[Federal Register: January 4, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 2)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 267-269]
[DOCID:fr04ja07-13]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0876; FRL-8258-8]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Imperial
County Air Pollution Control District and South Coast Air Quality
Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the
Imperial County Air Pollution Control District and South Coast Air
Quality Management District portion of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern volatile organic
compound (VOC) emissions from architectural coatings and organic liquid
storage tanks. We are approving local rules that regulate these
emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the
Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on March 5, 2007 without further notice,
unless EPA receives adverse comments by February 5, 2007. If we receive
such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal
Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will not take
effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number [EPA-R09-OAR-
2006-0876], by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow

the on-line instructions.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments 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 Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. http://www.regulations.gov is an

``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. 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.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), and some may not be publicly available in either location
(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francisco D[oacute][ntilde]ez, EPA
Region IX,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rules did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of these rules?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules
    D. Public Comment and Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules we are approving with the dates that they
were adopted by the local air agencies and submitted by the California
Air Resources Board (CARB).

                                            Table 1.--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Local agency                 Rule No.               Rule title               Adopted     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICAPCD................................          424  Architectural Coatings...........      1/11/05      4/26/05
SCAQMD................................          463  Organic Liquid Storage...........       5/6/05     10/20/05
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 3, 2005, ICAPCD's Architectural Coatings Rule was found to
meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V, which must
be met before formal EPA review. And on November 22, 2005, SCAQMD's
Organic Liquid Storage Rule was found to meet the completeness criteria
in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V.

B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    We approved a version of ICAPCD Rule 424 into the SIP on May 3,
1984. There are no later versions of Rule 424 in the SIP although
ICAPCD adopted revisions to the SIP approved version of Rule 424 on
September 14, 1999, and CARB submitted it to us on May 26, 2000. We
approved a revised version of SCAQMD Rule 463 into the SIP on October
23, 1996. No later versions were submitted to us. While we can act on
only the most recently submitted version, we have reviewed materials
provided with previous submittals.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?

    VOCs help produce ground-level ozone and smog, which harm human
health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states
to submit regulations that control VOC emissions. Rule 424,
Architectural Coatings, controls emissions of VOCs from various
categories of coatings. Rule 463, Organic Liquid Storage, controls
emissions of VOCs from above-ground storage tanks used for storage of
organic liquids. Rule 424 was extensively revised to match the
Suggested Control Measure (SCM) for Architectural Coatings approved by
CARB on June 22, 2000. The SCM is a model rule which seeks to provide
statewide consistency for the regulation of architectural coatings. The
SCM was reviewed by EPA during its development. This revision adopts
all provisions of the SCM except the special provisions for industrial
maintenance coatings (relevant only in certain northern California air
districts) and the averaging provisions. The revisions submitted to
SCAQMD Rule 463 would amend several definitions, allow the use under
certain circumstances of an alternative vapor control device, removes
the hydrogen sulfide concentration standard for crude oil stored in a
floating roof tank, and add language to enhance enforceability of the
requirements for various organic compounds through the use of vapor
pressure information. Rule 463 revisions also include language amending
the reporting and recordkeeping requirements, to allow the use of
alternative test methods under certain circumstances, to remove a
requirement to use a test method for meeting the hydrogen sulfide
standard, and to add test methods for determining true vapor pressure
and API gravity. EPA's technical support documents (TSD) have more
information about these rules.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?

    Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the
Act), must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for
VOC sources covered by a Control Technique Guideline (CTG) and for
major sources in nonattainment areas (see section 182(a)(2)(A) and
182(b)(2)(A)), and must not relax existing requirements (see sections
110(l) and 193). ICAPCD and SCAQMD regulate ozone nonattainment areas
(see 40 CFR part 81). However, because ICAPCD Rule 424 regulates
sources that are not covered by a CTG and that are nonmajor area
sources, they are not subject to CAA RACT requirements.
    Guidance and policy documents that we use to help evaluate specific
enforceability and RACT requirements consistently include the
following:
    1. Portions of the proposed post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide
policy that concern RACT, 52 FR 45044, November 24, 1987.
    2. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook).
    3. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
    4. CARB's ``Suggested Control Measures for Architectural Coatings''
(June 22, 2000).
    5. The National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standard for
Architectural Coatings (40 CFR Part 59, Subpart D).
    6. ``Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Petroleum Liquid
Storage in External Floating Roof Tanks,'' EPA-450/2-78-047.
    7. ``Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Storage of
Petroleum Liquid in Fixed Roof Tanks,'' EPA-450/2-77-036.

B. Do the Rules Meet the Evaluation Criteria?

    We believe these rules are consistent with the relevant policy and
guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP relaxations. The TSDs
have more information on our evaluation.

C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules

    The TSDs describe additional rule revisions that do not affect
EPA's current action but are recommended for the next time the local
agency modifies the rules.

D. Public Comment and Final Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully
approving the submitted rules because we believe they fulfill all
relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this
approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance.
However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, we are
simultaneously

proposing approval of the same submitted rules. If we receive adverse
comments by February 5, 2007, we will publish a timely withdrawal in
the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct final
approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in a
subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive
timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective
without further notice on March 5, 2007. This will incorporate these
rules into the federally enforceable SIP.
    Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it 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). This rule also does not
have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct
effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes,
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).
This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal
standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule
also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    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 rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. 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 Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 5, 2007. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: November 7, 2006.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

0
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(336)(i)(C)(2) and
(c)(342)(i)(C)(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (336) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (C) * * *
    (2) Rule 424, adopted on November 9, 1982 and revised on January
11, 2005.
* * * * *
    (342) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (C) * * *
    (3) Rule 463, adopted on August 15, 1977 and amended on May 6,
2005.
* * * * *
 [FR Doc. E6-22416 Filed 1-3-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 63 (Monday, April 5, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17518-17521]
[FR Doc No: 2021-06913]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0186; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01489-T;
Amendment 39-21476; AD 2021-06-09]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes. This AD
was prompted by a report indicating that a passenger door opened under
residual cabin pressure during taxiing after landing, and following the
display of the CAB PRESS CTL alert. This AD requires revising the
existing airplane flight manual (AFM) to update the Cabin
Pressurization Control Fault procedure, as specified in a European
Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is incorporated by
reference. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition
on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective April 20, 2021.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of April 20,
2021.
    The FAA must receive comments on this AD by May 20, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this AD, contact
EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221
8999 000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu. You
may find this IBR material on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this IBR material at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in the AD
docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2021-0186.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0186; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for Docket
Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD

2020-0238, dated November 4, 2020 (EASA AD 2020-0238) (also referred to
as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to
correct an unsafe condition for all Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark
0070 and 0100 airplanes.
    This AD was prompted by a report indicating that a passenger door
opened under residual cabin pressure during taxiing after landing, and
following the display of the CAB PRESS CTL alert. After this event
occurred, the AFM procedures were reviewed and it was determined that
the Cabin Pressurization Control Fault procedure may have the potential
for confusion if the associated alert appears after landing. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address the consequences of a passenger door opening
forcefully under residual cabin pressure, including injury to cabin
crew or ground personnel. See the MCAI for additional background
information.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2020-0238 specifies procedures for updating the Cabin
Pressurization Control Fault procedure of the applicable AFM. This
material 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.

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority,
the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA is issuing this AD because the FAA evaluated
all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type
design.

Requirements of This AD

    This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD
2020-0238 described previously, as incorporated by reference, except
for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of
this AD.
    EASA AD 2020-0238 requires operators to ``inform all flight crews''
of revisions to the AFM, and thereafter to ``operate the aeroplane
accordingly.'' However, this AD would not specifically require those
actions as those actions are already required by FAA regulations.
    FAA regulations require operators furnish to pilots any changes to
the AFM (ex: 14 CFR 121.137), and to ensure the pilots are familiar
with the AFM (ex: 14 CFR 91.505). As with any other training
requirement, training on the updated AFM content is tracked by the
operators and recorded in each pilot's training record, which is
available for the FAA to review.
    FAA regulations also require pilots to follow the procedures in the
existing AFM including all updates. 14 CFR 91.9 requires that no person
may operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating
limitations specified in the AFM. Therefore, including a requirement in
this AD to operate the airplane according to the revised AFM would be
redundant and unnecessary. Further, compliance with such a requirement
in an AD would be impracticable to demonstrate or track on an ongoing
basis; therefore, a requirement to operate the airplane in such a
manner would be unenforceable.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA initially worked with Airbus and EASA to develop a
process to use certain EASA ADs as the primary source of information
for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has
since coordinated with other manufacturers and civil aviation
authorities (CAAs) to use this process. As a result, EASA AD 2020-0238
is incorporated by reference in this final rule. This AD, therefore,
requires compliance with EASA AD 2020-0238 in its entirety, through
that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions
in the regulatory text of this AD. Using common terms that are the same
as the heading of a particular section in the EASA AD does not mean
that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where
the AD requirement refers to ``all required actions and compliance
times,'' compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the
section titled ``Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)'' in the
EASA AD. Service information specified in EASA AD 2020-0238 that is
required for compliance with EASA AD 2020-0238 is available at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-
0186.

Justification for Immediate Adoption and Determination of the Effective
Date

    Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5
U.S.C. 551 et seq.) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and
comment procedures for rules when the agency, for ``good cause,'' finds
that those procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to
the public interest.'' Under this section, an agency, upon finding good
cause, may issue a final rule without providing notice and seeking
comment prior to issuance. Further, section 553(d) of the APA
authorizes agencies to make rules effective in less than thirty days,
upon a finding of good cause.
    There are currently no U.S. registered airplanes affected by this
AD. Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are
unnecessary, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3). In addition, for the
foregoing reasons, the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2021-0186; Project Identifier MCAI-
2020-01489-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the final rule, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this final rule because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this final rule.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this AD contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA

will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and
they will not be placed in the public docket of this AD. Submissions
containing CBI should be sent to Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Any commentary that the FAA receives
which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the
public docket for this rulemaking.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The requirements of the RFA do not apply when an agency finds good
cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and
comment. Because the FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt
this rule without notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.

Costs of Compliance

    Currently, there are no affected U.S.-registered airplanes. If an
affected airplane is imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the
future, the FAA provides the following cost estimates to comply with
this AD:

                  Estimated Costs for Required Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Cost per
              Labor cost                   Parts cost        product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 work-hour x $85 per hour = $85......              $0              $85
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
    The FAA is 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

    The FAA 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, and
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

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:

2021-06-09 Fokker Services B.V.: Amendment 39-21476; Docket No. FAA-
2021-0186; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01489-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective April 20,
2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0070
and 0100 airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 31, Instruments.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report indicating that a passenger
door opened under residual cabin pressure during taxiing after
landing, and following the display of the CAB PRESS CTL alert. The
FAA is issuing this AD to address the consequences of a passenger
door opening forcefully under residual cabin pressure, including
injury to cabin crew or ground personnel.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, EASA AD 2020-0238, dated November 4, 2020 (EASA AD
2020-0238).

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2020-0238

    (1) Where EASA AD 2020-0238 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2020-0238 does not apply
to this AD.
    (3) Where paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2020-0238 specifies to
``incorporate the amendment in the AFM [airplane flight manual]''
after contacting Fokker Services to obtain the applicable AFM
amendment instructions, this AD requires incorporation of the
amendment in the existing AFM before further flight after receipt
from Fokker Services.
    (4) Whereas paragraphs (1) and (2) of EASA AD 2020-0238 specify
to ``inform all flight crews, and, thereafter, operate the aeroplane
accordingly,'' this AD does not require those actions as those
actions are already required by existing FAA operating regulations.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, 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 responsible Flight
Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to
the Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, send it
to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) 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
responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must

be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, Large
Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or
Fokker's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the
DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez,
Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(l) 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) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2020-0238,
dated November 4, 2020.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2020-0238, contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-
Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this
EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St.,
Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This material may be found in the AD
docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2021-0186.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on March 11, 2021.
Gaetano A. Sciortino,
Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-06913 Filed 4-2-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 99 (Thursday, May 22, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29359-29361]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11790]

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

 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2014-0139 FRL-9911-23-Region-10]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
Oregon; Approval of Substitution for Transportation Control Measures

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; notice of administrative change.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is making an
administrative change to update the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
to reflect a change made to the Oregon State Implementation Plan (SIP)
on December 11, 2013. The EPA has concurred on a substitute
transportation control measure (TCM) for the Portland Area Carbon
Monoxide Maintenance Plan portion of the Oregon SIP. On January 14,
2014, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) submitted a
revision to the Oregon SIP requesting that the EPA update its SIP to
reflect a substitution of a TCM. The substitution was made pursuant to
the TCM substitution provisions contained in the Clean Air Act (CAA).
The EPA concurred with this substitution on April 16, 2014. In this
administrative action, the EPA is updating the non-regulatory
provisions of the Oregon SIP to reflect the substitution. The
substitution that the EPA concurred with is an equivalent method for
assessing the transit service increase TCM.

DATES: This action is effective May 22, 2014.

ADDRESSES: SIP materials which are incorporated by reference into 40
CFR part 52 are available for inspection at the following location: US
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Office of Air, Waste, and
Toxics (OAWT-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Oregon 98101. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically at
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle, Washington 98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Justin A. Spenillo, EPA Region 10,
(206) 553-6125<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we'',
``us'' or ``our'' are used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. This Action
II. Statutory and Executive Order Review

I. This Action

    On April 16, 2014, the EPA concurred with a determination by the
ODEQ and Metro, the metropolitan planning organization for the Portland
area, that the replacement of a transit service increase TCM with an
equivalent substitute transit service increase TCM met the requirements
of CAA section 176(c)(8). (See also EPA's Guidance for Implementing the
CAA section 176(c)(8) Transportation Control Measure Substitution and
Addition Provision contained in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users which was
signed into law on August 10, 2005, dated January 2009.) This action
provides notice of the EPA's concurrence with this substitution, and
codifies the substitute transportation control measure in the Federally
approved Oregon SIP. The substitution replaces the existing transit
service increase TCM with a TCM containing an equivalent method for
assessing the transit service increase. The substituted TCM is:
``Transit Service Increase: Regional transit service revenue hours
(weighted by capacity) shall be increased 1.0% per year. The increase
shall be assessed on the basis of

cumulative average of actual hours for assessment conducted for the
entire second ten-year Portland Area Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan
(2007-2017). Transit service increase will be assessed on the basis of
fiscal year (July 1-June 30) beginning with FY 2008.''
    The TCM substitution process is collaborative, and includes
participation by all affected jurisdictions and agencies, consultation
with the EPA, and reasonable notice and opportunity for public comment.
To develop a substitute TCM, the ODEQ and Metro consulted with the
Transportation Policy Advisory Committee (TPAC), a technical advisory
committee of the Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation
(JPACT) that is comprised of elected officials and representatives of
agencies involved in transportation in the Portland area and includes
representatives from the community, state and regional partners, and
local jurisdictions. Public notice and comment was provided by Metro in
coordination with the ODEQ. The public notice was published in The
Oregonian on July 15, 2013, along with being posted on the ODEQ's Web
page on July 15, 2013, published in the August 2013 Oregon Bulletin,
and multiple other forms of notice as described in the docket.
    Through the concurrence process, the EPA determined that the
requirements of CAA section 176(c)(8) were satisfied, including the
requirements that the substitute measures (1) achieve equivalent or
greater emissions reductions than the control measure to be replaced,
(2) are implemented on a schedule consistent with the schedule for the
existing TCM, (3) have adequate personnel, funding and authority under
state or local law to implement, monitor and enforce, and (4) are
jointly concurred upon by the ODEQ, the EPA and Metro. Upon the EPA's
concurrence, the transit service increase TCM substitution took effect
as a matter of Federal law. A copy of the EPA's concurrence letter
along with the ODEQ's letter submittal and additional support material
is included in the Docket for this action. This letter can be accessed
at www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2014-0139. In
accordance with the requirements for TCM substitution, on January 14,
2014, the ODEQ submitted a request for the EPA to update the Portland
Area Carbon Monoxide portion of the Oregon SIP to reflect the EPA's
concurrence on transit service increase TCM substitution in its SIP
(the subject of this administrative change). Today, the EPA is taking
administrative action to update the non-regulatory provisions of the
Oregon SIP in 40 CFR 52.1970 (e) to reflect the EPA's concurrence on
the transit service TCM substitution.

                                                       State of Oregon Air Quality Control Program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 State effective
            SIP citation                   Title/subject              date                     EPA approval date                     Explanation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 4...........................  Control Strategies for     4.58 12/15/2004;  4.58 1/24/2006, 71 FR 3768;               4.58 Portland Area CO
                                       Nonattainment Areas.                                                                   Maintenance Plan 2nd 10-
                                                                                year.
                                                                 4.58 12/11/2013;  4.58 5/22/2014 [Insert FR number]         4.58 Portland Area CO
                                                                                Maintenance Plan 2nd 10-
                                                                                year; TCM substitution
                                                                                update <IP_ADDRESS>.2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Immediate notice of this action in the Federal Register benefits the
public by providing the public notice of the updated Federally approved
Oregon SIP and ``Identification of Plan'' portion of the Code of
Federal Regulations.

II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does
not apply to this action.
    Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this
action, the EPA did consult with representatives of state and local
governments in taking this action. This action does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), as it does not affect any tribal groups. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States. The EPA has determined that this
administrative action will not have disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income
populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided
to human health or the environment.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference.

    Dated: May 6, 2014.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.

    Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
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 MM--Oregon

0
2. Section 52.1970(e), the table titled ``State of Oregon Air Quality
Control Program'' is amended by revising entry 4.58 under ``Section 4:
``Control Strategies for Nonattainment Areas'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1970  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
* * * * *

                                                       State of Oregon Air Quality Control Program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         State effective
          SIP citation                       Title/subject                    date                   EPA Approval date                 Explanation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Section 4......................  Control Strategies for Nonattainment  ..................
                                  Areas

                                                                      * * * * * * *
                                 ....................................    4.58 12/15/2004;  4.58 1/24/2006, 71 FR 3768;           4.58 Portland Area CO
                                                                                Maintenance Plan 2nd
                                                                                10-year.
                                 ....................................    4.58 12/11/2013;  4.58 5/22/2014 [Insert FR number]     4.58 Portland Area CO
                                                                                Maintenance Plan 2nd
                                                                                10-year; TCM
                                                                                substitution update
                                                                                <IP_ADDRESS>.2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-11790 Filed 5-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: November 15, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 220)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 64152-64153]
[DOCID:fr15no07-15]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD08-07-037]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Tchefuncta River, Madisonville,
LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations; request for
comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the
State Route 22 (SR 22) Bridge across Tchefuncta River, mile 2.5, at

Madisonville, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana. This deviation will test a
change to the drawbridge operation schedule to determine whether a
permanent change to the schedule is needed.

DATES: This deviation is effective from November 15, 2007 until May 13,
2008.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander
(dpb), Eighth Coast Guard District, 500 Poydras Street, New Orleans,
Louisiana 70130-3310. The Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District,
Bridge Administration Branch maintains the public docket for this
rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket,
will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or
copying at the Bridge Administration office between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Phil Johnson, Bridge Administration
Branch, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in evaluating this test schedule by
submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include
your name and address, identify the docket number for this deviation
[CGD08-07-037], indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please
submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no
larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would
like to know they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed
postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material
received during the comment period. Comments must be received by
January 14, 2008.

Background and Purpose

    The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development has
requested that the operating regulation of the SR 22 swing span bridge,
located on the Tchefuncta River at mile 2.5 in Madisonville, St.
Tammany Parish, Louisiana, be changed in order accommodate the flow of
vehicular traffic at rush hour peaks. Currently, the draw of the SR 22
Bridge in Madisonville opens on signal, except that, from 5 a.m. to 8
p.m., the draw need open only on the hour and half-hour.
    This Temporary Deviation from Drawbridge Operating Regulations
allows the bridge to operate as follows: The draw of the SR 22 Bridge,
mile 2.5 at Madisonville, shall open on signal from 7 p.m. to 6 a.m.
From 6 a.m. to 7 p.m., the draw need only open on the hour and half
hour, except that, from 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. and from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m.
Monday through Friday except Federal holidays, the draw need only open
on the hour.
    A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking [CGD08-07-38] is being issued in
conjunction with this Temporary Deviation to obtain public comments.
The Coast Guard will evaluate public comments from this Temporary
Deviation and the above referenced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to
determine if a permanent special drawbridge operating regulation is
warranted.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: November 6, 2007.
David M. Frank,
Bridge Administrator.
 [FR Doc. E7-22366 Filed 11-14-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register: August 21, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 163)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 49373-49377]
[DOCID:fr21au08-20]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0382, EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0113; FRL-8707-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Virginia; Emission Reductions From Large Stationary Internal Combustion
Engines and Large Cement Kilns

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revisions for the Commonwealth of Virginia. These revisions, submitted
by the Virginia Department of

Environmental Quality (VADEQ), pertain to nitrogen oxides
(NOX) emission reductions from large stationary internal
combustion (IC) engines and large cement kilns from five sources
located in the Commonwealth. The reductions allow Virginia to meet its
remaining obligations under the NOX SIP Call. This action is
being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 22,
2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2007-0382 and EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0113 by one of the following
methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0382 and/or EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0113,
Cristina Fernandez, Chief, Air Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2007-0382 and/or EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0113. EPA's policy is that all
comments received will be included in the public docket without change,
and may be made available online at 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
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 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 e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 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.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal
are available at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629
East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marilyn Powers,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality submitted four separate SIP revisions to meet the
NOX SIP Call requirement to address large stationary IC
engines. These submissions were made on February 26, 2007 for
Transcontinental Gas Pipeline (Transco) Station 165; March 5, 2007 for
Transco Station 170; March 12, 2007 for Transco Station 175; and March
19, 2007 for Transco Station 180. On August 8, 2007, VADEQ submitted a
SIP revision to meet the NOX SIP Call requirement to address
NOX emissions from cement manufacturing in the Commonwealth.

I. Background

    EPA issued the NOX SIP Call (63 FR 57356, October 27,
1998) to require 22 Eastern states and the District of Columbia to
reduce specified amounts of one of the main precursors of ground-level
ozone, NOX, in order to reduce interstate ozone transport.
EPA found that the sources in these states emit NOX in
amounts that contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 1-hour
ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) in downwind states.
In the NOX SIP Call, the amount of reductions required by
states were calculated based on application of available, highly cost-
effective controls on certain source categories of NOX.
These source categories included large fossil fuel-fired electric
generating units (EGUs) serving a generator with a capacity greater
than 25 MWe, fossil fuel-fired non-EGUs (such as large industrial
boilers with a capacity greater than 250 MMBtu/hr), large stationary
internal combustion engines, and large cement kilns. EPA established a
model trading rule for large EGUs and non-EGUs that States could adopt
to participate in the EPA-administered NOX Budget Trading
program.
    The NOX SIP Call, including the Technical Amendments
which addressed the 2007 EGU budgets (64 FR 26298, May 14, 1999 and 65
FR 11222, March 2, 2000), was challenged by a number of state,
industry, and labor groups. A summary of the NOX SIP Call
requirements, including details of the court decisions that were made
in response to challenges to the rule and impacts of the court
decisions on certain aspects of the rule may be found in EPA's
rulemaking dated April 21, 2004 (69 FR 21604) entitled, ``Interstate
Ozone Transport: Response to Court Decisions on the NOX SIP
Call, NOX SIP Call Technical Amendments, and Section 126
Rules.'' The relevant portions of the April 21, 2004 rulemaking that
affect Virginia's obligations under the NOX SIP Call, and
that pertain to the Commonwealth's requirements for Phase II, are
discussed in this document to provide background on the SIP revisions
for Phase II that were submitted by VADEQ.
    On March 3, 2000, the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit (DC Circuit) issued its decision on the
NOX SIP Call. Michigan v. EPA, 213 F.3rd 663 (DC Dir. 2000).
While the DC Circuit ruled largely in favor of EPA in support of its
requirements under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, it also ruled, in part,
against EPA on certain issues. The rulings against EPA included two
areas of the NOX SIP Call that were remanded and vacated,
and two areas in which EPA was found to have failed to provide adequate
notice of changes in the rule. In the latter case, the rulings included
a failure to provide adequate notice of the change in the definition of
EGU as applied to cogeneration units that supply electricity to a
utility power distribution system for sale in certain specified
amounts, and a failure to provide adequate notice of the change in the
control level EPA assumed for large stationary internal combustion (IC)
engines. The portions of the NOX SIP Call that were upheld
by the Court were termed ``Phase I'' of the rule. With the exception of
the remand of the EGU

growth factors used in the NOX SIP Call and the requirements
for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS (which EPA stayed due to uncertainty created
by the court rulings), those portions of the NOX SIP Call
that had been remanded back to EPA were finalized in the April 21, 2004
rulemaking (69 FR 21604) and termed ``Phase II'' of the rule.
    The April 21, 2004 rule finalized specific changes to the
definition of EGUs as applied to cogeneration units, finalized the
control levels assumed for large stationary IC engines in the
NOX SIP Call, adjusted States' total budgets (as necessary)
to reflect these changes, established a SIP submittal date of April 1,
2005 for states to address the Phase II portion of the budget, and set
a compliance date of May 1, 2007 for all affected sources to meet Phase
II. As a result of these changes, states that were not already meeting
their total NOX SIP Call emission reduction obligations were
required to submit a SIP revision by April 1, 2005 to reduce ozone
season NOX emissions by an incremental amount equivalent to
the reductions achieved by controlling IC engines to prescribed levels.
The IC engines that comprise the subject States' Phase II inventory
were compiled by EPA and termed the EPA's NOX SIP Call
Engine Inventory (65 FR 1222, March 2, 2000). As finalized in the April
21, 2005 rulemaking, the amount of the incremental reductions required
was based upon the level of reductions that would occur if large
natural gas-fired stationary IC engines were controlled to a level of
82 percent, and large diesel and dual fuel stationary IC engines were
controlled to a level of 90 percent.
    The change to the definition of cogeneration units did not have an
impact on the Phase I budget previously established for Virginia.
Therefore, in order to meet its Phase II obligations, the State was
required only to achieve the incremental reductions that EPA calculated
based on controlling stationary IC engines to prescribed levels. As in
Phase I of the NOX SIP Call, states have flexibility in how
they achieve the incremental reductions required under Phase II.
    In the NOX SIP Call Engine Inventory, EPA identified 17
lean burn engines in Virginia that met the definition of large, natural
gas-fired IC engines. EPA determined a reduction target of 3343 tons of
NOX based on a reduction level of 82 percent. In the
NOX SIP Call inventory, EPA identified five large cement
kilns and determined a reduction target of 173 tons of NOX
based on a control level of 30 percent for this source category.
    Virginia's Phase I NOX SIP Call trading program was
approved as part of the Virginia SIP on November 12, 2002 (67 FR
68544), with the exception of its flow control provision, which was
conditionally approved. The conditional approval was converted to a
full approval on August 25, 2004 (69 FR 52174). The Phase II change to
the definition of cogen units did not affect the Phase I budget
previously established for Virginia and will not be discussed in any
detail here, but a full discussion may be found in the April 21, 2005
rulemaking. In order to meet its NOX SIP Call Phase II
obligations, the Commonwealth is required only to achieve the
incremental reductions that EPA calculated based on a controlling large
IC engines to prescribed levels.
    In the November 12, 2002 approval, it was noted that the SIP
revision did not establish requirements for cement manufacturing kilns
and stationary internal combustion engines, and that Virginia was still
obligated to submit SIP revisions for additional reductions required to
meet the State's overall emissions budget.

II. Summary of SIP Revisions

    The table below identifies the sources and the individual state
operating permits that are the subject of this rulemaking, followed by
a summary of the SIP revisions for each source category. The Technical
Support Document (TSD) for this rulemaking contains additional details
pertaining to EPA's analysis of the State submittals.

                    Large IC Engines and Cement Kilns Subject to the NOX SIP Call in Virginia
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Permit/order or
             Source name                       Location             registration No.           Source type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Corp.    Pittsylvania County....  Registration No. 30864.  Large natural gas-fired
 Station 165.                                                                             internal combustion
                                                                                engine.
Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Corp.    Appomattox County......  Registration No. 30863.  Large natural gas-fired
 Station 170.                                                                             internal combustion
                                                                                engine.
Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Corp.    Fluvanna County........  Registration No. 40789.  Large natural gas-fired
 Station 175.                                                                             internal combustion
                                                                                engine.
Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Corp.    Orange County..........  Registration No. 40782.  Large natural gas-fired
 Station 180.                                                                             internal combustion
                                                                                engine.
Roanoke Cement Corporation...........  Botetourt County.......  Registration No. 20232.  Cement manufacturing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Large Stationary IC Engines

    VADEQ determined that one company, Transco, owns all of the
potentially affected sources in the State, and chose to impose 3343
tons of NOX emission reductions from 19 engines located at
four stations. VADEQ issued federally enforceable State operating
permits for these Transco stations. The operating permit requirements
for the engines include NOX emission rate limits and limits
on hours of operation during the ozone season to achieve the required
emission reductions. The permits also include provisions for testing,
parametric monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping to ensure the terms
of the permits are met.

B. Cement Manufacturing

    Four long, dry cement kilns that were included as part of the 1995
NOX SIP Call inventory were permanently shut down in 1996.
The remaining preheater kiln was reconfigured and upgraded as a
precalciner kiln to handle the capacity of the facility. VADEQ
submitted a demonstration that the emissions from the reconfigured
preheater/precalciner kiln in 2005 has resulted in at least a 30
percent reduction from the four long, dry kilns and one preheater kiln
that existed in 1995. The demonstration shows that the kiln is
maximizing fuel efficiency while minimizing NOX emissions,
consistent with EPA's ``Alternative Control Techniques Document--
NOX emissions from Cement Manufacturing'' (EPA-453/R94-004).
The demonstration also shows that the overall emission rate change from
1995 to 2005 is well over 30 percent. In addition, low NOX
burners were installed on the kiln in 2006. VADEQ issued a State
Operating Permit for the low NOX burners on December 22,
2004, and on June 18, 2007 modified the operating permit to indicate
that the preheater/precalciner configuration

with low NOX burners implements the requirements of the
NOX SIP Call.

III. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the
Commonwealth of Virgina

    In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to
certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit)
``privilege'' for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a
regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden
of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking
disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's
legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty
waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity
discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation
and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes
prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's
Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-
1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and
information about the content of those documents that are the product
of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not
extend to documents or information (1) that are generated or developed
before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2)
that are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) that
demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public
health or environment; or (4) that are required by law.
    On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the
Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the
Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege
to documents and information ``required by law,'' including documents
and information ``required by Federal law to maintain program
delegation, authorization or approval,'' since Virginia must ``enforce
Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less
stringent than their Federal counterparts. * * *'' The opinion
concludes that ``[r]egarding Sec.  10.1-1198, therefore, documents or
other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of
these programs could not be privileged because such documents and
information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required
by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or
approval.''
    Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that
``[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal
law,'' any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a
state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute,
regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from
administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12,
1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute
inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since
``no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal
penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with
Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.''
    Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and
Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its
program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because
EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law
can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal
enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under
the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to
enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan,
independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen
enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by
this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA's review of the submittals indicates that the Commonwealth of
Virginia has met the additional emission reduction requirements to
comply with its overall emissions budget under the NOX SIP
Call. The SIP revisions address Virginia's remaining obligations under
the NOX SIP Call, therefore, EPA proposes to approve them
into the Virginia SIP. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues
discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before
taking final action.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, 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 Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and 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 Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this action proposing approval of Virginia's remaining
emission reductions under the NOX SIP Call 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, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

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

    Dated: August 14, 2008.
William T. Wisniewski,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. E8-19422 Filed 8-20-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P