42234 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 

76177; telephone (817) 222–5110; email 9- 

ASW-FTW-AMOC-Requests@faa.gov. 

(2) For operations conducted under a 14 

CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 

14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that 

you notify your principal inspector, or 

lacking a principal inspector, the manager of 

the local flight standards district office or 

certificate holding district office before 

operating any aircraft complying with this 

AD through an AMOC. 

(h) Additional Information 

The subject of this AD is addressed in 

Transport Canada AD No. CF–2016–13, dated 

May 16, 2016. You may view the Transport 

Canada AD on the internet at http://

www.regulations.gov in the AD Docket. 

(i) Subject 

Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) 

Code: 6300, Main Rotor Drive System. 

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 10, 

2018. 

Lance T. Gant, 

Director, Compliance & Airworthiness 

Division, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2018–17902 Filed 8–20–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

32 CFR Part 311 

[Docket ID: DOD–2018–OS–0055] 

Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary of 

Defense, DoD. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Office of the Secretary of 

Defense proposes to exempt some 

records maintained in DMDC 18 DoD, 

‘‘Synchronized Predeployment and 

Operational Tracker Enterprise Suite 

(SPOT–ES) Records,’’ from subsection 

(d) of the Privacy Act. A system of 

records notice for this system has been 

published elsewhere in this issue of the 

Federal Register. 

DATES: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(1), (2) and (3), the public is given 

a 30-day period in which to comment. 

Therefore, please submit any comments 

by September 20, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number and title, 

by any of the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Department of Defense, Office 

of the Chief Management Officer, 

Directorate for Oversight and 

Compliance, 4800 Mark Center Drive, 

Mailbox #24, Suite 08D09, Alexandria, 

VA 22350–1700. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number for this Federal Register 

document. The general policy for 

comments and other submissions from 

members of the public is to make these 

submissions available for public 

viewing on the internet at http://

www.regulations.gov as they are 

received without change, including any 

personal identifiers or contact 

information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Luz D. Ortiz, Chief, Records, Privacy 

and Declassification Division (RPDD), 

1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 

20311–1155, or by phone at (571) 372– 

0478. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

proposed modification to 32 CFR part 

311 adds a new Privacy Act exemption 

rule for the Synchronized 

Redeployment and Operational Tracker 

Enterprise Suite (SPOT–ES), which is 

used at installations to manage, track, 

account for, monitor, and report on 

contracts, companies, and contractor 

employees supporting contingency 

operations, humanitarian assistance 

operations, peace operations, disaster 

relief operations, military exercises, 

events, and other activities that require 

contractor support. Contract scope, 

installations, and/or activities requiring 

contractor support as documented in 

SPOT–ES may be classified under 

Executive Order (E.O.) 13526, 

‘‘Classified National Security 

Information.’’ Information classified 

under E.O. 13526, as implemented by 

DoD Manual (DoDM) 5200.01 Volume 1, 

and DoD Instruction (DoDI) 5200.01, 

may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

552a(k)(1). Granting unfettered access to 

information that is properly classified 

pursuant to those authorities may cause 

damage to the national security. 

Regulatory Procedures 

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’ and Executive 

Order 13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation 

and Regulatory Review’’ 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

direct agencies to assess all costs and 

benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distribute impacts, and equity). 

Executive Order 13563 also emphasizes 

the importance of quantifying both costs 

and benefits, of reducing costs, of 

harmonizing rules, and of promoting 

flexibility. This rule is not a significant 

regulatory action under E.O. 12866. 

Executive Order 13771, ‘‘Reducing 

Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs’’ 

This proposed rule is not a 

deregulatory action but a modification 

to an existing rule. 

2 U.S.C. Ch. 25, ‘‘Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act’’ 

This proposed rule is not subject to 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1532) because it does 

not contain a federal mandate that may 

result in the expenditure by state, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or by the private sector, of $100M or 

more in any one year. 

Public Law 96–354, ‘‘Regulatory 

Flexibility Act’’ (5 U.S.C. Chapter 6) 

It has been certified that this rule does 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities 

because it is concerned only with the 

administration of Privacy Act systems of 

records within DoD. A Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis is not required. 

Public Law 96–511, ‘‘Paperwork 

Reduction Act’’ (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) 

It has been determined that this rule 

does not impose additional information 

collection requirements on the public 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’ 

Executive Order 13132 establishes 

certain requirements that an agency 

must meet when it promulgates a 

proposed rule (and subsequent final 

rule) that imposes substantial direct 

requirement costs on State and local 

governments, preempts State law, or 

otherwise has Federalism implications. 

This proposed rule will not have a 

substantial effect on State and local 

governments. 

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 311 

Privacy. 

Accordingly, 32 CFR part 311 is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 311—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for 32 CFR 

part 311 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a. 

■ 2. Section 311.8 is amended by adding 

paragraph (c)(28) to read as follows: 

§ 311.8 Procedures for exemptions. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules 42235 

(28) System identifier and name: 

DMDC 18 DoD, Synchronized 

Predeployment and Operational Tracker 

Enterprise Suite (SPOT–ES) Records. 

(i) Exemption: Information classified 

under E.O. 13526, as implemented by 

DoD 5200.1–R, may be exempt pursuant 

to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1). 

(ii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1). 

(iii) Reasons: From subsection 5 

U.S.C. 552a(d) because granting access 

to information that is properly classified 

pursuant to E.O. 13526, as implemented 

by DoD Manual 5200.01 Volume 1, and 

DoD Instruction 5200.01, may cause 

damage to the national security. 

Dated: August 15, 2018. 

Aaron T. Siegel, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2018–17954 Filed 8–20–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2015–0699; EPA–R05– 

OAR–2017–0165; FRL–9982–31-Region 5] 

Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Attainment 

Plan for the Lake County SO2

Nonattainment Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision which Ohio submitted to EPA 

on April 3, 2015, and supplemented in 

October 2015 and March 2017, as its 

plan for attaining the 1-hour sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) primary national ambient 

air quality standard (NAAQS) for the 

Lake County SO2 nonattainment area. 

This plan (herein called a 

‘‘nonattainment plan’’) includes Ohio’s 

attainment demonstration, enforceable 

emission limitations and control 

measures, and other elements required 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA 

proposes to conclude that Ohio has 

appropriately demonstrated that the 

nonattainment plan provides for 

attainment of the 2010 1-hour primary 

SO2 NAAQS in Lake County by the 

applicable attainment date and that the 

plan meets the other applicable 

requirements under the CAA. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 20, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2015–0699 (nonattainment SIP) or 

EPA–R05–OAR–2017–0165 (SO2 rule 

revisions) at http://www.regulations.gov, 

or via email to Blakley.pamela@epa.gov. 

For comments submitted at 

Regulations.gov, follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

For either manner of submission, EPA 

may publish any comment received to 

its public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. EPA will generally 

not consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

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

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Portanova, Environmental 

Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–5954, 

portanova.mary@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, whenever 

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

EPA. The docket number EPA–R05– 

OAR–2015–0699 refers to Ohio’s 

nonattainment SIP submittal of April 3, 

2015, supplemented on October 13, 

2015. This state submittal addressed 

Ohio’s Lake County, Muskingum River, 

and Steubenville OH–WV SO2

nonattainment areas. The docket 

number EPA–R05–OAR–2017–0165 

refers to Ohio’s OAC 3745–18 SO2 rules 

SIP submittal of March 13, 2017. EPA is 

proposing action on only the Lake 

County portion of Ohio’s nonattainment 

SIP submittal and the portions of OAC 

3745–18 that are specifically pertinent 

to Ohio’s Lake County nonattainment 

SIP at this time. The Muskingum River 

and Steubenville portions of the 

nonattainment SIP and the remainder of 

the OAC 3745–18 rule revisions will be 

addressed in subsequent rulemaking 

actions. 

The following outline is provided to 

aid in locating information regarding 

EPA’s proposed action on Ohio’s Lake 

County SO2 nonattainment plan. 

Table of Contents 

I. Why was Ohio required to submit an SO2

plan for the Lake County area? 

II. Requirements for SO2 Nonattainment Area 

Plans 

III. Attainment Demonstration and LongerTerm Averaging 

IV. Review of Modeled Attainment Plan 

A. Model Selection and General Model 

Inputs 

B. Meteorological Data 

C. Modeled Emissions Data 

D. Emission Limits 

1. Enforceability 

2. Longer-Term Average Limits 

E. Background Concentrations 

F. Summary of Results 

V. Review of Other Plan Requirements 

A. Emissions Inventory 

B. Reasonably Available Control Measures 

and Technology 

C. New Source Review 

D. Reasonable Further Progress 

E. Contingency Measures 

VI. Ohio’s SIP Rules 

VII. EPA’s Proposed Action 

VIII. Incorporation by Reference 

XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Why was Ohio required to submit an 

SO2 plan for the Lake County area? 

On June 22, 2010, EPA promulgated a 

new 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS of 75 

parts per billion (ppb), which is met at 

an ambient air quality monitoring site 

when the 3-year average of the annual 

99th percentile of the daily maximum 1- 

hour average concentrations does not 

exceed 75 ppb, as determined in 

accordance with appendix T of 40 CFR 

part 50. See 75 FR 35520, codified at 40 

CFR 50.17(a)–(b). The 3-year average of 

the annual 99th percentile of daily 

maximum 1-hour average 

concentrations is called the air quality 

monitor’s SO2 ‘‘design value.’’ For the 3- 

year period 2009–2011, the design value 

at the SO2 monitor in Painesville, Lake 

County (39–085–0007) was 157 ppb, 

which is a violation of the SO2 NAAQS. 

Lake County’s SO2 designation was 

based upon the monitored design value 

at this location for this three-year 

period. (Lake County’s other SO2

monitor, located in Eastlake, Ohio (39– 

085–0003), had a 2009–2011 design 

value of 33 ppb, which is not a 

violation.) On August 5, 2013, EPA 

designated a first set of 29 areas of the 

country as nonattainment for the 2010 

SO2 NAAQS, including the Lake County 

nonattainment area. See 78 FR 47191, 

codified at 40 CFR part 81, subpart C. 

These area designations were effective 

on October 4, 2013. Section 191(a) of the 

CAA directs states to submit SIPs for 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS