[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 155 (Monday, August 14, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55037-55039]
[FR Doc No: 2023-17362]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0509; FRL-7661-03-OCSPP]

Notice of Approval Status; Certifying Authorities' Amended Plans
for Certification of Commercial and Private Applicators of Restricted
Use Pesticides; Batch Three

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing its
approval of fifteen amended certification plans for certifying
applicators of Restricted Use Pesticides (RUPs) from the following
certifying authorities: Alabama Department of Agriculture and
Industries (ADAI), American Samoa Environmental Protection Agency (AS-
EPA), Colorado Department of Agriculture (CDA), Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands Bureau of Environmental & Coastal Quality--
Division of Environmental Quality, Pesticides Branch (CNMI-BECQ-DEQ),
Georgia Department of Agriculture (GDA), Iowa Department of Agriculture
and Land Stewardship (IDALS), Kentucky Department of Agriculture (KDA),
Maryland Department of Agriculture (MdDA), Michigan Department of
Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD), Minnesota Department of
Agriculture (MnDA), North Carolina Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services (NCDACS), North Dakota Department of Agriculture
(NDDA), Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM),
West Virginia Department of Agriculture (WVDA), and Wyoming Department
of Agriculture (WDA). The amended plans are consistent with the
existing regulatory requirements, including revisions made in 2017 to
enhance and improve the competency of certified applicators of RUPs and
persons working under their direct supervision. The 2017 regulatory
revisions are intended to further reduce potential exposure of RUPs to
certified applicators and those working under their direct supervision,
other workers, the public, and the environment. Federal, state,
territory, and tribal certifying authorities with existing
certification plans were required to revise their existing plans to
conform with the updated federal standards for RUP applicator
certification and receive EPA approval by the established regulatory
deadline.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical information contact: The designated EPA point of
contact for the Certification Plan of interest as listed in Table 1 of
Unit I.B.
    For general information contact: Carolyn Schroeder, Pesticide Re-
Evaluation Division (7508M), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460-0001; elephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are a
federal, state, territory, or tribal agency who administers a
certification program for pesticides applicators. You many also

be potentially affected by this action if you are: A registrant of RUP
products; a person who applies RUPs, including those under the direct
supervision of a certified applicator; a person who relies upon the
availability of RUPs; someone who hires a certified applicator to apply
an RUP; a pesticide safety educator; or other person who provides
pesticide safety training for pesticide applicator certification or
recertification. The following list of North American Industrial
Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive,
but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this
document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
     Agricultural Establishments (Crop Production) (NAICS code
111).
     Nursery and Tree Production (NAICS code 111421).
     Agricultural Pest Control and Pesticide Handling on Farms
(NAICS code 115112).
     Crop Advisors (NAICS codes 115112, 541690, 541712).
     Agricultural (Animal) Pest Control (Livestock Spraying)
(NAICS code 115210).
     Forestry Pest Control (NAICS code 115310).
     Wood Preservation Pest Control (NAICS code 321114).
     Pesticide Registrants (NAICS code 325320).
     Pesticide Dealers (NAICS codes 424690, 424910, 444220).
     Industrial, Institutional, Structural & Health Related
Pest Control (NAICS code 561710).
     Ornamental & Turf, Rights-of-Way Pest Control (NAICS code
561730).
     Environmental Protection Program Administrators (NAICS
code 924110).
     Governmental Pest Control Programs (NAICS code 926140).
    If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How can I get copies of these documents and other related
information?

    For assistance in locating documents related to the approved plans
identified in this notice, please consult the designated EPA point of
contact for the Certification Plan of interest as listed in Table 1 of
this unit, or the general contact person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

                      Table 1--Designated EPA Point of Contacts for the Certification Plans
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          EPA point of
           EPA region              Certification plan        contact           POC phone             Email
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Region 1........................  RIDEM..............  Andrea Szylvian...<PHONE_NUMBER>  [email protected].
Region 3........................  MdDA...............  Courtenay<PHONE_NUMBER>  hoernemann.courten
                                  WVDA...............   Hoernemann.                            [email protected].
Region 4........................  ADAI...............  Richard Corbett...<PHONE_NUMBER>  corbett.richard@ep
                                  GDA................                                          a.gov.
                                  KDA................
                                  NCDACS.............
Region 5........................  MDARD..............  Donald Baumgartner<PHONE_NUMBER>  baumgartner.donald
                                  MnDA...............                                          @epa.gov.
Region 7........................  IDALS..............  Shawn Hackett.....<PHONE_NUMBER>  [email protected].
Region 8........................  CDA................  Kevin Martin......<PHONE_NUMBER>  [email protected]
                                  NDDA...............                                          ov.
                                  WDA................
Region 9........................  AS-EPA.............  Katy Wilcoxen.....<PHONE_NUMBER>  [email protected].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    Section 11 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq., requires certifying authorities to have
an EPA-approved certification plan to certify applicators of RUPs. The
Certification of Pesticide Applicators (CPA) regulation at 40 CFR part
171 was amended in 2017 (Ref. 1). As a result, federal, state,
territory, and tribal certifying authorities with existing
certification plans were required to revise their existing
certification plans to conform with the updated federal standards for
the certification of applicators of RUPs and submit their revisions to
EPA by March 2020 for EPA review and approval. The CPA regulation
specifies that the existing certification plans remain in place until
the revised plans are approved by EPA on or before the regulatory
deadline established in 40 CFR 171.5. The Agency has since issued a
final rule extending the original deadline for certification plans to
comply with the updated federal standards under the 2017 CPA rule to
November 4, 2023 (Ref. 2).

III. What action is the Agency taking?

    This action gives notice that the following 15 certifying
authorities' certification plans submitted to the Agency meet or exceed
the standards of 40 CFR part 171: ADAI, AS-EPA, CDA, CNMI-BECQ-DEQ,
GDA, IDALS, KDA, MdDA, MDARD, MnDA, NCDACS, NDDA, RIDEM, WVDA, and WDA.
EPA hereby gives notice that the 15 amended certification plans for
certifying applicators of RUPs listed in this document are now approved
plans; the certifying authorities may certify pesticide applicators and
continue with implementation of the certification plans as outlined in
the approved plans.
    With this announcement, EPA has approved 40 out of the 68 federal,
state, territory, and tribal certification plans submitted to the
Agency. The 15 plans listed in this notice represent the third in a
series of batched notifications announcing the approval of the federal,
state, territory, and tribal certification plans moving through the
approval process. These batched notifications are occurring on a
regular basis as plans are approved. EPA also provides frequent status
updates regarding the reviews and approvals of state and territory
certification plans on its website at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-worker-safety/certification-standards-pesticide-applicators.

III. References

    The following is a list of documents that are related to the
issuance of this Notice. For assistance in locating these other
documents, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

1. EPA. Pesticides; Certification of Pesticide Applicators; Final
Rule. Federal Register. 82 FR 952, January 4, 2017 (FRL-9956-70).
2. EPA. Pesticides; Certification of Pesticide Applicators; Further
Extension to Expiration Date of Certification Plans; Final Rule.
Federal Register. 87 FR

50953, August 19, 2022 (FRL-9134.1-04-OCSPP).

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136-136y.

    Dated: August 3, 2023.
Mary Elissa Reaves,
Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2023-17362 Filed 8-11-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 5 (Monday, January 9, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1284-1285]
[FR Doc No: 2023-00171]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3589-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2022-0001]

New York; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of an Emergency Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for
the State of New York (FEMA-3589-EM), dated November 20, 2022, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued December 9, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident
period for this emergency is closed effective November 21, 2022.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036,

Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2023-00171 Filed 1-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


1Note that the reductions shown in this table are not cumulative totals but are the reductions in the year 2015 only.

2All PM emissions are assumed to be smaller than 10 microns ( PM 10) and PM 2.5 is assumed to compose 97 percent of PM 10 emissions.

1 MEMORANDUM DATE: June 3, 2005 SUBJECT: Emission Reduction Associated with NSPS for Stationary CI ICE FROM: Tanya Parise, Alpha Gamma Technologies, Inc.

TO: Sims Roy, EPA OAQPS ESD Combustion Group The purpose of this memorandum is to provide an estimate of the emission reduction of the proposed new source performance standards ( NSPS) for stationary compression ignition ( CI) internal combustion engines ( ICE). This memorandum will also describe how emissions reductions were calculated and document the assumptions used.

The proposed NSPS is estimated to reduce nitrogen oxides ( NO x), particulate matter ( PM), carbon monoxide ( CO), sulfur dioxide ( SO 2), non methane hydrocarbons ( NMHC), and hazardous air pollutants ( HAP) in the year 2015 as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Summary of Emissions Reductions in 2015 Pollutant Emission Reduction in 2015 ( tpy) 1 NO x 38,000 PM2 3,000 CO 18,000 SO 2 9,000 NMHC 600 3US EPA. Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for Nonroad Engine Modeling   Compression Ignition. EPA420 P 04 009. April 2004. NR 009c.

2 HAP 90 Background The proposed NSPS for stationary CI engines will reduce emissions of NO x, PM, CO, SO 2, NMHC, and HAP. It is estimated that NO x adsorbers will reduce NO x emissions by 90 percent. Similarly, it is estimated that catalyzed diesel particulate filters will reduce PM emissions by more than 90 percent and also reduce CO, NMHC, and HAP emissions by a significant amount. The emissions reductions for NO x, PM, CO, NMHC, and HAP were estimated based on the difference between emissions with and without Tier 4 emission standards that require add on control. Note that the proposed NSPS does not require emergency engines to meet Tier 4 emissions standards. The emission factors used to estimate the difference between controlled and uncontrolled levels for this estimate were obtained from documentation developed for the rule for nonroad diesel engines. 3 The emission factors used to estimate emissions reductions are attached to this memorandum as Appendix A. For CO, there is no emission standard based on add on control, however, emissions of CO will be reduced through the use of other add on controls necessary to achieve Tier 4 levels of NO x and PM. It is estimated that CO will be reduced by about 90 percent.

Emissions of SO 2 will be reduced through the use of lower sulfur fuel. The proposed NSPS requires owners and operators to use diesel fuel containing 500 parts per million ( ppm) sulfur or less starting October 1, 2007. More stringent fuel standards will be required starting October 1, 2010. Owners and operators must then use diesel fuel containing 15 ppm sulfur.

Emission Reduction NO x, PM, CO, NMHC As mentioned, the emissions reductions were estimated based on the difference between emissions with and without Tier 4 emissions standards that require add on control. For the purposes of estimating reductions associated with the NSPS, it was assumed that stationary CI engines would be emitting the same level of emissions as nonroad CI engines in the absence of a regulation up through Tier 2/ 3. That is, even in the absence of the NSPS, EPA would expect that stationary CI engines would be reducing the level of emissions due to the nonroad CI engine rule. For example, for engines between 75 and 100 horsepower ( HP), Tier 2 for NO x is in effect starting with the 2004 model year ( MY), Tier 3 for NO x starts with model year 2008, and Tier 4 for NO x for these engines starts with 2014 MY engines. In this case, the emission 4US EPA. Emission Factor Documentation for AP 42 Section 3.4. April 1993.

3 EF pollutant x Size x hrs yr x 0.0022046 x Pop year 2,000 ( Equation 1) reduction would be calculated based on the difference between Tier 3 NO x levels and Tier 4 NO x levels. For other size engines, it may be Tier 2 that is the most stringent level prior to Tier 4, e. g., for engines greater than 750 HP, there is no Tier 3, therefore, the emission reduction would be the difference between Tier 2 NO x levels and Tier 4 NO x levels.

To calculate emissions, the following general equation was used:

where:

EF pollutant = Pollutant emission factor, in units of grams per horsepower hour ( g/ HP hr), Size = Average engine size, in units of HP, hrs/ yr = Average hours of operation ( 1,000 hrs/ yr for prime engines; 37 hrs/ yr for emergency engines), 0.0022046 = Conversion factor, in units of lb/ g, Pop year = Number of affected engines in applicable year, and 2,000 = Conversion factor, in units of ton/ lb.

Baseline emissions were calculated using emission factors corresponding to the tier levels required prior to Tier 4. Controlled emissions were calculated using emission factors corresponding to Tier 4 for prime engines ( shown in yellow in Tables A 1 through A 5 of Appendix A). The average size used to calculate emissions for each HP range is shown in Appendix B. A sample calculation of the reduction of NO x emissions in the year 2011 is shown in Appendix C.

SO 2 To calculate the reductions of SO 2 emissions, it was assumed that the current level of sulfur in diesel fuel used by stationary CI engines is 500 ppm. Reductions of SO 2 would occur as a result of requiring the use of 15 ppm sulfur fuel starting October 1, 2010. The net reduction of sulfur would be ( 500 15) ppm = 485 ppm sulfur, or 0.0485 percent sulfur. To calculate the reductions of SO 2 from stationary CI engines subject to the proposed rule, EPA consulted AP 42, section 3.4.4 According to Table 3.4 1 of AP 42, emissions of SO 2 are 0.00809 lb/ HP hr times the percent sulfur in the 4 0.00809 x 0.0485 x Size x hrs yr x Pop year 2,000 ( Equation 2) fuel. It was assumed that all the sulfur in the fuel is converted to SO 2. The estimated reductions of SO 2 were calculated as follows:

where:

0.00809 = SO 2 emission factor from AP 42, in units of lb/ HP hr, 0.0485 = Sulfur content difference between 500 ppm and 15 ppm fuel, percent, Size = Average engine size, in units of HP, hrs/ yr = Average hours of operation ( 1,000 hrs/ yr for prime engines; 37 hrs/ yr for emergency engines), Pop year = Number of affected engines in applicable year, and 2,000 = Conversion factor, in units of ton/ lb.

For example, EPA estimates there will be 8,538 prime engines between 50 and 75 HP affected by the rule in 2011. The SO 2 reduction for these engines in the year 2011 is calculated as follows:

( 0.00809 lb/ HP hr x 0.0485 x 63 HP x 1,000 hrs/ yr x 8,538) / 2,000 lb/ ton = 105 tpy.

The SO 2 reduction for emergency engines is calculated in a similar fashion, replacing 1,000 hrs/ yr with 37 hrs/ yr and 8,538 with the population of new emergency engines in 2011 ( 34,150), yielding an SO 2 reduction for emergency engines between 50 and 75 HP in the year 2011 of 16 tpy. The total SO 2 reduction in the year 2011 for engines between 50 and 75 HP would therefore be ( 105+ 16) tpy = 121 tpy, as shown in Table 8.

HAP To estimate the HAP reduction that would result from requiring stationary CI engines to comply with Tier 4 emissions levels, EPA consulted the Emissions Database that was developed for the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants ( NESHAP) for stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines ( RICE). The EPA used emission factors for HAP from diesel engines based on the RICE NESHAP database and selected five main pollutants to represent the emissions of HAP from stationary CI engines. The emission factors for these five pollutants are shown in Table 2. 5 6 Table 2. HAP Emission Factors for Stationary CI ICE Pollutant Emission Factor ( g/ HP hr)

Formaldehyde 0.0123 Acetaldehyde 0.00921 PAH 0.00875 Naphtalene 0.00437 Acrolein 0.00437 Total HAP 0.0390 The RICE NESHAP database was developed some years ago and is assumed to represent the current HAP emission level from existing engines. The EPA therefore assumed that the total HAP emission factor in Table 2 would be equivalent to a Tier 1 HAP level. To determine the HAP level from new stationary CI engines, the EPA looked at the various tier levels for HC and calculated the percent reduction between each tier for HC. The EPA expects that the technologies used to meet the various tiers for HC will reduce HC and HAP emissions by similar percentages. The EPA, therefore, believed it was appropriate to apply the reduction of HC emissions to Tier 1 HAP levels to obtain HAP levels consistent with the different tier requirements. For example, the Tier 1 level for HC for engines between 50 and 75 HP is 0.5213 g/ HP hr. The Tier 2 level for HC for these engines is 0.3672 g/ HP hr. The difference between Tier 1 and Tier 2 for HC represents a reduction of about 30 percent. To estimate the Tier 2 level of HAP, EPA applied a 30 percent reduction to the Tier 1 HAP level, yielding a Tier 2 HAP level of 0.0275 g/ HP hr. To estimate the Tier 3 HAP level, EPA again looked at the HC percent reduction between Tier 2 and Tier 3 levels, and applied the percent reduction to the Tier 2 HAP level, and so on, resulting in the HAP emission factors shown in Table A 5 of Appendix A. The reduction of HAP as a result of the proposed rule was then calculated following the same methodology as previously described in this memorandum for NO x, PM, CO, and NMHC.

Summary The overall estimated NO x, PM, CO, SO 2, NMHC, and HAP reductions as a result of the proposed rule are shown in Tables 3 through 9. All PM emissions are assumed to be smaller than 10 microns ( PM 10). Furthermore, 97 percent of the PM is assumed to be smaller than 2.5 microns ( PM 2.5). These assumptions are consistent with assumptions made for emissions modeling for nonroad CI engines. 3 7 8 Table 3. NO x Emission Reduction HP Range NOx Emission Reduction ( tpy)

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 75 100 0 0 0 796 1,620 2,472 3,352 100 175 0 0 0 1,372 2,780 4,225 5,706 175 300 0 0 0 2,482 5,044 7,686 10,406 300 600 0 0 0 1,654 3,345 5,072 6,835 600 750 0 0 0 334 673 1,018 1,368 750 1,200 0 0 0 0 1,069 2,164 3,285 1,200 3,000 3,868 7,844 11,928 16,121 20,421 24,830 29,347 > 3,000 642 1,284 1,926 2,568 3,210 3,852 4,494 Total 4,510 9,128 13,854 25,327 38,163 51,318 64,793 * There is no estimated NO x reduction prior to 2011 since the earliest year engine manufacturers are required to certify engines based on add on control will be the year 2011. ** There is no estimated NO x reduction for engines less than 75 HP because Tier 4 for NO x is not required for these engines.

Table 4. PM 10 Emission Reduction HP Range PM10 Emission Reduction ( tpy)

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 50 75 0 0 21 43 66 89 113 75 100 0 79 161 246 334 425 519 100 175 0 123 250 380 513 650 790 175 300 142 289 441 598 761 928 1,100 300 600 98 198 300 405 512 621 733 600 750 20 41 61 82 104 126 148 750 1,200 31 63 96 130 193 257 323 1,200 3,000 67 135 205 277 411 548 689 > 3,000 11 22 33 44 64 84 104 HP Range PM10 Emission Reduction ( tpy)

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 9 Total 369 950 1,570 2,207 2,958 3,728 4,519 * There is no estimated PM reduction prior to 2011 since the earliest year engine manufacturers are required to certify engines based on add on control will be the year 2011.

Table 5. PM 2.5 Emission Reduction HP Range PM2.5 Emission Reduction ( tpy)

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 50 75 0 0 21 42 64 86 109 75 100 0 77 156 239 324 412 503 100 175 0 119 242 368 498 631 767 175 300 138 280 428 580 738 900 1,067 300 600 95 192 291 393 497 603 711 600 750 20 39 60 80 101 122 144 750 1,200 30 62 94 126 187 249 313 1,200 3,000 65 131 199 269 399 532 668 > 3,000 11 21 32 43 62 82 101 Total 359 921 1,523 2,140 2,870 3,617 4,383 * There is no estimated PM reduction prior to 2011 since the earliest year engine manufacturers are required to certify engines based on add on control will be the year 2011. 10 Table 6. NMHC Emission Reduction HP Range NMHC Emission Reduction ( tpy)

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 50 75 7 14 22 29 37 75 100 0 15 31 47 64 100 175 0 32 65 99 134 175 300 0 58 118 180 244 300 600 0 26 53 81 109 600 750 0 5 11 16 22 750 1,200 0 0 83 168 255 1,200 3,000 0 0 177 359 545 > 3,000 0 0 26 53 79 Total 7 152 587 1,034 1,491 * There is no estimated NMHC reduction prior to 2013 since the earliest year any engine manufacturer is required to certify engines based on add on control that would reduce NMHC will be in the year 2013.

Table 7. CO Emission Reduction HP Range CO Emission Reduction ( tpy)

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 50 75 0 0 0 257 521 793 1,071 75 100 0 579 1,179 1,801 2,445 3,111 3,798 100 175 0 455 923 1,404 1,898 2,404 2,924 175 300 679 1,381 2,108 2,858 3,633 4,432 5,254 300 600 527 1,066 1,618 2,182 2,759 3,348 3,949 600 750 171 344 520 700 882 1,067 1,255 750 1,200 344 697 1,060 1,431 1,812 2,202 2,602 1,200 3,000 731 1,483 2,255 3,048 3,861 4,695 5,549 > 3,000 121 243 364 486 607 728 850 HP Range CO Emission Reduction ( tpy)

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 11 Total 2,573 6,249 10,028 14,168 18,419 22,780 27,251 * There is no estimated CO emission reduction prior to 2011 since the earliest year any engine manufacturer is required to certify engines based on add on control will be the year 2011.

Table 8. SO 2 Emission Reduction HP Range SO2 Emission Reduction ( tpy)

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 50 75 121 144 169 193 219 245 271 75 100 279 334 392 452 514 577 643 100 175 621 739 862 988 1,117 1,250 1,386 175 300 1,088 1,298 1,519 1,747 1,983 2,225 2,475 300 600 773 916 1,064 1,216 1,372 1,530 1,692 600 750 161 191 221 251 283 314 346 750 1,200 552 655 762 873 986 1,102 1,220 1,200 3,000 1,169 1,388 1,617 1,853 2,094 2,341 2,595 > 3,000 207 243 279 315 351 387 423 Total 4,973 5,909 6,886 7,889 8,917 9,972 11,053 * Emission reduction based on requiring the use of 15 ppm sulfur fuel from October 1, 2010.

Table 9. HAP Emission Reduction HP Range HAP Emission Reduction ( tpy)

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 50 75 0.5 1 1 2 2 75 100 0 1 2 4 5 100 175 0 4 8 11 15 175 300 0 7 15 23 31 300 600 0 5 10 16 21 HP Range HAP Emission Reduction ( tpy)

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 12 600 750 0 1 3 4 6 750 1,200 0 0 11 23 35 1,200 3,000 0 0 24 49 74 > 3,000 0 0 18 36 54 Total 0.5 20 93 168 244 * There is no estimated HAP reduction prior to 2013 since the earliest year any engine manufacturer is required to certify engines based on add on control that would reduce HAP will be in the year 2013. 13 Appendix A  Emission Factors 14 Table A 1. NO x Emission Factors ( g/ HP hr)

HP Range 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015+

50 75 4.7 4.7 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 75 100 4.7 4.7 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.276 0.276 100 175 4.1 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 0.276 0.276 175 300 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 0.276 0.276 300 600 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 0.276 0.276 600 750 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 0.276 0.276 750 1,200 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 2.392 2.392 2.392 2.392 0.46 > 1,200 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 Table A 2. PM Emission Factors ( g/ HP hr)

HP Range 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015+

50 75 0.24 0.24 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.0184 0.0184 0.0184 75 100 0.24 0.24 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.0092 0.0092 0.0092 0.0092 100 175 0.18 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.0092 0.0092 0.0092 0.0092 175 300 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.0092 0.0092 0.0092 0.0092 0.0092 300 600 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.0092 0.0092 0.0092 0.0092 0.0092 600 750 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.0092 0.0092 0.0092 0.0092 0.0092 750 1,200 0.1316 0.1316 0.1316 0.1316 0.1316 0.069 0.069 0.069 0.069 0.0184 > 1,200 0.1316 0.1316 0.1316 0.1316 0.1316 0.069 0.069 0.069 0.069 0.0184 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Transitional Tier 4 Final 15 Table A 3. CO Emission Factors ( g/ HP hr)

HP Range 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015+

50 75 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.37 0.237 0.237 75 100 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.37 0.237 0.237 0.237 0.237 100 175 0.8667 0.8667 0.8667 0.8667 0.8667 0.8667 0.087 0.087 0.087 0.087 175 300 0.7475 0.7475 0.7475 0.7475 0.7475 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 300 600 0.8425 0.8425 0.8425 0.8425 0.8425 0.084 0.084 0.084 0.084 0.084 600 750 1.3272 1.3272 1.3272 1.3272 1.3272 0.133 0.133 0.133 0.133 0.133 750 1,200 0.7642 0.7642 0.7642 0.7642 0.7642 0.076 0.076 0.076 0.076 0.076 > 1,200 0.7642 0.7642 0.7642 0.7642 0.7642 0.076 0.076 0.076 0.076 0.076 Table A 4. HC Emission Factors ( g/ HP hr)

HP Range 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015+

50 75 0.3672 0.3672 0.1836 0.1836 0.1836 0.1836 0.1836 0.1314 0.1314 0.1314 75 100 0.3672 0.3672 0.1836 0.1836 0.1836 0.1836 0.1836 0.1836 0.1314 0.1314 100 175 0.3384 0.1836 0.1836 0.1836 0.1836 0.1836 0.1836 0.1836 0.1314 0.1314 175 300 0.1836 0.1836 0.1836 0.1836 0.1836 0.1836 0.1836 0.1836 0.1314 0.1314 300 600 0.1669 0.1669 0.1669 0.1669 0.1669 0.1669 0.1669 0.1669 0.1314 0.1314 600 750 0.1669 0.1669 0.1669 0.1669 0.1669 0.1669 0.1669 0.1669 0.1314 0.1314 750 1,200 0.1669 0.1669 0.1669 0.1669 0.1669 0.2815 0.2815 0.2815 0.2815 0.1314 > 1,200 0.1669 0.1669 0.1669 0.1669 0.1669 0.2815 0.2815 0.2815 0.2815 0.1314 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Transitional Tier 4 Final 16 Table A 5. HAP Emission Factors ( g/ HP hr)

HP Range 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015+

50 75 2.75E 02 2.75E 02 1.37E 02 1.37E 02 1.37E 02 1.37E 02 1.37E 02 9.84E 03 9.84E 03 9.84E 03 75 100 2.75E 02 2.75E 02 1.37E 02 1.37E 02 1.37E 02 1.37E 02 1.37E 02 1.37E 02 9.84E 03 9.84E 03 100 175 3.90E 02 2.12E 02 2.12E 02 2.12E 02 2.12E 02 2.12E 02 2.12E 02 2.12E 02 1.52E 02 1.52E 02 175 300 2.32E 02 2.32E 02 2.32E 02 2.32E 02 2.32E 02 2.32E 02 2.32E 02 2.32E 02 1.66E 02 1.66E 02 300 600 3.22E 02 3.22E 02 3.22E 02 3.22E 02 3.22E 02 3.22E 02 3.22E 02 3.22E 02 2.53E 02 2.53E 02 600 750 4.42E 02 4.42E 02 4.42E 02 4.42E 02 4.42E 02 4.42E 02 4.42E 02 4.42E 02 3.48E 02 3.48E 02 750 1,200 2.28E 02 2.28E 02 2.28E 02 2.28E 02 2.28E 02 3.84E 02 3.84E 02 3.84E 02 3.84E 02 1.79E 02 > 1,200 2.28E 02 2.28E 02 2.28E 02 2.28E 02 2.28E 02 3.84E 02 3.84E 02 3.84E 02 3.84E 02 1.79E 02 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Transitional Tier 4 Final 17 Appendix B  Average HP 18 Table B 1. Average HP HP Range Average HP 50 75 63 75 100 88 100 175 135 175 300 238 300 600 450 600 750 675 750 1,200 975 1,200 3,000 2,100 > 3,000 5,000 19 Appendix C  Sample Calculation 20 Sample Calculation The following calculation describes the methodology for estimating the reduction of NO x emissions in the year 2011 from engines greater than 3,000 HP.

All stationary CI engines greater than 3,000 HP must meet Tier 2 emissions standards for NO x starting with 2006 MY engines. Starting with the 2011 MY, non emergency engines greater than 3,000 HP must meet Tier 4 emissions standards for NO x. Emergency engines greater than 3,000 HP will continue to be required to meet Tier 2 NO x emissions standards. As noted in the memorandum, it is assumed that in the absence of the proposed rule, stationary CI engines would still meet Tier 2 levels for NO x, therefore, Tier 2 for NO x for engines greater than 3,000 HP is considered the baseline level.

From Table A 1 of Appendix A, the Tier 2 NO x emission factor for engines greater than 3,000 HP is 4.1 g/ HP hr. The total number of new stationary CI engines greater than 3,000 HP in 2006 is 160, of which 32 are prime and 128 are emergency. It is assumed that this growth is constant and will continue through the year 2015. It is assumed that an estimated 75 percent of 2006 MY engines will be subject to rule and that all 2007 through 2011 MY engines will be subject to the rule. The average size of engines greater than 3,000 HP from Table B 1 of Appendix B is 5,000 HP. As noted in the memorandum, the average hours of operation for prime engines is 1,000 hrs/ yr and for emergency engines it is 37 hrs/ yr.

1) The baseline emissions of NO x for prime engines in 2006 are calculated as follows:

4.1 g/ HP hr x 5,000 HP x 1,000 hrs/ yr x 0.0022046 lb/ g x 32 engines x 0.75 / 2,000 lb/ ton = 542 tpy 2) The baseline emissions of NO x for emergency engines in 2006 are calculated as follows:

4.1 g/ HP hr x 5,000 HP x 37 hrs/ yr x 0.0022046 lb/ g x 128 engines x 0.75 / 2,000 lb/ ton = 80 tpy 3) The total baseline emissions in the year 2006 is therefore:

( 542 + 80) tpy 21 = 623 tpy 4) The baseline emissions of NO x in the year 2007 consist of NO x emitted by 75% of 2006 MY engines ( calculated in step 3) plus NO x emitted by 2007 MY engines. NO x emitted by 2007 MY engines are calculated as shown above in steps 1) through 3) replacing the number of 2006 MY engines with the number of 2007 MY engines, yielding 723 tpy for prime engines and 107 tpy for emergency engines, for a total of 830 tpy of NO x emitted by 2007 MY engines. The baseline NO x emissions in the year 2007 is ( 623+ 830) tpy = 1,453 tpy. The baseline NO x emissions in the year 2008, 2009, etc. were calculated in the same manner using the Tier 2 NO x level.

5) To calculate the controlled emissions of NO x, the steps outlined above were followed, except that a Tier 4 NO x level of 0.46 g/ HP hr ( see Table A 1 of Appendix A) was used to calculate NO x emissions from prime engines of 2011 MY. The baseline emissions ( uncontrolled) of NO x in the year 2010 was estimated at 3,943 tpy following the steps described above. The baseline emissions ( uncontrolled) of NO x in the year 2011 would be 4,773 tpy, in the absence of the rule requiring Tier 4 standards for 2011 MY prime engines.

6) The controlled emissions of NO x for 2011 MY prime engines are calculated as follows:

0.46 g/ HP hr x 5,000 HP x 1,000 hrs/ yr x 0.0022046 lb/ g x 32 engines / 2,000 lb/ ton = 81 tpy 7) The emissions of NO x for 2011 MY emergency engines are calculated as ( remembering that emergency engines are not subject to Tier 4 levels):

4.1 g/ HP hr x 5,000 HP x 37 hrs/ yr x 0.0022046 lb/ g x 128 engines / 2,000 lb/ ton = 107 tpy 8) The total controlled emissions with the rule in effect from 2011 MY engines are therefore:

81 tpy + 107 tpy = 188 tpy 22 9) Total emissions in the year 2011 with the rule in effect, which consists of 2006 2010 MY engines emitting 4.1 g/ HP hr of NO x ( Tier 2), 2011 MY prime engines emitting 0.46 g/ HP hr of NO x ( Tier 4) ( calculated in step 6), and 2011 MY emergency engines emitting 4.1 g/ HP hr of NO x ( Tier 2) ( calculated in step 7) are calculated as:

( 3,943 + 188) tpy = 4,131 tpy 10) The net NO x reduction in the year 2011 as a result of implementing the rule is the difference between the emissions in 2011 without the rule ( baseline) and the emissions in 2011 with the rule ( calculated in step 9) as follows:

( 4,773  4,131) tpy = 642 tpy as shown in Table 3 of this memorandum.


[Federal Register: January 26, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 17)]
[Notices]
[Page 4360-4361]
[DOCID:fr26ja06-41]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Filings

Thursday, January 19, 2006.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER06-285-000; ER06-286-000.
    Applicants: Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company.
    Description: The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co & PSI Energy, Inc
notifies FERC of its withdrawal of the Legacy Contract Transmission
Agreement submitted on 12/1/05.
    Filed Date: 01/13/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060118-0186.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, February 3, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-379-001.
    Applicants: Commonwealth Edison Co.
    Description: ComEd and Midwest Generation LLC submits Attachment A
Letter Agreement; Attachment B, Clean Copy of FIEA; and Exhibits
Reflecting Changes Made by the Letter Agreement.
    Filed Date: 01/12/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060117-0222.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 2, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-471-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas & Electric Company.
    Description: Pacific Gas and Electric Co submits an amendment to
the Generator Special Facilities Agreement with Mirant Delta, LLC.
    Filed Date: 01/12/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060113-0126.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 2, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-477-000.
    Applicants: Aquila, Inc.
    Description: Aquila, Inc dba Aquila Networks, LP files a proposed
facilities modifications & construction agreement for the Cooper South
Flowgate Upgrades.
    Filed Date: 01/12/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060117-0215.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 2, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-478-000.
    Applicants: Southern Company Services, Inc.
    Description: Southern Company Services, Inc acting as agent for
Alabama Power Co et al submits service agreements for network
integration transmission service with Southern Company Generation et
al.
    Filed Date: 01/13/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060117-0304.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, February 3, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-479-000.
    Applicants: Kansas City Power & Light Company.
    Description: Kansas City Power & Light Co submits compliance filing
related to Order 661 & 661-A.
    Filed Date: 01/13/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060117-0216.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, February 3, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-480-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Pacific Gas & Electric Co submits transmission access
charge balancing account revisions.
    Filed Date: 01/13/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060117-0217.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, February 3, 2006

    .Docket Numbers: ER94-1188-037.
    Applicants: LG&E Energy Marketing Inc.
    Description: LG&E Energy Marketing Inc resubmits corrections for
certain sheets for 1/03/06 of its market-based rate tariff.
    Filed Date: 01/12/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060113-0080.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 2, 2006.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov.
 To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet

access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling

link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-951 Filed 1-25-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 139 (Thursday, July 21, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43453-43456]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15578]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0888; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-01211-R]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2021-10-10, which applies to all Airbus Helicopters Model SA330J
helicopters. AD 2021-10-10 requires repetitively inspecting the main
gearbox (MGB) particle detector and the MGB bottom housing (oil sump)
for metal particles, analyzing any metal particles that are found, and
replacing the MGB if necessary. Since the FAA issued AD 2021-10-10,
additional review concluded that installing an improved planet gear
assembly is necessary. This proposed AD would continue to require
repetitively inspecting the MGB particle detector and the MGB bottom
housing (oil sump) for metal particles, and analyzing any metal
particles that are found, and would also require replacing the planet
gear assembly and repetitively inspecting and establishing an
airworthiness limitation for that assembly as specified in a European
Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is proposed for
incorporation by reference (IBR). The FAA is proposing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by September
6, 2022.

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 https://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 EASA material that is proposed for IBR in this NPRM, contact
EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221
8999 000; email: [email protected]; internet: www.easa.europa.eu. You
may find the EASA material on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. For Airbus Helicopters service information
identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 North Forum
Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or (800) 232-
0323; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at https://www.airbus.com/helicopters/services/technical-support.html. You may view this material at the FAA,
Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy.,
Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. The EASA material is
also available at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0888.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0888; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, the EASA AD,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
Docket Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mahmood G. Shah, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Fort Worth ACO Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth,
TX 76177; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2022-0888; Project Identifier
MCAI-2021-01211-R'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to
Mahmood G. Shah, Aviation Safety Engineer, Fort Worth ACO Branch, FAA,
10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected]. Any commentary that the FAA receives that is
not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket
for this rulemaking.

Background

    The FAA issued AD 2021-10-10, Amendment 39-21543 (86 FR 27271, May
20, 2021) (AD 2021-10-10), for all Airbus Helicopters Model SA330J
helicopters. AD 2021-10-10 requires repetitively inspecting the MGB
particle detector and the MGB bottom housing (oil sump) for metal
particles, analyzing any metal particles that are found, and
replacement of the MGB if necessary. The FAA issued AD 2021-10-10 to
address the unsafe condition on these products. AD 2021-10-10 was
prompted by EASA AD 2018-0272, dated December 13, 2018 (EASA AD 2018-
0272) to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Helicopters Model
SA330J helicopters.

Actions Since AD 2021-10-10 Was Issued

    Since the FAA issued AD 2021-10-10, EASA, which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued
superseding EASA AD 2021-0239, dated November 5, 2021 (EASA AD 2021-
0239), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Helicopters Model
SA330J helicopters.
    This proposed AD was prompted by additional review accomplished by
Airbus Helicopters that concluded that replacing the second stage
planet gear assembly with a new and improved second stage planet gear
assembly part number (P/N) 330A32-9861-02 (modification (mod) 0751091)
is necessary in order to further improve the level of safety of the
fleet. The FAA is proposing this AD to address failure of an MGB second
stage planet gear, which could result in failure of the MGB and
subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. See EASA AD 2021-0239 for
additional background information.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2021-0239 supersedes EASA AD 2018-0272 and continues to
require repetitively inspecting the MGB particle detector and the MGB
bottom housing (oil sump) for metal particles, and analyzing any metal
particles that are found. EASA AD 2021-0239 also requires installing an
MGB equipped with a new second-stage planet gear assembly P/N 330A32-
9861-02 (mod 0751091) or modifying an affected MGB by having the second
stage planet gear assembly replaced by an Airbus Helicopter qualified
technician; and extends the compliance time for the repetitive MGB
bottom housing (oil sump) inspections and establishes a life limit for
post-mod 0751091 helicopters.
    This material is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Other Related Service Information

    The FAA reviewed Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin (ASB)
No. SA330-05.103, Revision 3, dated October 4, 2021. This service
information specifies procedures for checking (inspecting) the MGB
particle detector and the bottom housing (oil sump) to ensure that
there are no particles, and for particle analysis.
    The FAA also reviewed Airbus Helicopters ASB No. SA330-65.139,
Revision 0, dated October 4, 2021 (ASB SA330-65.139). This service
information specifies procedures for installing an MGB equipped with a
new second-stage planet gear assembly P/N 330A32-9861-02 (mod 0751091)
and the alternate action of having the second stage planet gear
assembly replaced by an Airbus Helicopters qualified technician. The
new second stage planet gear assembly has improved stress and fatigue
characteristics. ASB SA330-65.139 also establishes an airworthiness
limitation of 2,750 flight hours for all post mod 0751091 planet gear
assemblies.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by EASA and are approved for
operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral
agreement with the European Union, EASA has notified the FAA about the
unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA is proposing this AD
after evaluating all known relevant information and determining that
the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop
on other helicopters of the same type design.

Explanation of Retained Requirements

    Although this proposed AD does not explicitly restate the
requirements of AD 2021-10-10, this proposed AD would retain all of the
requirements of AD 2021-10-10. Those requirements are referenced in
EASA AD 2021-0239, which, in turn, is referenced in paragraph (g) of
this proposed AD.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in EASA AD 2021-0239, described previously, as incorporated by
reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the
regulatory text of this proposed AD and except as discussed under
``Differences

Between this Proposed AD and the EASA AD.''

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation
authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance
with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been
coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the
FAA proposes to incorporate EASA AD 2021-0239 by reference in the FAA
final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with
EASA AD 2021-0239 in its entirety through that incorporation, except
for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of
this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading
of a particular section in EASA AD 2021-0239 does not mean that
operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD
requirement refers to ``all required actions and compliance times,''
compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section
titled ``Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)'' in EASA AD 2021-
0239. Service information referenced in EASA AD 2021-0239 for
compliance will be available at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0888 after the FAA final
rule is published.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the EASA AD

    EASA AD 2021-0239 requires certain actions be done after the last
flight of the day or ``ALF,'' whereas this proposed AD would require
doing those actions before the first flight of the day. EASA AD 2021-
0239 requires contacting the manufacturer if unsure about the
characterization of the particles collected, whereas this proposed AD
would not. If there are any 16NCD13 particles, EASA AD 2021-0239
requires contacting the manufacturer and sending a 1-liter sample of
oil to the manufacturer, whereas this proposed AD would not. EASA AD
2021-0239 requires returning certain parts to the manufacturer, whereas
this proposed AD would not. EASA AD 2021-0239 allows the option of
modifying an affected MGB by having the second stage planet gear
assembly replaced by an Airbus Helicopters qualified technician,
whereas this proposed AD would allow that modification with certain
approvals instead. EASA AD 2021-0239 allows different methods to
accomplish the oil sump inspection, whereas this proposed AD would
require a certain method. EASA AD 2021-0239 requires discarding certain
parts, whereas this proposed AD would require removing those parts from
service instead.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 15 helicopters of U.S. Registry. Labor rates are estimated at
$85 per work-hour. Based on these numbers, the FAA estimates the
following costs to comply with this proposed AD.
    Inspecting the MGB particle detector would take about 0.25 work-
hour for an estimated cost of $21 per helicopter and $315 for the U.S.
fleet, per inspection cycle. Inspecting the MGB bottom housing (oil
sump) would take up to about 4 work-hours for an estimated cost of $340
per helicopter and $5,100 for the U.S. fleet, per inspection cycle.
    Replacing a second stage planet gear assembly would take about 100
work-hours and parts would cost about $121,140 for an estimated cost of
$129,640 per helicopter and $1,944,600 for the U.S. fleet, per
replacement cycle. Alternatively, replacing an MGB would take about 100
work-hours and parts would cost about $600,000 (overhauled) for an
estimated cost of $608,500 per helicopter.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive 2021-10-10, Amendment 39-21543 (86
FR 27271, May 20, 2021); and
0
b. Adding the following new airworthiness directive:

Airbus Helicopters: Docket No. FAA-2022-0888; Project Identifier
MCAI-2021-01211-R.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by September 6, 2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2021-10-10, Amendment 39-21543 (86 FR 27271,
May 20, 2021).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Airbus Helicopters Model SA330J
helicopters, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6320, Main Rotor
Gearbox.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a failure of a second stage planet gear
installed in the main gearbox (MGB). The FAA is issuing this AD to
address failure of an MGB second stage planet gear, which could
result in failure of the MGB and subsequent loss of control of the
helicopter.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD: Comply
with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2021-0239, dated November 5, 2021 (EASA AD 2021-0239).

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2021-0239

    (1) Where EASA AD 2021-0239 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) Where EASA AD 2021-0239 refers to March 30, 2018 (the
effective date of EASA AD 2018-0065, dated March 23, 2018), this AD
requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (3) Where EASA AD 2021-0239 refers to December 27, 2018 (the
effective date of EASA AD 2018-0272, dated December 13, 2018), this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (4) Where EASA AD 2021-0239 refers to flight hours (FH), this AD
requires using hours time-in-service (TIS).
    (5) Where EASA AD 2021-0239 specifies actions be done after the
last flight of the day or ``ALF,'' this AD requires doing those
actions before the first flight of the day.
    (6) Where paragraph (1) of EASA AD 2021-0239 specifies to
inspect the MGB particle detector ``in accordance with the
instructions of Section 3 of the inspection ASB'' for this AD
replace that phrase with ``by following the Accomplishment
Instructions, paragraph 3.B.2.a., of the inspection ASB.''
    (7) Where paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2021-0239 specifies to
inspect the MGB bottom housing (oil sump) ``in accordance with the
instructions of Section 3 of the inspection ASB'' for this AD
replace that phrase with ``by following the Accomplishment
Instructions, paragraph 3.B.2.b. of the inspection ASB.''
    (8) Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2021-
0239 specifies to perform a metallurgical analysis and contact the
manufacturer if unsure about the characterization of the particles
collected, this AD does not require contacting the manufacturer to
determine the characterization of the particles collected.
    (9) Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2021-
0239 specifies that if any 16NCD13 particles are found to contact
the manufacturer and send a 1-liter sample of oil to the
manufacturer, this AD does not require that action.
    (10) Although the service information referenced in EASA AD
2021-0239 specifies returning certain parts to the manufacturer,
this AD does not require that action.
    (11) Where paragraph (5) of EASA AD 2021-0239 allows modifying
an affected MGB by having the second stage planet gear assembly
replaced by an Airbus Helicopters qualified technician, this AD does
not allow that action; instead of that action, this AD allows
modifying an affected MGB in accordance with a method approved by
the Manager, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section, International
Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus Helicopters EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (12) Although the service information referenced in EASA AD
2021-0239 specifies discarding certain parts, this AD requires
removing the parts from service.
    (13) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2021-0239 does not apply
to this AD.

(i) No Reporting Requirement

    Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2021-0239
specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD
does not include that requirement.

(j) Special Flight Permit

    Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with 14 CFR
21.197 and 21.199 to operate the helicopter to a location where the
helicopter can be modified, provided that the helicopter is operated
during the day, under visual flight rules, and with no passengers
onboard.

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the International Validation Branch, send
it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (l)(2) of
this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(l) Related Information

    (1) For EASA AD 2021-0239, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3,
50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
[email protected]; internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may find the
EASA material on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You
may view this material at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy. Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX
76177. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This material may be found in the AD
docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2022-0888.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Mahmood G. Shah,
Aviation Safety Engineer, Fort Worth ACO Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood
Pkwy. Fort Worth, TX 76177; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

    Issued on July 17, 2022.
Christina Underwood,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-15578 Filed 7-20-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 130 (Thursday, July 7, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44301-44303]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16143]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OGC-2016; FRL-9948-79-OGC]

Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed consent decree; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (``CAA'' or the ``Act''), notice is hereby given of a proposed
consent decree to address a lawsuit filed by Sierra Club: Sierra Club
v. EPA, No. 15-cv-01555 (D.D.C.). In 2012, EPA issued two rules
disapproving certain aspects of a state implementation plan (SIP)
submitted by Louisiana to address regional haze. In their lawsuit,
Sierra Club alleges that EPA has failed to meet the requirement of the
CAA that the Agency promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP)
within two years of disapproving a SIP, in whole or in part. The
proposed consent decree establishes deadlines for EPA to take certain
actions to meet its CAA obligations with respect to Louisiana's
regional haze SIP.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received
by August 8, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OGC-2016-0363, online at www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred method);
by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by mail to EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; or by hand delivery or courier to
EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. Comments on a disk or CD-ROM should be
formatted in Word or ASCII file, avoiding the use of special characters
and any form of encryption, and may be mailed to the mailing address
above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew C. Marks, Air and Radiation
Law Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Additional Information About the Proposed Consent Decree

    In 2012, EPA disapproved certain aspects of Louisiana's regional
haze SIP 77 FR 33642 (June 7, 2012); 77 FR 39425 (July 3, 2012). When
EPA disapproves a SIP submission in whole or in part, section 110(c) of
the Act requires EPA to promulgate a FIP within two years unless the
State corrects the deficiency and EPA approves the plan revision. The
proposed consent decree would resolve the lawsuit filed by Sierra Club
by requiring EPA to take certain actions by March 31, 2017 and December
15, 2017. See the proposed consent decree for details.
    For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication
of this notice, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the
proposed consent decree from persons who were not named as parties or
intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of
Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree
if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that
such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent
with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of
Justice determines that consent to this consent decree should be
withdrawn, the terms of the decree will be affirmed.

II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Consent
Decree

A. How can I get a copy of the consent decree?

    The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2016-0363) contains a copy of the proposed consent
decree. The official public docket is available for public viewing at
the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket
Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington,
DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the OEI Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through
www.regulations.gov. You may use www.regulations.gov to submit or view
public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the
official public docket, and to access those documents in the public
docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, key in
the appropriate docket identification number then select ``search''.
    It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments,
whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available
for public viewing online at www.regulations.gov without change, unless
the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information claimed as CBI
and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute is not
included in the official public docket or in the electronic public
docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material, including
copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not be placed
in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in
printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all
docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access
any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket
Center.

B. How and to whom do I submit comments?

    You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section.
Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified
comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period
will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late
comments.
    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or
CD-ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further
information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or
contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included
as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket,
and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot
read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you
for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    Use of the www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments to EPA
electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The
electronic public docket system is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail
(email) system is not an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an
email comment directly to the Docket without going through
www.regulations.gov, your email address is automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

    Dated: June 28, 2016.
Lorie J. Schmidt,
Associate General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2016-16143 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


ÿWPCl
ö2x‡qC²/PE§8®	Jœ:öqC1¢_
Á—kT7ç*6SHe½<l‘˜µu½Ü>w¿Ó	îõžHSR
þçp–9€cµMÆ%XC\€ÿGd`å‡
JzÏSÃ•X›"í„Ñ.ÆD ÎÓŒÖ-äÉ:Ñ4s“H©ªçEŸ9Ð—+siÉ^Yá‡ÆŽ²®‰Ví–›£ç«1$æŽâðûBü£{ö?UTbå
|‚ÿk"J‹h½”ÔNXÞ!Ã±t	~›µñ/;yÀì	õ;	z‰ÿ%XU™¢·^j|çe>„.›-{II½pÖÁ‰±“6pá‘Å,v—¬mï©Fèp¼ßWznlr¤ã²Üº˜S˜@ëÁ7ø)²å3#u ¾»íÆÂ¶	shó»ˆRgª¤W"¬`ÆYk‰Ní¼ÆÉâùO…0»EƒqGX%”`˜ÎK‹ùóŸì'é¦éêÆöÄ	SR=lÍ"U	öË™ðíÕæîéQ
LJ{}ø4Ø$‚Rrx_žŽ¥bFTFžÿÒíê¡`…ÂMqœgK34–zÜnq^S;)H˜_ò>x1Úc¶?€–1(˜§d3NÔQ7ÖQ{ÃÙˆâØr #!ÀUNá	%/0(5@]NnŸw@¥
4å
ù
0d0Rlf¾aÀÔ	mÖÖÖíUNõ^CCCCCCCCCC	BO˜HP LaserJet 5SiØ,,,,,Ø,0(Ö
Ã9	Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡C:\LANWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT«<þ6X9`("Courier NewTT Û þ6X@ÉüC @<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTôÛdþ6X@ÉüCô@<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTÛPþ6X@ÉüC@<þ6X9`("Courier NewTT,Û<þ6X@ÉüC,@<þ6X9`("Courier NewTT&Ûnþ6X@ÉüC&@<þ6X9`("Courier NewTT^ÛFþ6X@ÉüC^@<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTÂÛZþ6X@ÉüCÂ@<þ6X9`("Courier NewTT¼ÛŒþ6X@ÉüC¼@<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTŠÛ‚þ6X@ÉüCŠ@<þ6X9`("Courier 10cpiXôxþ6X@É“8Ç;X@<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTRÛªþ6X@ÉüCR@<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTúÛ2þ6X@ÉüCú@
QRSTUEVWEXYZEãs,+xôô¨˜X3|xZ(Wf|$ÄÄòòòòà@ìì*ìàÔ

ÔÔAÔóóóó(WÙë$ÅÅòòòòÔ

ÔÔÔóóóóTABLE AÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(«.d
	Z‹6Times New Roman Regular-+ÆdÝ
ƒ!ÝÝÝÔ_ÔòòóóÑ°ÑÑ°ÑÒ,°ÒÒ,°ÒÔ€¤LÍ¤XXÔÔ€¤LÍ¤¤¤LÍÔà@ÆÆìàÝ‚ÙëÿÝòòòòÔ

ÔÝÝÝ‚Ùë¹ÝÝÝPAPERWORK€REDUCTION€ACT€SUBMISSIONÝƒÙë¹çÝÔÏÔŒˆÐ	 ÐŒóóóóÝ	ÝÔ€Â”“
Â¤¤LÍÔÔ*‹ƒ
wddd Xdd Xdd X,¬&,¬&‹ÔÔ,*dd ÔÔ,dd ÔÔ+

ÔÐ
ÐÈ ……ÐPlease€read€the€instructions€before€completing€this€form.€€For€additional€forms€or€assistance€in€completing€this€form,€contact€your€agencyð	ðs€PaperworkÏClearance€Officer.€€Send€two€copies€of€this€form,€the€collection€instrument€to€be€reviewed,€the€Supporting€Statement€and€any€additional€documentationÏto:€òòOffice€of€Information€and€Regulatory€Affairs,€Office€of€Management€and€Budget,€Docket€Library,€Room€10102,€725€17th€Street€NWÐ	œ” ÐWashington,€DC€20503óó.ÐTL		 Ð1.€€Agency/Subagency€originating€requestÌUS€EPA,€OAR,€Ô_ÔOAPÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔGPDÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔAERBÔ_ÔÐ
	TL Ð2.€€OMB€control€number€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€b.€ð&ð€NoneÐ	 ˜ Ða€2060€€„€0382€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€__€__€__€__Ð	TL	 Ð3.€€Type€of€information€collection€òò(check€one)óóÐ	œ”
 Ð€€€€€a.€ð&ð€New€collectionÐ	TL Ð€€€€€b.€ð&ð€Revision€of€a€currently€approved€collectionÐ		 Ð€€€€€c.€X€€Extension€of€a€currently€approved€collectionÌ€€€€€d.€ð&ð€Reinstatement,€òòwithout€changeóó,€of€a€previously€approvedÐ	p
h	 Ð€€€€€€€€€€€€€€collection€for€which€approval€has€expiredÌ€€€€€e.€ð&ð€Reinstatement,€òòwith€changeóó,€of€a€previously€approvedÐ	ÜÔ
 Ð€€€€€€€€€€€€€€collection€for€which€approval€has€expired€ÌÔ‡Â”“
Â
ÂÂ”“Ô€€€€€f.€ð&ð€Existing€collection€in€use€without€an€OMB€control€numberÔ#†Â”“
Â
ÂÂ”“Þ#ÔÐ
	H
@ Ð4.€Type€of€review€requestedòò€(check€one)óóÐ	œ” Ð€€€€a.€X€€Regular€Ì€€€€b.€ð&ð€Emergency€„€Approval€requested€by:€€òò€€€€€€€€óó/òò€€€€€€€óó/òò€€€€€€€€óóÐ		 Ð€€€€c.€ð&ð€DelegatedÐ	¼	´ ÐÔ‡Â”“
Â
ÂÂ”“ÔÌÌ5.€€Small€entitiesÌ€€€€€Will€this€information€collection€have€a€significant€economicÌ€€€€€€impact€on€a€substantial€number€of€small€entities?€€€€ð&ð€Yes€€€€€X€€NoÔ#†Â”“
Â
ÂÂ”“i	#ÔÐ	@
8 ‹‹Ðòò€€€€For€b„f,€note€item€A2€of€Supporting€Statement€InstructionsóóÐ
$ˆ
	 $Ð6.€€Requested€expiration€dateÌ€€€a.€X€€Three€years€from€approval€date€€€b.ð&ð€Other€Specify:€òò€€€€€óó/òò€€€€€€óó/___Ð	D<
 ……Ð7.€€Title€PFC€Emission€Reduction€Partnership€for€the€Semiconductor€Industry,€Non€Rule€Related,€Memo€of€UnderstandingÌÐ	@8 		 ……	Ð8.€Agency€form€number(s)€òò(If€applicable)óó€Ð	ˆ€! Ð1823.02Ð	@8"		 ……	Ð9.€KeywordsÌClean€Air€Act,€Environmental€Protection,€Air€Pollution€ControlÌÐ	ðè%		 ……	Ð10.€AbstractÌEPA€seeks€to€renew€this€ICR€to€continue€collecting€information€from€companies€participating€in€the€PFC€Emission€Reduction€Partnership.€AsÏparticipants€in€this€voluntary€program,€semiconductor€manufacturers€agree€to€endeavor€to€reduce€their€emissions€of€extremely€potent€greenhouse€gasesÏsuch€as€Ô_ÔPFCsÔ_Ô€and€SF6.€EPAð	ðs€partner€companies€will€estimate€and€report€their€annual€overall€PFC€emissions€for€all€U.S.€facilities.€This€informationÏwill€be€aggregated€and€provided€to€EPA€via€the€designated€third€party€allowing€for€evaluation€of€the€overall€emission€reductions€achieved€by€theÏprogram.ÌñZñÌÌñZñÐph,		 Ð11.€€Affected€publicòò€Ô‡ac
ÂÂ”“Ô(Mark€primary€with€ð ðPðð€and€all€others€that€apply€withÐ	¸	°- Ðð ðXðð)Ô#†Â”“
Âacz#ÔóóÐ	ph	. Ða.€òò€€€óó€Individuals€or€households€€€d.€òò€€€€óó€FarmsÐ
/ Ðb.€Pòò€óó€Business€or€other€for„profit€e.€òò€€€€óó€Federal€GovernmentÐ	À
¸0 Ðc.€òò€€€óó€Not„for„profit€institutions€€€f.€òò€€€€óó€State,€Local€or€Tribal€GovernmentÐ
	tl
1 Ð12.€Obligation€to€respond€òòÔ‡ac
ÂÂ”“Ô(Mark€primary€with€ð ðPðð€and€all€others€that€apply€withÐ	¸	°2 Ðð ðXðð)Ô#†Â”“
Âaci#ÔóóÐ	ld	3 Ð€€€€€€€€a.€€P€€VoluntaryÌ€€€€€€€€b.€€ð&ð€Required€to€obtain€or€retain€benefitsÐ	¼
´5 Ð€€€€€€€€c.€€ð&ð€Mandatory€Ð	ph
6 Ð13.€€Annual€reporting€and€Ô_ÔrecordkeepingÔ_Ô€hour€burdenÌ€€€€€€€a.€Number€of€respondents€€€€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€25€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ	p!h 8 Ð€€€€€€€€b.€Total€annual€responses€€€€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€25€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ	$"	!9 Ð€€€€€€€€€€€€1.€Percentage€of€these€responses€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€collected€electronically€€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€0€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óó€%€Ð	Œ#„"; Ð€€€€€€€€c.€€Total€hours€requested€€€€€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€14,950€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ	@$8#< Ð€€€€€€€€d.€€Current€OMB€inventory€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€17,126€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ	ô$ì#= Ð€€€€€€€€e.€€Difference€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€(2,176)€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ	¨% $> Ð€€€€€€€€f.€€Explanation€of€differenceÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€1.€€Program€Change€€€€€€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€0€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ	'&@ Ð€€€€€€€€€€€€€2.€€Adjustment€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€(2,176)€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ
	Ä'¼&A Ð14.€Annual€reporting€and€Ô_ÔrecordkeepingÔ_Ô€cost€burden€òò(in€thousands€Ô‡ac
ÂÂ”“Ôof€dollars)Ô#†Â”“
Âac{#ÔóóÐ	¼ ´B Ð€€€€€€€a.€€Total€annualized€capital/startup€costs€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€0€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ	t!l C Ð€€€€€€€€b.€Total€annual€costs€(O&M)€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€139€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ	(" !D Ð€€€€€€€€c.€Total€annualized€cost€requested€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€139€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ	Ü"Ô!E Ð€€€€€€€€d.€Current€OMB€inventory€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€539€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ	#ˆ"F Ð€€€€€€€€e.€Difference€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€(400)€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ	D$<#G Ð€€€€€€€€f.€Explanation€of€differenceÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€1.€€Program€change€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€0€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ	¬%¤$I Ð€€€€€€€€€€€€2.€€Adjustment€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€(400)€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ	`&X%J Ð15.€Purpose€of€€information€collection€Ô‡ac
ÂÂ”“Ôòò(Mark€Primary€With€ð ðPðð€and€all€othersÐ	)(K Ðthat€apply€with€ð ðXðð)óóÔ#†Â”“
Âacj#ÔÐ	À)¸(L Ð€€a.€__Application€for€benefits€€€€€e.€X€Program€planning€or€managementÌ€€b.€P€€Program€evaluation€€€€€€€€€€€€f.€__ResearchÌ€€c.€__General€purpose€statistics€€€g.€__Regulatory€€or€€complianceÌ€€d.€__AuditÐ
	x,p+P Ðòò16.óó€Frequency€of€Ô_ÔrecordkeepingÔ_Ô€or€reporting€òò(check€all€that€apply)óóÐ	)(Q Ð€€€€€€a.€ð0ð€Ô_ÔRecordkeepingÔ_Ô€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€b.€ð0ð€Third€party€disclosureÐ	Ä)¼(R Ð€€€€€€c.ñRñ€ñRññQñX€ñQññQñ€ð0ðñQñ€ReportingÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€1.€ð0ð€On€occasion€€€€€€€€2.€ð0ð€Weekly€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€3.€ð0ð€MonthlyÐ	,+$*T Ð€€€€€€€€€€€€€€4.€ð0ð€Quarterly€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€5.€ð0ð€Semi„annually€€€€€€€€6.€ñSñX€ñSññSñð0ðñSñ€AnnuallyÐ	à+Ø*U Ð€€€€€€€€€€€€€€7.€ð0ð€Biannually€€€€€€€€€€€€€€8.€ð0ð€Other€(describe)€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ	”,Œ+V Ð17.€€Statistical€methodsÌ€€€€€€€Does€this€information€collection€employ€statistical€methods?Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ð0ð€Yes€€€€€€€€ñTñX€ñTññTñð0ðñTñ€NoÐ
	D/<.Y ÐÔ‡Â”“
Â
ÂÂ”“Ô18.€€Agency€contact€òò(person€who€can€best€answer€questions€regarding€theÐ	Ü-Ô,Z Ðcontent€of€this€submission)óóÐ	”.Œ-[ Ð€€€€€€€€Name:€€òò€òò€€€€€€€€€ñVñScott€Ô_ÔBartosÔ_ÔñVñ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ñWñ€€€€ñWññUñ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ñUñóóóóÐ	L/D.\ Ð€€€€€€€€Phone:€òò€€€€€€€€€€ñXñ(202)€564„9167ñXñ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ñYñ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ñYñ€€€€€€€€Ô#†Â”“
Â
ÂÂ”“Ž #ÔóóÐ
0ü.]

 ÐòòOMB€83„I€à€P%P%M¬&à10/95óóˆÐ	è0à/] ÐÒx,ÒÓ'ÿÿ°(p@X°œX'ÓÔ‡ac
ÂÂ”“ÔÐ		œ1”0^ ÐÔ#†Â”“
Âac2##ÔÌ


[Federal Register: March 19, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 52)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 11671-11674]
[DOCID:fr19mr09-12]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52 and 81

[EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0176; FRL-8777-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Redesignation of the Greene County 8-Hour Ozone
Nonattainment Area to Attainment and Approval of the Maintenance Plan
and 2002 Base-Year Inventory

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) is requesting that the
Greene County ozone nonattainment area (Greene County Area) be
redesignated as attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient
air quality standard (NAAQS). EPA is approving the ozone redesignation
request for the Greene County Area. In conjunction with its
redesignation request, PADEP submitted a SIP revision consisting of a
maintenance plan for the Greene County Area that provides for continued
attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years after
redesignation. EPA is approving the 8-hour maintenance plan. PADEP also
submitted a 2002 base year inventory for the Greene County Area, which
EPA is approving. In addition, EPA is approving the adequacy
determination for the motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) that are
identified in the Greene County Area maintenance plan for purposes of
transportation conformity, and is approving those MVEBs. EPA is
approving the redesignation request, the maintenance plan, and the 2002
base year emissions inventory as revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP in
accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective on April 20, 2009.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0176. All documents in the docket are listed in
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through http://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for public inspection during normal
business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the
Pennsylvania Department of Environment Protection, Bureau of Air
Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Linden,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On July 16, 2008 (73 FR 40813), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The NPR proposed
approval of Pennsylvania's redesignation request and maintenance plan
SIP revisions for the Greene County Area that provide for continued
attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years after
redesignation. The NPR also proposed approval of a 2002 base year
emissions inventory for the Greene County Area. The formal SIP
revisions were submitted by PADEP on January 25, 2007, with one
significant change

submitted on May 23, 2008 explaining a new methodology used to project
future emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) from electric
generating units (EGUs). Other specific requirements of Pennsylvania's
redesignation request and maintenance plan SIP revisions, and the
rationale for EPA's proposed actions, are explained in the NPR and will
not be restated here. No public comments were received on the NPR.
    The holdings in two lawsuits potentially impact this redesignation
action. As we explain below, we believe neither lawsuit precludes the
redesignation of the Greene County Area.
    On December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) vacated EPA's Phase 1 Implementation
Rule for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard. (69 FR 23591, April 30, 2004).
South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C.
Cir. 2006). On June 8, 2007, in South Coast Air Quality Management
Dist. v. EPA, Docket No. 04-1201, in response to several petitions for
rehearing, the D.C. Circuit clarified that the Phase 1 Rule was vacated
only with regard to those parts of the rule that had been successfully
challenged. Therefore, the Phase 1 Rule provisions related to
classifications for areas currently classified under subpart 2 of Title
I, part D of the Act as 8-hour nonattainment areas, the 8-hour
attainment dates, and the timing for emissions reductions needed for
attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS remain effective. The June 8, 2007
decision left intact the Court's rejection of EPA's reasons for
implementing the 8-hour standard in certain nonattainment areas under
subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2. By limiting the vacatur, the Court let
stand EPA's revocation of the 1-hour standard and those anti-
backsliding provisions of the Phase 1 Rule that had not been
successfully challenged. The June 8, 2007 decision reaffirmed the
December 22, 2006 decision that EPA had improperly failed to retain
measures required for 1-hour nonattainment areas under the anti-
backsliding provisions of the regulations: (1) Nonattainment area New
Source Review (NSR) requirements based on an area's 1-hour
nonattainment classification; (2) Section 185 penalty fees for the 1-
hour severe or extreme nonattainment areas; and (3) measures to be
implemented pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the CAA, on
the contingency of an area not making reasonable further progress
toward attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or for failure to attain NAAQS.
In addition, the June 8, 2007 decision clarified that the Court's
reference to conformity requirements for anti-backsliding purposes was
limited to requiring the continued use of the 1-hour motor vehicle
emissions budgets until 8-hour budgets were available for 8-hour
conformity determinations, which is already required under EPA's
conformity regulations. The Court thus clarified the 1-hour conformity
determinations are not required for anti-backsliding purposes.
    For the reasons set forth in the proposal, EPA does not believe
that the Court's rulings alter any requirements relevant to this
redesignation action so as to preclude redesignation, and do not
prevent EPA from finalizing this redesignation. EPA believes that the
Court's December 22, 2006 and June 8, 2007 decisions impose no
impediment to moving forward with redesignation of this area to
attainment, because even in the light of the Court's decisions,
redesignation is appropriate under the relevant redesignation
provisions of the CAA and longstanding policies regarding redesignation
requests.
    The second lawsuit relates to EPA's Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR). On July 11, 2008, the D.C. Circuit ruled on various challenges
to EPA's CAIR, and issued an order vacating CAIR in its entirety. 531
F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008). This order did not become final before
December 23, 2008, when the Court granted partial rehearing as to the
remedy set forth in its July 11 decision and issued an opinion
remanding CAIR to EPA without vacating. During the pendency of the
remand, CAIR will remain in place. North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176
(D.C. Cir. 2008). The Court stated, however, in its December 23, 2008
opinion that EPA was still under an obligation to remedy what the Court
characterized as ``flaws'' with CAIR, though the Court declined to
impose a deadline for EPA to finalize that remedy.
    EPA believes that the maintenance plan for Greene County
demonstrates that the NAAQS will be maintained for at least 120 months
(ten years), and through 10 ozone seasons, as required by section
175A(a) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7505a(a), whether or not CAIR and its
specific, associated emissions reductions from a subset of point
sources (electric generating units), continue in effect. Ten years of
maintenance of the NAAQS is demonstrated in Table 5 (and its associated
explanatory material) of the NPR, (73 FR at 40821). As the NPR
indicates, emissions from area and non-road sources in Greene County
are projected to have an overall decline from 2004 through the end of
the 2018 ozone season. Thus, even if point source projected emissions
were to remain steady or even minimally increase during this same time
frame, the 1997 ozone NAAQS will be maintained in Greene County.
However, point source measures currently in place, such as the
NOX SIP call, allow EPA to conclude that NOX
emissions from point source in Greene County are more likely to decline
than increase or hold steady through the end of the 2018 ozone season.
Thus, even if EPA could comply with the D.C. Circuit's CAIR opinions
through a new or revised program that did not achieve the same (or any)
level of the NOX reductions of the current CAIR program in
Greene County, the projected emissions in the maintenance plan indicate
that Greene County will continue to maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS throughout the duration of the 120 month (from the effective date
of this redesignation) and ten ozone season (beginning of ozone season
2009 through end of ozone season 2018) maintenance period. EPA may
therefore approve the redesignation request.

II. Final Action

    EPA is approving the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's redesignation
request, maintenance plan, 2002 base-year inventory, and MVEBs SIP
revisions submitted on January 25, 2007, because they satisfy the
requirements of the CAA. EPA is also approving the significant change
of a new methodology that projects future emissions of NOX
from EGUs, submitted on May 23, 2008 as a revision to the Pennsylvania
SIP. The final approval of this redesignation request will change the
designation of the Greene County Area from nonattainment to attainment
for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
    In this final rulemaking, EPA is notifying the public that we have
found that the MVEBs for NOX and volatile organic compounds
(VOC) in the Greene County Area for the 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance
plan are adequate and approved for conformity purposes. As a result of
our finding, the Greene County Area must use the MVEBs from the
submitted 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for future conformity
determinations. The adequate and approved MVEBs for the Greene County
Area are provided in the following table:

   Table 1--Greene County Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in Tons per
                            Summer Day (TPSD)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Year                          VOC             NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009....................................             1.6             2.6

2018....................................             1.0             1.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Greene County Area is subject to the CAA's requirement for the
basic nonattainment areas until and unless it is redesignated to
attainment.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical
area and does not impose any new regulatory requirements on sources.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it 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). This final rule also does
not have tribal implications because it will 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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000). Because this action affects the status of a geographical area,
does not impose any new requirements on sources, or allows the state to
avoid adopting or implementing other requirements, this action also
does not have Federalism implications because it does not have
substantial direct effects 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, as
specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This
action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal requirement,
and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA. This rule also is not subject
to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because
it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Redesignation is an action that
affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any new
requirements on sources. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by May 18, 2009. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
    This action, approving the redesignation of the Greene County Area
to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the associated maintenance
plan, the 2002 base year emission inventory, and the MVEBs identified
in the maintenance plan, may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

    Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.

    Dated: February 11, 2009.
James W. Newsom,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

0
40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart NN--Pennsylvania

0
2. In Sec.  52.2020, the table in paragraph (e)(1) is amended by adding
an entry at the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2020  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Name of non- regulatory SIP        Applicable        State submittal                           Additional
            revision                geographic area          date          EPA approval date      explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan     Greene County.....  01/25/07, 05/23/08  March 19, 2009
 and 2002 Base Year Emissions                                              [Insert page
 Inventory.                                                                number where the
                                                                           document begins].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

PART 81--[AMENDED]

0
3. The authority citation for Part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

0
4. In Sec.  81.339, the table entitled ``Pennsylvania-Ozone (8-Hour
Standard)'' is amended by revising the entry for the Greene County, PA:
Greene County, to read as follows:

Sec.  81.339  Pennsylvania

* * * * *

                                               Pennsylvania--Ozone
                                                [8-Hour Standard]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Designation\a\                      Category/classification
         Designated area         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Date\1\              Type               Date\1\              Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Greene County, PA: Greene County  April 20, 2009....  Attainment........

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes Indian County located in each county or area, except otherwise noted.
\1\ This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. E9-5851 Filed 3-18-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P