[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 135 (Monday, July 17, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32622-32626]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14469]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-9567; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-147-AD;
Amendment 39-18955; AD 2017-14-11]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2007-13-08,
for certain Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes.
AD 2007-13-08 required repetitive inspections of the auxiliary power
unit (APU) starter motor, APU inlet plenum, and APU air intake for
discrepancies; repetitive cleaning of the APU air intake; and
applicable corrective actions. This AD expands the applicability of AD
2007-13-08, and includes an optional terminating installation for the
repetitive actions. This AD was prompted by a determination that the
unsafe condition could occur on additional airplanes. We are issuing
this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective August 21, 2017.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of August 21,
2017.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of July
25, 2007 (72 FR 33877, June 20, 2007).

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office-EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email: account.airworth-eas@

airbus.com; Internet: http://www.airbus.com. You may view this
referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also
available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9567.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
9567; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-
647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to supersede AD 2007-13-08, Amendment 39-15112 (72 FR 33877,
June 20, 2007) (``AD 2007-13-08''). AD 2007-13-08 applied to certain
Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The NPRM
published in the Federal Register on January 6, 2017 (82 FR 1623). The
NPRM was prompted by a determination that the unsafe condition could
occur on additional airplanes. The NPRM proposed to continue to require
repetitive inspections of the APU starter motor, APU inlet plenum, and
APU air intake for discrepancies; repetitive cleaning of the APU air
intake; and applicable corrective actions. We are issuing this AD to
detect and correct reverse flow during APU startup, which could lead to
flame propagation in the APU air inlet and intake duct. Such conditions
could result in an in-flight fire in the APU area.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD
2016-0176, dated August 31, 2016; corrected September 1, 2016 (referred
to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model
A318, A319, A320, and A321 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    An operator reported black smoke at the rear of the fuselage
during taxi after landing. The smoke was caused by a fire in the
auxiliary power unit (APU) air intake. The subsequent analysis
demonstrated that, following numerous unsuccessful APU start
attempts in flight, there is a risk of reverse flow leading to flame
propagation to the APU air inlet and air intake duct.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could result in
an in-flight fire in the APU area.
    Prompted by these findings, Airbus issued Service Bulletin (SB)
A320-49-1068 to provide inspection and cleaning instructions. The
applicable Flight Crew Operating Manual (FCOM) already contained a
limitation for the number of APU start attempts, as follows:

APU STARTER
After 3 starter motor duty cycles, wait 60 minutes before attempting
3 more cycles

    To address this potential unsafe condition, EASA issued AD 2006-
0153 to require repetitive inspections of the APU starter motor, APU
inlet plenum and APU air intake [for discrepancies], as well as
repetitive cleaning of the APU air intake [and applicable corrective
actions].
    As the reverse flow inside the APU can only occur in flight with
the APU inlet closed, various modifications (mod) were developed to
introduce a new electronic control box (ECB) with associated
software, the functionality of which keeps the APU inlet door open
for 15 minutes, following an APU auto-shutdown in flight.
Consequently, AD 2006-0153 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2007-13-08],
was revised reducing the Applicability by excluding certain post-mod
aeroplanes, and introducing these modifications as optional
terminating actions.
    After EASA AD 2006-0153R2 was issued, it was determined that, as
an APU ECB can be replaced (or moved from one aeroplane to another)
in service, inadvertently installing a pre-mod ECB would reintroduce
the unsafe condition. Prompted by this finding, EASA issued AD 2016-
0159, retaining the requirements of EASA AD 2006-0153R2, which was
superseded, expanding the Applicability and including references to
additional optional terminating actions.
    Since EASA AD 2016-0159 was issued, it was determined that
paragraph (5) of the [EASA] AD contained some erroneous statements,
inadvertently excluding certain aeroplanes, those that have Airbus
mod 23698 or mod 24498 embodied in production, from the repetitive
actions.
    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the
requirements of EASA AD 2016-0159, which is superseded, and corrects
paragraph (5). For post-mod aeroplanes where, inadvertently, an
`affected' ECB has been installed in service, this AD adds the
requirement to restore those aeroplanes to post-mod configuration by
installation of a `serviceable' ECB. This [EASA] AD also introduces
some editorial changes, not affecting the required actions.
    This [EASA] AD is republished as it was determined that one
`affected' and one `non-affected' ECB were inadvertently omitted in
the Tables.

    Discrepancies include a defective APU starter motor, misaligned
brush wear indicator-pin, oil contamination of the brush wear
indicator, and dirt, debris, dust, sand, oil, combustible residues,
grease and other contaminations of the APU inlet plenum. Corrective
actions include replacement of the APU starter motor and cleaning the
APU air intake, if necessary. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9567.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and
the FAA's response to each comment.

Support for the NPRM

    United Airlines and Air Line Pilots Association, International,
stated their support for the content of the NPRM.

Request To Include Missing Part Number

    Airbus asked that electronic control box (ECB) part number (P/N)
3888394-230300 for APU GTCP36-300 be added to table 1 to paragraph (g)
of the proposed AD. Airbus stated that the part number is missing in
the table.
    We agree with the commenter's request. We have added ECB P/N
3888394-230300 for APU GTCP36-300 to table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h),
(i)(2)(ii), (j), and (k) of this AD. That part number was omitted from
EASA AD 2016-0176, dated August 31, 2016; however, EASA issued a
correction, which added that part number, on September 1, 2016. We have
also included the corrected EASA AD in this final rule.

Request To Provide Retrofit Installation Method and Interchangeability
Information

    Virgin America asked that the proposed AD requirements provide an
approved retrofit installation method for P/N 3888394-321206. Virgin
America also asked that the proposed AD requirements clearly state the
interchangeability or lack of

interchangeability for the part numbers identified in table 2 of the
proposed AD.
    Virgin America stated that it receives the Airbus Illustrated Parts
Catalog (IPC) on a quarterly basis, which it regularly corrects to
remove interchangeability. Virgin America added that in addition to
correcting the IPC every quarter, it has repeatedly requested that
Airbus Airworthiness and Engineering synchronize their viewpoint of how
the IPC is intended to be utilized by operators. Virgin America noted
that since EASA has corresponding ADs, it would mean that no ECB can be
considered ``interchangeable'' by Airbus, since accomplishing a service
bulletin is not the same as accomplishing an airplane maintenance
manual. Virgin America requested this coordination within Airbus, both
from an ever increasing manpower requirement (i.e., the more ADs, the
more IPCs that need interchangeability monitored and removed quarterly)
and also from a parts support request, since some parts providers use
the IPC as the means to pool and issue parts. Virgin America concluded
that a separate pool of non-interchangeable parts adds significantly to
the cost impact of the proposed AD.
    We acknowledge the commenter's concerns; however, an approved
retrofit installation method and interchangeability of part numbers are
not addressed by this AD. While there might be merit to the commenter's
suggestions, this AD is not the appropriate document in which to
evaluate those suggestions. Therefore, we have not changed this AD in
this regard.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data, including the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued the following service information, which
describes procedures for replacing the ECB. These documents are
distinct since they apply to different airplane models in different
configurations.
     Airbus Service Bulletin A320-49-1077, Revision 04, dated
February 27, 2013.
     Airbus Service Bulletin A320-49-1098, dated June 21, 2011.
     Airbus Service Bulletin A320-49-1102, dated January 3,
2012.
     Airbus Service Bulletin A320-49-1107, Revision 02, dated
May 10, 2016.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 1,182 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The actions required by AD 2007-13-08, and retained in this AD,
take about 4 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85
per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the
actions that are required by AD 2007-13-08 is $340 per product.
    We also estimate that it will take about 4 work-hours per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor
rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost
of this AD on U.S. operators to be $401,880, or $340 per product.
    We have received no definitive data that will enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2007-13-08, Amendment 39-15112 (72 FR 33877, June 20, 2007), and adding
the following new AD:

2017-14-11 Airbus: Amendment 39-18955; Docket No. FAA-2016-9567;
Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-147-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective August 21, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2007-13-08, Amendment 39-15112 (72 FR 33877,
June 20, 2007) (``AD 2007-13-08'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs
(c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4) of this AD, all manufacturer
serial numbers, certificated in any category.
    (1) Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.
    (2) Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133
airplanes.
    (3) Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes.
    (4) Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232
airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 49, Airborne
Auxiliary Power.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of a fire in the auxiliary
power unit (APU) air intake. An analysis demonstrated that,
following numerous unsuccessful APU start attempts in flight, there
is a risk of reverse flow, which could lead to flame propagation to
the APU air inlet and air intake duct. This AD was also prompted by
the determination that AD 2007-13-08 only addresses the unsafe
condition for certain airplanes. We are issuing this AD to detect
and correct reverse flow during APU startup, which could lead to
flame propagation in the APU air inlet and intake duct. Such
conditions could result in an in-flight fire in the APU area.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Repetitive Inspections and Corrective Actions

    Except as provided by paragraph (i) of this AD, within 600
flight hours after July 25, 2007 (the effective date of AD 2007-13-
08), or within 60 days after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs later: Inspect the APU starter motor, APU air inlet
plenum, and APU air intake of each affected APU identified in table
1 to paragraphs (g), (h), (i)(2)(ii), (j), and (k) of this AD for
discrepancies; and do all applicable corrective actions before
further flight; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions
of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-49-1068, Revision 01, dated February
2, 2006. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed
600 flight hours.

  Table 1 to Paragraphs (g), (h), (i)(2)(ii), (j), and (k) of This AD--
                            Affected APU and
                      Electronic Control Box (ECB)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                APU                          ECB part Nos. (P/N)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
APIC APS 3200.....................  4500003D, 4500003E, 4500003F,
                                     4500003G, 4500003H, or 4500003J.
Honeywell 131-9A..................  3888394-120201, 3888394-121202,
                                     3888394-121203, 3888394-221202, or
                                     3888394-221203.
Honeywell GTCP36-300..............  307950-1, 307950-2, 307950-3, 307950-
                                     4, 304640-1, 304640-2, 304640-3,
                                     304640-4, 304817-1, 304817-2, or
                                     3888394-230300.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(h) Repetitive Cleanings

    Except as provided by paragraph (i) of this AD, prior to the
accumulation of 2,400 flight hours since first flight of the
airplane, or within 600 flight hours after July 25, 2007 (the
effective date of AD 2007-13-08), or within 60 days after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs latest, unless
accomplished previously in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin
A320-49-1098, dated June 21, 2011: Clean the APU air intake of each
affected APU identified in table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h),
(i)(2)(ii), (j), and (k) of this AD, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-49-1068,
Revision 01, dated February 2, 2006. Repeat the cleaning task
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 2,400 flight hours.

(i) Exceptions to Requirements in Paragraphs (g) and (h) of This AD

    (1) For airplanes equipped with an APU and associated ECB part
number identified in table 2 to paragraphs (i)(1), (i)(2)(ii), and
(j) of this AD, the actions specified in paragraphs (g) and (h) of
this AD are not required.

   Table 2 to Paragraphs (i)(1), (i)(2)(ii), and (j) of This AD--Non-
                              Affected ECB
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                APU                          ECB Part Nos. (P/N)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
APIC APS 3200.....................  4500003K, 4500003L, or 4500003M.
Honeywell 131-9A..................  3888394-121204, 3888394-121205,
                                     3888394-221204, 3888394-221205, or
                                     3888394-321206.
Honeywell GTCP36-300..............  304640-5, 304817-3, or 3888394-
                                     230301.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) For airplanes on which Airbus Modification 35803, 35936,
152289, 152645, 155015, or 157848 has been embodied in production,
the actions specified in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD are not
required provided that, within 30 days after the effective date of
this AD, the applicable actions specified in paragraphs (i)(2)(i)
and (i)(2)(ii) of this AD are done.
    (i) The part number of the installed ECB is identified.
    (ii) Any affected ECB identified in table 1 to paragraphs (g),
(h), (i)(2)(ii), (j), and (k) of this AD that is found to be
installed is replaced with an ECB having a part number identified in
table 2 to paragraphs (i)(1), (i)(2)(ii), and (j) of this AD, as
applicable to the APU installed on the airplane; and the replacement
is done in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the
applicable service information identified in paragraph
(i)(2)(ii)(A), (i)(2)(ii)(B), (i)(2)(ii)(C), (i)(2)(ii)(D),
(i)(2)(ii)(E), or (i)(2)(ii)(F) of this AD; or using a method
approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, or the European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA), or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).
    (A) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-49-1070, dated July 28, 2006.
    (B) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-49-1075, Revision 01, dated
December 1, 2006.
    (C) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-49-1077, Revision 04, dated
February 27, 2013.
    (D) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-49-1098, dated June 21, 2011.
    (E) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-49-1102, dated January 3, 2012.
    (F) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-49-1107, Revision 02, dated May
10, 2016.
    (3) For airplanes on which an APU ECB having a part number
approved after the effective date of this AD is installed, the
actions specified in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD are not
required, provided the conditions specified in paragraphs (i)(3)(i)
and (i)(3)(ii) of this AD are met.
    (i) The part number must be approved by the Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA;
or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.
    (ii) The installation must be accomplished in accordance with
airplane modification instructions approved by the Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA;
or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.

(j) Optional Terminating Action

    Replacing an affected ECB identified in table 1 to paragraphs
(g), (h), (i)(2)(ii), (j), and (k) of this AD with an ECB having a
part number identified in table 2 to paragraphs (i)(1), (i)(2)(ii),
and (j) of this AD, as applicable to the APU installed on the
airplane, constitutes terminating action for the repetitive
inspections required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD. The
replacement must be done in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of the applicable service information identified in
paragraph (i)(2)(ii)(A), (i)(2)(ii)(B), (i)(2)(ii)(C),
(i)(2)(ii)(D), (i)(2)(ii)(E), or (i)(2)(ii)(F) of this AD, or using
a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.

(k) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install on
any airplane an APU with an associated ECB identified in table 1 to
paragraphs (g), (h), (i)(2)(ii), (j), and (k) of this AD.

(l) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions specified in
paragraphs (i)(2) and (j) of this AD, if those actions were
performed before the effective date of this AD using any of the
service information specified in paragraphs (l)(1) through (l)(7) of
this AD.
    (1) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-49-1075, dated September 22,
2006, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2007-13-08.
    (2) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-49-1077, dated March 21, 2007,
which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (3) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-49-1077, Revision 01, dated
August 9, 2007, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (4) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-49-1077, Revision 02, dated
July 1, 2008, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (5) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-49-1077, Revision 03, dated
December 8, 2008, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (6) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-49-1107, dated November 5,
2013, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (7) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-49-1107, Revision 01, dated
July 28, 2015, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(m) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the International Branch, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (n)(2) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (i) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically
reference this AD.
    (ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2007-13-08 are approved as
AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraphs (g) and (h) of
this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: As of the effective date of
this AD, for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions
from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method
approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. If
approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized
signature.

(n) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA AD 2016-0176, dated August 31, 2016; corrected September
1, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9567.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan,
Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (o)(5) and (o)(6) of this AD.

(o) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
August 21, 2017.
    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-49-1077, Revision 04, dated
February 27, 2013.
    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-49-1098, dated June 21, 2011.
    (iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-49-1102, dated January 3,
2012.
    (iv) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-49-1107, Revision 02, dated
May 10, 2016.
    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on
July 25, 2007 (72 FR 33877, June 20, 2007).
    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-49-1068, Revision 01, dated
February 2, 2006.
    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-49-1070, dated July 28, 2006.
    (iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-49-1075, Revision 01, dated
December 1, 2006.
    (5) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus, Airworthiness Office-EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33
5 61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet:
http://www.airbus.com.
    (6) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (7) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 29, 2017.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-14469 Filed 7-14-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 228 (Tuesday, November 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 60921]
[FR Doc No: 2018-25720]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736.

Extension:
    Rule 17Ad-15, SEC File No. 270-360, OMB Control No. 3235-0409

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (``OMB'') a request for approval of extension of the
previously approved collection of information provided for in Rule
17Ad-15 (17 CFR 240.17Ad-15) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.).
    Rule 17Ad-15 (17 CFR 240.17Ad-15) under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) (the ``Act'') requires the
approximately 373 transfer agents to establish written standards for
the acceptance or rejection of guarantees of securities transfers from
eligible guarantor institutions. Transfer agents are required to
establish procedures to ensure that those standards are used by the
transfer agent to determine whether to accept or reject guarantees from
eligible guarantor institutions. Transfer agents must maintain, for a
period of three years following the date of a rejection of transfer, a
record of all transfers rejected, along with the reason for the
rejection, identification of the guarantor, and whether the guarantor
failed to meet the transfer agent's guarantee standard. These
recordkeeping requirements assist the Commission and other regulatory
agencies with monitoring transfer agents and ensuring compliance with
the rule.
    There are approximately 373 registered transfer agents. The staff
estimates that each transfer agent will spend about 40 hours annually
to comply with Rule 17Ad-15, or a total of 14,920 hours for all
transfer agents (373 x 40 hours = 14,920 hours). The Commission staff
estimates that compliance staff work at each registered transfer agent
will result in an internal cost of compliance (at an estimated hourly
wage of $283) of $11,320 per year per transfer agent (40 hours x $283
per hour = $ 11,320 per year). Therefore, the aggregate annual internal
cost of compliance for the approximately 373 registered transfer agents
is approximately $4,222,360 ($11,320 x 373 = $4,222,360).
    This rule does not involve the collection of confidential
information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following website: www.reginfo.gov. Comments should
be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building,
Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to:
[email protected]; and (ii) Charles Riddle, Acting Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o
Candace Kenner, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or by sending an
email to: [email protected]. Comments must be submitted to OMB within
30 days of this notice.

    Dated: November 20, 2018.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-25720 Filed 11-26-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 77 (Tuesday, April 22, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22459-22462]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07834]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2013-0293]
RIN 1625-AA11

Regulated Navigation Area; Slip 4 Early Action Area Superfund
Site, Lower Duwamish Waterway, Seattle, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a regulated navigation
area (RNA) on a portion of the Lower Duwamish Waterway in Seattle,
Washington. The RNA will protect the riverbed in the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA)'s Slip 4 Early Action Area (EAA). This RNA
would prohibit activities that could disrupt the integrity of the
engineered sediment and slope caps that have been placed within the
Slip 4 EAA. These activities include vessel grounding, anchoring,
dragging, trawling, spudding or other such activities that would
disturb the riverbed. It will not affect transit or navigation of this
area.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before July 21, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number using
any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail or Delivery: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Deliveries
accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
federal holidays. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for further instructions
on submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of
these three methods.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LTJG Nathaniel Clinger, Waterways Management Division,
Sector Puget Sound, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking

A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at
http://

www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use
only one of these means. If you submit a comment online, it will be
considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit
the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be
considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is
received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you
include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a
telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact
you if we have questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number [USCG-2013-0293] in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on ``Submit a Comment'' on the line associated with
this rulemaking.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period and may change the rule
based on your comments.

2. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number (USCG-2013-0293) in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with
this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in
Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

3. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

4. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one, using one of the methods specified under ADDRESSES.
Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If
we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a
time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

B. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard received notice from the U.S. EPA on 28 February,
2013, requesting the establishment of an RNA for Slip 4 EAA located in
the Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund Site, Seattle, Washington. This
request was received as a result of the need to protect the riverbed in
the Lower Duwamish Waterway (LDW) from activities that could disrupt
the integrity of the engineered sediment and slope caps that have been
placed within the Slip 4 EAA to isolate underlying contaminated
sediments.
    The LDW was added to the U.S. EPA's National Priorities List
(Superfund) in September 2001 because of hazardous substance
contamination in sediments. Slip 4 was subsequently identified by the
EPA and the Washington Department of Ecology as EAA within the LDW,
based primarily on elevated concentrations of polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs). Slip 4 EAA cleanup activities were conducted pursuant to the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA), under U.S. EPA's non-time-critical removal action (NTCRA)
authority. In May 2006, U.S. EPA issued an Action Memorandum containing
its removal action decision for the Slip 4 EAA. The Slip 4 EAA removal
action was conducted by the City of Seattle (City) under an
administrative settlement agreement and order on consent (ASAOC),
CERCLA Docket No. 10-2006-0364.
    The selected removal action required dredging, excavation, and
offsite disposal of 17,202 tons of contaminated sediment, shoreline,
soil, and creosote-treated timber piles and other debris, and placement
of engineered sediment and slope caps throughout the EAA (approximately
3.43 acres) to isolate residual sediment contamination within the EAA.
In addition, the removal action included demolition and removal/
recycling of a portion of an aging concrete pier and supporting piling
on the northwest bank of the slip, and creation of two intertidal beach
areas and other shallow-water areas to improve habitat conditions in
the slip. Construction activities were initiated in October 2011 and
completed in February 2012. A Removal Action Completion Report
documenting the cleanup activities was completed and approved by the
U.S. EPA in July 2012.

C. Basis and Purpose

    Coast Guard District Commanders are granted authority under 33 CFR
165.11 to regulate vessel traffic in areas with hazardous conditions.
This rule is necessary to prevent disturbance of the Slip 4 EAA
sediment and slope caps. Disruption of the caps may result in a
hazardous condition and harm to the marine environment. As such, this
RNA is necessary to protect the caps and will do so by prohibiting
maritime activities that could disturb or damage them. This RNA is
similar to RNAs which protect other caps in the area. Enforcement of
this RNA will be managed by Coast Guard Sector Puget Sound assets
including Vessel Traffic Service Puget Sound through radar and closed
circuit television sensors. The Captain of the Port Puget Sound may
also be assisted by other state, local, or government agencies in the
enforcement of this rule.

D. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a permanent RNA in the LDW to
protect the sediment and slope caps in the Slip 4 EAA, Superfund Site
(EPA ID No. WA0002329803). It would do so by restricting anchoring,
dragging, trawling, spudding or other activities that could disrupt the
integrity of the caps and the underlying contaminated sediments located
in the proposed RNA.

E. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. This expectation is
based on the fact that the RNA established by the rule would encompass
a small area that should not impact commercial or recreational traffic,
and the prohibited

activities are not routine for the designated areas.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The
Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. This rule would affect the following entities, some of
which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels
intending to anchor, drag, dredge, trawl, spud, or disturb the riverbed
in any fashion when this rule is in effect. The RNA would not have a
significant economic impact on small entities due to its minimal
restrictive area and the opportunity for a waiver to be granted for any
legitimate use of the riverbed.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT, above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule will not call for a new collection of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule was determined to have potential tribal
implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments, because it regulates navigation on
waters subject to treaty fishing rights held by Indian Tribal
Governments. The Coast Guard and EPA consulted with the Muckleshoot and
Suquamish Tribes. To accommodate treaty fishing activity in usual and
accustomed places, which fall within the area covered by the sediment
cap, the Coast Guard included an exception for treaty fishing activity
by Indian Tribes holding such fishing rights.

12. Energy Effects

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' under
Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a
category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule
involves a regulated navigation area which prevents activities which
would disturb the riverbed within the areas outlined in this
regulation. This rule is categorically excluded from further review
under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A
preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this
determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available
in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195;

33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat.
2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T13-246 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T13-246  Regulated Navigation Area; Slip 4 Early Action Area
Superfund Site, Lower Duwamish Waterway, Seattle, WA.

    (a) Regulated Areas. The following areas are regulated navigation
areas: All waters within the northern portion of Slip 4 bounded by the
shoreline and the southern boundary of the EAA defined as the line
beginning at a point on the shore at 47[deg]32'08.47'' N,
122[deg]19'12.00'' W; thence southeast to a point on the shoreline at
47[deg]32'07.02'' N, 122[deg]19'09.23'' W [Datum: NAD 1983/91].
    (b) Regulations. (1) All vessels and persons are prohibited from
grounding, anchoring, dragging, trawling, spudding, or otherwise
contacting the riverbed within the designated regulated navigation
area. Vessels may otherwise transit or navigate within this area in
accordance with the Navigation Rules.
    (2) The prohibition described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section
does not apply to vessels or persons engaged in activities associated
with remediation efforts in the superfund sites, provided that the
Captain of the Port, Puget Sound (COTP), is given advance notice of
those activities by the EPA.
    (3) The prohibition described in paragraph (b) (1) of this section
does not apply to vessels or person engaged in fishing activities
pursuant to fishing rights held by treaty with the United States.
    (c) Waivers. Upon written request stating the need and proposed
conditions of the waiver, and any proposed precautionary measures, the
COTP may authorize a waiver from this section if the COTP determines
that the activity for which the waiver is sought can take place without
undue risk to the remediation efforts described in paragraph (b)(1) of
this section. The COTP will consult with EPA in making this
determination when necessary and practicable.

    Dated: February 26, 2014.
R.T. Gromlich,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Thirteenth Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2014-07834 Filed 4-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 5 (Wednesday, January 8, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 1384]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00101]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-N-0001]

Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of
Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory
Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on February 13, 2014, from
8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Location: FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Building
31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD
20993-0002. Information regarding special accommodations due to a
disability, visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at:
http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm; under the heading
``Resources for You,'' click on ``Public Meetings at the FDA White Oak
Campus.'' Please note that visitors to the White Oak Campus must enter
through Building 1.
    Contact Person: Kristina Toliver, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX: 301-847-
8533<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-
800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC area).
    A notice in the Federal Register about last minute modifications
that impact a previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot
always be published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore,
you should always check the Agency's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to the appropriate
advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory committee
information line to learn about possible modifications before coming to
the meeting.
    Agenda: The committee will discuss biologics license application
125468, serelaxin injection, submitted by Novartis, as a treatment to
improve the symptoms of acute heart failure through reduction of the
rate of worsening of heart failure.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting
link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
January 29, 2014. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled
between approximately 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. Those individuals interested in
making formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and
submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or
arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed
participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to
make their presentation on or before January 21, 2014. Time allotted
for each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants
requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated
during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a
lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing
session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding
their request to speak by January 22, 2014.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Kristina Toliver at
least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: January 3, 2014.
Jill Hartzler Warner,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
[FR Doc. 2014-00101 Filed 1-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 94 (Wednesday, May 17, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22660-22661]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09940]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP17-436-000]

Colorado Interstate Gas Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Request Under
Blanket Authorization

    Take notice that on May 03, 2017, Colorado Interstate Gas Company,
L.L.C. (``CIG''), P.O. Box 1087, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80944,
filed a prior notice application pursuant to sections 157.205,
157.213(b) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and CIG's blanket
certificate issued in Docket No. CP83-21-000. CIG requests
authorization to reclassify thirteen injection/withdrawal (I/W) wells
to observation wells at the Latigo Natural Gas Storage Field (Latigo)
located in Arapahoe County, Colorado and at the Flank Natural Gas
Storage Field (Flank) located in Baca County, Colorado, all as more
fully set forth in the request, which is on file with the Commission
and open to public inspection. The proposed application is referred to
as the CIG's Well Conversion Application. The filing may also be viewed
on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter
the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Specifically CIG proposes to reclassify seven (7) I/W wells at
Latigo and six (6) I/W wells at Flank to observation status. CIG states
the proposed reclassification of these I/W wells involves no change in
the certificated physical parameters of either storage field.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Francisco Tarin Director, Regulatory Affairs Department, Colorado
Interstate Gas Company, L.L.C., P.O. Box 1087, Colorado Springs,
Colorado 80904 or phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of
the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the
request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day
after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and
not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for
authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record

for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenter will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.

    Dated: May 10, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-09940 Filed 5-16-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 141 (Monday, July 23, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42997-43000]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17644]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2011-0353; FRL-9699-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Tennessee;
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve in part, and
conditionally approve in part, the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submission, submitted by the State of Tennessee, through the Tennessee
Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), to demonstrate that
the State meets the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient
air quality standards (NAAQS). Section 110(a) of the CAA requires that
each state adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance,
and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is commonly
referred to as an ``infrastructure'' SIP. TDEC certified that the
Tennessee SIP contains provisions that ensure the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS are implemented, enforced, and maintained in Tennessee (hereafter
referred to as ``infrastructure submission''). With the exception of
sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), which pertains to the requirements of
section 128(a)(1) of the CAA, Tennessee's infrastructure submission,
provided to EPA on December 14, 2007, addresses all the required
infrastructure elements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will be effective August 22, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2011-0353. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential
Business Information 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 www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 excluding Federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nacosta C. Ward, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number
is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Ms. Ward can be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. This Action
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, sections 110(a)(1) and
(2) of the CAA require states to address basic SIP requirements,
including emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure
attainment and maintenance for that new NAAQS.
    Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs to provide
for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a new or
revised NAAQS within three years following the promulgation of such
NAAQS, or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section
110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to
EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may
vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In particular, the
data and analytical tools available at the time the state develops and
submits the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affects the content of the
submission. The contents of such SIP submissions may also vary
depending upon what provisions the state's existing SIP already
contains. In the case of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, states typically
have met the basic program elements required in section 110(a)(2)
through earlier SIP submissions in connection with previous ozone
NAAQS.
    More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and
timing

requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that
states must meet for ``infrastructure'' SIP requirements related to a
newly established or revised NAAQS. As already mentioned, these
requirements include SIP infrastructure elements such as modeling,
monitoring, and emissions inventories that are designed to assure
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The requirements that are the
subject of this final rulemaking are listed below \1\ and in EPA's
October 2, 2007, memorandum entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements
Required Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone and
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not
governed by the three year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1)
because SIPs incorporating necessary local nonattainment area
controls are not due within three years after promulgation of a new
or revised NAAQS, but rather are due at the time the nonattainment
area plan requirements are due pursuant to section 172. These
requirements are: (1) submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(C)
to the extent that subsection refers to a permit program as required
in part D Title I of the CAA, and (2) submissions required by
section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertain to the nonattainment planning
requirements of part D, Title I of the CAA. Today's final rulemaking
does not address infrastructure elements related to section
110(a)(2)(I) or (C). In a March 14, 2012, final rulemaking, EPA
addressed the section 110(a)(2)(C) requirements for Tennessee. See
77 FR 14976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.
     110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.
     110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control
measures.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This rulemaking only addresses requirements for this element
as they relate to attainment areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Today's final rule does not address element 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
(Interstate Transport) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Interstate
transport requirements were formerly addressed by Tennessee
consistent with the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). On December
23, 2008, CAIR was remanded by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals,
without vacatur, back to EPA. See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d
896 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Prior to this remand, EPA took final action to
approve Tennessee's SIP revision, which was submitted to comply with
CAIR. See 72 FR 46388 (August 20, 2007). In so doing, Tennessee's
CAIR SIP revision addressed the interstate transport provisions in
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In response
to the remand of CAIR, EPA has promulgated a new rule to address
interstate transport. See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (``the
Transport Rule''). That rule was recently stayed by the D.C. Circuit
Court of Appeals. EPA's action on element 110(a)(2)(D)(i) will be
addressed in a separate action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources.
     110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring system.
     110(a)(2)(G): Emergency power.
     110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions.
     110(a)(2)(I): Areas designated nonattainment and meet the
applicable requirements of part D.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This requirement was inadvertently omitted from EPA's
October 2, 2007, memorandum entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements
Required Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone
and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' but
as mentioned above is not relevant to today's proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials;
public notification; and PSD and visibility protection.
     110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/data.
     110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
     110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local
entities.
    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a new NAAQS for ozone based on 8-
hour average concentrations, thus states were required to provide
submissions to address sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA for this
new NAAQS. Tennessee provided its infrastructure submission for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS on December 14, 2007. On March 27, 2008,
Tennessee was among other states that received a finding of failure to
submit because its infrastructure submission was deemed incomplete for
elements 110(a)(2)(C) and (J) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by March
1, 2008. See 73 FR 16205. Infrastructure elements 110(a)(2)(C) and (J)
relate to a SIP addressing changes to its part C prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) permit program as required by the 1997
8-Hour Ozone NAAQS Implementation Rule New Source Review (NSR) Update--
Phase 2 Rule (hereafter referred to as the Ozone Implementation NSR
Update) recognizing nitrogen oxides as a precursor for ozone in 40 CFR
51.166 and 40 CFR 52.21, among other requirements. See 70 FR 71612,
(November 29, 2005). Tennessee has since met the completeness
requirements for 110(a)(2)(C) and (J) and these infrastructure elements
were federally approved on March 14, 2012. See 77 FR 14976.
    On April 16, 2012, EPA proposed to approve Tennessee's December 14,
2007, infrastructure submission and proposed to approve in part, and
conditionally approve in part, infrastructure sub-element
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 77 FR 22533. CAA
section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), pertaining to section 128 State Board
requirements, requires at subsection (a)(1) that each SIP shall contain
requirements that any board or body which approves permits or
enforcement orders be subject to the described public interest and
income restrictions. It further requires at subsection (a)(2) that any
board or body, or the head of an executive agency with similar power to
approve permits or enforcement orders under the CAA, shall also be
subject to conflict of interest disclosure requirements. In this
action, EPA is taking two actions regarding the section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requirements. First, EPA is finalizing its conditional
approval for part of Tennessee's infrastructure SIP for element
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) with respect to the applicable section 128(a)(1)
requirements. Second, EPA is approving the remaining part Tennessee's
infrastructure SIP for element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) with respect the
applicable section 128(a)(2) requirements.
    On March 28, 2012, Tennessee submitted a letter of commitment to
EPA to adopt specific enforceable measures related to 128(a)(1) to
address current deficiencies in the Tennessee SIP as outlined in EPA's
April 16, 2012, proposed rulemaking. This letter of commitment meets
the requirements of section 110(k)(4) of the CAA. Failure to adopt
these provisions into the Tennessee SIP within one year (by July 23,
2013) will result in today's conditional approval becoming a
disapproval. Tennessee's March 28, 2012, letter can be accessed at
www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2011-0353. A
summary of the background for today's final action is provided below.
See EPA's April 16, 2012, proposed rulemaking at 77 FR 22533 for more
detail.

II. This Action

    EPA is taking final action to approve Tennessee's infrastructure
submission as demonstrating that the State meets the applicable
requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA for the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS, with the exception of one portion of CAA section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) specifically pertaining to section 128(a)(1)
requirements. EPA is taking final action to conditionally approve, sub-
element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) as it pertains to section 128(a)(1). Section
110(a) of the CAA requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP for
the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each NAAQS
promulgated by the EPA, which is commonly referred to as an
``infrastructure'' SIP. Tennessee, through TDEC, certified that the
Tennessee SIP contains provisions that ensure the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS is implemented, enforced, and maintained in Tennessee. EPA
received no adverse comments on its April 16,

2012, proposed approval of Tennessee's December 14, 2007,
infrastructure submission and proposed conditional approval of one
portion of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii).
    Tennessee's infrastructure submission, provided to EPA on December
14, 2007, addresses all the required infrastructure elements for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, with the exception of CAA section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii), pertaining to section 128(a)(1) requirements. EPA has
determined that Tennessee's December 14, 2007, submission is consistent
with section 110 of the CAA, with the exception of the CAA section
128(a)(1) requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii).
    On March 28, 2012, Tennessee submitted a letter of commitment to
EPA to adopt specific enforceable measures related to CAA section
128(a)(1) to address the current deficiencies in the Tennessee SIP
related to CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) as outlined in EPA's April 16,
2012, proposed rulemaking. As a result of Tennessee's March 28, 2012,
submission, EPA has determined that conditional approval, specifically
pertaining to the requirements of 128(a)(1), is appropriate because the
State has explicitly committed to address current deficiencies in the
Tennessee SIP related to sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) consistent with
the requirements of CAA section 110(k)(4).
    EPA is conditionally approving the March 28, 2012, submittal with
respect to the CAA requirement of sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and
section 128(a)(1). Tennessee must submit to EPA by July 23, 2013, a SIP
revision adopting specific enforceable measures related to CAA section
128(a)(1) as described in the State's letter of commitment described
above. If the State fails to actually submit these revisions by July
23, 2013, today's conditional approval will automatically become a
disapproval on that date and EPA will issue a finding of disapproval.
EPA is not required to propose the finding of disapproval. If the
conditional approval is converted to a disapproval, the final
disapproval triggers the Federal Implementation Plan requirement under
section 110(c). However, if the State meets its commitment within the
applicable timeframe, the conditionally approved submission will remain
a part of the SIP until EPA takes final action approving or
disapproving the new submittal. If EPA disapproves the new submittal,
today's conditionally approved submittal will also be disapproved at
that time. If EPA approves the new submittal, Tennessee's
infrastructure SIP will be fully approved in its entirety and replace
the conditionally approved element in the SIP.

III. Final Action

    EPA is taking final action to approve Tennessee's December 14,
2007, submission for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and conditionally
approve in part, Tennessee's March 28, 2012, submission because these
submissions are consistent with section 110 of the CAA. With the
exception of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) pertaining to the section
128(a)(1) requirements, TDEC has addressed the elements of the CAA
110(a)(1) and (2) SIP requirements pursuant to EPA's October 2, 2007,
guidance to ensure that the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS are implemented,
enforced, and maintained in Tennessee.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by September 21, 2012. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: June 25, 2012.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart RR--Tennessee

0
2. Section 52.2219 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2219  Conditional approval.

    Conditional Approval--Submittal from the State of Tennessee,
through the Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), dated
December 14, 2007, to address the Clean Air Act (CAA) infrastructure
requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. On March 28, 2012, TDEC supplemented their December 14,
2007, submission with a commitment to address the deficient
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of the CAA, which requires
state compliance with section 128(a)(1) of the CAA. EPA is
conditionally approving Tennessee's submittal with respect to CAA
section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) specifically related to the adoption of
enforceable measures contained in CAA section 128(a)(1).
0
3. Section 52.2220(e) is amended by adding a new entry ``110(a)(1) and
(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards'' at the end of the table to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.2220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                EPA-Approved Tennessee Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Applicable
    Name of nonregulatory SIP        geographic or     State effective   EPA approval date       Explanation
            provision              nonattainment area        date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure  Tennessee..........      12/14/2007   7/23/2012 [Insert    ...................
 Requirements for the 1997 8-                                            citation of
 Hour Ozone National Ambient Air                                         publication].
 Quality Standards.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2012-17644 Filed 7-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P