from the airspace legal description;
    And amending the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius (decreased from a 7.6-mile
radius) of Lakeview Airport-Griffith Field, Lakeview, MI; and updating
the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's
aeronautical database.
    This action is the result of airspace reviews caused by the
decommissioning of the Jackson and Muskegon VORs, which provided
navigation information for the instrument procedures these airports, as
part of the VOR MON Program.
    Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000
and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11D, dated August 8, 2019,
and effective September 15, 2019, which is incorporated by reference in
14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this
document will be published subsequently in the Order.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11D,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and
effective September 15, 2019, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

AGL MI D Jackson, MI [Amended]

Jackson County Airport-Reynolds Field, MI
    (Lat. 42[deg]15'38'' N, long. 84[deg]27'44'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
3,500 feet MSL within a 4-mile radius of Jackson County Airport-
Reynolds Field. This Class D airspace area is effective during the
specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to
Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously
published in the Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AGL MI E5 Jackson, MI [Amended]

Jackson County Airport-Reynolds Field, Jackson, MI
    (Lat. 42[deg]15'38'' N, long. 84[deg]27'44'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of the Jackson County Airport-Reynolds
Field.
* * * * *

AGL MI E5 Lakeview, MI [Amended]

Lakeview Airport-Griffith Field, MI
    (Lat. 43[deg]27'08'' N, long. 85[deg]15'53'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.3-mile radius of the Lakeview Airport-Griffith Field.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 6, 2020.
Steven T. Phillips,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2020-10006 Filed 5-12-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 131 (Wednesday, July 8, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41027-41028]
[FR Doc No: 2020-14686]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1511-008; ER10-2231-007.
    Applicants: Louisville Gas & Electric Company, Kentucky Utilities
Company.
    Description: Triennial Market Power Update of the PPL Southeast
Companies.
    Filed Date: 6/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200630-5468.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1987-004.
    Applicants: Ontario Power Generation Energy Trading, Inc.
    Description: Triennial Market Power Update for Southeast Region of
Ontario Power Generation Energy Trading, Inc.
    Filed Date: 6/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200630-5470.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2042-035; ER10-1858-008; ER10-1862-029; ER10-
1870-008; ER10-1889-008; ER10-1893-029; ER10-1895-008; ER10-1934-029;
ER10-1938-030; ER10-1942-027; ER10-1944-008; ER10-2029-012; ER10-2036-
011; ER10-2040-010; ER10-2041-010; ER10-2043-010; ER10-2044-010; ER10-
2051-010; ER10-2985-033; ER10-3049-034; ER10-3051-034; ER10-3260-010;
ER11-4369-014; ER13-1401-008; ER14-2931-008; ER16-2218-014; ER17-696-
015; ER18-1321-003; ER20-1939-001.
    Applicants: Calpine Energy Services, L.P., Bethpage Energy Center
3, LLC, Calpine Bethlehem, LLC, Calpine Construction Finance Company,
L.P., Calpine Energy Solutions, LLC, Calpine Fore River Energy Center,
LLC, Calpine Mid-Atlantic Generation, LLC, Calpine Mid-Atlantic
Marketing, LLC, Calpine Mid Merit, LLC, Calpine Mid-Merit II, LLC,
Calpine New Jersey Generation, LLC, Calpine Northeast Development, LLC,
Calpine Power America--CA, LLC, Calpine Vineland Solar, LLC, CES
Marketing IX, LLC, CES Marketing X, LLC, Champion Energy, LLC, Champion
Energy Marketing LLC, Champion Energy Services, LLC, CPN Bethpage 3rd
Turbine, Inc., Granite Ridge Energy, LLC, KIAC Partners, Nissequogue
Cogen Partners, North American Power and Gas, LLC, North American Power
Business, LLC, TBG Cogen Partners, Power Contract Financing, L.L.C.,
Westbrook Energy Center, LLC, Zion Energy LLC.
    Description: Updated Market Power Analysis for Northeast Region of
the Calpine Corporation indirect subsidiaries.
    Filed Date: 6/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200630-5457.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2133-022.
    Applicants: Sheldon Energy LLC.
    Description: Triennial Report Sheldon Energy LLC.
    Filed Date: 6/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200630-5418.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2487-006; ER15-2380-004.
    Applicants: Pacific Summit Energy LLC, Willey Battery Utility, LLC.
    Description: Triennial Market Based Rate Analysis for Northeast
Region of Pacific Summit Energy LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 6/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200630-5444.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2718-036; ER10-2719-036.
    Applicants: Cogen Technologies Linden Venture, L.P., East Coast
Power Linden Holding, L.L.C.
    Description: Triennial Compliance Filing of Cogen Technologies
Linden Venture, L.P.
    Filed Date: 6/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200630-5455.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2881-035; ER10-2882-036; ER10-2883-034; ER10-
2884-034; ER16-2509-005; ER17-2400-006; ER17-2401-006; ER17-2403-006;
ER17-2404-006.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company, Southern Power Company,
Mississippi Power Company, Georgia Power Company, Rutherford Farm, LLC,
SP Butler Solar, LLC, SP Decatur Parkway Solar, LLC, SP Pawpaw Solar,
LLC, SP Sandhills Solar, LLC.
    Description: Updated Market Power Analysis for the Southeast Region
of Alabama Power Company, et al.
    Filed Date: 6/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200630-5461.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3872-023.
    Applicants: Stony Creek Energy LLC.
    Description: Triennial Report of Stony Creek Energy LLC.
    Filed Date: 6/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200630-5419.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1266-030; ER10-2611-022; ER10-2984-047; ER11-
2044-034; ER11-3876-025; ER15-2211-027; ER18-1419-003.
    Applicants: MidAmerican Energy Company, CalEnergy, LLC, Cordova
Energy Company LLC, MidAmerican Energy Services, LLC, Saranac Power
Partners, L.P., Walnut Ridge Wind, LLC, Merrill Lynch Commodities, Inc.
    Description: Northeast Triennial Market Power Analysis of
CalEnergy, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 6/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200630-5451.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1641-005; ER15-1045-005; ER16-2226-003 ER16-
2227-004.
    Applicants: Chestnut Flats Lessee, LLC, Kelly Creek Wind, LLC,
McHenry Battery Storage, LLC, Pilot Hill Wind, LLC.
    Description: Triennial Market Power Update Filing for the Northeast
Region of the EDFR Sellers.
    Filed Date: 6/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200630-5467.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2102-003.

    Applicants: Danskammer Energy, LLC.
    Description: Triennial Market Power Update for the Northeast Region
of Danskammer Energy, LLC.
    Filed Date: 6/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200630-5464.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2329-003; ER14-2330-003.
    Applicants: Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, Entergy Nuclear
Power Marketing, LLC.
    Description: Updated Market Power Analysis for the Northeast Region
of the Entergy Northeast MBR Utilities.
    Filed Date: 6/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200630-5453.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-103-009.
    Applicants: Invenergy Nelson LLC.
    Description: Triennial Report of Invenergy Nelson LLC.
    Filed Date: 6/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200630-5415.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2278-003.
    Applicants: Cube Yadkin Generation LLC.
    Description: Updated Market Power Analysis for the Southeast Region
of Cube Yadkin Generation LLC.
    Filed Date: 6/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200630-5421.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-424-007.
    Applicants: Footprint Power Salem Harbor Development LP.
    Description: Triennial Compliance Filing of Footprint Power Salem
Harbor Development LP.
    Filed Date: 6/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200630-5454.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-140-006.
    Applicants: Lackawanna Energy Center LLC.
    Description: Triennial Report of Lackawanna Energy Center LLC.
    Filed Date: 6/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200630-5420.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1906-003; ER10-1532-006; ER10-1541-007; ER10-
1642-008; ER10-1767-006; ER13-2349-005; ER13-2350-005; ER16-221-004;
ER17-1757-004; ER18-1907-003.
    Applicants: Entergy Services, LLC, Entergy Arkansas, LLC, Entergy
Louisiana, LLC, Entergy Mississippi, LLC, Entergy New Orleans, LLC,
Entergy Texas, Inc., Entergy Nuclear Palisades, LLC, Entergy Power,
LLC, EWO Marketing, LLC, EAM Nelson Holding, LLC, RS Cogen, LLC.
    Description: Notification of Non-Material Change in Status of the
Entergy Central MBR Utilities.
    Filed Date: 6/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200630-5456.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/21/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2726-002.
    Applicants: Invenergy Wilkinson Solar Holdings LLC.
    Description: Triennial Report of Invenergy Wilkinson Solar Holdings
LLC.
    Filed Date: 6/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200630-5412.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/20.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
reliability filings:

    Docket Numbers: RR20-5-000.
    Applicants: North American Electric Reliability Corporation,
Northeast Power Coordinating Council, Inc., ReliabilityFirst
Corporation, SERC Reliability Corporation, Western Electric
Coordinating Council, Texas Reliability Entity, Inc.
    Description: Petition of the North American Electric Reliability
Corporation, et al. for approval of the revised Pro Forma Regional
Delegation Agreement and revised Regional Entity RDAs.
    Filed Date: 6/29/20.
    Accession Number: 20200629-5552.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/20/20.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 1, 2020
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-14686 Filed 7-7-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 104 (Tuesday, May 31, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34287-34290]
[FR Doc No: 2016-12593]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-6896; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-016-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus Model A318-111, and -112 airplanes, Model A319-111, -112, -113,
-114, and -115 airplanes, Model A320-211, -212 and -214 airplanes, and
Model A321-111, -112, -211, -212, and -213 airplanes. This proposed AD
was prompted by a report of a production quality deficiency on the
inner retainer installed on link assemblies of the engine mount, which
could result in failure of the retainer. This proposed AD would require
an inspection for, and replacement of, all non-conforming aft engine
mount retainers. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct non-
conforming retainers of the aft engine mount. This condition could
result in the loss of the locking feature of the nuts of the inner and
outer pins; loss of the pins will result in the aft mount engine link
no longer being secured to the aft engine mount, possibly resulting in
damage to the airplane and injury to persons on the ground.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 15, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For Airbus service information identified in this NPRM, contact
Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5
61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://www.airbus.com.
    For Goodrich service information identified in this NPRM, contact
Goodrich Corporation, Aerostructures, 850 Lagoon Drive, Chula Vista, CA
91910-2098; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet: http://www.goodrich.com/TechPubs.
    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 425-
227-1221.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
6896; 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 proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Operations office (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjay Ralhan, 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:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2016-6896;
Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-016-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2016-0010R1, dated February 16, 2016 (referred
to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model
A318-111, and -112 airplanes, Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, and -
115 airplanes, Model A320-211, -212, and -214 airplanes, and Model
A321-111, -112, -211, -212, and -213 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During in-service inspections, several aft engine mount inner
retainers, fitted on aeroplanes equipped with CFM56-5A/5B engines,
have been found broken. The results of the initial investigations
highlighted that two different types of surface finish had been
applied (respectively bright and dull material finishes), and that
dull finish affects the strength of the retainer with regard to
fatigue properties of the part. The pins which attach the engine
link to the aft mount are secured by two nuts, which do not have a
self-locking feature; this function is provided by the retainer
brackets. In case of failure of the retainer bracket, the locking
feature of the nuts of the inner and outer pins is lost; as a
result, these nuts could subsequently become loose.
    In case of full loss of the nuts, there is the potential to also
lose the pins, in which case the aft mount link will no longer be
secured to the aft engine mount. The same locking feature is used
for the three link assemblies of the aft mount.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to in-
flight loss of an aft mount link, possibly resulting in damage to
the aeroplane and/or injury to persons on the ground.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, EASA issued AD 2013-
0050 [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2013_0050_superseded.pdf/AD_2013-0050_1] [which corresponds
to FAA AD 2014-14-06, Amendment 39-17901 (79 FR 42655, July 23,
2014)] to require a detailed inspection (DET) of the aft engine
mount inner retainers and the replacement of all retainers with dull
finish with retainers having a bright finish. Since that [EASA] AD
was issued, inspection results showed that the main cause of crack
initiation remains the vibration dynamic effect that affects both
retainers, either with ``dull'' or ``bright'' surface finishes. The
non-conforming ``dull'' surface's pitting is an aggravating factor.
Consequently, EASA issued AD 2015-0021 [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/EASA_AD_2015_0021_superseded.pdf/AD_2015-0021_1] [which
corresponds to FAA NPRM Docket No. FAA-2015-3632; Directorate
Identifier 2015-NM-023-AD (80 FR 55798, September 7, 2015)],
retaining the requirements of EASA AD 2013-0050, which was
superseded, and requiring repetitive DET of all aft engine mount
inner retainers and, depending on findings, their replacement.
    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, a production quality deficiency
was identified by Airbus and UTAS (formerly Goodrich Aerostructures,
the engine mount retainer manufacturer) on the delivery of the inner
retainer, Part Number (P/N) 238-0252-505, installed in the three
Link assemblies of the engine mount fitted on CFM56-5A/5B engines.
Airbus issued AOT A71N011-15 and SB A320-71-1070 providing a list of
affected parts and applicable corrective actions.
    Consequently, EASA issued [a new] AD * * *, retaining the
requirements of EASA AD 2015-0021, which was superseded, and in
addition requiring the identification and replacement of all non-
conforming aft engine mount inner retainers.
    Since that [new EASA] AD was issued, AOT A71N011-15 was revised,
removing errors and reducing the list of affected parts.
    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD is revised,
adding reference to the revised AOT, and removing [EASA] AD
appendixes, which content is included in the referenced Airbus
documentation.
    This [EASA] AD is still considered to be an interim action,
pending development and availability of a final solution.

    This proposed AD would require an inspection for, and replacement
of, all non-conforming aft engine mount retainers. You may examine the
MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-6896.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed the following service information. This service
information describes procedures for replacement of all non-conforming
aft engine mount retainers.
     Airbus Service Bulletin A320-71-1070, dated November 23,
2015. This service information also describes procedures for an
inspection for non-conforming aft engine mount retainers.
     Airbus Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A71N011-15,
Revision 01, dated February 1, 2016.
     Goodrich Service Bulletin RA32071-165, dated October 9,
2015.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation

in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the
State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe
condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced
above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent
information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to
exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 959 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Cost per
             Action                    Labor cost          Parts cost        product     Cost on U.S.  operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection.....................  4 work-hours x $85 per              $0            $340  Up to $326,060.
                                  hour = $340.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements
that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection.
We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need
these replacements:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                          Labor cost             Parts cost          Cost per  product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement.........................  Up to 36 work-hours x $85            $10,000  Up to $13,060.
                                       per hour = $3,060.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2016-6896; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-
016-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 15, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs
(c)(1) through (c)(4) of this AD, certificated in any category, all
manufacturer serial numbers.
    (1) Airbus Model A318-111 and -112 airplanes.
    (2) Airbus Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, and -115 airplanes.
    (3) Airbus Model A320-211, -212, and -214 airplanes.
    (4) Airbus Model A321-111, -112, -211, -212, and -213 airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 71, Powerplant.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of a production quality
deficiency on the inner retainer installed on link assemblies of the
engine mount, which could result in failure of the retainer. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct non-conforming retainers of
the aft engine mount. This condition could result in loss of the
locking feature of the nuts of the inner and outer pins; loss of the
pins will result in the aft mount engine link no longer being
secured to the aft engine mount, possibly resulting in damage to the
airplane and injury to persons on the ground.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection and Replacement

    Within 2 months after the effective date of this AD, do an
inspection to determine the part number of each engine mount inner
retainer; and within 2 months after the effective date of this AD,
replace each part that meets any of the criteria specified in
paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD. Do the inspection in
accordance with the service information specified in paragraph
(h)(1) of this AD. Do the replacement in accordance with the service
information specified in paragraph (h)(1), (h)(2), or (h)(3) of this
AD. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu
of the inspection required by this paragraph, if the part

number of the engine mount inner retainer can be conclusively
determined from that review.
    (1) An aft engine mount having a serial number listed in table 1
of Airbus Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A71N011-15, Rev 01,
dated February 1, 2016.
    (2) An engine mount inner retainer installed on an airplane
between the first flight of the airplane or March 1, 2015 (whichever
occurs later), and the effective date of this AD, and that can be
identified by a purchase order (PO) listed in table 2 of Airbus AOT
A71N011-15, Rev 01, dated February 1, 2016.
    (3) An engine mount inner retainer installed on an airplane
between the first flight of the airplane or March 1, 2015 (whichever
occurs later), and the effective date of this AD, and that cannot be
identified by a PO.

(h) Service Information for Actions Required by Paragraph (g) of This
AD

    Accomplish the replacement required by paragraph (g) of this AD
in accordance with the service information specified in paragraph
(h)(1), (h)(2), or (h)(3) of this AD.
    (1) The Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin
A320-71-1070, dated November 23, 2015.
    (2) Paragraph 4.2.2, ``Requirements,'' of Airbus AOT A71N011-15,
Revision 01, dated February 1, 2016.
    (3) The Accomplishment Instructions of Goodrich Service Bulletin
RA32071-165, dated October 9, 2015.

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the applicable actions
required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were
performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus AOT
A71N011-15, Revision 01, dated February 1, 2016, which is not
incorporated by reference in this AD.

(j) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install any
part that meets any of the criteria specified in paragraph (j)(1),
(j)(2), (j)(3) of this AD on any airplane.
    (1) An aft engine mount having a serial number listed in table 1
of Airbus AOT A71N011-15, Rev 01, dated February 1, 2016.
    (2) An engine mount inner retainer delivered through a PO listed
in table 2 of Airbus AOT A71N011-15, Rev 01, dated February 1, 2016.
    (3) An engine mount inner retainer delivered through an
unidentified PO.

(k) Special Flight Permits

    Special flight permits, as described in Section 21.197 and
Section 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197
and 21.199), are not allowed.

(l) 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: Sanjay
Ralhan, 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 Airbus's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): If any service information
contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those
procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as
RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests
identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(m) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA AD 2016-0010R1, dated February 16, 2016, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2016-6896.
    (2) For Airbus service information identified in this AD,
contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet: http://www.airbus.com. For Goodrich service information
identified in this AD, contact Goodrich Corporation, Aerostructures,
850 Lagoon Drive, Chula Vista, CA 91910-2098; telephone: 619-691-
2719; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://www.goodrich.com/TechPubs. 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<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 20, 2016.
Victor Wicklund,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-12593 Filed 5-27-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: November 21, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 224)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 65459-65460]
[DOCID:fr21no07-10]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[COTP Guam 07-005]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zone; Tinian, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is changing a permanent security zone in
waters adjacent to the island of Tinian, Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands (CNMI). Review of the established zone indicates that
its scope is overly-broad and that it imposes an unnecessary and
unsustainable enforcement burden on the Coast Guard. This change is
intended to narrow the zone's scope so it more accurately reflects
current enforcement needs.

DATES: This rule is effective December 21, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket COTP Guam 07-005 and are available for inspection
and copying at Coast Guard Sector Guam between 7 a.m. and 3:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Commander John Winter, U.S.
Coast Guard Sector Guam at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    On August 17, 2007, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled Security Zone; Tinian, Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands in the Federal Register (72 FR 46185). We received no
letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public meeting was
requested, and none was held.

Background and Purpose

    The security zones at Tinian codified in 33 CFR 165.1403 were first
established on November 14, 1986 (51 FR 42220, November 24, 1986), as
requested by the U.S. Navy in order to prevent injury or damage to
persons and equipment incident to the mooring of the first Maritime
Preposition Ships in the port. In addition to describing a larger
security zone that is enforced when a Maritime Position Ship is moored
at the site, the regulation, as currently written, establishes a
permanent 50-yard security zone around Moorings A and B when no vessel
is moored there. The zone is approximately 100 nautical miles from the
nearest Coast Guard surveillance assets, a distance that hinders our
ability to patrol it regularly.
    A recent review of the 50-yard zone indicates that patrolling it is
unnecessary except when the Navy needs to ensure availability of the
mooring space, which is signaled by the anchoring of mooring balls. The
purpose of this rule is to change the smaller zone from one that is
activated all the time to one that is activated only when necessary.
This change reflects our current enforcement needs more accurately and
eliminates our need to travel 100 miles to patrol the zone when
enforcement is unnecessary.
    In addition, we are changing the section heading of this regulation
to reflect CNMI's proper name and the fact that the section describes
two security zones. We also made it easier to distinguish the two zones
by describing them in separate paragraphs in 33 CFR 165.1403(a).
Finally, we are clarifying that, while these regulations are in effect
at all times, the security zones will only be activated--and thus
subject to enforcement--when necessary.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    We did not receive any comments in response to our NPRM. No changes
were made to the regulation text proposed in the NPRM.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does
not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this rule to be so
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This
expectation is based on the nature of the change (diminishing an
established security zone's enforcement period), which is likely to
further minimize the economic impact of an established rule.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule will have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Due to the nature of the change (diminishing an established
security zone's enforcement period), we anticipate that it will further
reduce any economic impact of the established rule. If you think that
your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as
a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic
impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why
you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would
economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule
would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact Lieutenant Commander John
Winter, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Guam,<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Coast Guard
will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain
about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do
discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD
and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a
categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction.
Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1,
paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction, from further environmental
documentation. That provision excludes regulations establishing or
changing security zones.
    A final ``Environmental Analysis Check List'' and a final
``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' are available in the docket
where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reports and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR
part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L.
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.

0
2. In Sec.  165.1403, revise the section heading and paragraph (a) to
read as follows:

Sec.  165.1403  Security Zones; Tinian, Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands.

    (a) Location. The following areas are security zones:
    (1) The waters of the Pacific Ocean off Tinian between
14[deg]59'04.9'' N, 145[deg]34'58.6'' E to 14[deg]59'20.1'' N,
145[deg]35'41.5'' E to 14[deg]59'09.8'' N, 145[deg]36'02.1'' E to
14[deg]57'49.3'' N, 145[deg]36'28.7'' E to 14[deg]57'29.1'' N,
145[deg]35'31.1'' E and back to 14[deg]59'04.9'' N, 145[deg]34'58.6''
E. This zone will be enforced when one, or more, of the Maritime
Preposition Ships is in the zone or moored at Mooring A located at
14[deg]58'57.0'' N and 145[deg]35'40.8'' E or Mooring B located at
14[deg]58'15.9'' N, 145[deg]35'54.8'' E.
0
(2) Additionally, a 50-yard security zone in all directions around
Moorings A and B will be enforced when no vessels are moored thereto
but mooring balls are anchored and on station.

    Note to Sec.  165.1403(a): All positions of latitude and
longitude are from International Spheroid, Astro Pier 1944 (Saipan)
Datum (NOAA Chart 81071).

* * * * *

    Dated: November 9, 2007.
William Marhoffer,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Guam.
 [FR Doc. E7-22694 Filed 11-20-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


         Drivers and Benefits of WQS Reg Revision Proposal  - May 2013

Designated Uses
   1.    Highest Attainable Use
   Driver:  To eliminate situations where a state demonstrates that a designated use is not attainable but does not replace that use with another.  For example, we wish to avoid situations where a state adequately demonstrates that a warm water aquatic life use is not attainable based on one of the six factors, but has neither adopted another use to protect lesser aquatic life expectations nor demonstrated that no aquatic life use is attainable.  Such a situation leads to an inefficient and ineffective transaction as EPA cannot approve the revision without one of the two state actions.
   Benefits:
   *          Refocuses the public debate from "whether to allow a downgrade" to "what is achievable."  Gives the public an avenue to help develop constructive solutions rather than simply opposing "downgrades."  Allows states to seek public input on the use change and its replacement concurrently.
   *          Having expectations clearly stated in the regulation will reduce the time and resources spent by states and EPA resolving the issue after the UAA has already gone through the public process and formally submitted to EPA.
   *          When EPA meets its mandatory review timeframes, it is less vulnerable to mandatory duty lawsuits.  Consequently, EPA will be able to staff better communication/coordination with state partners, as opposed to staffing mandatory duty litigation.

   2.    Clarifying when a UAA is or is not required
   Driver:  The current uses regulations have led to a significant amount of confusion because 40 CFR  131.10(g), (j), and (k) are not connected and, if read independently, could lead to an interpretation regarding when a UAA is required that is contrary to the interpretation given when the sections are read together.  The revisions will ensure that all three provisions are interlinked such that there is only one common interpretation.  Further, the revisions will provide for a more explicit connection between these sections and EPA's interpretation of section 101(a)(2) of the CWA.
   Benefits:
      * Will make clear to States, tribes, and the public when a UAA is required and when it is not.
      * Will increase consistency in EPA Regional responses regarding which use changes must be justified using one of the 131.10(g) "attainability factors."
      * Will provide states/tribes additional flexibility (grounded in the CWA) for removing/refining uses not specified in CWA section 101(a)(2) (e.g., public water supply, agricultural use, irrigation use).
      * The legal framework established in the preamble will help EPA when defending future litigation on use removals and variances, especially as EPA is seeing an increasing use of variances for uses not specified in 101(a)(2), such as for agricultural and irrigation uses.
      * Will increase transparency to the public as we implement the existing program position on this issue.

Antidegradation
1. Identifying High Quality Waters
   Driver:  Stakeholders have expressed concern over the possible use of the waterbody  -  by  - waterbdy approach for identifying high quality waters, threatening legal action if EPA does not prohibit such an approach.  EPA's revisions use a targeted change to preserve the current state/tribe flexibility to prioritize certain waters for Tier 2 protection, while addressing a legitimate concern.

   Benefits:
      * Provides regulatory protection of state flexibility that is currently used by (1/2) of the states that might otherwise be eroded in highly likely, case-specific litigation.
      * Confirms longstanding guidance allowing pollutant-by-pollutant or waterbody-by-waterbody approaches or a hybrid approach, all of which are in use by states.

1. Alternatives Analysis

   Driver:  Stakeholders have expressed concern that some states are either not conducting an alternatives analysis before authorizing a lowering of water quality, or, even if they do an alternatives analysis, they do not select alternatives that would have less environmental harm.  EPA's discussions with states have revealed that states may be conducting these alternatives analysis, but the existence of the analysis is not transparent to the public.  Therefore, the revisions are intended to be explicit regarding expectations for states and tribes when allowing a lowering of water quality in a high quality water as required by 40 CFR 131.12(a)(2) , and to increase public transparency regarding such decisions, while maintaining as much state flexibility as possible.

   Benefits:
      * Retains goal to ensure states select and implement an alternative, if available, that would cause less environmental harm than the proposed lowering, yet still allows states to take case specific factors into consideration.
      * Increase public acceptance and efficiency of the transaction.
      * Rather than specifying a rigid "alternatives analysis" procedure, the proposal builds on some current state practices and EPA's longstanding guidance and only requires a state/tribe to identify a range of alternatives that prevent or minimize degradation.  The proposal maintains state flexibility to choose the alternative that is "feasible" before allowing degradation to occur.
      * Explains how a state can utilize its flexibility to select the alternative from within the range and that it can select the original project proposal if other alternatives are not feasible.
      * Preamble explicitly allows for considerations of cross-media impacts.
      * Strikes a balance between status quo and driving states to select the "least degrading feasible alternative" which some environmental groups advocate.

2. Adoption of Implementation Methods
   Driver:  Not all states have sufficient antidegradation implementation methods.  EPA's efforts to persuade states to establish such methods have been met with resistance.  In addition, those states that have sufficient antidegradation methods may not have methods fully accessible and transparent to the public.
   Benefits:
      * Provides a minimum set of expectations for what aspects of antidegradation all states must address in their antidegradation method, while allowing state the discretion to tailor their methods.  EPA believes that there are States with adequate programs today that already meet the minimum set of expectations.
      * States and tribes retain flexibility in what form they adopt their antidegradation implementation methods.  States and tribes could adopt them into water quality standards regulations, other regulations, or incorporate the methods into regulation by reference.
      * Working up front with the state and public on antidegradation methods that meet the requirements of the CWA and the regulation reduces legal vulnerability for both states and EPA.  Currently, EPA is vulnerable to mandatory duty suits to promulgate methods for states, and to withdraw state NPDES delegation.
      * Responding to antidegradation litigation and petitions is a significant resource drain for EPA.

Variances
Driver:  Variances are currently underutilized or misused, often because there is no regulatory framework to guide states and the public.  The only framework EPA have is built on a legal opinion and relies on the uses regulations which are not always the right match for scenarios in which variances are needed.  EPA has recognized that the EPA Region receiving the most variance requests is also the one that has an established regulatory structure for variances through the GLI (Region 5).   EPA's revisions are intended to provide clarity and specificity to the use and application of WQS variances, such that states can use them when appropriate.  The proposal articulates the flexibility available to states when adopting variances, and provides sufficient accountability to ensure to the public that variances will be used to foster environmental improvements.
Benefits:
   * Clarifies EPA's expectations, brings transparency to the process, and helps promote use of variances by significantly reducing confusion, inconsistency, and mixed interpretations about how, when, and where variances may be used.
   * Will enhance the ability of some states to issue variances ("EPA says they're OK").
   * Providing a direct link to CWA authority and providing separate regulations for variances (from uses) allows EPA to be more flexible for variances than it can today.
         o For example, under the proposal, EPA could allow a variance for a point source even if implementing BMPs for non-point sources could potentially enable WQS attainment.  The variance could serve as a mechanism to provide time to explore and implement those BMPs.  In contrast, a use removal (and under today's existing regulations, a variance) would be prohibited if the required prospective analysis showed that imposing "reasonable and cost effective BMPs for NPS control" would allow the current use to be achieved.
   * Provides the regulatory clarity needed to preserve a state/tribe's ability to submit a variance for uses not specified in CWA section 101(a)(2) and identifies when a justification for a variances must be based on attainability related factors.

Triennial Review
   Driver:  There has been concern that some states may not be revising their water quality criteria often enough, particularly when EPA publishes new CWA 304(a) criteria.  Therefore, EPA's revision is intended to increase routine consideration of updated criteria and whether updates are needed to continue protecting the designated use.  Also, outdated criteria are a legal vulnerability and can undermine the integrity of state standards.
   Benefits:
   * Does not mandate updating of criteria. States retain the discretion to determine whether criteria revisions are necessary to protect the designated use.
   * Encourages states to use their triennial review to preempt legal challenges by proactively considering EPA's 304(a) criteria and providing adequate documentation for how the state's criteria continue to protect the designated use with or without revisions.
   * Gives stakeholders an avenue to provide data and comments where they perceive the state standards have outdated criteria.
Compliance Schedule Authorizing Provisions
Driver:  Despite the Star-Kist EAB case, states may not be aware what they need to do administratively to legally utilize a permit compliance schedule.  EPA's revisions are intended to explicitly state EPA's expectations in light of  the Administrator's 1990 decision in the Star-Kist EAB case.
Benefits:
   * Provides an up-front transparent legal basis for future permits with WQBEL compliance schedules to "derive from and comply with" water quality standards as required by 122.44(d).
   * Clarifies an individual compliance schedule is a permitting tool and is not itself considered a WQS. Issuing a compliance schedule continues to be the responsibility of the permitting authority under existing NPDES regulations.


[Federal Register: October 27, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 206)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 55151-55154]
[DOCID:fr27oc09-19]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 64

[Docket ID FEMA-2008-0020; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-8101]

Suspension of Community Eligibility

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule identifies communities, where the sale of flood
insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP), that are scheduled for suspension on the effective
dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the
floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the
community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior
to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension
will not occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in
the Federal Register on a subsequent date.

DATES: Effective Dates: The effective date of each community's
scheduled suspension is the third date (``Susp.'') listed in the third
column of the following tables.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you want to determine whether a
particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for
further information, contact David Stearrett, Mitigation Directorate,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP enables property owners to purchase
flood insurance which is generally not otherwise available. In return,
communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management
aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding.
Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended,
42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage as authorized under
the NFIP, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; unless an appropriate public body
adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective
enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer
meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program
regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be
suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date,
flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. However,
some of these communities may adopt and submit the required
documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures
after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date.
These communities will not be suspended and will continue their

eligibility for the sale of insurance. A notice withdrawing the
suspension of the communities will be published in the Federal
Register.
    In addition, FEMA has identified the Special Flood Hazard Areas
(SFHAs) in these communities by publishing a Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM). The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated
in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial
assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a
flood) may legally be provided for construction or acquisition of
buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the
NFIP and identified for more than a year, on FEMA's initial flood
insurance map of the community as having flood-prone areas (section
202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a),
as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal
assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date
shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and
public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and unnecessary
because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately
notified.
    Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification
letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the
community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management
measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these
notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less
than 30 days.
    National Environmental Policy Act. This rule is categorically
excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental
Considerations. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that
this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42
U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless an appropriate
public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with
effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no longer comply
with the statutory requirements, and after the effective date, flood
insurance will no longer be available in the communities unless
remedial action takes place.
    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule involves no policies
that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the
applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.
    Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not involve any collection
of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64

    Flood insurance, Floodplains.

0
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

PART 64--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp.; p. 376.

Sec.  64.6  [Amended]

0
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  64.6 are amended
as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Effective date
                                                 authorization/
                                   Community    cancellation of    Current effective map   Date certain Federal
       State and location             No.        sale of flood             date            assistance no longer
                                                  insurance in                              available in SFHAs
                                                   community
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Region IV

Alabama:
    Andalusia, City of,                010331  February 26,       Nov. 4, 2009..........  Nov. 4, 2009
     Covington County.                          1999, Emerg; N/
                                                A, Reg; November
                                                4, 2009, Susp.
    Benton, Town of, Lowndes           015002  February 25,       *......do.............   Do.
     County.                                    1972, Emerg;
                                                April 6, 1973,
                                                Reg; November 4,
                                                2009, Susp.
    Conecuh County,                    010319  March 31, 1998,    ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                      Emerg; N/A, Reg;
                                                November 4,
                                                2009, Susp.
    Covington County,                  010244  August 4, 1989,    ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                      Emerg; September
                                                1, 1990, Reg;
                                                November 4,
                                                2009, Susp.
    Evergreen, City of, Conecuh        010051  September 3,       ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    1976, Emerg; May
                                                26, 1998, Reg;
                                                November 4,
                                                2009, Susp.
    Lowndes County,                    010272  December 11,       ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                      1975, Emerg;
                                                August 15, 1984,
                                                Reg; November 4,
                                                2009, Susp.
    Opp, City of, Covington            010241  October 20, 1975,  ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; July 18,
                                                1985, Reg;
                                                November 4,
                                                2009, Susp.
    Red Level, Town of,                010243  May 3, 1999,       ......do..............   Do.
     Covington County.                          Emerg; N/A, Reg;
                                                November 4,
                                                2009, Susp.
    River Falls, Town of,              010054  December 24,       ......do..............   Do.
     Covington County.                          1975, Emerg;
                                                July 8, 1977,
                                                Reg; November 4,
                                                2009, Susp.
North Carolina:
    Ashe County, Unincorporated        370007  August 4, 1975,    ......do..............   Do.
     Areas.                                     Emerg; August
                                                16, 1988, Reg;
                                                November 4,
                                                2009, Susp.
    Jefferson, Town of, Ashe           370008  September 5,       ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    1975, Emerg;
                                                August 16, 1988,
                                                Reg; November 4,
                                                2009, Susp.
    Lansing, Town of, Ashe             370374  September 4,       ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    1975, Emerg;
                                                August 5, 1986,
                                                Reg; November 4,
                                                2009, Susp.
    West Jefferson, Town of,           370009  August 21, 1975,   ......do..............   Do.
     Ashe County.                               Emerg; June 4,
                                                1987, Reg;
                                                November 4,
                                                2009, Susp.

            Region V

Wisconsin:
    Brandon, Village of, Fond          550132  March 31, 1975,    ......do..............   Do.
     Du Lac County.                             Emerg; September
                                                16, 1988, Reg;
                                                November 4,
                                                2009, Susp.
    Campbellsport, Village of,         550133  May 13, 1975,      ......do..............   Do.
     Fond Du Lac County.                        Emerg; May 15,
                                                1978, Reg;
                                                November 4,
                                                2009, Susp.
    Fond Du Lac, City of, Fond         550136  March 8, 1974,     ......do..............   Do.
     Du Lac County.                             Emerg; January
                                                3, 1979, Reg;
                                                November 4,
                                                2009, Susp.
    Fond Du Lac County,                550131  April 2, 1974,     ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                      Emerg; July 19,
                                                1982, Reg;
                                                November 4,
                                                2009, Susp.
    Kewaskum, Village of,              550474  July 7, 1975,      ......do..............   Do.
     Washington County.                         Emerg; January
                                                6, 1982, Reg;
                                                November 4,
                                                2009, Susp.
    Mount Calvary, Village of,         550137  August 1, 1975,    ......do..............   Do.
     Fond Du Lac County.                        Emerg; September
                                                30, 1976, Reg;
                                                November 4,
                                                2009, Susp.
    North Fond Du Lac, Village         550138  March 27, 1975,    ......do..............   Do.
     of, Fond Du Lac County.                    Emerg; December
                                                4, 1979, Reg;
                                                November 4,
                                                2009, Susp.
    Ripon, City of, Fond Du Lac        550140  July 2, 1975,      ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; August
                                                15, 1980, Reg;
                                                November 4,
                                                2009, Susp.
    Rosendale, Village of, Fond        550141  October 20, 1975,  ......do..............   Do.
     Du Lac County.                             Emerg; September
                                                29, 1989, Reg;
                                                November 4,
                                                2009, Susp.
    St. Cloud, Village of, Fond        550142  April 23, 1976,    ......do..............   Do.
     Du Lac County.                             Emerg; July 1,
                                                1987, Reg;
                                                November 4,
                                                2009, Susp.
    Waupun, City of, Fond Du           550108  January 21, 1975,  ......do..............   Do.
     Lac County.                                Emerg; August
                                                15, 1984, Reg;
                                                November 4,
                                                2009, Susp.
           Region VII

Kansas:
    McLouth, City of, Jefferson        200148  July 21, 1975,     ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; July 20,
                                                1984, Reg;
                                                November 4,
                                                2009, Susp.
    Oskaloosa, City of,                200151  November 21,       ......do..............   Do.
     Jefferson County.                          1975, Emerg;
                                                August 3, 1984,
                                                Reg; November 4,
                                                2009, Susp.
Missouri:......................
    Marthasville, City of,             290444  September 14,      ......do..............   Do.
     Warren County.                             1983, Emerg;
                                                September 14,
                                                1983, Reg;
                                                November 4,
                                                2009, Susp.
    Warren County,                     290443  June 1, 1984,      ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                      Emerg; April 3,
                                                1985, Reg;
                                                November 4,
                                                2009, Susp.
    Wright City, City of,              290654  NA, Emerg; March   ......do..............   Do.
     Warren County.                             26, 2008, Reg;
                                                November 4,
                                                2009, Susp.
          Region VIII

South Dakota:
    Big Stone City, City of,           460156  July 11, 1995,     ......do..............   Do.
     Grant County.                              Emerg; July 1,
                                                1998, Reg;
                                                November 4,
                                                2009, Susp.
    Milbank, City of, Grant            460200  April 23, 1980,    ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; December
                                                9, 1985, Reg;
                                                November 4,
                                                2009, Susp.
    Revillo, Town of, Grant            460031  June 30, 1975,     ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; October
                                                1, 1986, Reg;
                                                November 4,
                                                2009, Susp.
Wyoming:
    Converse County,                   560082  April 22, 1983,    ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                      Emerg; April 5,
                                                1988, Reg;
                                                November 4,
                                                2009, Susp.
    Douglas, City of, Converse         560013  October 2, 1975,   ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; October
                                                17, 1978, Reg;
                                                November 4,
                                                2009, Susp.
    Glenrock, Town of, Converse        560014  June 2, 1975,      ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; November
                                                15, 1985, Reg;
                                                November 4,
                                                2009, Susp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 *......Do = Ditto.
 Code for reading third column: Emerg.--Emergency; Reg.--Regular; Susp.--Suspension.

    Dated: October 9, 2009.
Edward L. Connor,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Mitigation Directorate, Department of
Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E9-25835 Filed 10-26-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register: May 22, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 98)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 23965]
[DOCID:fr22my09-13]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2007-1134; FRL-8908-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Michigan; Consumer Products Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a request submitted by the
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) on October 26,
2007, to revise the Michigan State Implementation Plan (SIP). The State
has requested revisions to two rules in Part 6, ``Emission Limitations
and Prohibitions--Existing Sources of Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)
Emissions.'' The State has revised R 336.1660 by adopting by reference,
with some modifications, the amended Ozone Transport Commission Model
Rule published on September 13, 2006. The State has amended the
definition of VOC in R 336.1661 by adopting the Federal definition from
40 CFR 51.100.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 22, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2007-1134, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant
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.

Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Final Rules
section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to
submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andy Chang, Environmental Engineer,
Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Final Rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because EPA views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no
further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the
direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received
will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed
rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period; therefore, 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. For
additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in
the Final Rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: May 6, 2009.
Walter W. Kovalick, Jr.,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. E9-11913 Filed 5-21-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P