[Federal Register: August 22, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 162)]
[Notices]
[Page 47105-47107]
[DOCID:fr22au07-164]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56263; File No. SR-ISE-2007-69]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change Relating to the Extension of a Pilot Period To Increase Position
Limits and Exercise Limits for Equity Options and Options on the
Nasdaq-100 Tracking Stock

August 15, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on August 13, 2007, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE''
or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by ISE. The
Exchange has filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon filing with the
Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    ISE proposes to extend the time period for Exchange Rule 412 and
Rule 414 position and exercise limits pilot program for equity option
contracts and options on the Nasdaq-100 Index Tracking Stock (``QQQQ'')
(``Pilot Program''). The text of the proposed rule change is available
at ISE, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and http://www.ise.com.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, ISE included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Pilot Program provides for an increase to the standard position
and exercise limits for equity option contracts and for options on
QQQQs.\5\ The Pilot Program, after being extended on prior
occasions,\6\ is set to expire on September 1, 2007.\7\ Specifically,
the Pilot Program increased the applicable position and exercise limits
for equity options and options on the QQQQ to the following levels:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Current equity option contract        Pilot program equity option
             limit \8\                          contract limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         13,500                               25,000
                         22,500                               50,000
                         31,500                               75,000
                         60,000                              200,000
                         75,000                              250,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Current QQQQ option contract limit  Pilot program QQQQ option contract
                                                               limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        300,000                              900,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to extend the Pilot
Program for an additional six-month period, until March 1, 2008. The
Exchange believes that extending the Pilot Program for this additional
period is warranted due to the positive feedback from members and for
the reasons cited in the original rule filing that proposed the
adoption of the Pilot Program.\9\ Additionally, the Exchange represents
that it has not experienced any problems or difficulties relating to
the Pilot Program since its inception. For these reasons, the Exchange
requests that the Commission extend the Pilot Program until March 1,
2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51295 (March 2,
2005), 70 FR 11292 (March 8, 2005) (SR-ISE-2005-14) (``Pilot Program
Notice'').
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 54335 (August 18,
2006), 71 FR 50954 (August 28, 2006) (SR-ISE-2006-47); 53345
(February 22, 2006), 71 FR 10579 (March 1, 2006) (SR-ISE-2006-10);
and 52265 (August 15, 2005), 70 FR 48996 (August 22, 2005) (SR-ISE-
2005-39).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55311 (February 16,
2007), 72 FR 8408 (February 26, 2007) (SR-ISE-2007-15).
    \8\ Except when the Pilot Program is in effect.
    \9\ See Pilot Program Notice, supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \10\ in general, and furthers the objective of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \11\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade and to protect investors
and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the forgoing rule change does not: (1) Significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (2) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (3) become operative for 30 days
after the date of this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission
may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not
become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.\14\
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \15\ permits the Commission to designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Commission believes
that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and in the public interest because it will
allow the Pilot Program to continue uninterrupted. For this reason, the
Commission designates that the proposed rule change become operative
immediately.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) requires that a self-regulatory organization submit to
the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed
rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed
rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing
of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by
the Commission. ISE has satisfied the five-day pre-filing
requirement.
    \15\ Id.
    \16\ For the purposes only of waiving the operative delay, the
Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File No. SR-ISE-2007-69 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-ISE-2007-69. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing will also be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of ISE. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-ISE-2007-69 and should be
submitted on or before September 12, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-16527 Filed 8-21-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 127 (Wednesday, July 5, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30958-30961]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13763]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-0461; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-159-AD;
Amendment 39-18937; AD 2017-13-07]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. This AD was
prompted by a report that a main landing gear (MLG) door could not be
closed due to rupture of the actuator fitting. This AD requires
repetitive inspections for cracking of the MLG door actuator fitting
and its components, and corrective actions if necessary. This AD also
requires eventual replacement of all affected MLG door actuator
fittings with new monoblock fittings, which would terminate the
repetitive inspections. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective August 9, 2017.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of August 9,
2017.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax
+33 5 61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet
http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
0461.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
0461; 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 street address for the Docket Office (telephone
800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to
amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus
Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The SNPRM published in the
Federal Register on April 7, 2017 (82 FR 16948) (``the SNPRM''). We
preceded the SNPRM with a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that
published in the Federal Register on January 28, 2016 (81 FR 4901)
(``the NPRM''). The NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections for
cracking of the MLG door actuator fitting and its components, and
corrective actions if necessary. The NPRM also proposed to require
eventual replacement of all affected MLG door actuator fittings with
new monoblock fittings, which would terminate the repetitive
inspections. The NPRM was prompted by a report that an MLG door could
not be closed due to rupture of the actuator fitting. The SNPRM
proposed to revise the NPRM by reducing the compliance time for
replacing the MLG actuator fitting and removing an inspection
requirement for certain airplanes. We are issuing this AD to prevent
rupture of the door actuator fittings, which could result in detachment
of an MLG door and subsequent exterior damage and consequent reduced
structural integrity of the airplane.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2016-0182, dated September 13, 2016 (referred
to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model
A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    On one A320 aeroplane, it was reported that one of the main
landing gear (MLG) doors could not be closed. Investigations
revealed the rupture of the actuator fitting at the actuator
attachment area on the door side. The MLG door is attached to the
aeroplane by 2 (two) hinge fittings.
    This condition, if not corrected, could, under certain
circumstances, lead to detachment of a MLG door from the aeroplane,
possibly resulting in damage to the aeroplane, and/or injury to
persons on the ground.
    Prompted by these findings, [Direction G[eacute]n[eacute]rale de
l'Aviation Civile] France issued * * * [an AD] * * *, to require a
MLG door actuator fitting inspection for cracks and to check the
grain direction on a batch of aeroplanes. Subsequently, DGAC France
issued * * * [an AD], retaining the requirements of DGAC France AD *
* *, which was superseded, to require an inspection of the lower
part of the MLG door actuator fitting.
    After that [DGAC] AD was issued, additional investigations
revealed that damage could also appear on the nerve area [of the
forward monoblock fitting], in the upper part of the MLG door
actuator fitting in the area of the hinge.
    Consequently, DGAC France issued F-2003-434, dated December 10,
2003 [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/F-2003-454] (EASA approval 2003-
1436), retaining the requirements of [a] DGAC France AD * * *, which
was superseded, to require additional repetitive inspections. That
[DGAC] AD also included an optional terminating action, by replacing
the MLG door actuator fittings in accordance with the instructions
of Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) A320-52-1073.
    After DGAC France AD F-2003-434 was issued, in the framework of
the extended service goal campaign, it was decided to make
replacement of the MLG door actuator fittings a required
modification. Consequently, EASA issued AD 2014-0166 * * *,
retaining the requirements of DGAC France AD F-2003-434, which was
superseded, and requiring replacement of the MLG door actuator
fittings with new monoblock fittings, which constitutes terminating
action for the repetitive inspections.
    After EASA AD 2014-0166 [corresponding to the NPRM] was issued,
errors were identified in the compliance time definitions.

Replacement of the MLG door actuator fittings was required ``before
exceeding 48,000 flight cycles (FC) or 96,000 flight hours (FH),
whichever occurs later since aeroplane first flight'', which should
have been ``whichever occurs first''. Furthermore, since the MLG
door is an interchangeable part, the compliance time must be defined
as FC/FH accumulated by the MLG door. Furthermore, it was discovered
that one of the required inspection[s] is applicable only to a batch
of MLG door fittings.
    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the
requirements of EASA AD 2014-0166, which is superseded, but requires
accomplishment of the terminating action within more stringent
compliance times, and reduce[s] the applicability of one of the
required inspection[s].

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
0461.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We considered the comments received. United Airlines and
commenter Lisa Stamps supported the SNPRM.

Clarification of Provisions for Excluded Airplanes

    In paragraph (l)(1) of the proposed AD (in the SNPRM), we
inadvertently omitted wording related to the prohibition on installing
certain MLG door actuator fittings on modified airplanes, which is
identified in step 10 of the EASA AD. We have added that provision to
paragraph (l)(1) of this AD.

Conclusion

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued the following service information:
     Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1073, Revision 04, dated
August 10, 1999.
     Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1073, Revision 05, dated
September 28, 2006.
    This service information describes procedures for replacement of
MLG door actuator fittings with new monoblock fittings. These documents
are distinct due to editorial revisions.
    Airbus has also issued the following service information:
     Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52A1086, Revision 01, dated
September 10, 1999. This service information describes procedures for
high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections for cracking of the MLG
door fittings, and low frequency eddy current (LFEC) inspections to
determine grain direction of raw material of each actuator fitting.
     Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1096, Revision 02, dated
July 12, 2006. This service information describes procedures for HFEC
inspections of both hinge and nerve areas of the MLG doors for
cracking.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 71 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We also estimate that it takes about 136 work-hours per product to
comply with the requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85
per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $6,258 per product. Based
on these figures, we estimate the cost for the actions required by this
AD on U.S. operators to be $1,265,078, or $17,818 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2017-13-07 Airbus: Amendment 39-18937; Docket No. FAA-2016-0461;
Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-159-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective August 9, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

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

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52, Doors.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report that a main landing gear (MLG)
door could not be closed due to rupture of the actuator fitting.

Later reports indicated that the forward monoblock fitting of the
MLG door actuator (referred to as the nerve area) could be damaged
after rupture of the actuator fitting. We are issuing this AD to
prevent rupture of the door actuator fittings, which could result in
detachment of an MLG door and subsequent exterior damage and
consequent reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Repetitive Inspections of MLG Door Actuator Fittings

    For airplanes equipped with MLG door actuator fittings having
part number (P/N) D52880224000 or P/N D52880224001 that were
installed before the first flight of the airplane on MLG doors
identified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD: Within 500
flight hours since the most recent high frequency eddy current
(HFEC) inspection done as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-
52A1086, Revision 01, dated September 10, 1999, or within 30 days
after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, perform
an HFEC inspection for cracking of the MLG door fittings, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A320-52A1086, Revision 01, dated September 10, 1999. Repeat
the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 500 flight
hours, except as provided by paragraphs (i), (j), and (k) of this
AD.
    (1) Left-hand MLG doors with serial numbers (S/Ns) 1206 through
1237 inclusive, 1239 through 1247 inclusive, and 1249 through 1251
inclusive.
    (2) Right-hand MLG doors with S/Ns 1208 through 1239 inclusive,
1241 through 1249 inclusive, and 1251.

(h) Repetitive Inspections of MLG Hinge and Nerve Areas

    For airplanes equipped with MLG door actuator fittings having P/
N D52880224000, P/N D52880224001, P/N D52880235000, or P/N
D52880235001 that were installed before the first flight of the
airplane on MLG doors identified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of
this AD: Within 400 flight cycles after the effective date of this
AD, or before the accumulation of 9,000 total flight cycles since
first flight of the airplane, whichever occurs later, perform an
HFEC inspection of both hinge and nerve areas of the MLG doors for
cracking, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1096, Revision 02, dated July 12,
2006. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed
800 flight cycles, except as provided by paragraphs (i)(1), (j), and
(k) of this AD.
    (1) Left-hand MLG doors with S/Ns 1206 through 1510 inclusive,
1548, 1564, and 2000 through 2065 inclusive.
    (2) Right-hand MLG doors with S/Ns 1208 through 1519 inclusive,
1551, and 2000 through 2065 inclusive.

(i) Inspections/Corrective Actions

    (1) If any crack is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (g) or (h) of this AD: Before further flight, replace the
affected MLG door actuator fittings with new monoblock fittings, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A320-52-1073, Revision 05, dated September 28, 2006.
Accomplishing this replacement terminates the repetitive inspections
required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.
    (2) If, during any HFEC inspection required by paragraph (g) of
this AD, no crack is found: Before further flight, perform a low
frequency eddy current (LFEC) inspection to determine the grain
direction of the raw material of each MLG actuator fitting, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A320-52A1086, Revision 01, dated September 10, 1999.
    (i) If the grain direction of the raw material is correct, the
repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD may be
terminated.
    (ii) If the grain direction of the raw material is incorrect,
repeat the HFEC inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD at
the time specified in paragraph (g) of this AD. Replacement of the
MLG door actuator fittings with new monoblock fittings as specified
in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD terminates the repetitive inspections
required by paragraphs (g) and (i)(2)(ii) of this AD.

(j) MLG Door Actuator Fitting Replacement

    For airplanes equipped with any MLG door actuator fitting having
P/N D52880102000, P/N D52880102001, P/N D52880220000, P/N
D52880220001, P/N D52880224000, P/N D52880224001, P/N D52880235000,
or P/N D52880235001: At the later of the times specified in
paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD, replace the MLG door
actuator fittings with new monoblock fittings, in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-
1073, Revision 05, dated September 28, 2006. Accomplishing this
replacement terminates the repetitive inspections required by
paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.
    (1) Before the accumulation of 48,000 total flight cycles or
96,000 total flight hours on the MLG door, whichever occurs first.
    (2) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.

(k) Optional Terminating Action

    Replacement of the MLG door actuator fittings with new monoblock
fittings, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1073, Revision 04, dated August 10,
1999; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1073, Revision 05, dated
September 28, 2006; terminates the repetitive inspections required
by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.

(l) Airplanes Excluded From Certain AD Requirements

    (1) For airplanes on which Airbus Modification 24903, or Airbus
Modification 25372, or Airbus Modification 36979 has been embodied
in production, no action is required by this AD, provided that no
MLG door actuator fitting having any part number identified in
paragraph (j) of this AD has been reinstalled on the airplane since
first flight; except the requirements of paragraph (m) of this AD
remain applicable to post-mod 24903, post-mod 25372 and post-mod
36979 airplanes.
    (2) Modification of an airplane by installing a version (P/N) of
the MLG door actuator fitting approved after the effective date of
this AD is acceptable for compliance with the requirements in
paragraph (j) of this AD, provided the conditions specified in
paragraphs (l)(2)(i) and (l)(2)(ii) are met.
    (i) The MLG door actuator fitting (P/N) must be approved by the
Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or
Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).
    (ii) The modification must be accomplished in accordance with
instructions approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.

(m) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an
MLG door actuator fitting having any part number identified in
paragraph (j) of this AD on any airplane.

(n) Other FAA AD Provisions

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

(o) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0182, dated September 13,
2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-0461.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan,
Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

(p) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1073, Revision 04, dated
August 10, 1999.
    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1073, Revision 05, dated
September 28, 2006.
    (iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52A1086, Revision 01, dated
September 10, 1999.
    (iv) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1096, Revision 02, dated
July 12, 2006.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5
61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 19, 2017.
John P. Piccola, Jr.,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-13763 Filed 7-3-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 244 (Monday, December 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 79325]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31971]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13821-002]

ORPC Alaska 2, LLC; Notice of Surrender of Preliminary Permit

    Take notice that ORPC Alaska 2, LLC, permittee for the proposed
East Foreland Tidal Energy Project, has requested that its preliminary
permit be terminated. A successive permit was issued on June 16, 2014,
and would have expired on June 1, 2016.\1\ The project would have been
located in Cook Inlet near Nikiski in the Kenai Peninsula Borough,
Alaska.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 147 FERC ] 62,207 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The preliminary permit for Project No. 13821 will remain in effect
until the close of business, January 13, 2016. But, if the Commission
is closed on this day, then the permit remains in effect until the
close of business on the next day in which the Commission is open.\2\
New applications for this site may not be submitted until after the
permit surrender is effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 18 CFR 385.2007(a)(2) (2015).

    Dated: December 14, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-31971 Filed 12-18-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 1, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 85)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 24036-24037]
[DOCID:fr01my08-20]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket No. FEMA-B-7736 & D-7820]

Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: On September 26, 2007, FEMA published in the Federal Register
a proposed rule that contained an erroneous table. This notice provides
corrections to that table, to be used in lieu of the information
published at 72 FR 54624. The table provided here represents the
flooding source, location of referenced elevation, effective and
modified elevation, and communities affected for the Town of Franklin
and the Unincorporated Areas of Macon County, North Carolina.
Specifically, it addresses flooding sources ``Cartoogechaye Creek,''
``Jones Creek,'' ``Poplar Cove Creek,'' ``Rabbit Creek,'' and ``Rocky
Branch.''

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before June 2, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-
7736 &D-7820, to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management
Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (e-mail)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief,
Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472
(202) 646-3151 or.(e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) publishes proposed determinations of Base (1% annual-chance)
Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified BFEs for communities participating
in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), in accordance with
section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain
management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are
required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must
change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their
floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact
stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established
by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These proposed
elevations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of
the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance
premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made
final, and for the contents in these buildings.

Correction

    In the proposed rule published at 72 FR 54624, in the September 26,
2007 issue of the Federal Register, FEMA published a table under the
authority of 44 CFR 67.4. The table, entitled ``Macon County, North
Carolina, and Incorporated Areas,'' addressed flooding sources
``Cartoogechaye Creek,'' ``Jones Creek,'' ``Poplar Cove Creek,''
``Rabbit Creek,'' and ``Rocky Branch.'' That table contained inaccurate
information as to the location of referenced elevation, effective and
modified elevation in feet, or communities affected for these flooding
sources.
    In this notice of correction, FEMA is publishing a new table to
address these errors. The table below should be used in lieu of that
previously published.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    +Elevation in feet
                                       Location of referenced             (NAVD)
         Flooding source(s)                  elevation**        -------------------------- Communities  affected
                                                                  Effective     Modified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Macon County, North Carolina and Incorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cartoogechaye Creek................  The confluence with Little         None       +2,024  Macon County
                                      Tennessee River.                                      (Unincorporated
                                                                                Areas), Town of
                                                                                Franklin.
                                     At the confluence of Jones         None       +2,178
                                      Creek and Poplar Cove
                                      Creek.
Jones Creek........................  At the confluence with             None       +2,178  Macon County
                                      Poplar Cove Creek and                                 (Unincorporated
                                      Cartoogechaye Creek.                                  Areas).
                                     At the confluence of               None       +2,232
                                      Allison Creek.
Poplar Cove Creek..................  At the confluence with             None       +2,178  Macon County
                                      Cartoogechaye Creek and                               (Unincorporated
                                      Jones Creek.                                          Areas).
                                     Approximately 380 feet             None       +2,264
                                      upstream of Smith Hill
                                      Road (State Road 1306).
Rabbit Creek.......................  The confluence with Little         None       +2,000  Macon County
                                      Tennessee River.                                      (Unincorporated
                                                                                Areas), Town of
                                                                                Franklin.
                                     At the confluence of               None       +2,220
                                      Corbin Creek and Berry
                                      Creek.
Rocky Branch.......................  The confluence with Little         None       +1,977  Macon County
                                      Tennessee River.                                      (Unincorporated
                                                                                Areas).
                                     Approximately 0.7 mile             None       +1,996
                                      upstream of Nettie
                                      Riverbend Road (State
                                      Road 1337).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Franklin (Town)
Maps available for inspection at the Franklin Town Hall, 188 West Main Street, Franklin, North Carolina.
Send comments to The Honorable Joe Collins, Mayor of the Town of Franklin, 188 West Main Street, Franklin, North
 Carolina 28734.

                                       Macon County (Unincorporated Areas)
Maps available for inspection at the Macon County Planning Department, Human Services Building, 5 West Main
 Street, Franklin, North Carolina.
Send comments to Mr. Jack Horton, Macon County Manager, Courthouse Annex, 5 West Main Street, Franklin, North
 Carolina 28734.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: April 18, 2008.
David I. Maurstad,
Federal Insurance Administrator of the National Flood Insurance
Program, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management
Agency.
[FR Doc. E8-9271 Filed 4-30-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 22 (Friday, February 3, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9155-9158]
[FR Doc No: 2017-02187]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2016-0588; FRL-9959-18-Region 8]

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans;
Interstate Transport for Utah

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action on a portion of a January 31, 2013 submission and a December 22,
2015 supplemental submission from the State of Utah that are intended
to demonstrate that the Utah State Implementation Plan (SIP) meets
certain interstate transport requirements of the Clean Air Act (Act or
CAA) for the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
The interstate transport requirements under the CAA consist of four
elements: Significant contribution to nonattainment (prong 1) and
interference with maintenance (prong 2) of the NAAQS in other states;
and interference with measures required to be included in the plan for
other states to prevent significant deterioration of air quality (prong
3) or to protect visibility (prong 4). Specifically, the EPA is
approving interstate transport prong 1 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

DATES: This final rule is effective on March 6, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket Identification Number EPA-R08-OAR-2016-0588. All documents in
the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information may not be publicly available,
e.g., Confidential Business Information 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
through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado, 80202-1129. The EPA requests that 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, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adam Clark, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
I. Background

    On December 20, 2016, the EPA proposed to approve portions of
Utah's January 31, 2013 submission and December 22, 2015 supplemental
submission as meeting the prong 1 requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 81 FR 92755, December 20,
2016. An explanation of the CAA requirements, a detailed analysis of
the State's submittals, and the EPA's rationale for this proposed
action were provided in the notice of proposed rulemaking, and will not
be restated here. The public comment period for this proposed rule
ended on January 10, 2017. The EPA received four comments on the
proposal, which will be addressed in the ``Response to Comments''
section, below.

II. Response to Comments

    Comment: Commenter Sierra Club stated that the EPA should
disapprove Utah's prong 1 submission for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The
commenter asserted that all three of the Denver area maintenance
receptors to which Utah's projected contribution exceeded one percent
of the NAAQS \1\ should instead be nonattainment receptors, but are not
because the CSAPR Update modeling under-predicts the receptors' 2017
ozone design values. The commenter based this assertion on a weight of
evidence approach using ambient air monitoring data collected at these
receptors. The commenter stated that such a weight of evidence approach
was appropriate to determine this receptor should be nonattainment, and
noted that the EPA had used a weight of evidence approach in its action
on Arizona's transport SIP. The CSAPR Update modeling projected that
the Douglas County, Colorado receptor (monitor site ID 80350004) would
have a 2017 average design value of 75.5 ppb, with a maximum design
value of 77.6 ppb, and that one Jefferson County, Colorado receptor
(monitor site ID 80590006) would have a 2017 average design value of
75.7 ppb, with a maximum design value of 78.2 ppb.\2\ The commenter
first asserted that both average design values should indicate
nonattainment rather than maintenance, referring to the EPA's basis for
the maintenance categorizations as ``bad math.'' The commenter then
stated that all three maintenance receptors will indeed be
nonattainment for the 2015-2017 period. The commenter included the 4th
highest daily maximum values, on which the 2008 ozone NAAQS is

based, for the years 2010 through 2016, which the EPA has replicated
(with edits) in Table 1, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For details about these receptors, see EPA's final
rulemaking disapproving prong 2 of Utah's 2008 ozone submittals, at
81 FR 71992, October 19, 2016.
    \2\ See document EPA-R08-OAR-2016-0588-0002, ``Final CSAPR
Update_Ozone Design Values & Contributions_All Sites,'' in the
docket for this action.

                             Table 1--4th Highest Daily Max at Denver Area Receptors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                4th Max (ppb)
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                              Year                                  Monitor ID      Monitor ID      Monitor ID
                                                                     80350004        80590011        80590006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017............................................................            * 66            * 61            * 69
2016............................................................              78              83              79
2015............................................................              81              81              77
2014............................................................              74              76              77
2013............................................................              83              82              81
2012............................................................              79              77              79
2011............................................................              81              83              81
2010............................................................              78              74              76
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Indicates a ``critical value'' required to attain NAAQS for 2015-2017.

    The commenter stated that the 2015-2017 monitored design values at
the Denver receptors could only attain the NAAQS if the receptors
recorded the 4th daily maximum values (``critical values'') listed in
the 2017 row of Table 1, and notes that each of these values is below
the smallest value since 2010. The commenter asserted that the previous
seven years of monitoring data provide a weight of evidence analysis
demonstrating that these receptors will be nonattainment for the 2015-
2017 design value period. The commenter also stated that Colorado's
drill rig count for oil and gas extract had increased to 28 by the end
of 2016, the highest level since November 2015. The commenter also
stated that 2017 was likely to see increased oil and gas extraction and
transportation activity in Colorado due to reduced oil production in
other countries, and that this would increase NOX and VOC
emissions. Finally, the commenter asserted that it is unsurprising that
the CSAPR Update modeling analysis under-predicts the 2017 design
values because it included 2009 monitoring data which was impacted by
the Great Recession, during which time ozone levels decreased. The
commenter therefore recommended that the EPA disapprove Utah's prong 1
submittals for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    Response: First, the EPA does not agree that because the two Denver
receptors (80350004 and 80590006) are projected to have average design
values exceeding the NAAQS, that the EPA should label those receptors
as nonattainment receptors. As explained in the EPA's 2016 CSAPR Update
Final Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document (2016 AQM TSD),
``In determining compliance with the NAAQS, ozone design values are
truncated to integer values. For example, a design value of 75.9 ppb is
truncated to 75 ppb which is attainment. In this manner, design values
at or above 76.0 ppb are considered to be violations of the NAAQS.''
\3\ This method is consistent with the method to demonstrate compliance
with the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Therefore, design values of 75.5 or 75.7 are
not considered a violation of the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document for the
Final Cross State Air Pollution Rule Update.'' August 2016. This
document was included in the docket for the proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA agrees that recent monitoring data at these three sites
suggest that these sites face a risk of not attaining the NAAQS in
2017. However, that risk is uncertain as the future monitored 2017
design value is unknown at this time. In light of this uncertainty and
the statute's silence on how nonattainment and maintenance should be
identified under the good neighbor provision, the EPA has developed a
reasonable approach to identify downwind nonattainment and maintenance
receptors. When evaluating air quality modeling for purposes of
interstate transport, the EPA has routinely identified nonattainment
receptors as those with monitors that are both projected to be unable
to attain in an appropriate future year and that are measuring
nonattainment based on current data--i.e., if the projected average
design value in the future year does not exceed the standard, the EPA
does not identify that receptor as a nonattainment receptor. See 81 FR
74517 (CSAPR Update); 80 FR 75723 through 75724 (Proposed CSAPR
Update); 76 FR 48227-28 (CSAPR); 70 FR 25243-33 (CAIR); see also North
Carolina, 531 F.3d at 913 through 914 (affirming as reasonable the
EPA's approach to defining nonattainment in CAIR). Given the EPA's
modeling does not project that the receptors will be in nonattainment
in 2017, even though it may currently be measuring nonattainment, it
would be inconsistent with the EPA's past practice to identify that
receptor as a nonattainment receptor.
    Moreover, the EPA does not agree that it should identify
nonattainment receptors based on the formula proposed by the commenter
because the data cited by the commenter does not conclusively prove
that these monitors will be in nonattainment based on 2017 data.\4\
First, the commenter notes that it would be possible for the 2017
design values to be sufficiently low such that the 3-year averages are
attaining the NAAQS. Second, the CAA provides that should 2017 data
yield a fourth highest 8-hour concentration of 75.9 ppb or below, the
state can petition EPA for additional time to demonstrate attainment of
the NAAQS. See CAA section 181(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Although the commenter is correct that the EPA evaluated the
weight of the evidence in the Arizona SIP submission, the EPA did
not use the approach proposed by the commenter to average
projections and monitored data in identifying potential receptors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    That said, the EPA agrees that the receptors may have problems
maintaining the standard in 2017 and has therefore identified these
sites as maintenance receptors. On October 19, 2016, the EPA finalized
disapproval of Utah's SIP submission to address the maintenance prong
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 81 FR 71991. As a result of this disapproval,
the EPA and the State of Utah will need to evaluate what further
emissions reductions may be required to ensure that the State's impact
on downwind air quality is mitigated such that the State will not
interfere with maintenance of the standard at these receptors.

    The weight of evidence analysis in our action on the Arizona SIP
determined the nature of the projected receptor's interstate transport
problem as to the magnitude of ozone attributable to interstate
transport from all upwind states collectively contributing to the air
quality problem, not to the identification of that receptor. In the EPA
action on the Arizona SIP, Arizona was the only state that contributed
greater than the one percent threshold to the projected 2017 levels of
the 2008 ozone NAAQS at the El Centro receptor. The EPA's assessment
concluded that emissions reductions from Arizona are not necessary to
address interstate transport because the total collective upwind state
ozone contribution to these receptors is relatively low compared to the
air quality problems typically addressed by the good neighbor
provision. As discussed previously, the EPA similarly evaluated
collective contribution to the Douglas County, Colorado monitor and
finds the collective contribution of transported pollution to be
substantial. Furthermore, in our action on the Arizona SIP we did not
deviate from our past practice in identifying nonattainment and
maintenance receptors in the way that commenter suggests we should do
here.
    The EPA does not agree that its projections are unreliable because
the 2009 data are affected by the ``Great Recession.'' In determining
our 2009-2013 base period average design values, the data from 2009 are
only weighted once, whereas, data in 2011 which has higher ozone is
weighted 3 times in the calculations. In addition, our emissions data
are projected from 2011 to 2017 and, thus, the effects of the recession
on 2009 emissions have very little influence on our 2017 projected
emissions. In this respect, the air quality and emissions in 2009 have
only a very limited influence on the projected design values. As
described in the EPA's air quality modeling guidance for ozone
attainment demonstrations, the use of 5[hyphen]year weighted average
design values, as applied here, is intended to focus the base period
air quality on the year of base case emissions, 2011 for this analysis,
and to smooth out, to some extent, the effects of inter[hyphen]annual
variability in ozone concentrations.\5\ Thus, the EPA continues to
believe that including ambient data from 2009 is appropriate for
projecting future year ozone concentrations as part of the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating Attainment of Air
Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze
available in the docket and at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/Draft_O3-PM-RH_Modeling_Guidance-2014.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the EPA does not find that the commenter's assumptions
about an increase in oil and gas extraction and transportation
activities in Colorado sufficient to project an increase in such
emissions. For instance, the number of drill rigs noted by the
commenter (28) at the end of 2016 is actually much lower than the level
at the end of 2014 (69).\6\ The EPA is not here making assertions about
oil and gas production activities in Colorado, but rather explaining
why we find the commenter's assumptions about a likely increase in such
activity based on a drill rig count to be insufficient. Further, the
commenter does not provide a source for the assumption regarding
increased Colorado oil and gas production based on changes to the
worldwide oil market. For these reasons, the EPA does not find that oil
and gas activities will necessarily increase in Colorado in 2017 based
on the comments received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ http://insights.energentgroup.com/weekly-rig-counts-in-colorado.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Commenter Sierra Club asserted that the EPA's analysis of
Utah's 2008 ozone submittals ignores wintertime ozone levels. The
commenter asserted that the EPA relies on the CSAPR Update analysis for
its Utah ozone transport analysis, and that the CSAPR Update analysis
throws out wintertime ozone data.\7\ The commenter stated that it is
inappropriate for EPA to exclude the wintertime ozone data because the
EPA has elsewhere acknowledged that wintertime ozone is an important
issue in Utah and neighboring states. To support this point, the
commenter cited the EPA's revision to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, which
states that ``Elevated levels of winter-time O3 have also been measured
in some western states where precursor emissions can interact with
sunlight off the snow cover under very shallow, stable boundary layer
conditions.'' 80 FR 65416, October 26, 2015. The commenter also cited
the ozone NAAQS revision to show that the ozone seasons for both
Colorado and Utah are year-round, and that EPA must therefore include
an evaluation of wintertime ozone before it can approve any ozone
transport provisions for Utah. 80 FR 65419 through 65420, October 26,
2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Id. The commenter specifically cited the following language
from the document: ``In addition, there are 7 sites in 3 counties in
the West that were excluded from this file because the ambient
design values at these sites were dominated by wintertime ozone
episodes and not summer season conditions that are the focus of this
transport assessment.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: As stated in the CSAPR Update Final, ``Ozone levels are
generally higher during the summer months.'' 81 FR 74513, October 26,
2016. The 2016 AQM TSD states that ``High winter ozone concentrations
that have been observed in certain parts of the Western U.S. are
believed to result from the combination of strong wintertime
inversions, large NOX and VOC emissions from nearby oil and
gas operations, increased UV intensity due to reflection off of snow
surfaces and potentially still uncharacterized sources of free
radicals.'' 2016 AQM TSD at 14. Thus, high winter-time ozone episodes
are due to a build-up of local emissions combined with local stagnation
meteorological conditions rather than interstate transport. The EPA
therefore disagrees that it must evaluate wintertime ozone before
approving Utah's SIP as to the prong 1 requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
    Comment: Several citizen commenters expressed frustration about the
air quality in the Salt Lake City and greater Wasatch Front area of
Utah. These commenters offered various solutions to improving air
quality in the region.
    Response: The EPA appreciates the recommendations provided by the
commenters. The EPA will not address the recommendations specifically,
as they are not directly connected to the impact of Utah emissions in
other states, which this rulemaking (and CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i))
address.

III. Final Action

    The EPA is approving the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prong 1 portion
of Utah's January 31, 2013 submittal and the December 22, 2015
submittal with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state actions,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves some state law provisions as meeting federal
requirements; this action 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 the 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, the SIP does not apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the
rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    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 April 4, 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 CAA section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: January 17, 2017.
Debra H. Thomas,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.

    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 TT--Utah

0
2. In Sec.  52.2354, add paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2354   Interstate transport.

* * * * *
    (c) Addition to the Utah State Implementation Plan regarding the
2008 ozone Standard for CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prong 1
submitted to EPA on January 31, 2013 and supplemented on December 22,
2015.

[FR Doc. 2017-02187 Filed 2-2-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P