[Federal Register: July 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 126)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 38056-38058]
[DOCID:fr01jy10-24]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0645; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-200-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Corporation Model MD-
90-30 Airplanes

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness
directive (AD) that applies to certain Model MD-90-30 airplanes. The
existing AD currently requires a detailed inspection for certain
defects of the upper fasteners of the aft mount support fittings of the
left and right engines, and corrective actions if necessary. This
proposed AD would instead require repetitive replacement of the upper
row of fasteners of the support fittings of the engine aft mount with
new fasteners; and perform repetitive general visual inspections for
defects of the lower row fasteners (Row B) of the support fittings of
the left and right engine aft mounts, and replacement of all clearance
fit fasteners in the lower row if necessary. This proposed AD results
from reports of loose, cracked, or missing fasteners in the aft mount
support fitting of the left and right engines. We are proposing this AD
to prevent loose, cracked, or missing fasteners in the engine aft mount
support fittings, which could lead to separation of the support
fittings from the pylon, and could result in separation of the engine
from the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 16, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
3855 Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800 0019, Long Beach, California 90846-
0001; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 2; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may
review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roger Durbin, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2010-0645;
Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-200-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On August 25, 2008, we issued AD 2008-18-10, Amendment 39-15667 (73
FR 52203, September 9, 2008), for certain McDonnell Douglas Corporation
Model MD-90-30 airplanes. That AD requires a detailed inspection for
certain defects of the upper fasteners of the aft mount support
fittings of the left and right engines, and corrective actions if
necessary. That AD resulted from reports of loose, cracked, or missing
fasteners in the aft mount support fittings of the left and right
engines. We issued that AD to detect and correct loose, cracked, or
missing fasteners in the engine aft support mount fittings, which could
lead to separation of the support fittings from the pylon, and could
result in separation of the engine from the airplane.

Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued

    The preamble to AD 2008-18-10 explains that we considered the
requirements ``interim action'' and were considering further
rulemaking. We now have determined that further rulemaking is indeed
necessary, and this proposed AD follows from that determination.
    We also have received additional reports of loose, cracked, or
missing fasteners in the aft mount support fitting of the left and
right engines on 29 McDonnell Douglas Corporation Model MD-90-30
airplanes. The airplanes had accumulated between 15,560 and 37,298
total flight hours, and between 13,995 and 31,294 total flight cycles.
    Results of a safety assessment of the missing fasteners indicate
that loose or otherwise discrepant fasteners in the top horizontal row,
common with the pylon skin, significantly decrease the margin of safety
of the aft mount support installation at the design limit load.
Replacement of the upper row of fasteners at new specified intervals
will help minimize the possibility of these fasteners becoming an
unsafe condition while in service. Inspection of the lower

row of fasteners will help ensure design integrity.

Relevant Service Information

    We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD90-54A003,
Revision 2, dated February 12, 2010. The service bulletin describes
procedures for repetitive replacement of the upper row of fasteners
(Row A) of the support fittings of the left and right engine aft mount
with new fasteners.
    The service bulletin also describes procedures for repetitive
general visual inspections for defects of the lower row fasteners (Row
B) of the support fittings of the left and right engine aft mounts
(that includes a gap check under the head or nut, and a torque check),
as necessary for defects of the lower row of fasteners (Row B) of the
support fittings of the left and right engine aft mounts, and replacing
all clearance fit fasteners in the lower row (Row B) with new fasteners
if any defect is found. Defects include missing, loose, and damaged
fasteners.
    The service bulletin specifies the compliance times for the initial
replacement and inspections as follows:
     For Configurations 1 and 3 airplanes, as identified in the
service bulletin: Within 10,000 flight cycles after fastener
replacement in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin MD90-54A002 or
Boeing Multiple Operator Message 1-893882781-2, dated July 25, 2008.
     For Configurations 2 and 4 airplanes, as identified in the
service bulletin: Within 2,457 flight cycles after the original issue
date on the service bulletin (August 10, 2009).
    The repetitive interval for replacement and inspections is not to
exceed 10,000 flight cycles.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an
unsafe condition that is likely to develop on other airplanes of the
same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which
would supersede AD 2008-18-10. This proposed AD would not retain the
requirements of AD 2008-18-10. This proposed AD would require
accomplishing the actions specified in the service information
described previously.

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 107 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for
U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD.

                                                                     Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of U.S.-
               Action                  Work hours     Average labor          Parts            Cost per airplane      registered          Fleet cost
                                                      rate per hour                                                   airplanes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement........................              14             $85  $152 per replacement.  $1,342 per                         13  $17,446 per
                                                                                replacement cycle.                     replacement cycle.
Inspections........................               4              85  $0...................  $340 per inspection                13  $4,420 per inspection
                                                                                cycle.                                 cycle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the
ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Amendment 39-15667 (73 FR
52203, September 9, 2008) and adding the following new AD:

McDonnell Douglas Corporation: Docket No. FAA-2010-0645; Directorate
Identifier 2009-NM-200-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by August
16, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 2008-18-10, Amendment 39-15667.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to McDonnell Douglas Corporation Model MD-
90-30 airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD90-54A003, Revision 2, dated
February 12, 2010.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 54:
Nacelles/Pylons.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD results from reports of loose, cracked, or missing
fasteners in the aft mount support fitting of the left and right
engines. The Federal Aviation Administration is issuing this AD to
prevent loose, cracked, or missing fasteners in the engine aft
support mount fitting, which could lead to separation of the support
fitting from the pylon, and could result in separation of the engine
from the airplane.

Compliance

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

Replacement and Inspection

    (g) Except as required by paragraph (i) of this AD, at the
applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E. ``Compliance'' of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin MD90-54A003, Revision 2, dated February 12,
2010: Replace the upper row of fasteners (Row A) of the support
fittings of the left and right engine aft mounts with new fasteners,
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin MD90-54A003, Revision 2, dated February 12, 2010.
Repeat the replacement thereafter at intervals not to exceed 10,000
flight cycles.
    (h) Concurrently with any replacement required by paragraph (g)
of this AD: Perform a general visual inspection for defects of the
lower row fasteners (Row B) of the support fittings of the left and
right engine aft mounts, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD90-54A003, Revision
2, dated February 12, 2010. Defects include missing, loose, and
damaged fasteners.
    (1) If no defect is found during any general visual inspection
required by paragraph (h) of this AD, before further flight, insert
a 0.0015-inch feeler gauge between the washer and the structure, or
between the fastener head and structure, as applicable, to detect a
gap condition, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD90-54A003, Revision 2, dated
February 12, 2010. A gap condition is a defect identified in any
location where the feeler gauge can slip completely between a washer
or a fastener head and the structure.
    (i) If no defect is found during any gap check required by
paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, before further flight, apply torque to
the fasteners of the lower row (Row B) to determine if there is a
defect, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin MD90-54A003, Revision 2, dated February 12,
2010. A defect is any fastener that turns with the application of
the specified torque. If any defect is found, before further flight,
replace all clearance fit fasteners in the lower row (Row B), in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin MD90-54A003, Revision 2, dated February 12, 2010.
    (ii) If any defect is found during any gap check required by
paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, before further flight, replace all
clearance fit fasteners in the lower row (Row B), in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
MD90-54A003, Revision 2, dated February 12, 2010.
    (2) If any defect is found during any general visual inspection
required by paragraph (h) of this AD, before further flight, replace
all clearance fit fasteners in the lower row (Row B), in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin MD90-54A003, Revision 2, dated February 12, 2010.

Exception to Service Bulletin Compliance Times

    (i) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD90-54A003, Revision 2,
dated February 12, 2010, specifies a compliance time after the
original issue date on the service bulletin, this AD requires
compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective
date of this AD.

Credit for Actions Accomplished in Accordance With Previous Service
Information

    (j) Replacements and inspections accomplished before the
effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin MD90-54A003, Revision 1, dated November 17, 2009, are
considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions
required by this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (k)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if
requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Roger Durbin, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe
Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles ACO, 3960 Paramount Boulevard,
Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (562)
627-5210.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.
The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO to
make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair
must meet the certification basis of the airplane and 14 CFR 25.571,
Amendment 45, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 23, 2010.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-15988 Filed 6-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: June 30, 2016, conference call with Portland Cement Association (PCA) to discuss the status of industry performance test data entered into EPA's electronic reporting tool (ERT)
FROM: Mike Laney, RTI International
TO: Sharon Nizich, US EPA
DATE: July 1, 2016
ATTENDEES:
                                      PCA
                                      EPA
                                      RTI
                                 Michael Schon
                               Elizabeth Horner
                                 Keith Barnett
                                 Sharon Nizich
                                  Mike Laney

SUMMARY:
In a previous meeting, the EPA had provided PCA with a list of all U.S. portland cement plants that indicated which facilities had entered emissions test results for mid-2015 and later into the EPA's electronic reporting tool (ERT). PCA was able to determine reasons for gaps in the data submitted to ERT, such as, kilns that were hazardous waste or CISWI kilns and not subject to subpart LLL. PCA will provide the EPA with a list of the portland cement plants annotated to indicate why there would not be emissions data in ERT for a particular kiln, clinker cooler or other affected source.


[Federal Register: March 4, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 43)]
[Notices]
[Page 11685]
[DOCID:fr04mr08-108]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on Tuesday, March 4,
2008 at 10 a.m., in Room L-002, the Auditorium.
    The subject matter of the Open Meeting scheduled for March 4, 2008
will be:
    1. The Commission will consider whether to propose two new rules
under the Investment Company Act concerning exchange-traded funds
(``ETFs''). Proposed Rule 6c-11 would provide exemptions from
restrictions of the Act, to permit ETFs to operate without the need to
obtain individual exemptive orders from the Commission. The Commission
also will consider related disclosure amendments, and rule revisions
concerning fund of funds restrictions of that Act.
    2. The Commission will consider whether to propose a rule directed
at misrepresentations in connection with a seller's ability or intent
to deliver securities by settlement date.
    3. The Commission will consider a recommendation to propose
amendments to Regulation S-P, which governs the privacy of consumer
financial information. The amendments would address the Rule's
provisions related to the safeguarding and disposal of financial
information, and would specify information that may be transferred when
employees of broker-dealers or investment advisers change firms.
    Commissioner Casey, as duty officer, determined that no earlier
notice of the Open Meeting was possible.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 27, 2008.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-4083 Filed 3-3-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 9, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 153)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 44781-44784]
[DOCID:fr09au07-18]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0620; FRL-8450-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
Kansas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving a revision to the Kansas State
Implementation Plan (SIP) prepared by Kansas to maintain the 8-hour
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for ozone in the Kansas
portion of the Kansas City area. The Kansas City area is designated
attainment for the ozone NAAQS. This revision is required by the Clean
Air Act. A similar final rulemaking pertaining to the Missouri portion
of the Kansas City maintenance area is being done in conjunction with
this rulemaking. The effect of this approval is to ensure Federal
enforceability of the state air program plan and to maintain
consistency between the state-adopted plan and the approved SIP.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective October 9, 2007,
without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by
September 10, 2007. If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a
timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register
informing the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2007-0620, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail: Amy Algoe-Eakin, Environmental Protection Agency, Air
Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City,
Kansas 66101.
    4. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to Amy Algoe-
Eakin, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development
Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-
2007-0620. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through http://www.regulations.gov
 or e-mail information that you consider to be CBI

or otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an

``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://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
http://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 http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental

Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th
Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. The Regional Office's official hours
of business are Monday through Friday, 8 to 4:30 excluding Federal
holidays. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents
should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours in
advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Algoe-Eakin at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This section provides
additional information by addressing the following questions:

    What is a Section 110(a)(1) maintenance plan?
    What are the components of a Section 110(a)(1) 8-hour ozone
maintenance plan?

How has the state addressed the components of a Section 110(a)(1) 8-
hour ozone maintenance plan? What action is EPA taking?

What is a Section 110(a)(1) maintenance plan?

    Section 110(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requires, in
part, that states submit to EPA plans to maintain any NAAQS promulgated
by EPA. EPA interprets this provision to require that areas that were
maintenance areas for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS but attainment for the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS submit a plan to demonstrate the continued maintenance
of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA established June 15, 2007, three years
after the effective date of the initial 8-hour ozone designations, as
the deadline for submission of plans for these areas. Kansas's Section
110(a)(1) maintenance plan was received by EPA on May 23, 2007.

What are the components of a Section 110(a)(1) 8-hour ozone maintenance
plan?

    On May 20, 2005, EPA issued guidance that applies, in part, to
areas that are designated attainment/unclassifiable for the 8-hour
ozone standard and that had an approved 1-hour ozone maintenance plan.
The purpose of the guidance, referred to as Section 110(a)(1) guidance,
is to assist the states in the development of a SIP which addresses the
maintenance requirements found in Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA. There
are five components of the Section 110(a)(1) maintenance plan which
are: (1) An attainment inventory, which is based on actual typical
summer day emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of
nitrogen (NOX) for a ten-year period from a base year as
chosen by the state; (2) a maintenance demonstration which shows how
the area will remain in compliance with the 8-hour ozone standard for
10 years after the effective date of designations (June 15, 2004); (3)
a commitment to continue to operate air quality monitors; (4) a
contingency plan that will ensure that a violation of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS is promptly addressed; and (5) an explanation of how the state
will track the progress of the maintenance plan.

How has the state addressed the components of a Section 110(a)(1) 8-
hour ozone maintenance plan?

    The Kansas Department of Health and Environment's (KDHE) 8-hour
ozone maintenance plan addresses the components of the Section
110(a)(1) 8-hour ozone maintenance plan as outlined in EPA's May 20,
2005, guidance. Kansas has requested that the Section 110(a)(1) 8-hour
ozone maintenance plan replace the existing Section 175A 1-hour ozone
maintenance plan.
    Emissions Inventory: An emissions inventory is an itemized list of
emission estimates for sources of air pollution in a given area for a
specified time period. KDHE has provided a comprehensive and current
emissions inventory for ozone precursors (NOX, and VOCs) in
the area. KDHE has chosen to use 2002 as the base year from which they
project emissions. The maintenance plan also includes an explanation of
the methodology used for determining the anthropogenic (point, area,
and mobile sources) emissions in the maintenance area. The inventory is
based on emissions for a typical ozone season day. The term ``typical''
refers to emissions expected on a typical weekday during the months
where ozone concentrations are typically the highest. For Kansas City,
these months are June through August.
    Maintenance Demonstration and Tracking Progress: With regard to
demonstrating continued maintenance of the 8-hour ozone standard,
Kansas projects that the total emissions from the entire Kansas City
Maintenance Area (KCMA) will decrease during the ten-year maintenance
period. KDHE has projected emissions for 10 years from the effective
date of initial designations, or 2014. In 2002, the total anthropogenic
emissions in the entire KCMA were 226.42 tons/ozone season day for VOCs
and 316.09 tons/ozone season day for NOX. The projected 2014
anthropogenic emissions from the entire KCMA are 181.07 tons/ozone
season day for VOCs and 180.08 tons/ozone season day for
NOX. As such, the plan demonstrates that, from an emissions
projections standpoint, emissions are projected to decrease.
    It is important to note that the formation of ozone is dependent on
a number of variables which cannot be estimated through emissions
growth and reduction calculations. A few of these variables include
weather and the transport of ozone precursors from outside the
maintenance area. In the Section 110(a)(1) maintenance plan, KDHE has
indicated that the state will track the progress of the maintenance
plan by updating the emissions inventory for the KCMA approximately
every three years. The years of 2005, 2008, and 2011 were chosen as the
years in which emissions will be reviewed. A review of the 2005
emissions inventory is underway. The emissions inventory update will
include point, area, and onroad and offroad emissions. Information from
these future updates will be compared with the projected growth
estimates for the 2002 base inventory data to track maintenance of the
standard.
    Ambient Monitoring: With regard to the ambient air monitoring
component of the maintenance plan, Kansas's plan describes the ozone
monitoring network in Kansas City and explains that states and local
air agencies are responsible for the operation, maintenance and data
collection at these monitoring sites. KDHE commits to continue
operating air quality monitors in accordance with 40 CFR Part 58 to
verify maintenance of the 8-hour ozone standard. If any changes to the
monitoring locations become necessary, KDHE commits to working with EPA
to ensure that the adequacy of the monitoring network is maintained.
    Contingency Measures: EPA interprets Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA
to require that the state develop a contingency plan which will ensure
that any violation of an NAAQS is promptly corrected. The purposes of
the contingency measures, outlined in KDHE's maintenance plan, are to
achieve sufficient VOC and/or NOX emissions to reduce ozone
monitored concentrations. Kansas and Missouri worked to design a two-
phased approach for the contingency measure portion of the maintenance
plan. The approach includes specific triggers for

each phase. The triggers are the same for both states, although the
measures vary slightly. For Phase 1, the Kansas plan provides that a
violation of the 8-hour ozone standard, once quality assured, would
trigger two control measures, which are, (1) reduction in
NOX emission from point sources greater than 1000 tons of
actual annual emissions from the entire facility averaged over the last
three years of complete, quality-assured inventory data in Wyandotte
and Johnson Counties. This would be accomplished through either
NOX Reasonable Available Control Technology (RACT) rules or
signed agreements with affected sources, and (2) diesel idle reduction
in Wyandotte and Johnson Counties through administrative regulations or
local ordinances. If this measure is implemented, KDHE would develop
the enforcement mechanism through contracts with local agencies.
    Phase 2 contingency measures would be triggered by the occurrences
of either of the following two events: (1) A three-year design value
for the area equaling or exceeding 0.089 parts per million (ppm) which
would become active one year following the end of the ozone season that
triggered the Phase 1 contingency measures or (2) three consecutive
years following the Phase 1 trigger year with a design value greater
than 0.084 ppm. Either of these events would implement the selection of
control measures of Phase 2. Following the implementation of Phase 1,
if any one year has a three-year design value equaling or exceeding
0.085 ppm, an evaluation to determine appropriate action will be
undertaken by KDHE. The purpose of delaying the potential
implementation of Phase 2 control measures for a period of time
following the implementation of Phase 1 is to allow for Phase 1
controls to be initiated and have an effect on air quality in the
region before Phase 2 is implemented. It also allows for further
evaluation of the various control measures that could be implemented
under Phase 2. Below are a few of the control options being considered
for Phase 2:
     Reductions in NOX emissions from point sources
that exceed 100 tons of actual annual emissions from the entire
facility averaged over the last three years of complete, quality-
assured inventory data in Wyandotte and Johnson Counties. This would be
accomplished through either NOX RACT rules or signed
agreements with affected sources.
     Reductions in NOX emissions from point sources
greater than 1000 tons of actual annual emissions from the entire
facility averaged over the last three years of complete, quality-
assured inventory data in areas located south of and outside the KCMA
(Miami and Linn Counties). Based on current emissions inventory, this
would affect two sources. Reductions would be accomplished through
either a regional NOX administrative regulation or signed
agreements with affected sources.
     Open burning restrictions in Wyandotte and Johnson
Counties.
     Lower threshold for major sources of VOC to 75 tons per
year (tpy) in Wyandotte and Johnson Counties. The KDHE would evaluate
remaining large VOC emitters subject to existing VOC RACT rules to
determine if further reductions could be achieved (VOC RACT rules).
     VOC control for 46 Architectural and Industrial
Maintenance Coatings, including traffic coatings in Wyandotte and
Johnson Counties.
     Diesel Engine Chip Re-Flashing regulations in Wyandotte
and Johnson Counties.
    If triggered, the Phase 2 measures will be selected based on
emission reduction benefits, cost effectiveness and timeframe for
implementation. KDHE also would consider additional potential measures
if other beneficial emission reduction methods are determined to be
useful to the air quality in the KCMA.

What action is EPA taking?

    Kansas has addressed the components of a maintenance plan pursuant
to EPA's May 20, 2005, guidance. The section 110(a)(1) 8-hour ozone
Kansas City maintenance plan approved in this action will replace the
existing section 175A 1-hour ozone maintenance plan. Kansas has
committed to continue implementation of the VOC control measures in the
1-hour maintenance plan. Kansas has also committed to implementing the
contingency measures no later than 24 months after the trigger date and
will take action to maintain the standard in the event the contingency
measures are triggered.
    We are processing this action as a direct final action because we
do not anticipate any adverse comments. Please note that if EPA
receives adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be
severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those
parts of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

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 CAA.
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 approves a State rule implementing a
Federal standard.
    In reviewing state submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. 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 state submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a state
submission, to use VCS in place of a state submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. 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 October 9, 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, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: July 27, 2007.
John B. Askew,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.

0
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 R--Kansas

0
2. In Sec.  52.870(e) the table is amended by adding an entry at the
end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.870  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                  EPA-Approved Kansas Nonregulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Applicable
    Name of nonregulatory SIP         geographic or          State       EPA approval date       Explanation
            provision              nonattainment area   submittal date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
(31) Maintenance Plan for the 8-  Kansas City.........         5/23/07  8/9/07 [insert FR    This plan replaces
 hour ozone standard in the                                              page number where    numbers (28) and
 Kansas portion of the Kansas                                            the document         (29).
 City area.                                                              begins].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 [FR Doc. E7-15251 Filed 8-8-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P