30380 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions 

The following provisions also apply to this 

AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, International 

Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 

has the authority to approve AMOCs for this 

AD, if requested using the procedures found 

in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 

39.19, send your request to your principal 

inspector or local Flight Standards District 

Office, as appropriate. If sending information 

directly to the International Section, send it 

to the attention of the person identified in 

paragraph (k)(2) of this AD. Information may 

be emailed to: 9-ANM-116-AMOCREQUESTS@faa.gov. Before using any 

approved AMOC, notify your appropriate 

principal inspector, or lacking a principal 

inspector, the manager of the local flight 

standards district office/certificate holding 

district office. 

(2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any 

requirement in this AD to obtain corrective 

actions from a manufacturer, the action must 

be accomplished using a method approved 

by the Manager, International Section, 

Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the 

European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or 

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited’s EASA 

Design Organization Approval (DOA). If 

approved by the DOA, the approval must 

include the DOA-authorized signature. 

(k) Related Information 

(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing 

Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 

2017–0212, dated October 25, 2017; for 

related information. This MCAI may be 

found in the AD docket on the internet at 

http://www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2018–0555. 

(2) For more information about this AD, 

contact Todd Thompson, Aerospace 

Engineer, International Section, Transport 

Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th 

St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and 

fax 206–231–3228. 

(3) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact BAE Systems (Operations) 

Limited, Customer Information Department, 

Prestwick International Airport, Ayrshire, 

KA9 2RW, Scotland, United Kingdom; 

telephone +44 1292 675207; fax +44 1292 

675704; email RApublications@

baesystems.com; internet http://

www.baesystems.com/Businesses/ 

RegionalAircraft/index.htm. You may view 

this service information at the FAA, 

Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 

216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information 

on the availability of this material at the 

FAA, call 206–231–3195. 

Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on June 

19, 2018. 

Michael Kaszycki, 

Acting Director, System Oversight Division, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2018–13782 Filed 6–27–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2018–0060; FRL–9979– 

99—Region 10] 

Air Plan Approval; Washington; 

Interstate Transport Requirements for 

the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Clean Air Act (CAA) 

requires each State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) to contain adequate provisions 

prohibiting emissions that will have 

certain adverse air quality effects in 

other states. On February 7, 2018, the 

State of Washington made a submission 

to the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) to address these requirements. 

The EPA is proposing to approve the 

submission as meeting the requirement 

that each SIP contain adequate 

provisions to prohibit emissions that 

will contribute significantly to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2012 annual fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) national 

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) 

in any other state. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 30, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2018–0060 at https://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

The EPA may publish any comment 

received to its public docket. Do not 

submit electronically any information 

you consider to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information the disclosure of which is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff 

Hunt, Air Planning Unit, Office of Air 

and Waste (OAW–150), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 

Sixth Ave., Suite 155, Seattle, WA 

98101; telephone number: (206) 553– 

0256; email address: hunt.jeff@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

the EPA. This supplementary 

information section is arranged as 

follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. What is the background of this SIP 

submission? 

II. What guidance or information is the EPA 

using to evaluate this SIP submission? 

III. The EPA’s Review 

IV. What action is the EPA taking? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the background of this SIP 

submission? 

This rulemaking addresses a 

submission from the Washington 

Department of Ecology (Ecology) 

assessing interstate transport 

requirements for the 2012 annual PM2.5

NAAQS. The requirement for states to 

make a SIP submission of this type 

arises from section 110(a)(1) of the CAA. 

Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states 

must submit 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), a 

plan that provides 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 

the EPA 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. The 

EPA commonly refers to such state 

plans as ‘‘infrastructure SIPs.’’ 

Specifically, this rulemaking addresses 

the requirements under CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), otherwise known as 

the ‘‘good neighbor’’ provision, which 

requires SIPs to contain adequate 

provisions to prohibit emissions that 

will contribute significantly to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in any other 

state. 

II. What guidance or information is the 

EPA using to evaluate this SIP 

submission? 

The most recent relevant document 

was a memorandum published on 

March 17, 2016, titled ‘‘Information on 

the Interstate Transport ‘‘Good 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Proposed Rules 30381 

1Washington was not part of the CSAPR 

rulemaking. The EPA approved the Washington SIP 

as meeting the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

requirements for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS on January 13, 2009 (74 FR 1591) and the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on July 30, 2015 (80 FR 45429). 

Neighbor’’ Provision for the 2012 Fine 

Particulate Matter National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards under Clean Air Act 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)’’ 

(memorandum). The memorandum 

describes the EPA’s past approach to 

addressing interstate transport, and 

provides the EPA’s general review of 

relevant modeling data and air quality 

projections as they relate to the 2012 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The 

memorandum provides information 

relevant to the EPA Regional office 

review of the CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) ‘‘good neighbor’’ 

provision in infrastructure SIPs with 

respect to the 2012 annual PM2.5

NAAQS. This rulemaking considers 

information provided in that 

memorandum. 

The memorandum also provides 

states and the EPA Regional offices with 

future year annual PM2.5 design values 

for monitors in the United States based 

on quality assured and certified ambient 

monitoring data and air quality 

modeling. The memorandum describes 

how these projected potential design 

values can be used to help determine 

which monitors should be further 

evaluated to potentially address 

whether emissions from other states 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2012 annual PM2.5

NAAQS at those sites. The 

memorandum explains that the 

pertinent year for evaluating air quality 

for purposes of addressing interstate 

transport for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS is 

2021, the attainment deadline for 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS nonattainment areas 

classified as Moderate. 

Based on this approach, the potential 

receptors are outlined in the 

memorandum. Most of the potential 

receptors are in California, located in 

the San Joaquin Valley or South Coast 

nonattainment areas. However, there is 

also one potential receptor in Shoshone 

County, Idaho, and one potential 

receptor in Allegheny County, 

Pennsylvania. The memorandum also 

indicates that for certain states with 

incomplete ambient monitoring data, 

additional information including the 

latest available data should be analyzed 

to determine whether there are potential 

downwind air quality problems that 

may be impacted by transported 

emissions. 

This rulemaking considers analysis in 

Washington’s submission, as well as 

additional analysis conducted by the 

EPA during review of its submission. 

For more information on how we 

conducted our analysis, please see the 

technical support document (TSD) 

included in the docket for this action. 

III. The EPA’s Review 

This rulemaking proposes action on 

Washington’s February 7, 2018, SIP 

submission addressing the good 

neighbor provision requirements of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). State 

plans must address specific 

requirements of the good neighbor 

provisions (commonly referred to as 

‘‘prongs’’), including: 

—Prohibiting any source or other type 

of emissions activity in one state from 

contributing significantly to 

nonattainment of the NAAQS in 

another state (prong one); and 

—Prohibiting any source or other type 

of emissions activity in one state from 

interfering with maintenance of the 

NAAQS in another state (prong two). 

The EPA has developed a consistent 

framework for addressing the prong one 

and two interstate transport 

requirements with respect to the PM2.5

NAAQS in several previous federal 

rulemakings. The four basic steps of that 

framework include: (1) Identifying 

downwind receptors that are expected 

to have problems attaining or 

maintaining the relevant NAAQS; (2) 

identifying which upwind states 

contribute to these identified problems 

in amounts sufficient to warrant further 

review and analysis; (3) for states 

identified as contributing to downwind 

air quality problems, identifying 

upwind emissions reductions necessary 

to prevent an upwind state from 

significantly contributing to 

nonattainment or interfering with 

maintenance of the relevant NAAQS 

downwind; and (4) for states that are 

found to have emissions that 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the relevant NAAQS 

downwind, reducing the identified 

upwind emissions through adoption of 

permanent and enforceable measures. 

This framework was applied with 

respect to PM2.5 in the Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule (CSAPR), designed to 

address both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

standards, as well as the 1997 ozone 

standard.1

In its submission, Ecology generally 

mirrored the framework established by 

the EPA. Specifically: (1) Ecology 

reviewed past and current air quality 

nationwide to identify potential 

downwind receptors that may have 

problems attaining or maintaining the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS; (2) Ecology 

identified those western receptors from 

the broader nationwide list that may be 

impacted by Washington for further 

review and analysis; (3) Ecology then 

reviewed air quality reports, modeling 

results, designation letters, designation 

technical support documents, and 

available attainment plans to determine 

if emissions from Washington may 

impact these specific areas; (4) Lastly, 

Ecology conducted its own independent 

Hybrid Single Particle Lagrangian 

Integrated Trajectory (HYSPLIT) back 

trajectory modeling for Shoshone 

County, Idaho to support the state’s 

conclusion that sources in Washington 

are not significantly contributing to this 

receptor, or interfering with 

maintenance of this receptor. From this 

analysis, Ecology concluded that 

Washington does not significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS in any other state. 

As discussed in the TSD for this 

action, we came to the same conclusion 

as the state. In our evaluation, potential 

downwind nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors were identified 

in other states. The EPA evaluated these 

potential receptors to determine first if, 

based on review of relevant data and 

other information, there would be 

downwind nonattainment or 

maintenance problems, and if so, 

whether Washington contributes to such 

problems in these areas. After reviewing 

air quality reports, modeling results, 

designation letters, designation 

technical support documents, 

attainment plans and other information 

for these areas, we find there is no 

contribution sufficient to warrant 

additional SIP measures. Therefore, we 

are proposing to approve the 

Washington SIP as meeting CAA section 

110(a)(2)(i)(I) interstate transport 

requirements for the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

IV. What action is the EPA taking? 

The EPA is proposing to approve 

Ecology’s February 7, 2018, submission 

certifying that the Washington SIP is 

sufficient to meet the interstate 

transport requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), specifically prongs one 

and two, as set forth above. The EPA is 

requesting comments on the proposed 

approval. 

V. 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, the 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
30382 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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); 

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 

FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory 

action because SIP approvals are 

exempted under Executive Order 12866; 

• 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 CAA; 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). 

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: June 14, 2018. 

Chris Hladick, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2018–13861 Filed 6–27–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2018–0035; 

FXES11130900000C2–189–FF09E42000] 

RIN 1018–BB98 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Proposed Replacement of 

the Regulations for the Nonessential 

Experimental Population of Red 

Wolves in Northeastern North Carolina 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of a 

draft environmental assessment, 

opening of comment period, and 

announcement of public hearing. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

replace the existing regulations 

governing the nonessential experimental 

population designation of the red wolf 

(Canis rufus) under section 10(j) of the 

Endangered Species Act, as amended. 

We request public comments, and 

announce a public information session 

and public hearing, on this proposed 

rule. In addition, we announce the 

availability of a draft environmental 

assessment on the proposed 

replacement of the existing nonessential 

experimental population regulations for 

the red wolf. In conjunction with this 

proposed action, we are initiating 

consultation pursuant to section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act and completing 

a compatibility determination pursuant 

to the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997. 

We propose this action to ensure our 

regulations are based on the most recent 

science and lessons learned related to 

the management of red wolves. If 

adopted as proposed, this action would 

further conservation of red wolf 

recovery overall by allowing for the 

reallocation of resources to enhance 

support for the captive population, 

retention of a propagation population 

for future new reintroduction efforts 

that is influenced by natural selection, 

and provision of a population for 

continued scientific research on wild 

red wolf behavior and population 

management. This action would also 

promote the viability of the nonessential 

experimental population by authorizing 

proven management techniques, such as 

the release of animals from the captive 

population into the nonessential 

experimental population, which is vital 

to maintaining a genetically healthy 

population. 

DATES: 

Written comments: We will consider 

comments we receive on or before July 

30, 2018. Comments submitted 

electronically using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, 

below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. 

Eastern Time on the closing date. 

Requests for additional public 

hearings: We must receive requests for 

additional public hearings, in writing, at 

the address shown in FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT by July 12, 2018. 

Public information session and public 

hearing: On July 10, 2018, we will hold 

a public information session and public 

hearing on this proposed rule and draft 

environmental assessment. The public 

information session is scheduled from 

5:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., and the public 

hearing from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. 

ADDRESSES:

Availability of documents: This 

proposed rule is available on http://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2018–0035 and on our 

website at http://www.fws.gov/Raleigh. 

Comments and materials we receive, as 

well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this proposed rule, 

are also available for public inspection 

at http://www.regulations.gov. All 

comments, materials, and 

documentation that we considered in 

this document are available for public 

inspection, by appointment, during 

normal business hours, at the Raleigh 

Ecological Services Field Office, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, 551F Pylon 

Drive, Raleigh, NC 27606; telephone 

919–856–4520; or facsimile 919–856– 

4556. Persons who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Relay 

Service at 1–800–877–8339. 

Comment submission: You may 

submit written comments on this 

proposed rule and draft environmental 

assessment by one of the following 

methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter FWS–R4–ES–2018–0035, which is 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1