[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 11, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1654-1656]
[FR Doc No: 2012-367]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-1453; Directorate Identifier 2009-SW-46-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Agusta S.p.A. Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Agusta S.p.A. (Agusta) Model A109, A109A, A109A II, A109C, A109K2,
A109E, A109S, and A119 helicopters. This proposed AD is prompted by a
mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) AD issued by the
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent
for the Member States of the European Community. The MCAI AD states
that a Model A109E helicopter has experienced a failure of the tail
rotor pitch control link assembly caused by a production defect. The
proposed actions are intended to prevent failure of a tail rotor pitch
control link and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 12, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    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 this proposed AD, the
economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The
street address for the Docket Operations Office (telephone (800) 647-
5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD
docket shortly after receipt.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Agusta Westland, Customer Support & Services, Via Per Tornavento 15,
21019 Somma Lombardo (VA) Italy, ATTN: Giovanni Cecchelli; telephone 39
(0331) 711133; fax 39 (0331) 711180; or at http://www.agustawestland.com/technical-bullettins. You may review copies of
the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional
Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth,
Texas 76137.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Roach, Aerospace Engineer,
Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations and Policy Group, FAA, 2601 Meacham
Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to
the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might
result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To
ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters
should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed
electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
    We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as
a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we
will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay.
We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

Discussion

    The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2006-0228-E, dated July 27, 2006, to
correct an unsafe condition for Agusta Model A109A, A109A II, A109C,
A109K2, A109E, A109S, A109LUH and A119 helicopters. The MCAI AD states
that an Agusta Model A109E helicopter has experienced a failure of the
tail rotor pitch control link assembly, part number 109-0130-05-117,
with 10 flight hours. This proposed AD would require actions that are
intended to prevent failure of a tail rotor pitch control link and
subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. You may obtain further
information by examining the MCAI AD and any related service
information in the AD Docket.

FAA's Determination

    These products have been approved by the aviation authority of
Italy and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, the EASA,
their technology agents have notified us of the unsafe condition
described in the MCAI AD and service information. We are proposing this
AD because we evaluated all information provided by the EASA and
determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or
develop on other products of these same type designs.

Related Service Information

    Agusta has issued Alert Bollettino Tecnico (ABT) No. 109S-5, dated
July 26, 2006, for Model A109S helicopters; ABT No. 109EP-70, dated
July 27, 2006, for Model A109E helicopters; ABT No. 109K-47, dated July
27, 2006, for Model A109K2 helicopters; ABT No. 109-122, dated July 27,
2006, for Model A109A, A109A II, and A109C helicopters; and ABT No.
119-15, dated July 27, 2006, for Model A119 helicopters. These ABTs
specify performing a one-time inspection of the subject link assembly
for excessive friction of the spherical bearing of the bearing ball and
for a crack. The EASA classified these ABTs as mandatory and issued
EASA AD 2006-0228-E, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these
helicopters.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require compliance with specified portions
of the manufacturer's service bulletin including:
     Before further flight, inspect the affected link assembly
for freedom of movement of the links while it is installed on the
helicopter. If a rotation

resistance or binding occurs, before further flight, remove the link
assembly from the helicopter, and either:
     Replace it with an airworthy link assembly with a ``T''
marked after the serial number, or
     Inspect the link assembly for the torsion value force of
the ball bearing.
     If not immediately required by the previous paragraph,
within 5 hours time-in-service, remove the link assembly from the
helicopter and inspect the torsion value force of the ball bearing
rotation.
     If the torsion value force in either end of the link
assembly is greater than 7.30 N, the link assembly is unairworthy.
     If the torsion value force of the ball bearing in both
ends of the link assembly is equal to or less than 7.30 N, inspect the
stem of the link assembly for a crack. If a crack is found, the link
assembly is unairworthy.
     For a link assembly that has been inspected and determined
not to have a crack, before further flight, mark a ``T'' on the link
assembly after the serial number using an etch pen.
     For a link assembly which has been inspected and
determined to be unairworthy, before further flight, replace the link
assembly with an airworthy link assembly. Only a link assembly with a
``T'' marked after the serial number, documenting that the link
assembly has been inspected for a crack, is eligible for installation.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the EASA AD

    This proposed AD does not apply to uninstalled parts whereas the
EASA AD does apply to uninstalled parts. This proposed AD includes the
Agusta Model A109 helicopter whereas the EASA AD does not. The EASA AD
applies to the Model A109LUH helicopter, this proposal does not. This
proposed AD does not require accomplishing Part III of the ABTs; the
EASA AD does.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 203 helicopters of
U.S. Registry.
    We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order
to comply with this AD. It would take about 5 work-hours per helicopter
to inspect each tail rotor pitch control link assembly, the average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour, and required parts would cost about
$3,188 per helicopter. Based on these figures, we estimate the total
cost to be $733,439, assuming the tail rotor pitch control link
assembly would be replaced on the entire fleet.
    According to the production approval holder's (PAH's) service
information some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under
warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We
do not control warranty coverage by the PAH. Accordingly, we have
included all costs in our cost estimate.

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 proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed, I certify this proposed regulation:
    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 to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; 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.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    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]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new
Airworthiness Directive (AD):

Agusta S.p.A.: Docket No. FAA-2011-1453; Directorate Identifier
2009-SW-46-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Agusta S.p.A. (Agusta) Model A109, A109A,
A109A II, A109C, A109K2, A109E, A109S, and A119 helicopters, with a
tail rotor pitch control link assembly (link assembly), part number
(P/N) 109-0130-05-117, with less than 100 hours time-in-service
(TIS) and with a serial number (S/N) with a prefix of ``MO'' and S/N
001 through 773 and without the letter ``T'' suffix after the S/N,
installed, certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a failure of the tail
rotor pitch control link assembly P/N 109-0130-05-117. This
condition could result in failure of the tail rotor pitch control
link and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

(c) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(d) Required Actions

    (1) Before further flight, inspect the link assembly for freedom
of movement while it is installed on the helicopter. If rotation
resistance or binding occurs, before further flight, remove the link
assembly from the helicopter, and either:
    (i) Replace it with an airworthy link assembly with a ``T''
marked after the serial number, or;
    (ii) Inspect the link assembly for the torsion value force of
the ball bearing rotation, in accordance with paragraph (d)(2) of
this AD.
    (2) If there is no rotation resistance or binding found during
the inspection required by paragraph (d)(1) of this AD that required
an immediate torsion value force inspection, within 5 hours TIS,
remove the link assembly from the helicopter and inspect the torsion
value force of the ball bearing rotation by referring to Figure 1
and following the

Compliance Instructions, Part II, paragraphs 3. through 3.2, of
Agusta Alert Bollettino Tecnico (ABT) No. 109S-5, dated July 26,
2006, for Model A109S helicopters; ABT No. 109EP-70, dated July 27,
2006, for Model A109E helicopters; ABT No. 109K-47, dated July 27,
2006, for Model A109K2 helicopters; ABT No. 109-122, dated July 27,
2006, for Model A109, A109A, A109A II, and A109C helicopters; or ABT
No. 119-15, dated July 27, 2006, for Model A119 helicopters.
    (i) If the torsion value force of the ball bearing in either end
of the link assembly is greater than 7.30 N, the link assembly is
unairworthy.
    (ii) If the torsion value force of the ball bearing in both ends
of the link assembly is equal to or less than 7.30 N, after cleaning
the link assembly stem using aliphatic naphtha, or equivalent, and a
soft non-metallic bristle brush, inspect all 4 (four) faces of the
stem of the link assembly for a crack using a 10x or higher
magnifying glass. If you cannot determine whether there is a crack
in the stem of the link assembly by using a 10x or higher magnifying
glass, conduct a dye penetrant inspection by referring to Figure 1
and following the Compliance Instructions, Part II, paragraphs 6.
through 6.7, of the ABT that is applicable to your model helicopter.
If a crack is found, the link assembly is unairworthy.
    (3) For a link assembly which has been inspected in accordance
with paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this AD and determined to be
unairworthy, before further flight, replace the link assembly with
an airworthy link assembly. Only a link assembly with a ``T'' marked
after the serial number, documenting that the link assembly has been
inspected for a crack, is eligible for installation.

(e) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOC)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft
Directorate, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal
to: Gary Roach, Aviation Safety Engineer, Regulations and Policy
Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth,
Texas 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a Part 119 operating
certificate or under Part 91, Subpart K, we suggest that you notify
your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the
manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate
holding district office, before operating any aircraft complying
with this AD through an AMOC.

(f) Additional Information

    The subject of this AD is addressed in the European Aviation
Safety Agency (Italy) AD 2006-0228-E, dated July 27, 2006.

(g) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6400: Tail Rotor
System.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on December 27, 2011.
M. Monica Merritt,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-367 Filed 1-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 27, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 95041-95043]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31023]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0526; FRL-9957-39-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; KY; RACM Determination for the KY Portion of
the Louisville Area 1997 Annual PM2.5

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of
Kentucky, through the Kentucky Division for Air Quality (KDAQ) on
August 9, 2016, that addresses reasonably available control measures
(RACM) for the Kentucky portion of the Louisville, KY-IN, nonattainment
area for the 1997 Annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (hereinafter referred to
as the ``bi-state Louisville Area'' or ``Area'').

DATES: This rule will be effective January 26, 2017.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0526. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information may not be 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 Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation 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 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding federal holidays.

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

I. Background

    In 1997, EPA promulgated the first air quality standards for
PM2.5. EPA promulgated an annual standard at a level of 15
micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) (based on a 3-year average of
annual mean PM2.5 concentrations) and a 24-hour standard of
65 [mu]g/m\3\ (based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-
hour concentrations). See 62 FR 38652 (July 18, 1997). On January 5,
2005 (70 FR 944), and supplemented on April 14, 2005 (70 FR 19844), EPA
designated the bi-state Louisville Area as nonattainment for the 1997
Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. In that action, EPA defined the bi-state
Louisville Area to include Bullitt and Jefferson Counties in Kentucky
as well as Clark and Floyd Counties and a portion of Jefferson County
(Madison Township) in Indiana. Designation of an area as nonattainment
for PM2.5 starts the process for a state to develop and
submit to EPA a SIP revision under title I, part D of the Clean Air Act
(CAA or Act). This SIP revision must include, among other elements, a
demonstration of how the NAAQS will be attained in the nonattainment
area as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the attainment
date required by the CAA.
    Originally, EPA designated all 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS areas
under title I, part D, subpart 1 (hereinafter ``Subpart 1''). Subpart
1, comprised of CAA sections 171-179B, sets forth the basic
nonattainment requirements applicable to all nonattainment areas.
Section 172(c) contains the general SIP requirements for these areas,
including RACM requirements under section 172(c)(1). On April 25, 2007
(72 FR 20586), EPA promulgated a rule, codified at 40 CFR part 51,
subpart Z, to implement the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS under Subpart 1
(hereinafter referred to as the ``1997 PM2.5 Implementation
Rule'').\1\ On December 3, 2008, Kentucky submitted an attainment
demonstration SIP revision for the Area that addressed RACM and certain
other section 172(c) elements including a reasonable further progress
(RFP) plan, base-year and attainment-year emissions inventories, and
contingency measures for the Area. This SIP revision included a section
172(c)(1) RACM determination that there were no potential emissions
control measures that, if considered collectively, would advance the
attainment date by one year or more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On January 4, 2013, in Natural Resources Defense Council v.
EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013), the United State Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) found
that EPA erred in implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
pursuant solely to the general implementation provisions of Subpart
1 rather than the particulate matter-specific provisions in title I,
part D, subpart 4. The court remanded both the 1997 PM2.5
Implementation Rule and the final rule entitled ``Implementation of
the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less than
2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)'' (73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008) to
EPA to address this error. In 2014, EPA finalized a rule classifying
areas previously designated nonattainment for the 1997 and/or 2006
fine particle pollution standards under Subpart 1, including the bi-
state Louisville Area, as ``Moderate'' nonattainment areas under
subpart 4 and setting deadlines for SIP submissions addressing the
requirements of subpart 4. See 79 FR 31566 (June 2, 2014)
[hereinafter 2014 Rule].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2011, EPA determined that the bi-state Louisville Area had
attained the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS based upon complete,
quality-assured, and certified ambient air monitoring data for the
2007-2009 period. See 76 FR 55544 (September 7, 2011); 40 CFR
52.929(b). As a result of this determination and in accordance with 40
CFR 51.1004(c), the requirements for the Area to submit attainment
demonstrations and associated RACM, RFP plans, contingency measures,
and other planning SIP revisions related to attainment of the 1997
Annual PM2.5 NAAQS are suspended for so long as: The area is
redesignated to attainment,

at which time the requirements no longer apply; or EPA determines that
the area has violated the PM2.5 NAAQS, at which time the
area is again required to submit such plans. Therefore, Kentucky
withdrew the aforementioned PM2.5 attainment demonstration
SIP revision except for the portion addressing emissions inventory
requirements under section 172(c)(3). EPA later approved Kentucky's
2002 base-year emissions inventory for the Louisville Area pursuant to
section 172(c)(3) on August 2, 2012 (77 FR 45956).
    On March 5, 2012, Kentucky submitted a request to redesignate the
Kentucky portion of the bi-state Louisville Area to attainment for the
1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.\2\ As the result of a 2015 decision
from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Sixth
Circuit) in Sierra Club v. EPA, 793 F.3d 656 (6th Cir. 2015) requiring
a SIP-approved Subpart 1 RACM determination prior to the redesignation
of a 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS nonattainment area, Kentucky
submitted a SIP revision on August 9, 2016, to address the section
172(c)(1) RACM requirements and to support the Commonwealth's March 5,
2012, redesignation request. In that SIP revision, the Commonwealth
determined that no additional control measures are necessary in the
Area to satisfy the CAA section 172(c)(1) RACM requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Kentucky submitted its redesignation request prior to the
aforementioned ruling in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA.
As discussed in the 2014 Rule, EPA's position is that this ruling
does not apply retroactively. See 79 FR at 31568.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on October 21,
2016 (81 FR 72755), EPA proposed to conclude that Kentucky's Subpart 1
RACM determination meets the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(1) and
to incorporate this RACM determination into the SIP. The details of
Kentucky's SIP revision and the rationale for EPA's action are
explained in the NPRM. Comments on the proposed rulemaking were due on
or before November 21, 2016. EPA did not receive any adverse comments
on the proposed action.

II. Final Action

    EPA is approving Kentucky's August 9, 2016, SIP revision addressing
RACM requirements for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the
Kentucky portion of the bi-state Louisville Area. EPA has concluded
that Kentucky's Subpart 1 RACM determination meets the requirements of
CAA section 172(c)(1) and is incorporating this RACM determination into
the SIP.

III. 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. See 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 Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     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 Clean Air Act; 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).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it 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 February 27, 2017. 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, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: December 15, 2016.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as 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 S--Kentucky

0
2. Section 52.920(e) is amended by adding a new entry for ``RACM for
the Kentucky portion of Louisville, KY-IN

Area for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS'' at the end of the
table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.920  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Kentucky Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             State
    Name of non-regulatory SIP          Applicable      submittal date/
            provision                 geographic or        effective     EPA approval date       Explanations
                                    nonattainment area       date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
RACM for the Kentucky portion of   Bullitt and              08/09/2016  12/27/2016, [Insert
 Louisville, KY-IN Area for the     Jefferson Counties.                  citation of
 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.                                                publication].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2016-31023 Filed 12-23-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P