[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 29 (Wednesday, February 12, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7897-7899]
[FR Doc No: 2020-02740]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0090; Product Identifier 2019-NM-196-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; 328 Support Services GmbH (Type
Certificate Previously Held by AvCraft Aerospace GmbH; Fairchild
Dornier GmbH; Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for all 328 Support Services GmbH Model 328-300 airplanes. This
proposed AD was prompted by a determination that new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. This proposed AD
would require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program,
as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness
limitations, as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) AD, which will be incorporated by reference. The FAA is
proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 30,
2020.

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 the material identified in this proposed AD that will be
incorporated by reference (IBR), contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer
3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 89990 1000; 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, Transport Standards 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 on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0090.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0090; 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 NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2020-0090;
Product Identifier 2019-NM-196-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
The FAA specifically invites comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. The FAA will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
NPRM based on those comments.
    The FAA will post all comments, without change, to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide.
The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact the agency receives about this NPRM.

Discussion

    The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2019-0271, dated October 30, 2019
(``EASA AD 2019-0271'') (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for all 328 Support Services GmbH Model 328-300 airplanes.
    This proposed AD was prompted by a determination that new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. The FAA is
proposing this AD to address the potential failure of parts, which
could lead to reduced control of the airplane; and to address the
potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination
with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and
consequent loss of the airplane. See the MCAI for additional background
information.

Relationship Between This Proposed AD and Certain Other ADs

    This NPRM would not supersede AD 2009-01-06 R1, Amendment 39-16082
(74 FR 57411, November 6, 2009) (``AD 2009-01-06 R1'') and AD 2012-01-
08, Amendment 39-16290 (77 FR 3583, January 25, 2012) (``AD 2012-01-
08''). Rather, the FAA has determined that a stand-alone AD would be
more appropriate to address the changes in the MCAI. AD 2009-01-06 R1
requires modifying the electrical wiring of the fuel pumps by
installing insulation at the flow control and shut-off valves, and
other components of the environmental control system; and revising the
existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to
incorporate new inspections of the fuel tank system. AD 2012-01-08
requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as
applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness
limitations. This NPRM would require revising the existing maintenance
or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations. Accomplishment of the proposed
actions would then terminate all requirements of AD 2009-01-06 R1, and
all requirements of AD 2012-01-08 for Model 328-300 airplanes only.

Related IBR Material Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2019-0271 describes airworthiness limitations for
certification maintenance requirements that include, among other items,
safe life limits and fuel tank system limitations.
    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 and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    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 proposing this AD because the FAA
evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe
condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other
products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in EASA AD 2019-0271 described previously, as incorporated by
reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the
regulatory text of this AD.

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 2019-0271
will be incorporated by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed
AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2019-0271 in its
entirety, through that incorporation, except for any differences
identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed 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 2019-0271 that is required for compliance with EASA AD 2019-
0271 will be available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0090 after the FAA
final rule is published.

Airworthiness Limitation ADs Using the New Process

    The FAA's new process, which uses MCAI ADs as the primary source of
information for compliance with corresponding FAA ADs, has been limited
to certain MCAI ADs (primarily those with service bulletins as the
primary source of information for accomplishing the actions required by
the FAA AD). However, the FAA is now expanding the process to include
MCAI ADs that specify the incorporation of airworthiness limitation
documents.
    Although the format of the airworthiness limitation ADs using the
new process is different than the FAA's existing format for
airworthiness limitation ADs, the FAA requirements are the same:
Operators must revise the existing maintenance or inspection program,
as applicable, to incorporate the information specified in the new
airworthiness limitation document.
    The previous format of the airworthiness limitation ADs included a
paragraph that specified that no alternative actions (e.g.,
inspections), or intervals may be used unless the actions and intervals
are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in
accordance with the procedures specified in the AMOCs paragraph under
``Other FAA Provisions.'' This new format includes a ``Provisions for
Alternative Actions, Intervals, and Critical Design Configuration
Control Limitation (CDCCLs)'' paragraph that does not specifically
refer to AMOCs, but operators may still request an AMOC to use an
alternative action, or interval.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 21 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this proposed AD:
    The FAA has determined that revising the maintenance or inspection
program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although the
FAA recognizes that this number may vary from operator to operator. In
the past, the FAA has estimated that this action takes 1 work-hour per
airplane. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program
changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined that a per-
operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate.
Therefore, the FAA estimates the total cost per operator to be $7,650
(90 work-hours x $85 per work-hour).

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 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 this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, 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.

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

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

328 Support Services GmbH (Type Certificate previously held by
AvCraft Aerospace GmbH; Fairchild Dornier GmbH; Dornier Luftfahrt
GmbH): Docket No. FAA-2020-0090; Product Identifier 2019-NM-196-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by March 30, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects the following ADs:
    (1) AD 2009-01-06 R1, Amendment 39-16082 (74 FR 57411, November
6, 2009) (``AD 2009-01-06 R1'').
    (2) AD 2012-01-08, Amendment 39-16920 (77 FR 3583, January 25,
2012) (``AD 2012-01-08'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all 328 Support Services GmbH (Type
Certificate previously held by AvCraft Aerospace GmbH; Fairchild
Dornier GmbH; Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH) Model 328-300 airplanes,
certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/
Maintenance Checks.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address the potential failure of parts, which
could lead to reduced control of the airplane; and to address the
potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in
combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank
explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

(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, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2019-0271, dated October 30, 2019 (``EASA AD 2019-0271'').

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2019-0271

    (1) The requirements specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of EASA
AD 2019-0271 do not apply to this AD.
    (2) Where paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2019-0271 specifies a
compliance time of ``Within 12 months'' after its effective date to
``revise the approved AMP,'' this AD requires ``revising the
existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable'' to
incorporate the ``limitations, tasks and associated thresholds and
intervals'' specified in paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2019-0271 within
90 days after the effective date of this AD.
    (3) The initial compliance time for doing the tasks specified in
paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2019-0271 is at the applicable ``associated
thresholds'' specified in paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2019-0271, or
within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs
later.
    (4) The provisions specified in paragraphs (4) and (5) of EASA
AD 2019-0271 do not apply to this AD.
    (5) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2019-0271 does not apply
to this AD.

(i) Provisions for Alternative Actions, Intervals, and Critical Design
Configuration Control Limitation (CDCCLs)

    After the existing maintenance or inspection program has been
revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative
actions (e.g., inspections), intervals, and CDCCLs are allowed
except as specified in the provisions of the ``Ref. Publications''
section of EASA AD 2019-0271.

(j) Terminating Action for Other ADs

    (1) Accomplishing the maintenance or inspection program revision
required by paragraph (g) of this AD terminates all requirements of
AD 2009-01-06 R1.
    (2) Accomplishing the maintenance or inspection program revision
required by paragraph (g) of this AD terminates all requirements of
AD 2012-01-08 for Model 328-300 airplanes only.

(k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards 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 local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (l)(2) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or 328 Support
Services GmbH's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved
by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(l) Related Information

    (1) For information about EASA AD 2019-0271, contact the EASA,
Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 89990
1000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet: www.easa.europa.eu. You
may find this EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this material at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195. This material may be found in the AD docket on the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0090.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Todd Thompson,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Issued on February 3, 2020.
Gaetano A. Sciortino,
Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-02740 Filed 2-11-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 135 (Tuesday, July 15, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 41135]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16603]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2014-0560]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Narrow Bay, Smith Point, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Smith Point Bridge across Narrow
Bay, mile 6.1, between Smith Point and Fire Island, New York. The
deviation is necessary to facilitate the 5K Run for Literacy. This
deviation allows the bridge to remain closed for one hour to facilitate
public safety during a public event.

DATES: This deviation is effective between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. on
September 6, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2014-0560] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140, on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Ms. Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer,
First Coast Guard District<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or (212) 668-
7165. If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Smith Point Bridge, mile 6.1, across
Narrow Bay, between Smith Point and Fire Island, New York, has a
vertical clearance in the closed position of 18 feet at mean high water
and 19 feet at mean low water. The drawbridge operation regulations are
listed at 33 CFR 117.799(d).
    The waterway users are recreational vessels of various sizes.
    The owner of the bridge, Suffolk County Department of Public Works,
requested a temporary deviation from the regulations to allow the
bridge to remain closed for one hour to facilitate public safety during
a public event, the 5K Run for Literacy.
    Under this temporary deviation the Smith Point Bridge across Narrow
Bay, mile 6.1, between Smith Point and Fire Island, may remain in the
closed position between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. on September 6, 2014.
    Vessels that can pass under the bridge in the closed position may
do so at any time. There are no alternate routes; however, the bridge
can open in an emergency. Vessel operators will be notified of the
bridge closure through a Safety Marine Information Broadcast (SMIB)
issued by the Coast Guard.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: July 2, 2014.
C.J. Bisignano,
Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2014-16603 Filed 7-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 210 (Monday, October 31, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67161-67162]
[FR Doc No: 2011-28001]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP12-31-000.
    Applicants: Wyoming Interstate Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Operational Purchases and Sales Report for the twelve
month period ended June 30, 2011 of Wyoming Interstate Company, L.L.C.
    Filed Date: 10/21/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111021-5066.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 02, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP12-32-000.
    Applicants: Guardian Pipeline, L.L.C.
    Description: Guardian Pipeline, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
154.204: PAL (Chevron) to be effective 10/25/2011.
    Filed Date: 10/21/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111021-5072.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 02, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP12-33-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP submits tariff filing
per 154.204: ConocoPhillips TEMAX Agreements to be effective 11/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 10/21/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111021-5074.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 02, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP12-34-000.
    Applicants: Trailblazer Pipeline Company LLC.
    Description: Penalty Revenue Crediting Report of Trailblazer
Pipeline Company LLC.
    Filed Date: 10/21/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111021-5083.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 02, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP12-35-000
    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC submits tariff filing
per 154.204: KeySpan 2011-11-01 release to BG Energy to be effective
11/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 10/24/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111024-5029.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 07, 2011.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2593-001.
    Applicants: Energy West Development, Inc.
    Description: Energy West Development, Inc. submits tariff filing
per 154.205(b): EWD ACA Filing to be effective 10/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 10/21/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111021-5119.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 28, 2011.

    Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing

requirements, interventions, protests, and service can be found at:
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other
information, call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-
8659.

    Dated: October 24, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-28001 Filed 10-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Other Mobile Sources.......................          5.4          4.6          3.4         -2.1          -38
                                                ----------------------------------------------------
        Total..................................         19.3         16.0         12.1         -7.2          -37
PM2.5
    Stationary Sources.........................          0.9          1.0          1.1          0.3           29
    Areawide Sources...........................          3.8          4.1          4.0          0.1            4
    On-Road Mobile Sources.....................          0.3          0.2          0.2         -0.1          -26
    Other Mobile Sources.......................          0.3          0.2          0.1         -0.1          -50
                                                ----------------------------------------------------
        Total..................................          5.3          5.5          5.4          0.2            3
SOX
    Stationary Sources.........................          0.1          0.2          0.2          0.1           90
    Areawide Sources...........................          0.1          0.3          0.2          0.1           67
    On-Road Mobile Sources.....................          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0           14
    Other Mobile Sources.......................          0.1          0.1          0.1          0.0            1
                                                ----------------------------------------------------
        Total..................................          0.4          0.6          0.6          0.2           61
NH3
    Stationary Sources.........................          0.4          0.4          0.5          0.1           35
    Areawide Sources...........................          4.5          4.3          4.3         -0.2           -5
    On-Road Mobile Sources.....................          0.2          0.2          0.2          0.0          -16
    Other Mobile Sources.......................          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0            0
                                                ----------------------------------------------------
        Total..................................          5.0          4.9          4.9         -0.1           -3
VOCs
    Stationary Sources.........................          4.0          4.5          4.1          0.1            2
    Areawide Sources...........................          5.5          6.3          6.5          1.0           19
    On-Road Mobile Sources.....................          2.8          1.5          1.1         -1.7          -60
    Other Mobile Sources.......................          2.3          2.0          1.7         -0.6          -26
                                                ----------------------------------------------------
        Total..................................         14.6         14.2         13.4         -1.2           -8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Source: Table 1 in CARB's 2014 Staff Report. Net percent change is computed using the original figures
  having four decimal places, but values for 2011, 2017, 2018, and net tpd change are rounded to the nearest
  tenth of a tpd and, as a result, adding rounded values may not equal totals in table.

    Based on our review of the emissions inventories (and related
documentation) from the Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5 Plan, we
find that the inventories for 2011 are comprehensive, that the methods
and assumptions used by CARB and FRAQMD to develop the emission
inventories are reasonable, and that the 2011 inventory reasonably
estimates actual PM2.5 emissions in the attainment year.
Therefore, we are proposing to approve the 2011 inventory, which serves
as the Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5 Plan's attainment year
inventory, as satisfying the requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the
CAA for the purposes of redesignation of the Yuba City-Marysville
PM2.5 nonattainment area to attainment of the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS.
2. Maintenance Demonstration
    Section 175A(a) of the CAA requires that the maintenance plan
``provide for the maintenance of the national primary ambient air
quality standard for such air pollutant in the area concerned for at
least 10 years after the redesignation.'' Generally, a state may
demonstrate maintenance of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by
modeling to show that the future mix of sources and emissions rates
will not cause a violation of the NAAQS. A showing that future
emissions will not exceed the level of the attainment year inventory
can also be used to further support of a maintenance demonstration. For
areas that are required under the Act to submit modeled attainment
demonstrations, the maintenance demonstration should use the same type
of modeling. Calcagni memorandum, page 9.
    The Yuba-City Marysville PM2.5 Plan's maintenance
demonstration is based on the use of proportional rollback to
demonstrate maintenance of the 24-hour PM2.5 standard until
the maintenance year 2024. See Plan, pp. VI-1--VI-3. FRAQMD assumes
that the 2011 design value (DV) will change in proportion to the change
in the corresponding species components of the emission inventory
between 2011 and 2024.
    As described previously, exceedances of the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in the Yuba City-Marysville nonattainment area
have occurred November through February. Chemical composition data can
be used to understand the types of emission sources that contribute to
ambient PM2.5 in these winter months; however, these
measurements are not

routinely collected in the Yuba City-Marysville nonattainment area. A
limited chemical composition analysis was done on samples collected at
the Yuba City-Almond Street monitor (AQS ID: 061010003) in 2004-
2006.\54\ Archived Teflon filters were analyzed by a combination of X-
ray Fluorescence (XRF) to provide elemental concentrations and Ion
Chromatography (IC) to estimate ions (sulfate, nitrate, potassium,
ammonium, etc.). These data show that PM2.5 on days with
high concentrations during the cool season \55\ was made up of TCM
(54%), ammonium nitrate (38%), ammonium sulfate (6%), and crustal
materials (2%). See Plan, pp. IV-5--IV-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ Availability of New Speciation Data for Some Areas that EPA
Intends to Designate as Nonattainment, Neil Frank, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, September 18, 2008 available at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/pm/docs/available_new_speciation_data_pm2.5_naa.pdf.
    \55\ Days with concentrations above the 95th percentile of
measured PM2.5 during October-April.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Yuba-City Marysville PM2.5 Plan shows that the
PM2.5 composition on high concentration days likely did not
change between 2004-2006 and the emission inventory year 2011. See CARB
2014 Staff Report p. 8-9. FRAQMD argues that while emission reductions
have reduced the frequency and magnitude of high concentration day
events, there would be little impact on exceedance day composition due
to consistent meteorology and control programs targeting all
contributors to PM2.5 mass. As additional evidence, data
from the Sacramento-T Street site (AQS ID: 060670010), the closest
monitor with routine composition data and similar meteorology, is
presented. These data shows that despite decreases in emissions over
the years the composition in 2010-2012 was very similar to that in
2004-2006. We find the assumption that the chemical composition was
consistent between 2004-2006 and 2011 to be reasonable. FRAQMD used the
composition data for 2004-2006 to partition the 2011 DV of 27 [micro]g/
m\3\ into its components of 14.6 [mu]g/m\3\ TCM, 10.3 [mu]g/m\3\
ammonium nitrate, 1.6 [mu]g/m\3\ ammonium sulfate, and 0.5 [mu]g/m\3\
crustal materials.
    The Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5 Plan demonstrates that
the 2024 maintenance year inventory is well below the 2011 attainment
year inventory for NOX, the most important PM2.5
precursor and about equal for direct PM2.5, the largest
contributor to PM2.5. Emissions for SOX are
projected to increase, but sulfate is a very small contributor.
Emissions for VOC and ammonia, the other potential precursors, are
projected to decrease. Table 6 presents a summary of the direct
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor emissions estimates for
2011, 2017, and 2024 in the Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5
Maintenance Plan. Emissions are projected to change between 2011 and
2014 for direct PM2.5 (+3%), NH3 (-3%),
NOX (-37%), SOX (+61%), and VOCs (-8%). Since
current ambient concentrations are well below the NAAQS, the
NOX decrease together with the slight increase in projected
direct PM2.5 and SOX emissions are consistent
with maintenance of the NAAQS, as discussed below.
    Based on our review of the 2017 and 2024 emissions inventories and
related documentation from the Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5
Plan, we find that the 2017 and 2024 emissions inventories in the Plan
reflect the latest planning assumptions and emissions models available
at the time the Plan was developed, and provide a comprehensive and
reasonably accurate basis upon which to forecast direct
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor emissions for years
2017 and 2024.\56\ These inventories further support maintenance
through 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ The 2024 emission inventory includes emissions reductions
from State measures adopted through June 2011 plus reductions from
the Advanced Clean Cars Program. Emails from Kasia Turkiewicz, CARB,
to John Ungvarsky, EPA, August 20, 2014, and September 8, 2014.

     Table 6--Summary of 2011, 2017 and 2024 Projected PM2.5 and PM2.5 Precursor Emissions in the Yuba City-
         Marysville PM2.5 Nonattainment Area (Tons Per Day, Average Winter Day), and 2011-2024 Change a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Net change   Net change
                   Pollutants                        2011         2017         2024         tpd           %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5..........................................          5.3          5.5          5.4          0.2            3
NOX............................................         19.3         16.0         12.1         -7.2          -37
SOX............................................          0.4          0.6          0.6          0.2           61
NH3............................................          5.0          4.9          4.9         -0.1           -3
VOC............................................         14.6         14.2         13.4         -1.2           -8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Source: Table 1 in CARB's 2014 Staff Report. Net percent change is computed using the original figures
  having four decimal places, but values 2011, 2017, 2024, and net tpd change are rounded to the nearest tenth
  of a tpd, and, as a result, adding rounded values may not equal net change in table.

    Assuming TCM and crustal material are from directly emitted
PM2.5, a 3% increase in the estimated 2011 TCM ambient
contribution (i.e., 14.6 [mu]g/m\3\) corresponds to a 0.45 [mu]g/m\3\
increase in ambient PM2.5. Ammonium nitrate and ammonium
sulfate are secondary PM, that is, they are formed from chemical
reactions in the air, and so do not necessarily scale one-to-one with
the precursor NOX, NH3, and SOX
emissions. Assuming a conservative one-to-one SOX to
ammonium sulfate, a 61% increase in SOX corresponds to a 1.0
[mu]g/m\3\ PM2.5 increase. NOX emissions are
projected to decrease by 37% and NH3 is projected to
decrease by 3%. FRAQMD assumes a one-to-one NOX to ammonium
nitrate resulting in a 3.8 [mu]g/m\3\ PM2.5 decrease. The
amount of NOX to ammonium nitrate formation, however, can
vary depending on a number of chemical and meteorological factors.
Photochemical modeling for the Sacramento region shows that a 1% change
in NOX causes only a 0.7% change in ammonium nitrate. See 78
FR 44494 at 59261 (July 24, 2013). Using this assumption, the 37%
NOX decrease results in a 2.7 [mu]g/m\3\ PM2.5
decrease. Taken together, the changes in precursor emissions from 2011
to 2024 result in an overall decrease of 1.25 [mu]g/m\3\ in the DV. See
Plan, Table VI-4 p. VI-3.
    The results of the proportional roll-back analysis show that the
Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5 nonattainment area will be well
below the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in 2024, with the projected DV
of 25.75 [mu]g/m\3\. This is higher than the 24.6 [micro]g/m\3\ in the
Plan (based on a one-to-one ammonium nitrate response to NOX
reductions), but is still well below the NAAQS. The effects of the
declining NOX outweigh slight increases in direct
PM2.5 and SOX.
    For the above reasons, EPA believes the area will continue to
maintain the

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS at least through 2024 and that the
Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5 Maintenance Plan shows
maintenance for a period of ten years following redesignation. Thus,
EPA proposes approval of the Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5
Maintenance Plan in 2014, based on a showing, in accordance with
section 175A, that the Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5
Maintenance Plan provides for maintenance for at least ten years after
redesignation.
3. Maintenance Plan and Evaluation of VOC and Ammonia Precursors
    With regard to the redesignation of Yuba City-Marysville
nonattainment area, in evaluating the effect of the Court's remand of
EPA's implementation rule, which included presumptions against
consideration of VOC and ammonia as PM2.5 precursors, EPA in
this proposal is also considering the impact of the decision on the
maintenance plan required under sections 175A and 107(d)(3)(E)(iv). To
begin with, EPA notes that the area has attained the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 standard and that the State has shown that attainment
of that standard is due to permanent and enforceable emission
reductions.
    EPA proposes to determine that the State's maintenance plan shows
continued maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard by
tracking the levels of the precursors whose control brought about
attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard in the Yuba
City-Marysville nonattainment area. EPA, therefore, believes that the
only additional consideration related to the maintenance plan
requirements that results from the Court's January 4, 2013 decision is
that of assessing the potential role of VOC and ammonia in
demonstrating continued maintenance in this area. As explained below,
based upon documentation provided by the State and supporting
information, EPA believes that the maintenance plan for the Yuba City-
Marysville nonattainment area need not include any additional emission
reductions of VOC or ammonia in order to provide for continued
maintenance of the 2006 24-hr PM2.5 standard.
    First, as noted above in EPA's discussion of section 189(e), VOC
emission levels in this area have historically been controlled under
SIP requirements related to ozone and other pollutants, and the area
has no major stationary sources of ammonia. Second and as described
below, available information shows that precursor emissions, including
VOC and ammonia, are not expected to increase over the maintenance
period so as to interfere with or undermine the State's maintenance
demonstration.
    In the Yuba City-Marysville nonattainment area, emissions of
NOX, NH3, and VOC are projected to decrease over
the maintenance period for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard.
See Tables 5 and 6. Given that the Yuba City-Marysville nonattainment
area is already attaining the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS even
with the current level of emissions from sources in the area, the
downward trend of emissions inventories would be consistent with
continued attainment. Indeed, projected emissions reductions for the
precursors that the State is addressing for purposes of the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 standard indicate that the area should continue
to attain the standard following the precursor control strategy that
the State has already elected to pursue. Even though direct
PM2.5 and SOX are both projected to marginally
increase by 0.2 tpd between 2011 and 2024, the overall emissions
reductions projected in NOX, NH3, and VOC would
be sufficient to offset the very small increase in direct
PM2.5 and SOX. For these reasons, EPA believes
that emissions from potential PM2.5 precursors will not
cause monitored PM2.5 levels to violate the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 standard during the maintenance period. In addition,
the 2011-2013 design value for the area is 29 [micro]g/m\3\, which is
well below the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard of 35 [micro]g/
m\3\. Given that precursor emissions are projected to decrease through
2024, it is reasonable to conclude that monitored PM2.5
levels in this area will also continue to decrease through 2024.
    Thus, EPA believes that there is ample justification to conclude
that the Yuba City-Marysville nonattainment area should be
redesignated, even taking into consideration the emissions of other
precursors potentially relevant to PM2.5. Even if the
requirements of section 189(e) were deemed applicable at the time the
State submitted the redesignation request, and for the reasons set
forth in this notice, EPA proposes to approve the State's maintenance
plan and its request to redesignate the Yuba City-Marysville
nonattainment area to attainment for the 1997 PM2.5 annual
standard.
4. Verification of Continued Attainment
    In demonstrating maintenance, continued attainment of the NAAQS can
be verified through operation of an appropriate air quality monitoring
network. The Calcagni memorandum states that the maintenance plan
should contain provisions for continued operation of air quality
monitors that will provide such verification. Calcagni memorandum, p.
11. As discussed in section VI.A of this document, PM2.5 is
currently monitored by CARB within the Yuba City-Marysville
PM2.5 nonattainment area. In the Yuba City-Marysville
PM2.5 Plan (see Plan, p. VII-1), the District indicates it
will work with CARB in the continued operation of the Yuba City-
Marysville monitoring site (i.e., AQS site 06-101-0003) and maintain
compliance with federal requirements in 40 CFR Part 58. The Plan also
indicates that CARB intends to maintain an appropriate PM2.5
monitoring network through the maintenance period. We find that the
Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5 Plan contains adequate provisions
for continued operation of air quality monitors that will provide
verification of continued attainment.
    Second, the transportation conformity process, which would require
a comparison of on-road motor vehicle emissions that would occur under
new or amended regional transportation plans and programs with the
MVEBs in the Plan, represents another means by which to verify
continued attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in Yuba
City-Marysville nonattainment area.
    Lastly, CARB and FRAQMD must inventory emissions sources and report
to EPA on a periodic basis under 40 CFR part 51, subpart A (``Air
Emissions Reporting Requirements''). These emissions inventory updates
will provide a third way to evaluate emissions trends in the area and
thereby verify continued attainment of the NAAQS. These methods are
sufficient for the purpose of verifying continued attainment.
5. Contingency Provisions
    Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that maintenance plans include
contingency provisions, as EPA deems necessary, to promptly correct any
violations of the NAAQS that occur after redesignation of the area.
Such provisions must include a requirement that the State will
implement all measures with respect to the control of the air pollutant
concerned that were contained in the SIP for the area before
redesignation of the area as an attainment area. These contingency
provisions are distinguished from those generally required for
nonattainment areas under section 172(c)(9) in that they are not
required to be fully-adopted measures that will take effect without
further action by the state in order for the maintenance plan to be
approved. However, the contingency plan is considered to be an
enforceable part of the SIP and should ensure that the

contingency measures are adopted expeditiously once they are triggered
by a specified event.
    Under section 175A(d), contingency measures identified in the
contingency plan do not have to be fully adopted at the time of
redesignation. However, the contingency plan is considered to be an
enforceable part of the SIP and should ensure that the contingency
measures are adopted expeditiously once they are triggered by a
specified event. The maintenance plan should clearly identify the
measures to be adopted, a schedule and procedure for adoption and
implementation, and a specific timeline for action by the State. As a
necessary part of the plan, the State should also identify specific
indicators or triggers, which will be used to determine when the
contingency measures need to be implemented.
    As required by section 175A of the CAA, FRAQMD has adopted a
contingency plan to address possible future PM2.5 air
quality problems. The contingency provisions in the Yuba City-
Marysville PM2.5 Plan are contained in section VII of the
Plan and were clarified in a subsequent letter from the District.\57\
In the Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5 Plan, FRAQMD identifies
the contingency plan trigger as a violation of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. If that should occur, FRAQMD commits to the
following steps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ Letter from Christopher D. Brown, Air Pollution Control
Officer, FRAQMD, to Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, US EPA,
Region 9, and Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, dated
December 19, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Within 60 days of the trigger, FRAQMD will commence an analysis
to determine if the violation was caused by a natural event or
instrument malfunction, and evaluate meteorological conditions and
emissions inventory.
    (2) FRAQMD will consult with interested parties, community
organizations, and industry to identify and implement, within nine
months after the trigger, voluntary and incentive measures to reduce
directly emitted PM2.5.
    (3) If the violation occurred because of emissions from sources
within Sutter or Yuba counties, the FRAQMD will promptly adopt and
implement, no later than 18-24 months after the violation, new or
revised measures necessary to ensure attainment. The measures that
FRAQMD would consider and analyze are listed in Table 7. Additional
rules may be considered depending on the cause of the violation of the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard.

Table 7--Measures for Consideration and Analysis in Step 3 of the FRAQMD
                            Contingency Plan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Source category                     Control measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary Sources................  Combustion Devices (boilers,
                                     incinerators, engines, and
                                     turbines).
                                    Industrial Processes (manufacturing,
                                     industrial, agricultural, oil and
                                     gas).
Opening Burning Restrictions......  Managed Burning (agricultural and
                                     residential opening burning).
                                    Prescribed Burning.
Fugitive Dust.....................  Paved Roads (truck covering,
                                     construction site measures, storm
                                     water drainage).
                                    Unpaved Roads (paving and surface
                                     improvements, chemical
                                     stabilization, speed reduction).
                                    Construction and Demolition (truck
                                     covering, access areas, watering).
                                    Storage Piles (wet suppression and
                                     dust control).
                                    Agricultural Processes (reducing
                                     dust from tilling, harvesting,
                                     processing; also conservation).
Opacity Restrictions..............  Visible emissions limitations.
Residential Wood Burning Devices..  Mandatory curtailment, conversion/
                                     upgrade of existing devices,
                                     restrictions on new devices.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In their December 19, 2013 letter, FRAQMD clarified that all three
of the aforementioned steps will be completed, including the
implementation of additional control measures, within 18-24 months of
trigger activation.
    Upon our review of the Plan, as summarized above, we find that the
contingency provisions of the Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5
Plan clearly identify specific contingency measures, contain tracking
and triggering mechanisms to determine when contingency measures are
needed, contain a description of the process of recommending and
implementing contingency measures, and contain specific timelines for
action. Thus, we conclude that the contingency provisions of the Yuba
City-Marysville PM2.5 Plan are adequate to ensure prompt
correction of a violation and therefore comply with section 175A(d) of
the CAA. For the reasons set forth above, EPA is proposing to find that
the Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5 Plan is consistent with the
maintenance plan contingency provision requirements of the CAA and EPA
guidance.
6. Transportation Conformity and Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
a. Requirements for Transportation Conformity and Motor Vehicle
Emissions Budgets
    Under section 176(c) of the CAA, transportation plans, programs and
projects in the nonattainment or maintenance areas that are funded or
approved under title 23 U.S.C. and the Federal Transit Laws (49 U.S.C.
chapter 53) must conform to the applicable SIP. In short, a
transportation plan and program are deemed to conform to the applicable
SIP if the emissions resulting from the implementation of that
transportation plan and program are less than or equal to the motor
vehicle emissions budgets (budgets) established in the SIP for the
attainment year, maintenance year and other years. See, generally, 40
CFR part 93 for the federal conformity regulations and 40 CFR 93.118
specifically for how budgets are used in conformity.
    The budgets serve as a ceiling on emissions that would result from
an area's planned transportation system. The budget concept is further
explained in the preamble to the November 24, 1993, transportation
conformity rule (58 FR 62188). Maintenance plan submittals must specify
the maximum emissions of transportation-related PM2.5 and
NOX emissions allowed in the last year of the maintenance
period, i.e., the motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs). (MVEBs may
also be specified for additional years during the maintenance period.)
The submittal must also demonstrate that these emissions levels, when
considered with emissions from all other sources, are consistent with
maintenance of the NAAQS.
b. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the Yuba City-Marysville
PM2.5 Plan
    The Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5 Plan contains
PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for the Yuba City-Marysville
PM2.5 nonattainment area for 2017 and 2024.

The MVEBs are the on-road mobile source primary PM2.5 and
NOX (as a PM2.5 precursor) emissions for Yuba
City-Marysville nonattainment area for 2017 and 2024. The derivation of
the MVEBs is discussed in section VIII of the Yuba City-Marysville
PM2.5 Plan and in SACOG's Regional Planning Partnership
Action Item #3, February 20, 2013.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ Included in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The details for each component of the budgets are shown in Table 9
and are comprised of direct on-road mobile source emissions, safety
margins, and an adjustment for reductions from the State's Advanced
Clean Car Program. Direct PM2.5 emissions from road
construction, paved roads and unpaved roads were evaluated by FRAQMD
and determined to not be a significant contributor to the
PM2.5 nonattainment problem, and, as such, do not need to be
evaluated as part of a conformity determination.\59\ See 40 CFR
93.124(a). A state may choose to apply a safety margin under our
transportation conformity rule so long as such margins are explicitly
quantified in the applicable plan and are shown to be consistent with
attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS (whichever is relevant to the
particular plan).\60\ In this instance, the safety margin has been
explicitly quantified and shown to be consistent with continued
maintenance of the PM2.5 NAAQS through the applicable
maintenance period, through 2024. The State's MVEB analysis considered:
(1) On-road motor vehicle emission inventory factors of EMFAC2011; and
(2) updated recent vehicle activity data from SACOG's Sacramento
Activity-Based Travel Demand Simulation Model transportation modeling
system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ See section VIII.c. in the Yuba City-Marysville
PM2.5 Plan.
    \60\ See 40 CFR 93.124(a).

             Table 9--Source Categories and Emissions Comprising the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
                                       [tons per day, average winter day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        2017                      2024
                          Category                           ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                  NOX         PM2.5         NOX         PM2.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-road emissions inventory \a\.............................          4.6         0.15          2.7         0.15
Safety Margin...............................................          0.7           --          0.5           --
Advanced Clean Car Program Adjustment.......................          0.0           --         -0.1           --
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
    Totals..................................................          5.3          0.2          3.1          0.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Rounded up to nearest tenth of a ton, includes PM2.5 from tire and brake wear.

c. Initial Adequacy Review of Budgets
    On May 20, 2014, EPA announced the availability of the Yuba City-
Marysville PM2.5 Plan with MVEBs and a 30-day public comment
period on EPA's Adequacy Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/reg9sips.htm#ca. The comment period for this
notification ended on June 19, 2014, and EPA received no comments from
the public. On August 25, 2014, EPA published in the Federal Register
(79 FR 50646) a finding of adequacy for the PM2.5 MVEBs for
the years 2017 and 2024. The new MVEBs became effective on September 9,
2014. After the effective date of the adequacy finding, the new MVEBs
must be used in future transportation conformity determinations in the
Yuba City-Marysville nonattainment area. EPA is not required under its
transportation conformity rule to find budgets adequate prior to
proposing approval of them, but in this instance, we have completed the
adequacy review of these budgets prior to our action on the Yuba City-
Marysville PM2.5 Plan.
d. Proposed Actions on the Budgets
    EPA is proposing to approve the MVEBs for 2017 and 2024 as part of
our approval of Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5 Plan. EPA has
determined that the MVEB emission targets are consistent with emission
control measures in the SIP and that Yuba City-Marysville nonattainment
area can maintain attainment of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
Because the budgets EPA found adequate in 79 FR 50646 (August 25, 2014)
are the same budgets EPA is proposing to approve in this action, if EPA
approves the MVEBs in the final rulemaking action, it would not change
the budgets currently in use for future transportation conformity
determinations for Yuba City-Marysville County. As discussed in section
V.D.2 of this notice, EPA is proposing that if this approval is
finalized in 2014 the area will continue to maintain the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS through at least 2024. Consistent with this
proposal, EPA is proposing to approve the MVEBs submitted by the State
in the Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5 Plan. EPA is proposing
that the submitted budgets are consistent with maintenance of the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS through 2024.

VII. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment

    Based on our review of the Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5
Plan submitted by the State, air quality monitoring data, and other
relevant materials, EPA is proposing to find that the State has
addressed all the necessary requirements for redesignation of the Yuba
City-Marysville nonattainment area to attainment of the
PM2.5 NAAQS, pursuant to CAA sections 107(d)(3)(E) and 175A.
    First, under CAA section 107(d)(3)(D), we are proposing to approve
CARB's request, which accompanied the submittal of the Yuba City-
Marysville PM2.5 Plan, to redesignate the Yuba City-
Marysville PM2.5 nonattainment area to attainment for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. We are doing so based on our
conclusion that the area has met the five criteria for redesignation
under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E). Our conclusion is based on our proposed
determination that the area has attained the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS; that relevant portions of the California SIP
are fully approved; that the improvement in air quality is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions; that California has
met all requirements applicable to the Yuba City-Marysville
PM2.5 nonattainment area with respect to section 110 and
part D of the CAA; and is based on our proposed approval of the Yuba
City-Marysville PM2.5 Plan as part of this action.
    Second, in connection with the Yuba City-Marysville
PM2.5 Plan showing maintenance through 2024, EPA is
proposing to find that the maintenance demonstration, which documents
how the area will continue to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS for 10 years

beyond redesignation (i.e., through 2024) and the actions that FRAQMD
will take if a future monitored violation triggers the contingency
plan, meets all applicable requirements for maintenance plans and
related contingency provisions in section 175A of the CAA. EPA is also
proposing to approve the motor vehicle emissions budgets in the Yuba
City-Marysville PM2.5 Plan because we find they meet the
applicable transportation conformity requirements under 40 CFR
93.118(e). Lastly, EPA is proposing to approve the 2011 inventory,
which serves as the Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5 Plan's
attainment year inventory, as satisfying the requirements of section
172(c)(3) of the CAA.
    We are soliciting comments on these proposed actions. We will
accept comments from the public on this proposal for 30 days following
publication of this proposal in the Federal Register. We will consider
these comments before taking final action.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E)
are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not
impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those
imposed by State law. Redesignation to attainment does not in and of
itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the
applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have
been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, 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, these actions merely propose to approve a
State plan and redesignation request as meeting federal requirements
and do not impose additional requirements beyond those by State law.
For these reasons, these proposed actions:
     Are 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);
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are 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.);
     Do 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);
     Do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not an economically significant regulatory action
based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. There are no
federally recognized tribes located within the Yuba City-Marysville
PM2.5 nonattainment area.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.

    Dated: September 29, 2014.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2014-24489 Filed 10-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 151 (Tuesday, August 8, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53496-53497]
[FR Doc No: 2023-16923]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-N-1721]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Investigational New
Drug Application Requirements

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) is
announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Submit written comments (including recommendations) on the
collection of information by September 7, 2023.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be submitted to https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under Review--Open for Public
Comments'' or by using the search function. The OMB control number for
this information collection is 0910-0014. Also include the FDA docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Domini Bean, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Investigational New Drug Application Requirements

OMB Control Number 0910-0014--Revision

    This information collection supports implementation of provisions
of section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act)
(21 U.S.C. 355) and of the licensing provisions of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) that govern investigational new
drugs and investigational new drug applications (INDs). Implementing
regulations are found in part 312 (21 CFR part 312) and provide for the
issuance of guidance documents under 21 CFR 10.115 to assist persons in
complying with the applicable requirements (see Sec.  312.145). The
information collection applies to all clinical investigations subject
to section 505 of the FD&C Act.
    For efficiency of Agency operations, we are revising the
information collection to include burden that may be associated with
recommendations found in the guidance document entitled ``E6(R2) Good
Clinical Practice: Integrated Addendum to ICH E6(R1) (March 2018),''
currently approved in OMB control number 0910-0843. The guidance
document is intended to facilitate implementation of improved and
efficient approaches to clinical trial design, including conduct,
oversight, recording, and reporting. The recommendations in the
guidance help us ensure that sponsors of clinical trials are adhering
to requirements prescribed in FDA regulations regarding new drug
applications (NDA) (part 312), INDs (21 CFR part 314), and biological
licensing applications (BLA) (21 CFR part 601). The guidance document
is available for download from our website at https://www.fda.gov/media/93884/download.
    In the Federal Register of April 11, 2023 (88 FR 21682), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. No comments were received.
    We estimate the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                   Table 1--Estimated Annual Recordkeeping \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   312.145: guidance
  documents; recommendations in      Number of       Number of     Total annual   Average burden
   ICH E6(R2) ``good clinical       respondents    responses per     responses     per response     Total hours
           practice''                               respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 5.0.7. Risk Reporting--            1,880             3.9           7,362               3          22,082
 Describing the Quality
 Management Approach Implemented
 in a Clinical Trial and
 Summarizing Important
 Deviations From the Predefined
 Quality Tolerance Limits and
 Remedial Actions Taken in the
 Clinical Study Report..........
Section 5 Quality Management               1,880               1           1,880              60         112,800
 (including sections 5.0.1 to
 5.0.7)--Developing a Quality
 Management System..............
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............           9,242  ..............         134,882
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

    Respondents to the collection of information are sponsors of
clinical trials of human drugs. Based on IND and NDA submission data,
including submissions to both FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, we
estimate there are 1,880 respondents to the information collection. We
assume the risk reporting recommendations and associated records
discussed in section 5 of the guidance document requires 3 hours to
complete, as reflected in table 1, row 1. In table 1, row 2, we account
for burden associated with the development of a quality management
system and associated recordkeeping also discussed in section 5 of the
guidance document. We assume it will take respondents 60 hours to
develop and implement each quality management system, as recommended.
These estimates are based on our past experiences with INDs, BLAs, and
NDAs submitted to FDA.
    Since our last evaluation of the information collection burden we
attribute to recommendations applicable to activities discussed in the
guidance document, we have made no adjustments to our estimate.

    Dated: August 3, 2023.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-16923 Filed 8-7-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 19 (Tuesday, January 29, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6152-6154]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01840]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68710; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2013-02]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 107C--
Equities To Allow Retail Liquidity Providers To Enter Retail Price
Improvement Orders in a Non-RLP Capacity for Securities to Which the
RLP Is Not Assigned

January 23, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on January 11, 2013, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE MKT'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 107C--Equities to clarify that

Retail Liquidity Providers (``RLPs'') may enter Retail Price
Improvement Orders (``RPIs'') in a non-RLP capacity for securities to
which the RLP is not assigned. The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing an amendment to Rule 107C--Equities to
clarify that RLPs may enter RPIs in a non-RLP capacity for securities
to which the RLP is not assigned.
    Under current Rule 107C--Equities, a member organization that is
registered as an RLP must submit RPIs for securities that are assigned
to the RLP, with an RPI being required to be priced better than the
PBBO by at least $0.001 per share. For each assigned securities, an RLP
must maintain RPIs that are better than the PBBO at least 5% of the
trading day. If an RLP fails to meet this 5% quoting requirement in any
assigned security for three consecutive months, the Exchange may: (1)
Revoke the assignment of any or all of the affected securities; (2)
revoke the assignment of unaffected securities; or (3) disqualify the
member organization to serve as a Retail Liquidity Provider. Under the
Retail Liquidity Program, member organizations that are not RLPs are
permitted to interact with Retail Orders within the Program by also
submitting RPIs. Member organizations are not eligible for the lower
execution fees available to RLPs who satisfy their quoting
requirements.
    The Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 107C--Equities to clarify
that RLPs may act in a non-RLP capacity for those securities to which
it is not assigned, and as a result, may submit RPIs for those
securities. For securities to which it is not assigned, the RLP would
not be required to satisfy the quoting requirements found in Rule
107C(f)--Equities, but would also not be eligible for the lower
execution fees available to RLPs submitting RPIs for assigned
securities.\3\ For assigned securities, the RLP would still be subject
to the quoting requirements found in Rule 107C(f)--Equities, and
failure to meet those requirements, could still result in the actions
found in Rule 107C(g)--Equities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Currently, RLPs who satisfy the applicable percentage
requirement of Rule 107C--Equities are not charged a fee per share
per execution of RPIs against a Retail Order. Non-RLP member
organizations, unless they execute an average daily volume during
the month of at least 500,000 shares of RPIs, would be charged a fee
per share per execution of RPIs against Retail Orders of $0.0003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\4\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\5\ in particular, in that
it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system. The Exchange believes the change
proposed herein meets these requirements because it permits member
organizations who have taken on the extra requirements of being an RLP
in its assigned securities to still participate in the Program with
other member organizations for those securities to which it is not
assigned, which promotes just and equitable principles of trade.
Without such permission, an RLP would be effectively penalized for
taking on the responsibilities of becoming an RLP in assigned
securities by not being permitted to participate in the program in
securities to which it is not assigned. The proposed rule change would
rectify this disparate treatment between RLPs and non-RLP member
organizations in non-assigned securities. Additionally, the proposed
rule change will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system because it will allow
RLPs to submit RPIs in both its assigned and non-assigned securities,
thus creating a larger pool of liquidity for Retail Orders to interact
with and stimulating further price competition for retail orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that
the amendment, by increasing the level of participation in the program,
will increase the level of competition around executions such that
retail investors would receive better prices than they currently do on
the Exchange and potentially through bilateral internalization
arrangements. The Exchange believes that the transparency and
competitiveness of operating a program such as the Retail Liquidity
Program on an exchange market would result in better prices for retail
investors, and benefits retail investors by expanding the capabilities
of Exchanges to encompass practices currently allowed on non-Exchange
venues.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \6\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\7\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \8\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b4(f)(6)(iii),\9\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection

of investors and the public interest.\10\ The Exchange has asked the
Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may
become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission believes that
waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The proposal would explicitly state
that RLPs could submit RPIs in non-assigned securities, which should
allow retail orders additional opportunities to receive price
improvement. Therefore, the Commission designates the proposed rule
change as operative upon filing.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \10\ In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires the Exchange to
give the Commission written notice of the Exchange's intent to file
the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of
the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the
date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as
designated by the Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this
requirement.
    \11\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \12\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2013-02 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2013-02. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2013-02 and should
be submitted on or before February 19, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-01840 Filed 1-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P