[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 1, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 5012]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2209]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0014; FRL-9335-1]

Rescission of Certain Product Cancellations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA issued notices in the Federal Register of August 31, 2011
and December 28, 2011, concerning the voluntary cancellation of
multiple pesticide products. This document is being issued to rescind
the cancellation of Baker Petrolite Corporation's (BPC) product, EPA
Reg. No.<PHONE_NUMBER>5; BioSafe Systems' products, EPA Reg. Nos. 070299-
00001,<PHONE_NUMBER>2, and<PHONE_NUMBER>3; and Oregon's special local needs
(SLN) registration, OR060026.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maia Tatinclaux, Pesticide Re-
evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    The Agency included in the notice a list of those who may be
potentially affected by this action. If you have 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 this document and other related information?

    EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0014. Publicly available
docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at
http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard copy, at the
Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-
4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington,
VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m.
to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket
Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. What does this rescission do?

    This Notice rescinds the cancellation of BPC's product, EPA
registration number<PHONE_NUMBER>5, which appeared in FR Doc. 2011-22135,
published in the Federal Register of August 31, 2011 (76 FR 54230)
(FRL-8885-6). The Cancellation Order was issued following a Notice
announcing the request to voluntarily cancel product<PHONE_NUMBER>5
published in the Federal Register of January 19, 2011 (76 FR 31380(FRL-
8857-1) . However, the request to voluntarily cancel this pesticide
product had been rescinded on December 16, 2010 in a letter from BPC,
and this product should not have been cancelled.
    Additionally, this Notice rescinds the cancellations of BioSafe
Systems' products, EPA Reg. Nos.<PHONE_NUMBER>1,<PHONE_NUMBER>2, 070299-
00003 and Oregon's SLN, OR060026, which appeared in FR Doc. 2011-33252,
published in the Federal Register of December 28, 2011 (76 FR 81496)
(FRL-9326-6). The Cancellation Order was issued following a Notice
announcing the request to voluntarily cancel these products published
in the Federal Register of April 27, 2011 (76 FR 23588)(FRL-8870-6).
However, BioSafe Systems, LLC never requested the cancellation of its
products, and therefore EPA did not have the authority to cancel them.
Additionally, the State of Oregon retracted their request to
voluntarily cancel OR060026 on December 3, 2010 and this product should
not have been cancelled.
    Therefore, based on the discussion above, with this notice,
cancellation of BPC's product, EPA Reg. No<PHONE_NUMBER>5, X-cide 305,
contained in the cancellation order published in the Federal Register
on August 31, 2011, is hereby rescinded.
    Cancellation of the following BioSafe Systems' products contained
in the cancellation order published in the Federal Register on December
28, 2011 is hereby rescinded:

<PHONE_NUMBER>1, Zerotol Algaecide Fungicide,<PHONE_NUMBER>2, Oxidate
Broad Spectrum Bactericide/fungicide, and<PHONE_NUMBER>3, Terracite.

    In addition, the cancellation of Oregon's SLN, OR060026, also
contained in the cancellation order published in the Federal Register
on December 28, 2011 is rescinded.
    In addition to the rescission of these cancellations, the existing
stocks provisions contained in the August 31, 2011 cancellation order
and the December 28, 2011 cancellation order are rescinded as those
provisions apply to the products and registrations contained in this
notice.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pest.

    Dated: January 20, 2012.
Richard P. Keigwin, Jr.,
Director, Pesticide Re-evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2012-2209 Filed 1-31-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


 7 1 7. Responses to Comments EPA Region 7 ( Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska) 7 2 Comment: 1013a 30 Region: 7 State: MO Area: St. Louis, MO IL Comment: St. Louis CMSA:

St. Francois County, Lincoln, Warren, Washington Counties and Sullivan City ( in Crawford County) are not included in the recommended nonattainment area. Neighboring Ste. Genevieve County's NOX emissions are projected to be over 18,000 tons per year due to new industrial growth. This county should be included in the nonattainment area as well.

EPA Response: As a part of the process to determine what areas should be designated as nonattainment, EPA first uses the Federal Reference Method ( FRM) monitors to determine violations of the NAAQS. The FRM monitors measure the total mass of PM2.5 in the ambient air. These monitors are used to calculate the values that are compared to the NAAQS ( 15 µ g/ m3) in deciding if the ambient air in an area exceeds the NAAQS.

Second, once an area has a monitor violating the NAAQS, EPA uses the speciated PM2.5 air quality data, along with other data, to help determine which counties in the area are contributing to the violation. In identifying counties that contribute to an area's violating air quality, it is important give more weight to emissions ( sources) that contribute to the excess PM2.5 in the urban area. For example, a ton of nitrogen oxide emitted within an area contributes less to the PM2.5 in that area than a ton of organic carbon emissions. Nitrogen oxide takes time to form into PM2.5 in the atmosphere and therefore is more of a regional pollutant. In addition, it will be important to understand which emissions are mostly contributing to an area's PM2.5 level in determining what sources could be effectively controlled within the area.

To give each county in an urban area the proper " weight" for their " contributing" emissions, the emissions in the county must be adjusted in two steps. In step 1, we must determine the county's percentage of the violating area's total emissions. In step 2, we adjust this percentage by the violating area's excess urban emissions for the pertinent speciated PM2.5 component. In doing this, we calculate the excess levels associated with sulfates, nitrates, carbonaceous matter and crustal material. These components represent the vast majority of chemicals that make up PM2.5 in urban areas.

The calculated urban excess for each of the four components is the difference between the speciated PM2.5 components for an urban area and speciated components from a near by rural area. While it may seem best to choose a " rural" FRM ( total mass) monitor and an " urban" FRM monitor for purposes of estimating the mass of the urban excess, this would not allow us to relate the air quality levels to the area's emissions. This situation is one of the main reasons for a monitoring network for speciated PM2.5. Accordingly, we are using the speciated PM2.5 data from rural and urban monitors, along 7 3 with estimates of emissions within the area, to identify the urban sources with the greatest contribution to the urban excess PM2.5.

It is also important to note that the PM2.5 ( air quality) weighted emissions ( and scores) are considered in the context of all the relevant factors in determining the boundary of a nonattainment area. We consider the other factors, in addition to air quality and emissions, in identifying the counties that should comprise the nonattainment area. As described above, the speciated PM2.5 weighted emissions are used in developing a ranking score ( weight) for each county in a potential nonattainment area. In developing these scores, we do not intend that they be used in " bight line" manner. Rather, they offer a basis for looking closest at the counties in an area that may contribute to the most to the elevated PM2.5 in the area. For the counties with the highest score, we look at the other information as we determine the collection of counties in a nonattainment area.

As such, recognizing the process described above, EPA evaluated Lincoln, Warren, Crawford, St. Francois, Ste. Genevieve, Washington, St. Louis, Jefferson, St. Charles, Franklin counties and the City of St. Louis in the Missouri portion of the St. Louis MSA.

Lincoln, Warren, Crawford, St. Francois, Ste. Genevieve, and Washington counties were not included in the nonattainment designations for a number of reasons:

1. None of these counties contain violating PM2.5 monitors.

2. All of these counties had relatively low contribution to the PM2.5 violations as reflected in the weighed emissions scores. In fact, the weighed emission score values for Lincoln, Warren, Crawford, St. Francois, St. Genevieve, and Washington counties fell below 9.1, which was the natural break in the weighted emission Scores for all Missouri MSA counties and counties adjacent to the St. Louis, Missouri MSA.

3. None of these counties were recommended for a nonattainment designation by the state of Missouri, which had provided substantial technical analysis in support of their designation recommendation.

Specifically, in regards to Ste. Genevieve County, emissions were adjusted to account for industrial growth from new permits and PSD applications received by the state of Missouri.

Further county specific information is included in the Technical Support Document.


[Federal Register: September 29, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 187)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 49805-49809]
[DOCID:fr29se09-7]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0431; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-174-AD;
Amendment 39-16029; AD 2009-20-06]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A310-203 and -222
Airplanes and Model A300 B4-620 Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD)
for the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    DGAC [Direction G[eacute]n[eacute]rale de l'Aviation Civile]
France AD 86-102-74(B) [which corresponds to FAA AD 88-06-03,
amendment 39-5871] was issued to prevent development of damage,
which was discovered during [a] fatigue test in the attachment
angles of the rear pressure bulkhead (fuselage frame 80/82).

    Following the life extension activities linked to the A310
program, the interval of inspection for A310-200 aircraft series was
reduced from 12000 flight cycles (FC) to 9000 FC * * *.
    Some stress analysis conducted in the frame of the life
extension activities of the A300-600 program leads the manufacturer
to reduce as well the interval of inspection applicable to A300B4-
620 and A300C4-620 aircraft models.
* * * * *

The unsafe condition is cracking in the attachment angles of the rear
pressure bulkhead, which could result in failure of the rear pressure
bulkhead. We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective November 3, 2009.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of November 3,
2009.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov or in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Stafford, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1622; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on May 7, 2009 (74 FR
21274), and proposed to supersede AD 88-06-03, Amendment 39-5871 (53 FR
7730, March 10, 1988). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe
condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    DGAC [Direction G[eacute]n[eacute]rale de l'Aviation Civile]
France AD 86-102-74(B) [which corresponds to FAA AD 88-06-03] was
issued to prevent development of damage, which was discovered during
[a] fatigue test in the attachment angles of the rear pressure
bulkhead (fuselage frame 80/82).
    Following the life extension activities linked to the A310
program, the interval of inspection for A310-200 aircraft series was
reduced from 12000 flight cycles (FC) to 9000 FC, which prompted the
issuance of EASA AD 2007-0157, superseding DGAC France AD 86-102-
74(B).
    Some stress analysis conducted in the frame of the life
extension activities of the A300-600 program leads the manufacturer
to reduce as well the interval of inspection applicable to A300B4-
620 and A300C4-620 aircraft models.
    EASA AD 2007-0297 superseded EASA AD 2007-0157, retaining for
A310 aircraft the requirements of EASA AD 2007-0157 and requiring
the application of Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) A300-53-6005
Revision 4 on Airbus A300-600 aircraft, reducing the inspection
interval from 12000 FC to 9000 FC.
    [EASA] AD [2007-0297] has been revised to remove an
inappropriate reference regarding the normal inspection program from
the Compliance section, Note 3.

The unsafe condition is cracking in the attachment angles of the rear
pressure bulkhead, which could result in failure of the rear pressure
bulkhead. The required actions include a modification of the rear
pressure bulkhead to improve the fatigue life of the attachment angles
at frame (FR) 80/82, and, for certain airplanes, repetitive inspections
for cracks in the rear pressure bulkhead and repair if necessary.
    The modification includes installing additional attachment angles
on the circumference of FR 80/82; installing a filler; installing
additional supports between the aft pressure bulkhead and FR 80/82;
installing an additional frame stiffener and support between the aft
pressure bulkhead and FR 79 at stringer (STGR) 13; modifying the aft
lavatories; applying surface protection to the modified area of the aft
pressure bulkhead; modifying, reidentifying, and installing the heat
and sound insulation in the area of STGR 9 and STGR 13 and between FR
79 and FR 80/82, left and right; and for certain airplanes, doing
related investigative and corrective actions if necessary.
    The related investigative action is doing a visual inspection
around the entire circumference between FR 80/82 and the aft pressure
bulkhead for damaged filler. The corrective action is removing any
damaged filler and the adjacent area around the damage.
    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We considered the comment received.

Request To Revise Paragraph (f)(4) of the NPRM

    Airbus requests that we revise paragraph (f)(4) of the NPRM. Airbus
states that for the airplanes identified in paragraph (f)(4) of the
NPRM, it is not necessary to do the actions in accordance with the
service bulletins specified in paragraph (f)(4) of the NPRM. Airbus
further states that those airplanes are affected by Airworthiness
Limitation Item (ALI) Task 531919-01-1A, as specified in the service
bulletins identified in paragraph (f)(4) of this AD and the MCAI.
    We agree with the commenter. The actions specified in paragraph
(f)(4) of the NPRM are not required for the airplanes identified in
that paragraph because those airplanes are already inspected in
accordance with ALI Task 531919-01-1A, and no additional actions are
necessary. We have confirmed with EASA that this is the intent of the
MCAI. We have removed paragraph (f)(4) of the NPRM as it is
unnecessary, and added a new Note 1 to this AD to clarify that no
action is required by this AD for the airplanes discussed in this
paragraph. We have re-identified the subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data, including the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD with the changes described previously. We determined that these
changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or
increase the scope of the AD.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have required different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences
are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect about 32 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it will take about 668 work-hours per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average
labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $15,322
per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs
that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no
charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for
affected parties, some parties may incur costs

higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the
cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $2,200,384, or $68,762 per
product.

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 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); and
    3. 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.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
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 Amendment 39-5871 (53 FR
7730, March 10, 1988) and adding the following new AD:

2009-20-06 Airbus: Amendment 39-16029. Docket No. FAA-2009-0431;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-174-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective November
3, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 88-06-03, Amendment 39-5871.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A310-203 and -222 airplanes,
and Model A300 B4-620 airplanes; certificated in any category; all
serial numbers except airplanes on which Airbus Modification 05526
has been incorporated in production.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53:
Fuselage.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    DGAC (Direction G[eacute]n[eacute]rale de l'Aviation Civile)
France AD 86-102-74(B) [which corresponds to FAA AD 88-06-03,
amendment 39-5871] was issued to prevent development of damage,
which was discovered during [a] fatigue test in the attachment
angles of the rear pressure bulkhead (fuselage frame 80/82).
    Following the life extension activities linked to the A310
program, the interval of inspection for A310-200 aircraft series was
reduced from 12000 flight cycles (FC) to 9000 FC, which prompted the
issuance of EASA AD 2007-0157, superseding DGAC France AD 86-102-
74(B).
    Some stress analysis conducted in the frame of the life
extension activities of the A300-600 program leads the manufacturer
to reduce as well the interval of inspection applicable to A300B4-
620 and A300C4-620 aircraft models.
    EASA AD 2007-0297 superseded EASA AD 2007-0157, retaining for
A310 aircraft the requirements of EASA AD 2007-0157 and requiring
the application of Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) A300-53-6005
Revision 4 on Airbus A300-600 aircraft, reducing the inspection
interval from 12000 FC to 9000 FC.
    [EASA] AD [2007-0297] has been revised to remove an
inappropriate reference regarding the normal inspection program from
the Compliance section, Note 3.

The unsafe condition is cracking in the attachment angles of the
rear pressure bulkhead, which could result in failure of the rear
pressure bulkhead. The required actions include a modification of
the rear pressure bulkhead to improve the fatigue life of the
attachment angles at frame (FR) 80/82; applicable related
investigative and corrective actions; and, for certain airplanes,
repetitive inspections for cracks in the rear pressure bulkhead and
repair if necessary.

Requirements of This AD: Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions.

Modification

    (1) Except as required by paragraph (f)(2) of this AD: Before
the accumulation of 12,000 total flight cycles since first flight,
or within 1,500 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs later, modify the aft pressure bulkhead to improve
the fatigue life of the attachment angles at frame 80/82 and do all
applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-53-6006, Revision 3, dated March 24, 1989; or Airbus
Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-53-2025, Revision 06, dated August
3, 2006; as applicable. Do all applicable related investigative and
corrective actions before further flight.
    (2) For airplanes identified in paragraph (c) of AD 2006-22-03,
amendment 39-14800: At the earlier of the compliance times specified
in paragraphs (f)(2)(i) and (f)(2)(ii) of this AD, do the actions
specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.
    (i) Before the accumulation of 12,000 total flight cycles since
first flight, or within 1,500 flight cycles after the effective date
of this AD, whichever occurs later.
    (ii) At the compliance time specified in paragraph (h) of AD
2006-22-03.

Inspections and Corrective Action

    (3) For airplanes on which the modification required by
paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD is done after the accumulation
of 6,000 total flight cycles since first flight: At the times
specified in paragraphs (f)(3)(i) and (f)(3)(ii) of this AD, do an
eddy current inspection for any cracking in the critical area of the
rear pressure bulkhead between stringers 8 and 18, and repair all
cracking before further flight, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin
A300-53-6005, Revision 04, dated July 18, 2007; or Airbus Mandatory
Service Bulletin A310-53-2024, Revision 05, dated October 13, 2006;
as applicable.

    (i) Before or concurrently with the modification required by
paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD, as applicable; and
    (ii) Before the accumulation of 18,000 total flight cycles since
first flight, or within 1,500 flight cycles after the effective date
of this AD, whichever occurs later; and thereafter at intervals not
to exceed 9,000 flight cycles.

    Note 1: For airplanes on which the modification required by
paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD is done at or before the
accumulation of 6,000 total flight cycles since first flight: No
action is required by this AD. For these airplanes, refer to Airbus
A300-600 ALI Task 531919-01-1A or Airbus A310 ALI Task 531919-01-1A,
as applicable, for guidance on the normal inspection program.

    (4) Modifications done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with the service bulletins identified in Table 1 of this
AD are acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph
(f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD.

                          Table 1--Modifications Done Using Previous Service Bulletins
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Airbus Service
            Model--                  Bulletin--                Revision--                      Dated--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A300 B4-620 airplanes..........  A300-53-6006......  Original.....................  May 6, 1986.
                                 A300-53-6006......  1............................  September 19, 1986.
                                 A300-53-6006......  2............................  August 11, 1988.
A310-203 and -222 airplanes....  A310-53-2025......  Original.....................  April 21, 1986.
                                 A310-53-2025......  1............................  September 19, 1986.
                                 A310-53-2025......  2............................  February 16, 1987.
                                 A310-53-2025......  3............................  April 7, 1987.
                                 A310-53-2025......  4............................  October 20, 1987.
                                 A310-53-2025......  5............................  March 24, 1989.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (5) Inspections done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with the service bulletins identified in Table 2 of this
AD are acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph
(f)(3) of this AD.

                            Table 2--Inspections Done With Previous Service Bulletins
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Airbus Service
            Model--                  Bulletin--                Revision--                      Dated--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A300 B4-620 airplanes..........  A300-53-6005......  Original.....................  May 6, 1986.
                                 A300-53-6005......  1............................  June 20, 1986.
                                 A300-53-6005......  2............................  September 22, 1986.
                                 A300-53-6005......  3............................  April 22, 1987.
A310-203 and -222 airplanes....  A310-53-2024......  Original.....................  April 21, 1986.
                                 A310-53-2024......  1............................  June 20, 1986.
                                 A310-53-2024......  2............................  October 2, 1986.
                                 A310-53-2024......  3............................  February 17, 1987.
                                 A310-53-2024......  4............................  February 2, 1988.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (6) Modification of the aft pressure bulkhead to improve the
fatigue life of the attachment angles at frame (FR) 80/82 in
accordance with paragraph (h) of AD 2006-22-03 is acceptable for
compliance with the corresponding requirement of paragraphs (f)(1)
and (f)(2) of this AD.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows. This AD includes a compliance time specified in
paragraph (f)(2) of this AD for airplanes that are also affected by
AD 2006-22-03. We realize that the requirements of this AD will
necessitate that some operators do the modification required by
paragraph (h) of AD 2006-22-03 early. However, accomplishing the
modification within the compliance time specified in this AD is
required to address cracking in the attachment angles of the rear
pressure bulkhead, which could result in failure of the rear
pressure bulkhead.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) 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. Send information to ATTN: Tom
Stafford, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2007-0297R1,
dated September 17, 2008, and the service bulletins listed in Table
3 of this AD, for related information.

                   Table 3--Related Service Bulletins
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Airbus Service Bulletin       Revision                Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airbus Mandatory Service                  04  July 18, 2007.
 Bulletin A300-53-6005.
Airbus Mandatory Service                  05  October 13, 2006.
 Bulletin A310-53-2024.
Airbus Mandatory Service                  06  August 3, 2006.
 Bulletin A310-53-2025.

Airbus Service Bulletin A300-              3  March 24, 1989.
 53-6006.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) You must use the service information contained in Table 4 of
this AD to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD
specifies otherwise.

               Table 4--Material Incorporated by Reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Airbus Service Bulletin       Revision                Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airbus Mandatory Service                  04  July 18, 2007.
 Bulletin A300-53-6005.
Airbus Mandatory Service                  05  October 13, 2006.
 Bulletin A310-53-2024.
Airbus Mandatory Service                  06  August 3, 2006.
 Bulletin A310-53-2025.
Airbus Service Bulletin A300-              3  March 24, 1989.
 53-6006.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6006, Revision 3, dated March
24, 1989, contains the following effective pages:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Revision level
          Page Nos.            shown on page      Date shown on page
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1, 29, 47, 48...............               3   March 24, 1989.
2-28, 30-46, 49-52..........               2   August 11, 1988.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS--EAW (Airworthiness Office), 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.airbus.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the 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/code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 16, 2009.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E9-23094 Filed 9-28-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Deliberative Draft  5/ 27/ 04  FRN announcing ERP stay  DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE 6560 50 P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 51 and 52 [ AD FRL__________ ; E Docket ID No. OAR 2002 0068; Legacy Docket No. A 2002 04]

RIN

Prevention of Significant Deterioration ( PSD) and Non attainment New Source Review ( NSR): Equipment Replacement Provision of the Routine Maintenance, Repair and Replacement Exclusion; Stay of Effective Date AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: A December 24, 2003 order of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit stayed the effectiveness of the Equipment Replacement Provision ( ERP) of the Clean Air Act ( CAA) New Source Review ( NSR) Routine Maintenance, Repair, and Replacement ( RMRR) exclusion. Today's action reflects this stay in the Code of Federal Regulations and restores in a new paragraph the RMRR regulatory language that had been superseded by the ERP amendments. This document also sets out EPA's interpretation of the effect of the stay on the Prevention of Significant Deterioration ( PSD) federal implementation plans in various state implementation plans. EPA is issuing this final rule without notice and opportunity for public comment because there is good cause to do so within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act.

DATES: The effective date for the amendments to 40 CFR Parts 51 and 52 published at 68 FR Deliberative Draft  5/ 27/ 04  FRN announcing ERP stay  DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE 2 61276 on October 27, 2003 has been stayed indefinitely by court order. Upon the court's termination of the stay, EPA will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing any new effective date. The effective date for the amendments in this final rule is on [ insert date of publication in the Federal Register].

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under E Docket ID No. OAR 2002

0068 ( legacy docket number no. A 2002 04). This number will also appear at the top of your FR document along with the FRL assigned to your particular FR document]. All documents in the docket are listed in the EDOCKET index at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i. e., 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 in EDOCKET or in hard copy at the the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. This Docket Facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.

The 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 ( 202) 566 1744,

and the telephone number for the Air Docket is ( 202) 566 1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David Svendsgaard, Information Transfer and Program Integration Division ( C339 03), U. S. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number ( 919) 541

2380, facsimile number ( 919) 541 5509, electronic mail address: svendsgaard. dave@ epa. gov. Deliberative Draft  5/ 27/ 04  FRN announcing ERP stay  DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE 1 For an explanation of the development of the ERP amendments and the reasons for them, see 68 FR 61248 ( October 27, 2003), and the docket referenced above.

3 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Today's Final Rule A. What RMRR Exclusion is in Effect After the Court's Order?

On October 27, 2003, EPA published amendments to the regulations governing the PSD and NSR programs mandated under parts C and D of title I of the Clean Air Act ( CAA). These amendments added an " Equipment Replacement Provision" ( ERP) to the Routine Maintenance,

Repair, and Replacement ( RMRR) exclusion from these programs. 1 These amendments were scheduled to take effect on December 26, 2003.

Shortly after publication of the ERP amendments, various parties filed petitions for review of EPA's action in the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ( State of New York v. EPA, No. 03 1380 and consolidated cases). Upon the motions of various petitioners, the Court ordered the ERP amendments stayed pending the completion of its review. The Court issued its order on December 24, 2003. Therefore, the amendments never became effective.

Today's final rule amends the RMRR exclusion due to the fact that the ERP amendments have been stayed. Upon the Court completing its review or otherwise terminating the stay order,

EPA will publish an additional notice in the Federal Register announcing any new effective date.

The effect of the Court's stay order keeps the RMRR exclusion in effect as it existed prior to the ERP amendment for an indefinite duration. Nevertheless, the former text no longer appears in the Code of Federal Regulations ( CFR) because it was changed by the ERP amendments. This Deliberative Draft  5/ 27/ 04  FRN announcing ERP stay  DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE 4 complicates matters for states, the regulated community, and the public, especially in those instances where state regulations reference those of EPA and in states that operate under the Federal PSD program in § 52.21. In order to restore the CFR text that has been amended by the ERP, EPA is restoring the former RMRR text to the CFR under a new paragraph different from the paragraphs affected by the ERP. See 1 CFR 18.16 ( reinstatement of expired regulations).

B. What Amendments are Necessary for the PSD FIPs due to the Stay?

The addition of a new paragraph to the Federal PSD program rule in § 52.21 will not require amendments to each Federal implementation plan ( FIP) for PSD. Prior to a recent amendment, each FIP specified which paragraphs of § 52.21 were incorporated by listing such paragraphs. Therefore, each time EPA added or deleted a paragraph, EPA needed to promulgate a new regulation correcting each FIP. On December 24, 2003, EPA promulgated a FIP correction rule, which amended the way in which EPA incorporates § 52.21 into each FIP. The new format incorporates revisions to § 52.21 without further revision to each FIP in each subpart ( see 68 FR 74483). EPA's new format for incorporating § 52.21 into each FIP states that all of § 52.21 is incorporated except paragraph ( a)( 1). The efficiency of this format change is evident in today's action.

Parties to the litigation on the ERP, as well as states not involved in the litigation, asked whether somehow the FIP correction rule would make the ERP effective in states with PSD FIPs,

notwithstanding the stay. On January 8, 2004, EPA, through its litigation counsel in the Department of Justice, distributed via e mail a message to all parties to the ERP litigation expressing EPA's opinion on how the stay affected the particular PSD provisions that apply in Deliberative Draft  5/ 27/ 04  FRN announcing ERP stay  DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE 5 FIP states. In part, this message noted that "[ t] he FIP Rule itself was not stayed, and thus, all the sections of part 52 which incorporate § 52.21 have been updated. See, e. g., 40 CFR 52.499 ( D. C. SIP). Nonetheless, because the FIPs incorporate sections of 52.21 that have been stayed by the court, these " ERP" sections are not effective in the areas covered by the FIPs ( e. g., it does not matter that the FIPs now incorporate § 52.21( cc) because that section is stayed). It is EPA's opinion that this result occurs automatically due to the Court's staying of the underlying rule changes at 40 CFR 52.21, and that further action by the Court or EPA is not necessary."

While no party objected to EPA's interpretation, some parties asked that EPA present its interpretation in a more formal announcement. This document satisfies that request.

C. What is the Basis for Finding Good Cause to Make These Amendments Immediately Effective?

The EPA has determined that notice and comment on this amendment to the NSR regulations is not required. Under the Administrative Procedure Act ( 5 U. S. C. 553( b)( 3)( B)), a rule is exempt from notice and public comments requirements " when the agency for a good cause finds ( and incorporates the finding and a brief statements of reasons therefor in the rule issued)

that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest."

The terms of the court order prevented the ERP from coming into effect. In the absence of the ERP, the prior regulatory RMRR exclusion remains in effect. Accordingly, this rule is merely a housekeeping measure that conforms the regulatory text to reflect the court order. The revisions to the regulatory text do not have any substantive effect. Deliberative Draft  5/ 27/ 04  FRN announcing ERP stay  DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE 6 Public comment could not change the result dictated by the court order, and is therefore unnecessary and impracticable. In addition, delay in issuing this rule amending the existing regulations could result in confusion on the part of state and local air pollution control agencies as well as the public regarding which RMRR exclusion is in effect. Notice and comment would therefore be contrary to the public interest. Accordingly, EPA has concluded that notice and comment on this rule would be impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest,

within the meaning of 5 U. S. C. 553( b)( 3)( B).

The EPA also believes that there is good cause to make today's rule effective immediately,

rather than effective within 30 days, within the meaning of 5 U. S. C. 553( d)( 3). For the reasons stated above, EPA has determined that it is unnecessary, impracticable and contrary to the public interest to delay revisions to the text of the regulations to incorporate the court order staying the effectiveness of the ERP. In addition, EPA has balanced the necessity for immediate implementation against principles of fundamental fairness, which require that all affected persons be afforded a reasonable amount of time to prepare for the effective date of this rule. In so doing,

EPA has concluded that, because the court order came into effect upon issuance, the benefit to the public of making conforming changes to the regulatory text immediately outweighs the need,

if any, to give affected parties time to adjust their behavior accordingly. Indeed, EPA has determined that, on balance, making this rule effective immediately is in the public interest and affected parties will better be served by the avoidance of confusion ( as a result of a discrepancy between the provision in effect as a result of the court order and the regulatory text).

II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Deliberative Draft  5/ 27/ 04  FRN announcing ERP stay  DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE 7 This final rule merely conforms the CFR to the terms of the State of New York v. EPA Court's order of December 24, 2004. In so doing, this rule has no substantive effect. Therefore,

under Executive Order 12866 ( 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a " significant regulatory action" and is therefore not subject to OMB review. Because this action is not subject to notice and comment requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute, it is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act ( 5 U. S. C. 601 et seq.) or sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ( UMRA) ( Public Law 104 4). In addition, this action does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 ( 63 FR 67249, November 9,

2000). This action will not have federalism implications, as specified in Executive Order 13132 ( 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ( 62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, " Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use" ( 66 FR 28355 ( May 22, 2001)) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. This action does not involve technical standards;

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. The Office of Management and Budget ( OMB)

approved the information collection requirements contained for the NSR regulations that are in effect as a result of the court order under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2060 0003, EPA ICR number 1230.10. Deliberative Draft  5/ 27/ 04  FRN announcing ERP stay  DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE 8 III. Congressional Review Act 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 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). Deliberative Draft  5/ 27/ 04  FRN announcing ERP stay  DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE 9 List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 51 and 52 Environmental protection, Administrative practices and procedures, Air pollution control,

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

___________________ ______________________________________

Dated: Michael O. Leavitt Administrator Deliberative Draft  5/ 27/ 04  FRN announcing ERP stay  DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE 10 PART 51  [ AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U. S. C. 7401 7671q.

2. Section 51.165 is amended to:

a. stay paragraphs ( a)( 1)( v)( C)( 1), ( a)( 1)( xliii) through ( xlvi), and ( h); and b. by adding paragraph ( a)( 1)( v)( C)( 10), to read as follows:

§ 51.165 Permit Requirements.

( a) * * *

( 1) * * *

( v) * * *

( C) * * *

( 10) Routine maintenance, repair, and replacement.

3. Section 51.166 is amended to:

a. stay paragraphs ( b)( 2)( iii)( a), ( b)( 53) through ( 56), and ( y); and b. by adding paragraph ( b)( 2)( iii)( l), to read as follows: Deliberative Draft  5/ 27/ 04  FRN announcing ERP stay  DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE 11 § 51.166 Prevention of Significant Deterioration.

( b) * * *

( 2) * * *

( iii) * * *

( l) Routine maintenance, repair, and replacement.

PART 52  [ AMENDED]

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

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

2. Section 52.21 is amended:

a. to stay paragraphs ( b)( 2)( iii)( a), ( b)( 55) through ( 58), and ( cc); and b. by adding paragraph ( b)( 2)( iii)( l), to read as follows:

§ 52.21 Prevention of significant deterioration of air quality.

( b) * * *

( 2) * * *

( iii) * * *

( l) Routine maintenance, repair, and replacement.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 233 (Thursday, December 3, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 77996-77999]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26649]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2020-0136; FRL-10016-79-Region 9]

Air Plan Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval; California;
San Diego

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to partially approve and partially disapprove revisions to the
San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD or ``District'')
portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These
revisions concern the District's demonstration regarding reasonably
available control technology (RACT) requirements and negative
declarations for the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS or ``standards'') in the San Diego ozone nonattainment area
under the jurisdiction of the SDAPCD.

DATES: This rule will be effective on January 4, 2021.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2020-0136. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
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 through https://www.regulations.gov, or please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section for additional availability information. If you need assistance
in a language other than English or if you are a person with
disabilities who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you,
please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Levin, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action

    On August 10, 2020 (85 FR 48127), the EPA proposed to partially
approve and partially disapprove the California Air Resources Board's
April 12, 2017 submittal of the 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone Reasonably
Available Control Technology Demonstration for San Diego County (``2016
RACT SIP'').

                                           Table 1--Submitted Document
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Local agency                               Document                   Adopted        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SDAPCD.....................................  2008 Eight-Hour Ozone Reasonably           12/14/16       4/12/2017
                                              Available Control Technology
                                              Demonstration for San Diego County
                                              (``2016 RACT SIP'').
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our proposed action contains more information on the submittal and
our evaluation.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this period, we received two comments. One comment was
supportive, and the other was not germane.

III. EPA Action

    No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the 2016
RACT SIP as described in our proposed action. Therefore, we are
finalizing a partial approval and partial disapproval of the 2016 RACT
SIP. As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the CAA, the EPA
is finalizing a partial disapproval of the 2016 RACT SIP with respect
to those portions addressing the following source categories: Design
Criteria for Stage I Vapor Control Systems--Gasoline Service Stations
(EPA-450/R-75-102); Tank Truck Gasoline Loading Terminals (EPA-450/2-
77-026); Manufacture of Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products (EPA-450/2-
78-029); Industrial Cleaning Solvents (EPA-453/R-06-001); Fiberglass
Boat Manufacturing Materials (EPA-453/R-08-004); Non-CTG major sources
of VOC; and Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings (EPA-453/R-
08-003) Table 3--Plastic Parts and Products, Table 4--Automotive/
Transportation and Business Machine Plastic Parts, Table 5--Pleasure
Craft Surface Coating, and Table 6--Motor Vehicle Materials. As a
result of the final partial disapproval, offset sanctions will be
imposed unless the EPA approves a subsequent SIP revision that corrects
the identified deficiencies within 18 months of the effective date of
this action. Highway sanctions will be imposed unless the EPA approves
a subsequent SIP revision that corrects the rule deficiencies within 24
months of the effective date of this action. These sanctions will be
imposed under section 179 of the CAA and 40 CFR 52.31. Additionally,
section 110(c) requires the EPA to promulgate a Federal implementation
plan within 24 months unless we approve subsequent SIP revisions that
correct the rule deficiencies.
    As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the CAA, the EPA
is finalizing a partial approval of the 2016 RACT SIP with respect to
all remaining source categories, as proposed. The EPA is also
finalizing an approval of the District's negative declarations as
proposed.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive orders
can be found at http://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

    This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action
because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA, because this SIP partial approval and partial disapproval does
not in-and-of itself create any new information collection burdens, but
simply partially approves and partially disapproves certain State
requirements for inclusion in the SIP.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This SIP
partial approval and partial disapproval does not in-and-of itself
create any new requirements but simply partially approves and partially
disapproves certain pre-existing State requirements for inclusion in
the SIP.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This action partially approves and partially
disapproves pre-existing requirements under State or local law and
imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to state,
local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from
this action.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will 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.

G. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175, because the SIP revision that the EPA is
partially disapproving would not apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction, and will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because this SIP partial approval and partial
disapproval does not in-and-of itself create any new regulations, but
simply partially approves and partially disapproves certain pre-
existing State requirements for inclusion in the SIP.

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA
believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section
12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be
inconsistent with the CAA.

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this rulemaking.

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

M. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 1, 2021. 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 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: November 10, 2020.
John Busterud,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency amends part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(547) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan--in part.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (547) The following plan was submitted on April 12, 2017 by the
Governor's designee.
    (i) [Reserved]
    (ii) Additional materials. (A) San Diego Air Pollution Control
District.
    (1) 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone Reasonably Available Control Technology
Demonstration for San Diego County except those portions addressing the
following source categories: Design Criteria for Stage I Vapor Control
Systems--Gasoline Service Stations (EPA-450/R-75-102); Tank Truck
Gasoline Loading Terminals (EPA-450/2-77-026); Manufacture of
Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products (EPA-450/2-78-029); Industrial
Cleaning Solvents (EPA-453/R-06-001); Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing
Materials (EPA-453/R-08-004); Non-CTG major sources of VOC; and
Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings (EPA-453/R-08-003) Table
3--Plastic Parts and Products, Table 4--Automotive/Transportation and
Business Machine Plastic Parts, Table 5--Pleasure Craft Surface
Coating, and Table 6--Motor Vehicle Materials.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (B) [Reserved]

0
3. Section 52.222 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(5)(ii) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.222   Negative declarations.

    (a) * * *
    (5) * * *
    (ii) The following negative declarations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
were adopted by the San Diego Air Pollution Control District on
December 14, 2016, and submitted to the EPA on April 12, 2017.

   Table 4 to Paragraph (a)(5)(ii)--Negative Declarations for the 2008
                               Ozone NAAQS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            CTG document No.                    CTG document title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA-450/2-77-008........................  Control of Volatile Organic
                                           Emissions from Existing
                                           Stationary Sources--Volume
                                           II: Surface Coating of Cans,
                                           Coils, Paper, Fabrics,
                                           Automobiles, and Light-Duty
                                           Trucks (Automobiles, and
                                           light-duty truck coatings
                                           only).
EPA-450/2-77-025........................  Control of Refinery Vacuum
                                           Producing Systems, Wastewater
                                           Separators, and Process Unit
                                           Turnarounds.
EPA-450/2-77-032........................  Control of Volatile Organic
                                           Emissions from Existing
                                           Stationary Sources--Volume
                                           III: Surface Coating of Metal
                                           Furniture.

EPA-450/2-77-033........................  Control of Volatile Organic
                                           Emissions from Existing
                                           Stationary Sources--Volume
                                           IV: Surface Coating of
                                           Insulation of Magnet Wire.
EPA-450/2-77-034........................  Control of Volatile Organic
                                           Emissions from Existing
                                           Stationary Sources--Volume V:
                                           Surface Coating of Large
                                           Appliances.
EPA-450/2-78-030........................  Control of Volatile Organic
                                           Emissions from Manufacture of
                                           Pneumatic Rubber Tires.
EPA-450/2-78-032........................  Control of Volatile Organic
                                           Emissions from Existing
                                           Stationary Sources--Volume
                                           VII: Factory Surface Coating
                                           of Flat Wood Paneling.
EPA-450/2-78-036........................  Control of Volatile Organic
                                           Compound Leaks from Petroleum
                                           Refinery Equipment.
EPA-450/3-82-009........................  Control of Volatile Organic
                                           Compound Emissions from Large
                                           Petroleum Dry Cleaners.
EPA-450/3-83-006........................  Control of Volatile Organic
                                           Compound Leaks from Synthetic
                                           Organic Chemical Polymer and
                                           Resin Manufacturing
                                           Equipment.
EPA-450/3-83-007........................  Control of Volatile Organic
                                           Compound Equipment Leaks from
                                           Natural Gas/Gasoline
                                           Processing Plants.
EPA-450/3-83-008........................  Control of Volatile Organic
                                           Compound Emissions from
                                           Manufacture of High-Density
                                           Polyethylene, Polypropylene,
                                           and Polystyrene Resins.
EPA-450/3-84-015........................  Control of Volatile Organic
                                           Compound Emissions from Air
                                           Oxidation Processes in
                                           Synthetic Organic Chemical
                                           Manufacturing Industry.
EPA-450/4-91-031........................  Control of Volatile Organic
                                           Compound Emissions from
                                           Reactor Processes and
                                           Distillation Operations in
                                           Synthetic Organic Chemical
                                           Manufacturing Industry.
EPA-453/R-97-004; 59 FR 29216 (6/6/94)..  Control of Volatile Organic
                                           Compound Emissions from
                                           Coating Operations at
                                           Aerospace Manufacturing and
                                           Rework Operations; Aerospace
                                           MACT.
EPA-453/R-06-004........................  Control Techniques Guidelines
                                           for Flat Wood Paneling
                                           Coatings.
EPA-453/R-07-004........................  Control Techniques Guidelines
                                           for Large Appliance Coatings.
EPA-453/R-07-005........................  Control Techniques Guidelines
                                           for Metal Furniture Coatings.
EPA-453/R-08-006........................  Control Techniques Guidelines
                                           for Automobile and Light-Duty
                                           Truck Assembly Coatings.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

0
4. Section 52.237 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(2) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.237   Part D disapproval.

    (b) * * *
    (2) San Diego Air Pollution Control District.
    (i) RACT determinations for the following source categories in the
submittal titled ``2008 Eight-Hour Ozone Reasonably Available Control
Technology Demonstration for San Diego County,'' dated December 2016,
as adopted December 14, 2016, and submitted on April 12, 2017.
    (A) Design Criteria for Stage I Vapor Control Systems--Gasoline
Service Stations (EPA-450/R-75-102).
    (B) Tank Truck Gasoline Loading Terminals (EPA-450/2-77-026).
    (C) Manufacture of Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products (EPA-450/2-
78-029).
    (D) Industrial Cleaning Solvents (EPA-453/R-06-001).
    (E) Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials (EPA-453/R-08-004).
    (F) Non-CTG major sources of VOC.
    (G) Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings (EPA-453/R-08-
003) Table 3--Plastic Parts and Products, Table 4--Automotive/
Transportation and Business Machine Plastic Parts, Table 5--Pleasure
Craft Surface Coating, and Table 6--Motor Vehicle Materials.
    (ii) [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 2020-26649 Filed 12-2-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 12 (Thursday, January 18, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 2635]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00750]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2531-000]

Brookfield White Pine, LLC; Notice of Authorization for Continued
Project Operation

    On August 10, 2012, Brookfield White Pine LLC, licensee for the
West Buxton Hydroelectric Project, filed an Application for a New
License pursuant to the Federal Power Act (FPA) and the Commission's
regulations thereunder. The West Buxton Hydroelectric Project facility
is located on the Saco River in the towns of Buxton, Hollis, and
Standish, within York and Cumberland Counties, Maine.
    The license for Project No. 2531 was issued for a period ending
December 31, 2017. Section 15(a) (1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 808(a)(1),
requires the Commission, at the expiration of a license term, to issue
from year-to-year an annual license to the then licensee under the
terms and conditions of the prior license until a new license is
issued, or the project is otherwise disposed of as provided in section
15 or any other applicable section of the FPA. If the project's prior
license waived the applicability of section 15 of the FPA, then, based
on section 9(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 558(c),
and as set forth at 18 CFR 16.21(a), if the licensee of such project
has filed an application for a subsequent license, the licensee may
continue to operate the project in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the license after the minor or minor part license
expires, until the Commission acts on its application. If the licensee
of such a project has not filed an application for a subsequent
license, then it may be required, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.21(b), to
continue project operations until the Commission issues someone else a
license for the project or otherwise orders disposition of the project.
    If the project is subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is
hereby given that an annual license for Project No. 2531 is issued to
the licensee for a period effective January 1, 2018 through December
31, 2018 or until the issuance of a new license for the project or
other disposition under the FPA, whichever comes first. If issuance of
a new license (or other disposition) does not take place on or before
December 31, 2018, notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 18 CFR
16.18(c), an annual license under section 15(a)(1) of the FPA is
renewed automatically without further order or notice by the
Commission, unless the Commission orders otherwise.
    If the project is not subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is
hereby given that the licensee, Brookfield White Pine, LLC is
authorized to continue operation of the West Buxton Hydroelectric
Project, until such time as the Commission acts on its application for
a subsequent license.

    Dated: January 11, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-00750 Filed 1-17-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


"Lee, Amanda I."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>11/29/2007 09:48 AM	To
	Aaron Levy/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Ross Brennan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Richard
Keigwin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Diane McConkey/DC/USEPA/US@EPA
	cc

	bcc

	Subject
	2008 CUE Methyl Bromide FRM:  CEQ comments

	History:
		This message has been replied to.

-----Original Message-----
From: Belefski, Mary L.
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 9:17 AM
To: Lee, Amanda I.
Cc: Farrell, Amy L.
Subject: RE: CUE Methyl Bromide Final Rulemaking: Informal Draft

Amanda-

Thanks for the opportunity to review.  Sorry for the lateness on getting
these to you.  As mentioned during yesterday's call, here are my
suggested edits and comments (nothing major, just clarifications).  Can
you please forward to the appropriate EPA people?

One overall comment is one you highlighted on the use of commenter
names-- I couldn't see the rationale for mentioning some and not others.
I hope the next version addresses as you suggested.  I wonder if all
commenters are named in the comment response document so that the two
documents are consistent.

Mary

Mary Belefski, DPA
ComSci Fellow
Council on Environmental Quality
202-456-5124
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
-----Original Message-----
From: Lee, Amanda I.
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 4:22 PM
To: 'Thompson, John E (OES)'; 'Finman, Hodayah H (OES)'; Klein, Jeffrey
M<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Belefski, Mary L.; 'Vetter, Darci'; Smith,
Russell; MacNeil, John S.
Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: CUE Methyl Bromide Final Rulemaking: Informal Draft
Importance: High

Hi all,

Please find attached EPA's informal draft of the CUE methyl bromide
final rulemaking.  Once again, this package is on a fast track.  I would
appreciate your comments by COB Monday, November 26.  I also propose a
conference call on November 28th, 10 am-noon.  If you have concerns
about the timeline, please let me know as soon as possible.

Once again, thank you all for your continued work and cooperation!

Best,

Amanda