http://wiki.seas.harvard.edu/geos-chem/index.php/GEOS-Chem_v8-02-03

Overview
BETA RELEASE -- October 2009

Previous version: GEOS-Chem v8-02-02
Next version: GEOS-Chem v8-02-04
What's new in this version
Contains everything in v8-02-02, plus:

1.Kpp chemical solver package (Adrian Sandu group @ Virginia Tech)
2.ICOADS ship emissions (Chulkyu Lee)
3.Use of GEOS-5 ozone columns (C. Carouge)
4.Removal of support for obsolete SGI and COMPAQ compilers
5.Updated CH4 offline simulation (K. Wecht, C. Pickett-Heaps)
6.Updated makefile structure (G-C support team)
7.Correction of the time step when to calculate diagnostics (C. Carouge, P. Le Sager)
8.Updated OTD/LIS redistribution factors for GEOS-5
--Bob Y. 09:58, 4 February 2010 (EST)

Previous issues now resolved in v8-02-03
Patch for KPP for v8-02-03
Claire Carouge wrote:

The problem we were having with KPP in GEOS-Chem v8-02-03 is now solved. We've posted patched files on the FTP site:
   ftp ftp.as.harvard.edu
   cd pub/geos-chem/patches/v8-02-03
   get chemdr.f
   get chemistry_mod.f
The problem is that, somehow, KPP considers 3 species declared as "dead" in globchem.dat as "active" species. As a consequence, when updating the species concentrations at the end of the chemistry, the concentrations of 3 "inactive" species were modified whereas they should stay constant. With time, this would propagate problems through out the whole chemistry.
The fix is to update only for the number of active species as given by globchem.dat and not as given by KPP.
The fix will be standardized in GEOS-Chem v8-02-04 and later versions.
The reason why KPP has 3 extra active species is part of a larger discussion on the mapping of the species in KPP and was not solved yet. But the fix gives a safe way to use KPP in GEOS-Chem.
--Bob Y. 16:54, 4 February 2010 (EST)

Corrected Bond et al BC/OC emissions
Eric Leibensperger wrote:

The carbon_200905 data were generated with buggy code and generated bogus files. The files in carbon_200905 SHOULD NOT be used.
In addition, my previous statements that the Cooke overwrites over the US led to a high bias in BC and OC was WRONG. I think Cooke should still be the default (meaning in input.geos, the use Cooke line should be defaulted as T, rather than F).
The corrected files are now contained in the carbon_200909 directories. You may obtain these from:

ftp ftp.as.harvard.edu
cd /pub/geos-chem/data/GEOS_1x1/carbon_200909
mget *
cd /pub/geos-chem/data/GEOS_2x2.5/carbon_200909
mget *
cd /pub/geos-chem/data/GEOS_4x5/carbon_200909
mget *
GEOS-Chem v8-02-03 now points to the corrected files in carbon_200909.

The files in the previous directory carbon_200905 have been deleted from the FTP server. The carbon_200905 directory is now a symbolic link to carbon_200909.

Bob Yantosca has archived the carbon_200905 directories in case anyone needs to do a test with these files for backwards compability in model development. Please contact him directly if you need to use these files. It is recommended to migrate directly to the files in carbon_200909.

Reference:

Bond, T.C. et al.: Historical emissions of black and organic carbon aerosol fromenergy-related combustion, Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 21, GB2018, 1850-2000, doi: 10.1029/2006GB002840, 2007.
--Bob Y. 13:32, 21 September 2009 (EDT)

Several bug fixes in sulfate_mod.f
Philippe Le Sager wrote:

I realized the SO4 derived from Canadian CAC inventory was ignored in v8-02-02, because of a typo. Jenny Fisher pointed out that SO4 derived from BRAVO was not accounted for. Paul Hezel provided a fix for diagnostic ND05, which now correctly records P(SO2) from OH. Paul also found out that the P(MSA) from DMS above the PBL was not accounted for.
All these bugs have been fixed. A patch is available for GEOS-Chem v8-02-02 and earlier versions:
   ftp ftp.as.harvard.edu
   cd pub/geos-chem/patches/v8-02-02
   get sulfate_mod.f
This fix has been standardized in GEOS-Chem v8-02-03.
--phs 16:57, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

Missing NOx data in S.E.-Asia
Data outside China from the Streets NOx inventory have been missing. The Streets_NOx_FF_2004_monthly.generic.1x1 files should be used only to provide monthly variations.

If you are using GEOS-Chem v8-02-02 or earlier, please update your code with the patch on the ftp site:

  ftp ftp.as.harvard.edu
  cd pub/geos-chem/patches/v8-02-02
  get streets_anthro_mod.f
This fix has been standardized in GEOS-Chem v8-02-03.

--phs 14:14, 19 August 2009 (EDT)

Mis-calculation of Courant numbers in tpcore_fvdas_mod.f90
I found that the Courant numbers where not calculated for the second band of latitude and the second last one in tpcore_fvdas_mod.f90. So crap values were used instead at these locations.

If you are using GEOS-Chem v8-02-02 or earlier, please update your code with the patch on the ftp site:

  ftp ftp.as.harvard.edu
  cd pub/geos-chem/patches/v8-02-02
  get tpcore_fvdas_mod.f90
This fix has been standardized in GEOS-Chem v8-02-03.

--Ccarouge 11:10, 18 August 2009 (EDT)

Format problem in planeflight_mod.f
Jingqiu Mao reported a problem in the plane.log output files, in which it looked like some tracers had abnormally large values.

Philippe Le Sager wrote:

I found a solution. The problem is that Fortran output in ASCII switches between 2 formats:
   1.234E-12
   1.234-12
Correct, the E can disappear. And that confuses IDL. With the format specified by planeflight_mod.f (line 1237), it happens when the exponent is less than -100.
To keep the routine general, you can force the number of digit in the exponent with a 'e' in the format descriptor as follows:
   y = -1.233d-122
   write(6, '(es10.3)'   ), y   ! what is used now
   write(6, '(es11.3e3)' ), y   ! what we should use instead
   write(6, '(es12.3e4)' ), y
gives
   -1.233-122
   -1.233E-122
   -1.233E-0122
So replace (es10.3) with (es11.3e3) line 1237 of planeflight_mod.f and that should fix it.
--Bob Y. 11:35, 13 July 2009 (EDT)

Minor fixes in wet deposition
Bob Yantosca wrote:

(1) In subroutine RAINOUT (in wetscav_mod.f), I think we need to apply a separate conversion factor for NH3 (i.e. as is now done in subroutine COMPUTE_F). So we'd need to change the lines:
    REAL*8, PARAMETER    :: CONV = 8.27042925126d-1
to:
    ! CONV_H2O2 = 0.6 * SQRT( 1.9 ), used for the ice to gas ratio for H2O2
    ! 0.6 is ( sticking  coeff H2O2  / sticking  coeff  water )
    ! 1.9 is ( molecular weight H2O2 / molecular weight water )
    REAL*8, PARAMETER :: CONV_H2O2 = 8.27042925126d-1

    ! CONV_NH3 = 0.6 * SQRT( 0.9 ), used for the ice to gas ratio for NH3
    ! 0.6 is ( sticking  coeff  NH3 / sticking  coeff  water )
    ! 0.9 is ( molecular weight NH3 / molecular weight water )
    REAL*8, PARAMETER :: CONV_NH3  = 5.69209978831d-1
and then change these acccordingly:
    ELSE IF ( N == IDTH2O2 ) THEN

       ! Compute ice to gas ratio for H2O2 by co-condensation
       ! (Eq. 9, Jacob et al, 2000)
       IF ( C_H2O(I,J,L) > 0d0 ) THEN
          !------------------------------------------------------
          ! Prior to 7/20/09
          ! Now multiply by CONV_H2O2 (bmy, 7/20/09)
          !I2G = ( CLDICE(I,J,L) / C_H2O(I,J,L) ) * CONV
          !------------------------------------------------------
          I2G = ( CLDICE(I,J,L) / C_H2O(I,J,L) ) * CONV_H2O2
       ELSE
          I2G = 0d0
       ENDIF

    ...

    ELSE IF ( N == IDTNH3 ) THEN

       ! Compute ice to gas ratio for NH3 by co-condensation
       ! (Eq. 9, Jacob et al, 2000)
       IF ( C_H2O(I,J,L) > 0d0 ) THEN
          !--------------------------------------------------
          ! Prior to 7/20/09
          ! Now multiply by CONV_NH3 (bmy, 7/20/09)
          !I2G = ( CLDICE(I,J,L) / C_H2O(I,J,L) ) * CONV
          !--------------------------------------------------
          I2G = ( CLDICE(I,J,L) / C_H2O(I,J,L) ) * CONV_NH3
       ELSE
          I2G = 0d0
       ENDIF
Havala gave us the fix for separate CONV_H2O2 and CONV_NH3 factors for subroutine COMPUTE_F. But then we may have never thought to also apply this to subroutine RAINOUT, which subroutine, where the algorithm is similar. In any case, this is a simple fix.
(2) In subroutine COMPUTE_F, for NH3 we have:
          ! F is the fraction of NH3 scavenged out of the updraft
          ! (Eq. 2, Jacob et al, 2000)
          F(I,J,L) = 1d0 - EXP( -K * BXHEIGHT(I,J,L) / Vud(I,J) )
Note that BXHEIGHT(I,J,L) is used in the equation. However, almost all of the other non-aerosol tracers in COMPUTE_F use:
          ! Distance between grid box centers [m]
          TMP = 0.5d0 * ( BXHEIGHT(I,J,L-1) + BXHEIGHT(I,J,L) )

          ! F is the fraction of NH3 scavenged out of the updraft
          ! (Eq. 2, Jacob et al, 2000)
          F(I,J,L) = 1d0 - EXP( -K * TMP / Vud(I,J) )
So in other words TMP is the distance between grid box centers rather than the distance between grid box edges.
There is a comment:
   !  (7 ) Now set F=0 in the first level for all tracers.  Also now
   !        compute the distance between grid box centers and use that in
   !        in Eq. 10 from Jacob et al, 2000 to compute F. (hyl, bmy, 1/24/02)
It may have been that we just never switched BXHEIGHT to TMP in the IF block for NH3 tracer, I don't recall. It is probably not terrible as-is...but we may want to change that to be consistent w/ what is used for the other tracers.
Hongyu Liu replied:

Regarding item (2) above, you're right that we need to be consistent throughout the code by using the distance between the grid centers. Using the BXHEIGHT makes almost no difference numerically, according to my test with radionuclide simulations conducted 10 years ago.
--Bob Y. 10:49, 20 July 2009 (EDT)

Minor fixes for IBM XLF compiler
Gabriel Morin wrote:

In ocean_mercury_mod.f, replace line 491:
          EF     = MAX( (0.63 - 0.02 * TC), 0.0) ! keep export > 0
by the line:
          EF     = MAX( (0.63d0 - 0.02d0 * TC), 0.0d0) ! keep export > 0
In lightning_nox_mod.f, replace line 1441:
    CC = MAX( CCTHICK * 1d-3, 5.5 )
by the line:
    CC = MAX( CCTHICK * 1d-3, 5.5d0 )
--Bob Y. 11:35, 13 July 2009 (EDT)

Minor fixes in gamap_mod.f
Dylan Millet wrote:

There's a minor bug in gamap_mod.f. In the ND28 section, MOLC for ALD2 is given as 3 instead of 2.
Bob Yantosca wrote:

Junhua Liu found a bug in the gamap_mod.f. If you use GEOS-4 then the mass flux variable is "ZMMU"; however, the name "CLDMAS" gets printed out to the tracerinfo.dat file.
These bugs have now been corrected.

--Bob Y. 14:04, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

Diagnostic indexing problem for timeseries output
Amos Tai wrote:

I just have a really quick question regarding output files... I just ran v8-02-02 with 54 tracers, saving outputs as ts_24h_avg.20050101.bpch, including ND50 diagnostics 93-99. However, as I ran GAMAP, the diaginfo/tracerinfo.dat files don't seem to give me the right variable name/unit for some variables:
    55 :  PEDGE-$   21   PSURF 10001          hPa 175392.00(2005010400)  72 46  1
    56 : DAO-FLDS   21   PARDR 11021          hPa 175392.00(2005010400)  72 46  1
    57 : DAO-3D-$   21    UWND 12001          m/s 175392.00(2005010400)  72 46  1
    58 : DAO-3D-$   21    VWND 12002          m/s 175392.00(2005010400)  72 46  1
    59 : DAO-3D-$   21    TMPU 12003          hPa 175392.00(2005010400)  72 46  1
e.g. 56 should be SLP, but it shows PARDR; 59 should have unit of K, but it shows hPa; 63 should be OH conc, but it doesn't show the name. I'm afraid I may wrongly interpret the data. Do you have a quick answer on what's wrong?
Bob Yantosca wrote:

Philippe & I looked into this. We discovered a discrepancy in the tracer #'s in the diag50_mod.f under the ND67 diagnostic category. Evidently we updated the tracer #'s in gamap_mod.f but not in the diag50_mod.f. The correct diagnostic #'s are:
   HFLUX    GMAO HFLUX field               0.000E+00  1    11001 1.000E+00 W/m2
   RADSWG   GMAO RADSWG field              0.000E+00  1    11002 1.000E+00 W/m2
   PREACC   GMAO PREACC field              0.000E+00  1    11003 1.000E+00 W/m2
   PRECON   GMAO PRECON field              0.000E+00  1    11004 1.000E+00 W/m2
   TS       GMAO TS field                  0.000E+00  1    11005 1.000E+00 K
   RADSWT   GMAO RADSWT field              0.000E+00  1    11006 1.000E+00 W/m2
   USTAR    GMAO USTAR field               0.000E+00  1    11007 1.000E+00 m/s
   Z0       GMAO Z0 field                  0.000E+00  1    11008 1.000E+00 m
   PBL      GMAO PBL field                 0.000E+00  1    11009 1.000E+00 hPa
   CLDFRC   GMAO CLDFRC field              0.000E+00  1    11010 1.000E+00 unitless
   U10M     GMAO U10M field                0.000E+00  1    11011 1.000E+00 m/s
   V10M     GMAO V10M field                0.000E+00  1    11012 1.000E+00 m/s
   PS-PBL   GMAO PS-PBL field              0.000E+00  1    11013 1.000E+00 hPa
   ALBD     GMAO ALBD field                0.000E+00  1    11014 1.000E+00 unitless
   PHIS     GMAO PHIS field                0.000E+00  1    11015 1.000E+00 m
   CLDTOP   GMAO CLDTOP field              0.000E+00  1    11016 1.000E+00 level
   TROPP    GMAO TROPP field               0.000E+00  1    11017 1.000E+00 hPa
   SLP      GMAO SLP field                 0.000E+00  1    11018 1.000E+00 hPa
   TSKIN    GMAO TSKIN field               0.000E+00  1    11019 1.000E+00 K
   PARDF    GMAO PARDF field               0.000E+00  1    11020 1.000E+00 W/m2
   PARDR    GMAO PARDR field               0.000E+00  1    11021 1.000E+00 W/m2
   GWET     GMAO GWET field                0.000E+00  1    11022 1.000E+00 unitless
   EFLUX    GMAO EFLUX field               0.000E+00  1    11023 1.000E+00 W/m2
But in diag50_mod.f we have:
       ELSE IF ( N == 95 ) THEN

          !---------------------
          ! Sea level prs [hPa]
          !---------------------                      CATEGORY = 'DAO-FLDS'
          UNIT     = 'hPa'
          GMNL     = 1
          GMTRC    = 21
so the tracer # for SLP in diag50_mod.f is being written out as #21 but it should be #18. GAMAP will use the tracer # and the units from the bpch file if they are present (if not, it refers to diaginfo.dat & tracerinfo.dat). That is the problem.
Long story short: historical baggage.
What you can do for the time being is to manually edit the line in
   ~tai/runs/run.v8-02-02.20091009/tracerinfo.dat
that says:
   PARDR    GMAO PARDR field               0.000E+00  1    11021 1.000E+00 W/m2
to
   #PARDR    GMAO PARDR field               0.000E+00  1    11021 1.000E+00 W/m2
   SLP      GMAO SLP field                 0.000E+00  1    11021 1.000E+00 hPa
(The # is the comment character.) This will make it pick up the #21 in the bpch file w/o you having to re-run the code.
Also, in diag50_mod.f, the unit string was not defined, which caused the units of the temperature field to be displayed incorrectly. The following fix was made:
        ELSE IF ( N == 99 ) THEN

           !---------------------
           ! Temperature
           !---------------------
           CATEGORY  = 'DAO-3D-$'
           UNIT      = 'K'          ! Add unit string (bmy, 10/13/09)
           GMNL      = ND50_NL
           GMTRC     = 3
This has now been fixed in GEOS-Chem v8-02-03.
--Bob Y. 10:07, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

Avoiding the "Too many levels in photolysis code" error
You will recall the following error message from the FAST-J photolysis code. In order to avoid this error, we have increased the NL parameter from 750 to 1000 in header file jv_mie.h:

!-----------------------------------------------------------------------
!     NL=750 was too small again, so we upped it to 1000.
!     Uncomment this line to restore the previous definition (phs, 10/9/09)
!     PARAMETER (NL=750, N__=2*NL, M__=4)
!-----------------------------------------------------------------------
     PARAMETER (NL=1000, N__=2*NL, M__=4)
In some instances, the Gaussian quadrature algorithm of FAST-J may require more than 750 points. This is not necessarily an error, but can be a reflection of local conditions. Several users have reported encountering this error recently, so we decided to increase the NL parameter to try to avoid the error.

The error only is an issue because FAST-J was written with old-style F77 COMMON blocks, which require a maximum size. Long story short: historical baggage.

--Bob Y. 10:15, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

Outstanding issues not yet resolved in v8-02-03
Memory issue with KPP
It appears that KPP solver is asking for more memory than SMVGEAR. A run with KPP would ask almost twice the memory of a same run with SMVGEAR. We are working on this memory issue.

In the mean time, if you experience a memory problem with GEOS-Chem version 8-02-03 with KPP (resulting in unexpected crash of the run), please revert to SMVGEAR. For this, you need to change one line in the chemistry menu in input.geos:

USE solver coded by KPP : T
replaced by:

USE solver coded by KPP : F
--Ccarouge 12:23, 5 November 2009 (EST)

KPP is not compatible with IFORT 9.1
Aaron van Donkelaar wrote:

I've just downloaded GEOS-Chem v8-02-03 and can't get it to run with the KPP solver (SMVGEAR appears to run fine). It crashes after several errors similar to:
-----------------------------------------------------

 Forced exit from Rosenbrock due to the following error:
 --> Step size too small: T + 10*H = T or H < Roundoff
 T=  0.000000000000000E+000 and H=  1.000000000000000E-005
 failed twice !!!

No. of function calls:     0
No. of jacobian calls:     0
No. of steps:              0
No. of accepted steps:     0
No. of rejected steps      0
       (except at very beginning)
No. of LU decompositions:                  0
No. of forward/backward substitutions:     0
No. of singular matrix decompositions:     0

Texit, the time corresponding to the
       computed Y upon return:                 0.0000
Hexit, last accepted step before exit:         0.0000
Hnew, last predicted step (not yet taken):     0.0000

 JLOOP, I, J, L            5           5           1           1
 Forced exit from Rosenbrock due to the following error:
 --> Step size too small: T + 10*H = T or H < Roundoff
 T=  0.000000000000000E+000 and H=  1.000000000000000E-005
 failed twice !!!
-------------------------------------------------------

I recompiled the solver, but the result is the same. Any advice?
Bob Yantosca wrote:

I confirmed the same error you got with IFORT 9.1. Probably the best thing to do is to move to IFORT 10.1. The code runs without error on IFORT 10.1. We were able to compile and run with this compiler version:
   Intel(R) Fortran Compiler for applications running on Intel(R) 64, Version 10.1
   Build 20080212 Package ID: l_fc_p_10.1.013
   Copyright (C) 1985-2008 Intel Corporation.  All rights reserved.
It's probably not worth trying to fix this, as IFORT 9.1 is now an ancient compiler version. Also, IFORT 10 gives you better performance and optimization anyway.
Aaron van Donkelaar replied:

KPP works fine with IFORT 10.0.023. Seems to have been a compiler issue.
IFORT 11
UPDATE: As of March 2010, GEOS-Chem is now compatible with Intel Fortran Compiler (aka IFORT) version 11.1.058 or higher versions. Bob Yantosca has done some timing tests with IFORT version 11.1.069.

--Bob Y. 16:36, 25 March 2010 (EDT)

ND65 diagnostic and KPP solver
Be advised, the ND65 prod/loss diagnostic will probably not work correctly when using the KPP solver. This is because the ND65 diagnostic arrays were manually written into the smvgear.f routine. Becuase the KPP solver code is automatically generated by a script (supplied to us by the Virginia Tech group), it was not possible to insert the ND65 arrays into the KPP routines.

Therefore, if you wish to obtain the ND65 prod/loss output, you should continue to use the SMVGEAR solver in GEOS-Chem.

XLF compiler not yet tested
The GEOS-Chem support team has not tested the new GEOS-Chem Makefile Structure using the IBM XLF compiler. Users who run GEOS-Chem on IBM machines are asked to inform the GEOS-Chem support team of any bugs or issues.

--Bob Y. 16:39, 13 October 2009 (EDT)


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 204 (Monday, October 22, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53281-53282]
[FR Doc No: 2018-22890]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2018-0001]

Notice of Adjustment of Disaster Grant Amounts

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: FEMA gives notice of an adjustment to the threshold for Small
Project subgrants made to state, tribal, and local governments and
private nonprofit facilities for disasters declared on or after October
1, 2018.

DATES: This adjustment applies to major disasters and emergencies
declared on or after October 1, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan Hoyes, Recovery Directorate,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207, as amended by the Sandy
Recovery Improvement Act, Public Law 113-2, provides that FEMA will
annually adjust the threshold for assistance provided under section
422, Simplified Procedures, relating to the Public Assistance program,
to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers
published by the Department of Labor.
    FEMA gives notice that $128,900 is the threshold for any Small
Project subgrant made to state, tribal, and local

governments or to the owner or operator of an eligible private
nonprofit facility under section 422 of the Stafford Act for all major
disasters or emergencies declared on or after October 1, 2018.
    FEMA bases the adjustment on an increase in the Consumer Price
Index for All Urban Consumers of 2.7 percent for the 12-month period
that ended in August 2018. This is based on information released by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics at the U.S. Department of Labor on September
13, 2018.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.036, Disaster Grants-
Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters)

Brock Long,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2018-22890 Filed 10-19-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-11-P


Meeting Osram Sylvania with Chemical Control Division re: Proposed
Clarification on Activated Phosphors.  March 5, 2008

Chair, Dave Schutz, CCD

OS suggested the following agenda items for this meeting, plus whatever

additional topics EPA wished to address:

      1.  Introductions

      2.  Description of Osram Sylvania's interest in EPA's Proposed

Clarification.

      3.  Discusson/clarification of certain aspects of the Proposed

Clarification -- e.g., proper Inventory nomenclature for future

Section 5 notices for phosphors;  the submittal and EPA review of

Section 5 notices during the one-year period.

The submittal of written comments on or before March 17.

Meeting took place March 5.  Attendees from Osram Sylvania were: Duncan
Turnbull, Carmen Venezia, Joseph Delehant, Blake Biles.

Attendees from EPA were: David Schutz, Donald Sadowsky, Doyoung Lee,
Kent Anapolle, Roy Seidenstein.

Osram noted that it has been relying on EPA’s guidance that activated
phosphors were solid mixtures for many years.  The correction EPA has
proposed will require a number of PMNs from Osram for what seem to be
minor changes.  Osram has submitted PMNs for the host part of the
phosphors it manufactures.  Osram would like guidance on when an
activator is significant, and the extent to which variable compositions
using the same materials will trigger separate identities.  Also, Osram
may have some situations in which it believes its phosphors can be
considered to be solid solutions, that is they could be considered not
to meet the criteria EPA identified in its FR notice as requiring
activated phosphors to have Inventory identities of their own.

As a second issue, Osram stated that this EPA proposal amounts to a
regulation of existing chemical substances.  A number of materials which
will be noticed under the EPA proposal are in manufacture now.  If
testing is required for these materials, and the testing time period
will be longer than the end of the year contemplated for coming into
compliance, a manufacturer can be required to stop production for that
material until the testing is submitted.  This is §6 regulation done
under the color of §5.  Osram thinks that this kind of regulation, if
undertaken, should be done under §§ 4 and 6.  Some of these materials
will likely require 90-day studies if they are in the category
respirable/poorly soluble.   Downstream customers can be required to
change materials.  There will probably not be a consortium for this
testing.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 34 (Wednesday, February 22, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 11375]
[FR Doc No: 2017-03424]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

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

Extension:
    Rule 32a-4, SEC File No. 270-473, OMB Control No. 3235-0530.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collections
of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit these
existing collections of information to the Office of Management and
Budget (``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    Section 32(a)(2) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C.
80a 31(a)(2)) (``Act'') requires that the selection of a registered
management investment company's or registered face-amount certificate
company's (collectively, ``funds'') independent public accountant be
submitted to shareholders for ratification or rejection. Rule 32a-4
under the Investment Company Act (17 CFR 270.32a-4) exempts a fund from
this requirement if, among other things, the fund has an audit
committee consisting entirely of independent directors. The rule
permits continuing oversight of a fund's accounting and auditing
processes by an independent audit committee in place of a shareholder
vote.
    Among other things, in order to rely on rule 32a-4, a fund's board
of directors must adopt an audit committee charter and must preserve
that charter, and any modifications to the charter, permanently in an
easily accessible place. The purpose of these conditions is to ensure
that Commission staff will be able to monitor the duties and
responsibilities of an audit committee of a fund relying on the rule.
    Commission staff estimates that on average the board of directors
takes 15 minutes to adopt the audit committee charter. Commission staff
has estimated that with an average of 8 directors on the board,\1\
total director time to adopt the charter is 2 hours. Combined with an
estimated \1/2\ hour of paralegal time to prepare the charter for board
review, the staff estimates a total one-time collection of information
burden of 2\1/2\ hours for each fund. Once a board adopts an audit
committee charter, the charter is preserved as part of the fund's
records. Commission staff estimates that there is no annual hourly
burden associated with preserving the charter in accordance with this
rule.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This estimate is based on staff experience and on
discussions with a representative of an entity that surveys funds
and calculates fund board statistics based on responses to its
surveys.
    \2\ This estimate is based on staff experience and discussions
with funds regarding the hour burden related to maintenance of the
charter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because virtually all existing funds have now adopted audit
committee charters, the annual one-time collection of information
burden associated with adopting audit committee charters is limited to
the burden incurred by newly established funds. Commission staff
estimates that fund sponsors establish approximately 112 new funds each
year,\3\ and that all of these funds will adopt an audit committee
charter in order to rely on rule 32a-4. Thus, Commission staff
estimates that the annual one-time hour burden associated with adopting
an audit committee charter under rule 32a-4 is approximately 280
hours.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This estimate is based on the average number of
notifications of registration on Form N-8A filed from 2013-2015.
    \4\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: (2.5
burden hours for establishing charter x 112 new funds = 280 burden
hours).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When funds adopt an audit committee charter in order to rely on
rule 32a-4, they also may incur one-time costs related to hiring
outside counsel to prepare the charter. Commission staff estimates that
those costs average approximately $1500 per fund.\5\ As noted above,
Commission staff estimates that approximately 112 new funds each year
will adopt an audit committee charter in order to rely on rule 32a-4.
Thus, Commission staff estimates that the ongoing annual cost burden
associated with rule 32a-4 in the future will be approximately
$168,000.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Costs may vary based on the individual needs of each fund.
However, based on the staff's experience and conversations with
outside counsel that prepare these charters, legal fees related to
the preparation and adoption of an audit committee charter usually
average $1500 or less. The Commission also understands that model
audit committee charters are available, which reduces the costs
associated with drafting a charter.
    \6\ This estimate is based on the following calculations: ($1500
cost of adopting charter x 112 newly established funds = $168,000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These estimates of average costs are made solely for the purposes
of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The estimates are not derived from a
comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of
Commission rules. The collections of information required by rule 32a-4
are necessary to obtain the benefits of the rule. The Commission is
seeking OMB approval, because an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid control number.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information has practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimates of the burdens
of the collections of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burdens of the collections of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other
forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to
comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this
publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549; or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: February 15, 2017.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-03424 Filed 2-21-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 216 (Tuesday, November 8, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69217-69222]
[FR Doc No: 2011-28896]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0636; FRL-9488-9]

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; State of
Utah; Smoke Management Requirements for Mandatory Class I Areas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision package submitted by the State of Utah on September 29, 2011.
The September 29, 2011 revision establishes rule R307-204 of the Utah
Administrative Code (UAC). R307-204 contains smoke management
requirements for land managers within the State of Utah as required by
regulations for regional haze. The September 29, 2011 submittal
supersedes and replaces R307-204 submitted as part of the State's
December 12, 2003 Regional Haze (RH) SIP. The September 29, 2011
submittal also supersedes and replaces the State's May 8, 2006
submittal of R307-204.
    EPA is also proposing to partially approve a SIP revision submitted
by the State of Utah on May 26, 2011. Specifically, EPA is proposing to
approve section XX.G of the State's RH SIP which contains the State's
long-term strategy for fire programs as required by the regulations.
The May 26, 2011 submittal supersedes and replaces SIP revisions to
section XX.G of the RH SIP submitted by the State on December 12, 2003
and September 9, 2008. This action is being taken under section 110 of
the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 8, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2011-0636, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> (please alert the individual listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
     Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air Program, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.
     Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director, Air Program,
Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado
80202-1129. Such deliveries are only accepted Monday through Friday, 8
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. Special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-
2011-0636. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA, without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional instructions on submitting
comments, go to Section I. General Information of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly-available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You
may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4
p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurel Dygowski, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials as follows:
    (i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air
Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (ii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
    (iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
    (iv) The words Utah and State mean the State of Utah.

Table of Contents

I. General Information
    What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
II. Background
    A. Introduction to the Regional Haze Rule
    B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR)
    C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
    D. Development of the Requirements for 40 CFR 51.309
III. What are the requirements for RH SIPs submitted under 40 CFR
51.309?
IV. EPA's Analysis of the State's Submittals
    A. Background of Submittals
    B. Requirements Under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. General Information

    What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    a. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    b. Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    c. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    d. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    e. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    f. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    g. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    h. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

II. Background

A. Introduction to the Regional Haze Rule

    Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a
multitude of sources and activities which are located across a broad
geographic area and emit fine particles (PM2.5) (e.g.,
sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust),
and their precursors (e.g., SO2, NOX, and in some
cases, ammonia (NH3) and volatile organic compounds (VOC)).
Fine particle precursors react in the atmosphere to form fine
particulate matter which impairs visibility by scattering and absorbing
light. Visibility impairment reduces the clarity, color, and visible
distance that one can see. PM2.5 can also cause serious
health effects and mortality in humans and contributes to environmental
effects such as acid deposition and eutrophication.
    Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the
``Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments'' (IMPROVE)
monitoring network, show that visibility

impairment caused by air pollution occurs virtually all the time at
most national park and wilderness areas. The average visual range \1\
in many Class I areas (i.e., national parks and memorial parks,
wilderness areas, and international parks meeting certain size
criteria) in the western United States is 100-150 kilometers, or about
one-half to two-thirds of the visual range that would exist without
anthropogenic air pollution. In most of the eastern Class I areas of
the United States, the average visual range is less than 30 kilometers,
or about one-fifth of the visual range that would exist under estimated
natural conditions. (64 FR 35715).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Visual range is the greatest distance, in kilometers or
miles, at which a dark object can be viewed against the sky.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR)

    In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national
goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing,
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas \2\ which
impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' Congress added section
169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional haze issues. EPA
promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1, 1999 (64 FR
35713), the regional haze rule (RHR). The RHR revised the existing
visibility regulations to integrate into the regulation provisions
addressing regional haze impairment and established a comprehensive
visibility protection program for Class I areas. The requirements for
regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included in EPA's
visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-309. The requirement
to submit a regional haze SIP applies to all 50 states, the District of
Columbia and the Virgin Islands.\3\ 40 CFR 51.308(b) and 40 CFR
51.309(c) required states to submit the first implementation plan
addressing regional haze visibility impairment no later than December
17, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist
of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a).
In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation
with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas
where visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 69122
(November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C.
7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate as Class I
additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an
important value, the requirements of the visibility program set
forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I
Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the
responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' 42 U.S.C. 7602(i).
When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this action, we mean a
``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
    \3\ Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico must also submit
a regional haze SIP to completely satisfy the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico
under the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 74-2-4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze

    Successful implementation of the regional haze program will require
long-term regional coordination among states, tribal governments and
various federal agencies. As noted above, pollution affecting the air
quality in Class I areas can be transported over long distances, even
hundreds of kilometers. Therefore, to effectively address the problem
of visibility impairment in Class I areas, states need to develop
strategies in coordination with one another, taking into account the
effect of emissions from one jurisdiction on the air quality in
another.
    Because the pollutants that lead to regional haze can originate
from sources located across broad geographic areas, EPA has encouraged
the states and tribes across the United States to address visibility
impairment from a regional perspective. Five regional planning
organizations (RPOs) were developed to address regional haze and
related issues. The RPOs first evaluated technical information to
better understand how their states and tribes impact Class I areas
across the country, and then pursued the development of regional
strategies to reduce emissions of particulate matter (PM) and other
pollutants leading to regional haze.
    The Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) RPO is a collaborative
effort of state governments, tribal governments, and various federal
agencies established to initiate and coordinate activities associated
with the management of regional haze, visibility and other air quality
issues in the western United States. WRAP member State governments
include: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New
Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and
Wyoming. Tribal members include Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians,
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Cortina Indian Rancheria, Hopi
Tribe, Hualapai Nation of the Grand Canyon, Native Village of Shungnak,
Nez Perce Tribe, Northern Cheyenne Tribe, Pueblo of Acoma, Pueblo of
San Felipe, and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of Fort Hall.

D. Development of the Requirements for 40 CFR 51.309

    EPA's RHR provides two paths to address regional haze. One is 40
CFR 51.308 (Section 308), and requires states to perform source by
source BART determinations and evaluate the need for other control
strategy development. These strategies must be shown to make
``reasonable progress'' in improving visibility in Class I areas inside
the state and in neighboring jurisdictions. The other path states may
take to address regional haze is 40 CFR 51.309 (Section 309), and is an
option for nine states termed the ``transport region states'' which
includes: Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico,
Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming, and the 211 Tribes located within those
states. Section 309 requires states to adopt regional haze strategies
that are based on recommendations from the Grand Canyon Visibility
Transport Commission (GCVTC) for protecting the 16 Class I areas in the
Colorado Plateau area \4\. GCVTC recommendations included strategies
for addressing smoke emissions from wildland fires and agricultural
burning, provisions to prevent pollution by encouraging renewable
energy development, provisions regarding clean air corridors, mobile
sources, and wind-blown dust, among other things. The EPA codified
these recommendations as part of the 1999 RHR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Colorado Plateau is a high, semi-arid tableland in
southeast Utah, northern Arizona, northwest New Mexico, and western
Colorado. The 16 mandatory Class I areas are as follows: Grand
Canyon National Park, Mount Baldy Wilderness, Petrified Forest
National Park, Sycamore Canyon Wilderness, Black Canyon of the
Gunnison National Park Wilderness, Flat \4\Tops Wilderness, Maroon
Bells Wilderness, Mesa Verde National Park, Weminuche Wilderness,
West Elk Wilderness, San Pedro Parks Wilderness, Arches National
Park, Bryce Canyon National Park, Canyonlands National Park, Capital
Reef National Park, and Zion National Park.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What are the requirements for RH SIPs submitted under 40 CFR
51.309?

    As discussed above, the GCVTC had numerous recommendations for
protecting the 16 Class I areas of the Colorado Plateau that EPA
adopted as part of the Section 309 RHR. This proposed action only
addresses the requirements pertaining to programs related to fire of 40
CFR 51.309(d)(6). Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6), a state must show
that its smoke management program and all federal or private programs
for prescribed fire in the state have a mechanism in place for
evaluating and addressing the degree of

visibility impairment from smoke in their planning and application of
burning. A state must also ensure that its prescribed fire smoke
management programs have at least the following seven elements: actions
to minimize emissions, evaluation of smoke dispersion, alternatives to
fire, public notification, air quality monitoring, surveillance and
enforcement, and program evaluation.
    States must include in their section 309 plan a statewide process
for gathering the essential post-burn activity information to support
emissions inventory and tracking systems. States must identify existing
administrative barriers to the use of non-burning alternatives and
adopt a process for continuing to identify and remove administrative
barriers where feasible. The SIP must include an enhanced smoke
management program, which means the smoke management program considers
visibility and is based on the criteria of efficiency, economics, law,
emission reduction opportunities, land management objectives, and
reduction of visibility impairment. States must also adopt a process to
establish annual emission goals to minimize emission increases from
fire.

IV. EPA's Analysis of the State's Submittals

A. Background of Submittals

    On December 12, 2003, the State of Utah submitted a RH SIP intended
to meet all of the requirements under 40 CFR 51.309. This submittal
adopted SIP section XX-Regional Haze as well as UAC R-307-204 Emissions
Standards: Smoke Management. The State revised the smoke management
requirements of R307-204 in a May 8, 2006 submittal and then again in
its September 29, 2011 submittal. The September 29, 2011 submittal
supersedes and replaces the R307-204 portion of the December 12, 2003
submittal and all of the May 8, 2006 submittal. R307-204 contains
provisions necessary to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)
which pertain to smoke management.
    Section XX.G--Long-Term Strategy for Fire Programs of the State's
RH SIP also contains provisions necessary to meet the requirements of
40 CFR 51.309(d)(6). The State originally submitted Section XX.G with
its December 12, 2003 RH SIP submittal. The State resubmitted this
section with subsequent SIP revisions on September 9, 2008 and May 26,
2011. Section XX.G of the May 26, 2011 submittal supersedes and
replaces Section XX.G of the December 12, 2003 and September 9, 2008
submittals.
    EPA will be taking action on the remainder of the December 12,
2003, September 9, 2008, and May 26, 2011 submittals at a later date.

B. Requirements Under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)

1. Evaluation of Current Fire Programs
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(i), the State of Utah has evaluated
all federal, state, and private prescribed fire programs in the State.
The State based the evaluation on the potential of the programs to
contribute to visibility impairment in the 16 mandatory Class I areas
of the Colorado Plateau and how visibility protection from smoke is
addressed in planning and operation of the programs. The State relied
upon the WRAP report Assessing Status of Incorporating Smoke Effects
into Fire Planning and Operation (found in section G of the Utah
Technical Support Document (TSD)) as a guide for making this
evaluation. The State of Utah also evaluated whether these prescribed
fire programs contain the following elements: actions to minimize
emissions; evaluation of smoke dispersion; alternatives to fire; public
notification; air quality monitoring; surveillance and enforcement; and
program evaluation.
    Based on this evaluation, the State adopted R307-204 \5\. The State
also adopted the Utah Enhanced Smoke Management Plan (ESMP) (found in
Section G of the Utah TSD). The ESMP serves as a guide for land
managers to implement the requirements of R307-204. The following
discusses how R307-204, in conjunction with the ESMP, meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(i). The following requirements
apply to large wildland fire use events \6\, large prescribed fires and
large pile burns occurring on wildlands \7\. R307-204 does not apply to
agricultural burning as discussed later in this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The rule was adopted by the Air Quality Board (AQB) in
November 2003. Amendments to R307-204 were adopted by the AQB in
April 2006 and July 2011.
    \6\ Wildland Fire Use Event means naturally ignited wildland
fire that is managed to accomplish specific pre-stated resource
management objectives in predefined geographic areas.
    \7\ Large Prescribed Fires are fires that cover 20 acres or more
per burn. Large Prescribed Pile Fires are fires that exceed 30,000
cubic feet per day. Large Wildland Fire Use Events are those greater
than 20 acres.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Actions to Minimize Fire Emissions
    R307-204 has two requirements directed at minimizing fire
emissions: use of emission reduction techniques \8\ by land managers
and the establishment by the State of annual emission goals for fire.
Land managers must utilize emission reduction techniques as appropriate
to minimize fire emissions and provide the State documentation of the
techniques used. The State will establish an annual emission goal prior
to the beginning of the fire season with the intention of minimizing
emission increases from fire. The State will establish the annual
emission goal in cooperation with other states, federal land management
agencies, and private entities. To establish the goal, the State will
determine if there are feasible emission reduction techniques for
upcoming prescribed fire projects and will quantify the benefit from
using the techniques.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ An Emission Reduction Technique is a technique for
controlling emissions from prescribed fires to minimize the amount
of emissions produced per unit or acre burned
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Evaluation of Smoke Dispersion
    R307-204 requires land managers to submit burn plan information for
approval from the executive secretary prior to ignition of any large
burn in accordance with 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(ii). The pre-burn
information must identify any sensitive receptor, including any Class I
or non-attainment area within 15 miles, distance and direction of the
sensitive receptor in degrees from the project site, and a map that
shows the daytime and nighttime smoke path and down-drainage flow for a
minimum of 15 miles from the burn site. This information, in addition
to the fire prescription \9\ that is submitted as part of the burn plan
prepared by the land manager, provides field level data that is
essential for determining the dispersion of smoke from a fire and what
areas it may potentially impact. Land managers are also required by
R307-204 to use smoke or visibility modeling to predict the impacts of
the fire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Fire Prescription means the measurable criteria that define
conditions under which a prescribed fire may be ignited, guide
selection of appropriate management responses, and indicates other
required actions. Prescription criteria may include safety,
economic, public health, environmental, geographic, administrative,
social, or legal considerations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Alternatives to Fire
    Pursuant to R307-204-4(4), beginning in 2004 and annually
thereafter, each land manager is required to submit to the executive
secretary a list of areas treated using non-burning alternatives to
fire during the previous calendar year, including the number of acres,
the

specific types of alternatives used, and the location of these areas.
d. Public Notification of Burning
    Utah provides public information on current burning on a Web site
at http://www.utahfireinfo.gov. In addition, land managers must include
public notification procedures in their burn plan required by R307-204.
e. Air Quality Monitoring
    Pursuant to R307-204, land managers shall monitor the effects of
the prescribed fire on smoke sensitive receptors and on visibility in
Class I areas. The method of monitoring, either visual or with
instrumentation, is specified as part of the burn plan.
f. Surveillance and Enforcement
    State staff conduct site inspections on prescribed fires that are
close to Class I areas to verify compliance with the burn plan on an
as-needed basis. The State generates reports after the inspection with
the results of that inspection.
g. Program Evaluation
    The State in conjunction with land managers will conduct an annual
effectiveness review of the smoke management programs in the State. A
formal progress report will be completed every five years as required
by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(ii).
h. Agricultural Fire
    The WRAP emission inventory shows that agricultural burning is a
very small portion of total emissions in Utah. According to the WRAP
inventory, Utah agriculture burning accounts for only .25% of Utah's
total emissions of PM, PM2.5, SO2,
NOX, VOC, and carbon monoxide. Utah's agriculture emissions
comprise approximately three-quarters of a percent to one percent of
the WRAP region emissions for agriculture burning for the same
pollutants as those listed above. The State has concluded from this
information that agricultural burning does not significantly contribute
to visibility impairment in any Class I area. Thus, agricultural land
managers are not subject to the R307-204 or other State requirements
for smoke management.
2. Emission Inventory and Tracking System
a. Wildlands Inventory
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(ii) and R307-204, the State
maintains a fire emissions inventory for volatile organic compounds,
nitrogen oxides, elemental and organic carbon, and fine particulate.
The fires in the State are tracked in the WRAP Fire Emission Tracking
System (FETS). The FETS is a web-enabled database for planned and
unplanned fire events. The FETS is a planning tool for daily smoke
management coordination, and retrospective analyses such as emission
inventories and regional haze air quality planning tasks (see http://wrapfets.org).
b. Agricultural Lands Inventory
    To meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(ii), the State will
work collaboratively with the Utah Farm Bureau Federation and Utah
State University Extension to develop and implement an inventory and
emissions tracking system for agricultural burning. A survey conducted
in 2003 by the Utah State University Extension, in collaboration with
the Utah Farm Bureau Federation, will be used by the State as a
baseline for future emissions tracking activities. The State will
conduct emission tracking activities on a periodic basis to determine
if any significant changes have been made since the 2003 survey.
Results from the periodic emission tracking activities will be provided
in future progress reports to EPA required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10).
3. Identification and Removal of Administrative Barriers
    The State and land managers for fire will annually assess whether
administrative barriers to the use of non-burning alternatives exist.
If a specific administrative barrier is identified as a result of this
annual evaluation, the State will investigate how this barrier may be
removed, if feasible, and will work collaboratively with land managers
to remove the barrier as required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(iii). An
evaluation of the administrative barriers to the use of the non-burning
alternatives, if any, will be included in the formal progress report to
EPA every five years as required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10).
4. Enhanced Smoke Management Program
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(iv), the State has determined that
all smoke management programs that operate within Utah are consistent
with the WRAP Enhanced Smoke Management Programs for Visibility Policy
(see Section G of the Utah TSD for a complete copy of this policy).
This policy calls for programs to be based on the criteria of
efficiency, economics, law, emission reduction opportunities, land
management objectives, and reduction of visibility impacts.
5. Annual Emission Goals
    R307-204 requires the State to establish annual emission goals in
accordance with 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(v). Pursuant to the State's ESMP,
the annual emission goals will seek to minimize emission increases in
fire, excluding wildfire, to the maximum extent feasible.
    Based on our analysis and evaluation of section XX.G of the Utah
May 26, 2011 SIP submittal and R307-204 of the September 29, 2011
submittal, EPA concludes that the State has met all of the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6).

V. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve a SIP revision submitted by the State
of Utah on September 29, 2011. The September 29, 2011 revision
establishes rule R307-204 of the Utah Administrative Code (UAC). R307-
204 contains smoke management requirements for land managers within the
State of Utah as required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6) for regional haze. The
September 29, 2011 submittal supersedes and replaces R307-204 submitted
as part of the State's December 12, 2003 regional haze SIP. The
September 29, 2011 submittal also supersedes and replaces the State's
May 8, 2006 submittal of R307-204. EPA is also proposing to partially
approve a SIP revision submitted by the State of Utah on May 26, 2011.
Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve section XX.G of the State's
Regional Haze (RH) SIP which contains the State's long-term strategy
for fire programs as required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6). The May 26, 2011
submittal supersedes and replaces SIP revisions to section XX.G of the
RH SIP submitted by the State on December 12, 2003 and September 9,
2008.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations (42 U.S.C. 7410(k), 40 CFR 52.02(a)). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely approves some state law as meeting Federal
requirements and disapproves other state law because it does not meet
Federal requirements; this proposed action does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office

of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); is not an
economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety
risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and,
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have Tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.

    Dated: October 28, 2011.
James B. Martin,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2011-28896 Filed 11-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: June 29, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 123)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 30914-30917]
[DOCID:fr29jn09-3]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0198; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-129-AD;
Amendment 39-15941; AD 2009-13-02]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0100 Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding an existing airworthiness directive
(AD),

which applies to certain Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0100 airplanes. That AD
currently requires revisions to the airplane flight manual (AFM) to
include procedures to prohibit use of reverse engine thrust power
settings between idle and emergency maximum and to prohibit stabilized
engine operation in a certain engine speed range on the ground. This
new AD continues to require revising the AFM to include certain
procedures. This AD also requires removing the normal maximum (second)
detent for the reverse-thrust control. In addition, this AD requires
revising the AFM to prohibit use of reverse thrust in flight and to
limit operation of Max Reverse thrust. This AD results from issuance of
mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an
aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. We are issuing this AD to prevent
inadvertent operation in the prohibited stabilized engine speed range
on the ground, which could result in uncontained engine fan blade
failure due to high cycle fatigue cracking.

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

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 231, 2150 AE
Nieuw-Vennep, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)252-627-350; fax +31
(0)252-627-211; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.myfokkerfleet.com. You may review copies of the
referenced 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
425-227-1152.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the Document Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1137; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to include an AD that supersedes AD 98-06-07, amendment 39-
10384 (63 FR 11985, March 12, 1998). The existing AD applies to certain
Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0100 airplanes. That NPRM was published in the
Federal Register on March 6, 2009 (74 FR 9774). That NPRM proposed to
continue to require revising the AFM to include procedures prohibiting
stabilized engine operation in a certain engine speed range on the
ground. That NPRM also proposed to require removing the normal maximum
(second) detent for the reverse-thrust control. In addition, that NPRM
proposed to revise the AFM to prohibit use of reverse thrust in flight
and to limit operation of Max Reverse thrust.

Comments

    We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the
development of this AD. No comments have been received on the NPRM or
on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that
air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

Costs of Compliance

    The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators
to comply with this AD.

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
                                                                Average      Cost per      U.S.-
                     Action                       Work hours   labor rate    airplane    registered   Fleet cost
                                                                per hour                 airplanes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFM revision (required by AD 98-06-07).........            1          $80          $80            5         $400
Removal of second detent (new action)..........            3           80          240            5        1,200
AFM revision (new action)......................            1           80           80            5          400
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 have determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866;
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under 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. See the ADDRESSES
section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

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 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec.  39.13 by
removing amendment 39-10384 (63 FR 11985, March 12, 1998) and by adding
the following new airworthiness directive (AD):

2009-13-02 Fokker Services B.V.: Amendment 39-15941. Docket No. FAA-
2009-0198; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-129-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD becomes effective August 3, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 98-06-07.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0100 airplanes,
certificated in any category, equipped with Rolls-Royce (RR) TAY
650-15 engines.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 76: Engine
controls.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD results from issuance of mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority
of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. We are issuing this AD to prevent inadvertent
operation in the prohibited stabilized engine speed range on the
ground, which could result in uncontained engine fan blade failure
due to high cycle fatigue cracking.

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Certain Requirement of AD 98-06-07

Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) Revision

    (g) Within 72 hours after March 27, 1998 (the effective date of
AD 98-06-07), revise the Limitations Section of the FAA-approved AFM
to add the following. This may be accomplished by inserting a copy
of this AD in the AFM.

``LIMITATIONS POWERPLANT and APU LIMITATIONS

OPERATING LIMITS

     To avoid high fan blade stresses, stabilized operation
in the speed range between 60% and 75% Low Pressure Rotational Speed
(N1) is not permitted during Ground Operations in Forward or Reverse
Thrust, except that passing through this range while increasing or
decreasing thrust is permitted.

THRUST REVERSER

    Thrust reversers are intended for ground use only. Intentional
use of reverse thrust in flight is prohibited. After reverse thrust
has been initiated, a full stop landing must be made.

Maximum Reverse Thrust Lever Positions

    Normal Operation:
--The idle detent position shall not be exceeded in normal
operation.
--Momentarily exceeding the idle detent position, while selecting
idle reverse, is acceptable.

    Emergency Operation:
--In case of emergency, the emergency maximum reverse thrust may be
used.
--If directional control problems occur, reduce to idle reverse or
select forward idle.
--Stabilized operation with the reverse lever in an intermediate
position between idle reverse and emergency maximum reverse is
prohibited, except (where approved) during Power-Back operations.''

    Note 1: Fokker Services Manual Change Notification--Operational
Documentation (MCNO) No. F100-006, dated November 27, 1997, contains
information that pertains to this subject. Rolls-Royce PLC Engine
Operating Instruction Manual Reference F-TAY-3RR, revised by
transmittal letter No. 13, dated October 15, 1997, also pertains to
this subject.

New Actions Required by This AD

Removal of Normal Maximum Detent

    (h) Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, remove
the normal maximum (second) detent for the reverse-thrust control,
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service
Bulletin SBF100-76-014, Revision 2, dated December 12, 2007.
Accomplishing the removal terminates the requirements of paragraph
(g) of this AD.
    (i) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-76-014, dated October
1, 2001; or Revision 1, dated June 1, 2002; are acceptable for
compliance with the requirements of paragraph (h) of this AD.

AFM Revision

    (j) Concurrently with the requirements of paragraph (h) of this
AD, revise the Limitations Section of the Fokker F.28 Mark 0100 AFM
to include the following (this may be accomplished by inserting a
copy of this AD into the AFM):

``THRUST REVERSERS

    Thrust reversers are intended for ground use only. Intentional
use of reverse thrust in flight is prohibited.
    The use of Max Reverse thrust is limited to operations on short
runways or on runways with a reduced runway surface friction
coefficient or in emergency conditions. Max Reverse thrust shall not
be used at airspeeds below 60 knots except in emergency conditions.
    Reverse thrust selections between Idle Reverse thrust and Max
Reverse thrust are prohibited.''

    Note 2: Fokker Manual Change Notification--Operational
Documentation (MCNO) F100-032, Revision 1, dated September 21, 2007,
contains information related to the AFM revision required by
paragraph (j) of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (k) 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 Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 227-1137; 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.

Related Information

    (l) European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive
2008-0089, dated May 13, 2008, also addresses the subject of this
AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (m) You must use Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-76-014, Revision
2, dated December 12, 2007, as applicable, to do the actions
required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (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
Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 231, 2150
AE Nieuw-Vennep, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)252-627-350; fax
+31 (0)252-627-211; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://
www.myfokkerfleet.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 June 16, 2009.
Dorr M. Anderson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E9-14676 Filed 6-26-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P