[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 74 (Tuesday, April 17, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16794-16796]
[FR Doc No: 2018-07819]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0142; Product Identifier 2018-NE-04-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company CF34-8E
Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
General Electric Company (GE) CF34-8E turbofan engines. This proposed
AD was prompted by a report from GE regarding a quality escape of
nonconforming thrust reverser fire seals. This proposed AD would
require a one-time inspection of the gap between the core cowl seal and
the pylon seal of the thrust reverser for correct gap width, and
replacement of the seals, if needed. We are proposing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 1, 2018.

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 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: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact General
Electric Company, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215; telephone 513-
552-3272; email [email protected]. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. 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 by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0142; 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 (phone: 800-647-
5527) is listed above. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Bethka, Aerospace Engineer, ECO
Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-
238-7129; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite 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-2018-0142;
Product Identifier 2018-NE-04-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM 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 NPRM.

Discussion

    We received a report from the manufacturer about a fire seal gap
quality escape on GE CF34-8E turbofan engines. Some thrust reverser
fire seals, installed on thrust reverser part numbers (P/Ns) 15G0002-
013, 15G0002-014, 15G0003-013, and 15G0003-014, were shipped from a
supplier with nonconforming seal gaps.
    An analysis by the manufacturer has shown that a gap between the 12
o'clock core cowl seal and pylon seal that is greater than the 1 mm
design requirement could result in fire outside the fire zone. This
unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in an uncontrolled
fire, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.

Related Service Information

    We reviewed GE CF34-8E Service Bulletin (SB) 78-0066 R00, dated
December 11, 2017. The SB describes procedures for measuring the width
of the RTV filled gap between the thrust reverser fire seals at the 12
o'clock core cowl seal and pylon seal installed on thrust reverser P/Ns
15G0002-013, 15G0002-014, 15G0003-013, and 15G0003-014, and replacing
with parts eligible for installation, if needed.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we 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 a one-time inspection of the gap
between the core cowl seal and the pylon seal of the thrust reverser
for correct gap width, and replacement of the thrust reverser fire
seals, if needed.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 936 engines installed on
airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
               Action                         Labor cost            Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection.........................  0.25 work-hours x $85 per                $0          $21.25         $19,890
                                      hour = $21.25.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements
that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection.
We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need
these replacements:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                   Action                                 Labor cost                Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remove and replace thrust reverser fire      2.75 work-hours x $85 per hour =             $3,228       $3,461.75
 seals.                                       $233.75.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to engines, propellers, and
associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards
Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.

Regulatory Findings

    We 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) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

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):

General Electric Company: Docket No. FAA-2018-0142; Product
Identifier 2018-NE-04-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by June 1, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all General Electric Company (GE) CF34-8E
turbofan engines.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7830, Thrust
Reverser.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report from GE regarding a quality
escape of nonconforming thrust reverser fire seal gaps. We are
issuing this AD to inspect for nonconforming thrust reverser fire
seal gaps that could result in a fire outside the fire zone. The
unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in an uncontrolled
fire, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    (1) For all CF34-8E turbofan engines, before the engine
accumulates 8,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD,
perform the following one-time inspection, and, if needed, replace
the core cowl seal and pylon seal.
    (i) Measure the width of the RTV filled gap between thrust
reverser fire seals at the junction between 12 o'clock core cowl
seal and pylon seal, at the following half thrust reverser
locations: engine 1 left hand (LH) half thrust reverser, part number
(P/N) 15G0002-013; engine 2 LH half thrust reverser, P/N 15G0002-
014; engine 1 right hand (RH) half thrust reverser, P/N 15G0003-013;
and engine 2 RH half thrust reverser P/N 15G0003-014.
    (ii) If the gap width between the 12 o'clock core cowl seal and
the pylon seal is greater than 1 mm, replace both seals with parts
eligible for installation to form a new gap of 1 mm or less, prior
to return to service.
    (2) You may refer to GE CF34-8E Service Bulletin 78-0066 R00,
dated December 11, 2017 for guidance on inspecting and replacing the
thrust reverser fire seals.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, ECO 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 manager of the
certification office, send it to the attention of the person
identified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD.
    (2) 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.

(i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact David Bethka,
Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA,1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
General Electric Company, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected]. You may
view this referenced service information at the FAA, Engine and
Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA
01803. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on April 9, 2018.
Robert J. Ganley,
Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-07819 Filed 4-16-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: February 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 40)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 10652-10655]
[DOCID:fr28fe08-6]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-29332; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-172-AD;
Amendment 39-15391; AD 2008-04-19]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; ATR Model ATR42 and ATR72 Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    Subsequent to accidents involving Fuel Tank System explosions in
flight * * * and on ground, * * * Special Federal Aviation
Regulation 88 (SFAR88) * * * required a safety review of the
aircraft Fuel Tank System * * *.
* * * * *
    Fuel Airworthiness Limitations are items arising from a systems
safety analysis that have been shown to have failure mode(s)
associated with an `unsafe condition' * * *. These are identified in
Failure Conditions for which an unacceptable probability of ignition
risk could exist if specific tasks and/or practices are not
performed in accordance with the manufacturers' requirements.

    We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective April 3, 2008.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of April 3,
2008.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov or in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West

Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on September 28, 2007
(72 FR 55113). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for
the specified products. The MCAI states:

    Subsequent to accidents involving Fuel Tank System explosions in
flight * * * and on ground, the FAA published Special Federal
Aviation Regulation 88 (SFAR 88) in June 2001. SFAR 88 required a
safety review of the aircraft Fuel Tank System to determine that the
design meets the requirements of FAR (Federal Aviation Regulations)
Sec.  25.901 and Sec.  25.981(a) and (b).
    A similar regulation has been recommended by the JAA (Joint
Aviation Authorities) to the European National Aviation Authorities
in JAA letter 04/00/02/07/03-L024 of 3 February 2003. The review was
requested to be mandated by NAA's (National Aviation Authorities)
using JAR (Joint Aviation Regulation) Sec.  25.901(c), Sec.
25.1309.
    In August 2005 EASA published a policy statement on the process
for developing instructions for maintenance and inspection of Fuel
Tank System ignition source prevention (EASA D 2005/CPRO,
www.easa.eu.int/home/cert_policy_statements_en.html) that also
included the EASA expectations with regard to compliance times of
the corrective actions on the unsafe and the not unsafe part of the
harmonised design review results. On a global scale the TC (type
certificate) holders committed themselves to the EASA published
compliance dates (see EASA policy statement). The EASA policy
statement has been revised in March 2006: The date of 31-12-2005 for
the unsafe related actions has now been set at 01-07-2006.
    Fuel Airworthiness Limitations are items arising from a systems
safety analysis that have been shown to have failure mode(s)
associated with an `unsafe condition' as defined in FAA's memo 2003-
112-15 `SFAR 88--Mandatory Action Decision Criteria'. These are
identified in Failure Conditions for which an unacceptable
probability of ignition risk could exist if specific tasks and/or
practices are not performed in accordance with the manufacturers'
requirements.
    This EASA Airworthiness Directive mandates the Fuel System
Airworthiness Limitations (comprising maintenance/inspection tasks
and Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL)) for
the type of aircraft, that resulted from the design reviews and the
JAA recommendation and EASA policy statement mentioned above.

    The corrective action is revising the Airworthiness Limitations
Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate
new limitations for fuel tank systems. You may obtain further
information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Change Made to This AD

    For standardization purposes, we have revised paragraph (f)(4) of
this AD to specify that no alternative inspections, inspection
intervals, or CDCCLs may be used unless they are part of a later
approved revision of ATR 42-200/-300/-320 Maintenance Review Board
Report (MRBR), Revision 7, dated March 31, 2006; ATR 42-400/-500 MRBR,
Revision 6, dated March 26, 2007; or ATR 72 MRBR, Revision 8, dated
March 26, 2007; as applicable; or unless they are approved as an
alternative method of compliance. Inclusion of this paragraph in the AD
is intended to ensure that the AD-mandated airworthiness limitations
changes are treated the same as the airworthiness limitations issued
with the original type certificate.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed with the change
described previously. We determined that this change will not increase
the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have required different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences
are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect about 84 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average
labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate
the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $6,720, or $80 per
product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the

Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information.
The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone (800)
647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in
the AD docket shortly after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2008-04-19 ATR--GIE Avions de Transport R[eacute]gional (Formerly
Aerospatiale): Amendment 39-15391. Docket No. FAA-2007-29332;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-172-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective April 3,
2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all ATR Model ATR42-200, -300, -320, and
-500 airplanes; and all ATR Model ATR72-101, -201, -102, -202, -211,
-212, and -212A airplanes; certificated in any category.

    Note 1: This AD requires revisions to certain operator
maintenance documents to include new inspections. Compliance with
these inspections is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes
that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the
areas addressed by these inspections, the operator may not be able
to accomplish the inspections described in the revisions. In this
situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must
request approval for an alternative method of compliance according
to paragraph (g) of this AD. The request should include a
description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure
the continued operational safety of the airplane.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28: Fuel.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    Subsequent to accidents involving Fuel Tank System explosions in
flight * * * and on ground, the FAA published Special Federal
Aviation Regulation 88 (SFAR 88) in June 2001. SFAR 88 required a
safety review of the aircraft Fuel Tank System to determine that the
design meets the requirements of FAR (Federal Aviation Regulation)
Sec.  25.901 and Sec.  25.981(a) and (b).
    A similar regulation has been recommended by the JAA (Joint
Aviation Authorities) to the European National Aviation Authorities
in JAA letter 04/00/02/07/03-L024 of 3 February 2003. The review was
requested to be mandated by NAA's (National Aviation Authorities)
using JAR (Joint Aviation Regulation) Sec.  25.901(c), Sec.
25.1309.
    In August 2005 EASA published a policy statement on the process
for developing instructions for maintenance and inspection of Fuel
Tank System ignition source prevention (EASA D 2005/CPRO,
www.easa.eu.int/home/cert_policy_statements_en.html) that also
included the EASA expectations with regard to compliance times of
the corrective actions on the unsafe and the not unsafe part of the
harmonised design review results. On a global scale the TC (type
certificate) holders committed themselves to the EASA published
compliance dates (see EASA policy statement). The EASA policy
statement has been revised in March 2006: The date of 31-12-2005 for
the unsafe related actions has now been set at 01-07-2006.
    Fuel Airworthiness Limitations are items arising from a systems
safety analysis that have been shown to have failure mode(s)
associated with an `unsafe condition' as defined in FAA's memo 2003-
112-15 `SFAR 88--Mandatory Action Decision Criteria'. These are
identified in Failure Conditions for which an unacceptable
probability of ignition risk could exist if specific tasks and/or
practices are not performed in accordance with the manufacturers'
requirements.
    This EASA Airworthiness Directive mandates the Fuel System
Airworthiness Limitations (comprising maintenance/inspection tasks
and Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL)) for
the type of aircraft, that resulted from the design reviews and the
JAA recommendation and EASA policy statement mentioned above.

The corrective action is revising the Airworthiness Limitations
Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to
incorporate new limitations for fuel tank systems.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, or
before December 16, 2008, whichever occurs first, revise the
Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) of the Instructions for
Continued Airworthiness to incorporate Task 28.10.00 ``Fuel Tank--
General,'' and Task 28.20.00 ``Distribution,'' of the Certification
Maintenance Requirements (CMR) Section of the Time Limits Section of
Part 1 of the ATR 42-200/-300/-320 Maintenance Review Board Report
(MRBR), Revision 7, dated March 31, 2006; the ATR 42-400/-500 MRBR,
Revision 6, dated March 26, 2007; or the ATR 72 MRBR, Revision 8,
dated March 26, 2007; as applicable. For all tasks identified in the
applicable MRBR, the initial compliance times start from the later
of the times specified in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (f)(1)(ii) of
this AD, except as provided by paragraphs (f)(3) and (g) of this AD.
The repetitive inspections must be accomplished thereafter at the
interval specified in the applicable MRBR.
    (i) The effective date of this AD.
    (ii) The date of issuance of the original French standard
airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original
French export certificate of airworthiness.
    (2) Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, or
before December 16, 2008, whichever occurs first, revise the ALS of
the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate the
CDCCLs as defined in Section 4., ``Critical Design Configuration
Control List,'' of the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Time
Limits Section of Part 1 of the ATR 42-200/-300/-320 MRBR, Revision
7, dated March 31, 2006; the ATR 42-400/-500 MRBR, Revision 6, dated
March 26, 2007; or the ATR 72 MRBR, Revision 8, dated March 26,
2007; as applicable.
    (3) For the task titled ``Detailed visual inspection of the fuel
tanks and associated equipment, wiring, piping and braids'' (CMR
task reference 28.10.00-1): The initial compliance time is the later
of the times specified in paragraphs (f)(3)(i) and (f)(3)(ii) of
this AD. Thereafter, the task titled ``Detailed visual inspection of
the fuel tanks and associated equipment, wiring, piping and braids''
must be accomplished at the repetitive interval specified in Section
4., ``Critical Design Configuration Control List,'' of the
Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Time Limits Section of Part
1 of the ATR 42-200/-300/-320 MRBR, Revision 7, dated March 31,
2006; the ATR 42-400/-500 MRBR, Revision 6, dated March 26, 2007; or
the ATR 72 MRBR, Revision 8, dated March 26, 2007; as applicable.
    (i) Within 144 months since the date of issuance of the original
French standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of
the original French export certificate of airworthiness.
    (ii) Within 72 months or 20,000 flight hours after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
    (4) After accomplishing the actions specified in paragraphs
(f)(1), (f)(2), and (f)(3) of this AD, no alternative inspection,
inspection intervals, or CDCCLs may be used unless the inspections,
intervals, or CDCCLs are part of a later revision of the ATR 42-200/
-300/-320 MRBR, Revision 7, dated March 31, 2006; ATR 42-400/-500
MRBR, Revision 6, dated March 26, 2007; or ATR 72 MRBR, Revision 8,
dated March 26, 2007; as applicable; that is approved by the
Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA, or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) (or
its delegated agent); or unless the inspections,

intervals, or CDCCLs are approved as an alternative method of
compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (g) of this AD.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) AMOCs: The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for
this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
Send information to ATTN: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 227-1137; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using any approved AMOC
on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate
principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office
(FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2006-0219R1,
dated June 29, 2007, and the service information identified in Table
1 of this AD, for related information.

                                          Table 1.--Service Information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Revision
                          Document                              level                      Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time Limits Section of Part 1 of the ATR 42-200/-300/-320              7  March 31, 2006.
 Maintenance Review Board Report.
Time Limits Section of Part 1 of the ATR 42-400/-500                   6  March 26, 2007.
 Maintenance Review Board Report.
Time Limits Section of Part 1 of the ATR 72 Maintenance                8  March 26, 2007.
 Review Board Report.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) You must use the service information specified in Table 2 of
this AD to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD
specifies otherwise.

                                  Table 2.--Material Incorporated by Reference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Revision
                          Document                              level                      Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time Limits Section of Part 1 of the ATR 42-200/-300/-320              7  March 31, 2006.
 Maintenance Review Board Report.
Time Limits Section of Part 1 of the ATR 42-400/-500                   6  March 26, 2007.
 Maintenance Review Board Report.
Time Limits Section of Part 1 of the ATR 72 Maintenance                8  March 26, 2007.
 Review Board Report.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The missing page number for the ``List of Effective Pages'' of
the Time Limits Section of Part 1 of the ATR 42-200/-300/-320
Maintenance Review Board Report is 1-LEP. The ``List of Effective
Pages'' for the Time Limits Section of Part 1 of the ATR 42-400/-500
Maintenance Review Board Report contains a typographical error: The
date for Page 3 should read March 2007. The first page of the
``Reasons for Revisions'' section of the Time Limits Section of Part
1 of the ATR 72 Maintenance Review Board Report is incorrectly
identified as Page 2-RFR; that page should be identified as Page 1-
RFR.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact ATR,
316 Route de Bayonne, 31060 Toulouse, Cedex 03, France.
    (3) You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information
on the availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-
locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 15, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-3401 Filed 2-27-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 177 (Thursday, September 14, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43180-43184]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19460]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0339; FRL-9967-66-Region 8]

Montana Second 10-Year Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan for
Missoula

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of Montana. On September 19, 2016, the Governor
of Montana submitted to the EPA a Clean Air Act (CAA) section 175A(b)
second 10-year maintenance plan for the Missoula, Montana area for the
carbon monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).
This limited maintenance plan (LMP) addresses maintenance of the CO
NAAQS for a second 10-year period beyond the original redesignation.
This action is being taken under sections 110 and 175A of the CAA.

DATES: This rule is effective on November 13, 2017 without further
notice, unless the EPA receives adverse comment by October 16, 2017. If
adverse comment is received, the 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-R08-
OAR-2017-0339 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.,) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

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

I. General Information

What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI). Do not
submit CBI to the EPA through https://www.regulations.gov or email.
Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be
CBI. For CBI information on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the EPA,
mark the outside

of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within
the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In
addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register volume,
date, and page number);
     Follow directions and organize your comments;
     Explain why you agree or disagree;
     Suggest alternatives and substitute language for your
requested changes;
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used;
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced;
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives;
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats; and
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background

    Under the CAA Amendments of 1990, the Missoula area was designated
as nonattainment and classified as a ``moderate'' CO area, with a
design value of less than or equal to 12.7 parts per million (ppm) (56
FR 56694, November 6, 1991). On May 27, 2005, the Governor of Montana
submitted to the EPA a request to redesignate the Missoula CO
nonattainment area to attainment for the 8-hour CO NAAQS. Along with
this request, the Governor submitted a CAA section 175A(a) maintenance
plan which established an attainment year of 2000, and demonstrated
that the area would maintain the 8-hour CO NAAQS through 2020. The EPA
approved the State's redesignation request, CAA section 175A(a)
maintenance plan and base year emissions inventory on August 17, 2007
(72 FR 46158).
    Eight years after an area is redesignated to attainment, CAA
Section 175A(b) requires the state to submit a subsequent maintenance
plan to the EPA, covering a second 10-year period.\1\ This second 10-
year maintenance plan must demonstrate continued maintenance of the
applicable NAAQS during this second 10-year period. To fulfill this
requirement of the Act, the Governor of Montana submitted the second
10-year Missoula CO maintenance plan (hereafter, ``revised Missoula
Maintenance Plan'') to the EPA on September 19, 2016. With this action,
we are approving the revised Missoula Maintenance Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In this case, the initial maintenance period described in
CAA section 175A(a) was required to extend for at least 10 years
after the redesignation to attainment, which was effective on
September 17, 2007. See 72 FR 46158. The first maintenance plan
showed maintenance through 2020. CAA section 175A(b) requires that
the second 10-year maintenance plan maintain the NAAQS for ``10
years after the expiration of the 10-year period referred to in
[section 175A(a)].'' Thus, for the Missoula area, the second 10-year
period ends in 2027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 8-hour CO NAAQS--9.0 ppm--is attained when such value is not
exceeded more than once a year. 40 CFR 50.8(a)(1). The Missoula area
has attained the 8-hour CO NAAQS from 1992 to the present.\2\ In
October 1995, the EPA issued guidance that provided nonclassifiable CO
nonattainment areas the option of using a less rigorous ``limited
maintenance plan'' (LMP) option to demonstrate continued attainment and
maintenance of the 8-hour CO NAAQS.\3\ According to this guidance,
areas that can demonstrate design values at or below 7.65 ppm (85% of
exceedance levels of the 8-hour CO NAAQS) for eight consecutive
quarters qualify to use a LMP. For the revised Missoula Maintenance
Plan, on which we are finalizing action, the State used the LMP option
to demonstrate continued maintenance of the 8-hour CO NAAQS in the
Missoula area through 2027. We have determined that the Missoula area
qualifies for the LMP option for this plan revision, since the area's
maximum design value for the most recent eight consecutive quarters
with certified data (years 2009 and 2010) was 2.4 ppm.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ http://www.epa.gov/airdata/.
    \3\ Memorandum ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for
Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas'' from Joseph W. Paisie,
Group Leader, EPA Integrated Policy and Strategies Group, to Air
Branch Chiefs, October 6, 1995 (hereafter referred to as ``LMP
Guidance'').
    \4\ See Table 1 below. Additionally, according to the LMP
guidance, an area using the LMP option must continue to have a
design value ``at or below 7.65 ppm until the time of final EPA
action on the redesignation.'' Table 1, below, demonstrates that the
area meets this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. The EPA's Evaluation of the Revised Missoula Maintenance Plan

    The following are the key elements of an LMP for CO: Emission
Inventory, Maintenance Demonstration, Monitoring Network/Verification
of Continued Attainment, Contingency Plan, and Conformity
Determinations. Below, the EPA describes our evaluation of each of
these elements as it pertains to the revised Missoula Maintenance Plan.

A. Emission Inventory

    The revised Missoula Maintenance Plan contains an emissions
inventory for the base year 2010. The emission inventory is a list, by
source category, of the air contaminants directly emitted into the
Missoula CO maintenance area on a typical winter day in 2010.\5\ The
data in the emission inventory were developed using EPA-approved
emissions modeling methods. A more detailed description of the 2010
inventory is documented in the Missoula CO maintenance plan. See
Revised Missoula Maintenance Plan, p. 4-6. Included in this inventory
are residential wood burning, natural gas combustion, commercial
equipment, construction equipment, industrial equipment, residential
lawn and garden equipment, commercial lawn and garden equipment,
railway maintenance equipment, railway locomotives, motor vehicle
exhaust, and point sources. Notably, motor vehicle exhaust from onroad
mobile sources accounted for 71% of total CO emissions in the Missoula
Maintenance Area during the inventory period. The revised maintenance
plan contains detailed emission inventory information that was prepared
in accordance with EPA guidance, and is acceptable to the EPA.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Violations of the 8-hour CO NAAQS are most likely to occur
on winter weekdays, as weekdays see more consistent workweek traffic
and the Missoula area is prone to temperature inversions in the
winter which lead to stagnant air conditions. The typical winter day
from 2010 was used because monitoring in Missoula ceased in 2011.
    \6\ See ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate
Areas to Attainment,'' from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, EPA, September 4, 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Maintenance Demonstration

    The EPA considers the maintenance demonstration requirement to be
satisfied for areas that qualify for and are using the LMP option. As
mentioned above, a maintenance area is qualified to use the LMP option
if that area's maximum 8-hour CO design value for eight consecutive
quarters does not exceed 7.65 ppm (85% of the CO NAAQS). The EPA
maintains that if an

area begins the maintenance period with a design value no greater than
7.65 ppm, the air quality along with the continued applicability of
prevention of significant deterioration requirements, the control
measures already in the SIP, and federal measures should provide
adequate assurance of maintenance over the 10-year maintenance period
and the EPA would not require such areas to project emissions over the
maintenance period. Because the last recorded CO design values in the
Missoula area were consistently well below the LMP threshold (See Table
1 below) and no changes are proposed to the area's permanent and
enforceable control measures, the State has adequately demonstrated
that the Missoula area will maintain the 8-hour CO NAAQS into the
future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Design values were derived from the EPA AirData Web site
(https://www.epa.gov/airdata/ airdata/).
    \8\ The monitor only operated for 47 days in 2011, and ceased
operation on March 31, 2011. The 2.1 ppm value in Table 1 indicates
the highest value recorded at the CO monitor in 2011.

         Table 1--8-Hour CO Design Values for Missoula, Montana
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Design value  (ppm) \7\                       Year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.6.....................................................            2003
2.9.....................................................            2004
3.6.....................................................            2005
2.4.....................................................            2006
2.4.....................................................            2007
2.7.....................................................            2008
2.5.....................................................            2009
2.2.....................................................            2010
2.1 \8\.................................................            2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Monitoring Network/Verification of Continued Attainment

    In the revised Missoula Maintenance Plan, the State adopted an
alternative monitoring strategy for Missoula that was previously
approved by the EPA to satisfy this requirement for both the Billings
CO Maintenance Area (80 FR 16571, March 30, 2015) and Great Falls CO
Maintenance Area (80 FR 17331, April 1, 2015). The State adopted the
alternative monitoring strategy to conserve resources by discontinuing
the gaseous CO ambient monitor in the Missoula CO maintenance area. In
place of the gaseous ambient monitor, the State's alternative method
relies on rolling 3-year Average Daily Traffic (ADT) vehicle counts
collected from permanent automatic traffic recorders (devices installed
into a street's pavement to continuously collect data) in each
maintenance area.
    Since 2006, no Missoula monitor has registered a design value
greater than 2.7 ppm, roughly 30% of the NAAQS.\9\ Citing these
consistently low monitor values, and expressing a desire to conserve
monitoring resources, the State requested to discontinue CO monitoring
in Missoula and instead use an alternative strategy for monitoring
maintenance of the 8-hour CO NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Table 1 above. Design values were derived from the EPA
AirData (https://www.epa.gov/airdata/) Web site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The alternative monitoring strategy utilizes ADT vehicle counts
collected from permanent automatic traffic recorders in the Missoula CO
maintenance area to determine average monthly traffic during the
traditional high CO concentration season of November through February
(the winter season). The State will compare the latest rolling 3-year
ADT volumes during the winter season to the 2008-2011 baseline ADT
volumes (see Table 2) that correlate to the low CO monitored values
during that period (see Table 1).\10\ Because mobile sources are the
biggest driver of CO pollution, the Montana Department of Environmental
Quality (MDEQ) reasoned that any significant increase in CO emissions
would have to be accompanied by a significant increase in ADT.\11\ The
EPA agrees with the State's reasoning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In the revised Missoula Maintenance Plan, the State refers
to this period 2008-2010 baseline.
    \11\ See ``Review of National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Carbon Monoxide,'' 76 FR 54294, August 31, 2011.

                                 Table 2--Traffic Volumes for Missoula, Montana
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Average daily traffic for site A-037
                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Winter season                  Winter                                                 % Difference
                                            monthly           Rolling three- year average         from 2008-2011
                                            average                                                  baseline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 2008-January 2009 *..........          19,134  .......................................  ...............
November 2009-February 2010...........          20,320  .......................................  ...............
November 2010-February 2011...........          20,221  (Baseline) 19,892......................  ...............
November 2011-February 2012...........          20,120  20,220.................................             1.65
November 2012-February 2013...........          20,004  20,115.................................             1.12
November 2013-February 2014...........          19,943  20,022.................................             0.66
November 2014-February 2015...........          21,037  20,328.................................             2.19
November 2015-February 2016...........          21,763  20,914.................................             5.14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* There is no ADT information available for February 2009.

    If the rolling 3-year ADT value is 25% higher than the monthly
average value from the November 2008-February 2011 baseline period of
19,892, the State, in cooperation with the Missoula City-County Health
Department (MCCHD), will reestablish CO ambient monitoring in Missoula
the following high season (November-February). If the CO design value
in the following high season has not increased from the baseline mean
by an equal or greater rate at which the ADT has increased, and the
monitor values remain at or below 50% of the 8-hour CO NAAQS (2nd max
concentration <=4.5 ppm), the monitor may be removed and the ADT counts
will continue to be relied upon to determine compliance with the NAAQS.
This process will be repeated each time the rolling 3-year ADT
increases by a factor of 25% (e.g., 50%, 75%) above the baseline 2008-
2011 period, and the same analysis will be conducted to determine if
the monitors can be removed.
    40 CFR 58.14(c) allows approval of requests to discontinue ambient
monitors ``on a case-by-case basis if discontinuance does not
compromise

data collection needed for implementation of a NAAQS and if the
requirements of appendix D to 40 CFR part 58, if any, continue to be
met.'' The EPA finds that the alternative monitoring strategy in the
revised Missoula Maintenance Plan meets the criteria of 40 CFR 58.14(c)
for the Missoula CO maintenance area. Given the long history of low CO
concentrations in the Missoula area and the adequacy of the alternative
monitoring strategy at ensuring continued attainment of the CO NAAQS in
the area, the EPA finds it appropriate to approve the State's request
to not operate a gaseous CO monitor in Missoula and use the alternative
monitoring strategy in its place.

D. Contingency Plan

    The revised Missoula Maintenance Plan stated that a trend of
increasing CO concentrations or a single 8-hour average of 9.5 ppm or
greater would trigger a voluntary, local process by the Missoula Air
Pollution Control Board to identify and evaluate potential contingency
measures. The plan also indicated that a violation of the 8-hour CO
NAAQS (two or more values of 9.5 ppm or greater during a calendar year)
would trigger mandatory implementation of contingency measures.
    As noted in the previous section, the alternative monitoring
strategy in the revised Missoula Maintenance Plan requires
reestablishment of a CO monitor in Missoula if traffic levels
(responsible for 71% of CO emissions in Missoula) increase from the
2008-2011 baseline by a factor of 25% and provides that any
reestablished monitors showing values above 50% of the NAAQS cannot be
removed. Therefore, the EPA finds that CO emissions in Missoula are
very unlikely to increase to the point of an 8-hour NAAQS exceedance
(the trigger for voluntary contingency measures) without that
exceedance being observed by a gaseous monitor, as such an increase
would most likely coincide with a significant increase in traffic
volume.
    The revised Missoula Maintenance Plan retains two contingency
measures adopted as part of the area's fully approved SIP. The first
expands the oxygenated fuel program to other months besides November,
December, January and February, as described in Rule 10.110 of the
Missoula City-County Air Pollution Control Program. The second further
restricts woodstove burning as described in Rule 9.601 of the Missoula
City-County Air Pollution Control Program.
    The revised Missoula Maintenance Plan indicates that contingency
measures will be implemented within 60 days of notification by MDEQ and
the EPA that the Missoula area has violated the 8-hour CO NAAQS. Upon
notification of a CO NAAQS violation, MCCHD will review relevant
information and implement one or both of the contingency measures to
correct the violation. In the event that violations continue to occur
after contingency measures have been implemented, additional
contingency measures will be implemented until the violations are
corrected. See Revised Missoula Maintenance Plan, p. 11.
    We find that the contingency measures provided in the revised
Missoula Maintenance Plan are sufficient and meet the requirements of
section 175A(d) of the CAA.

E. Transportation Conformity

    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA.
Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not
produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or
delay timely attainment of the NAAQS (CAA 176(c)(1)(B)). The EPA's
conformity rule at 40 CFR part 93, subpart A requires that
transportation plans, programs and projects conform to SIPs and
establish the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not
they conform. To effectuate its purpose, the conformity rule requires a
demonstration that emissions from the Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP) and the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) are consistent
with the motor vehicle emission budget (MVEB) contained in the control
strategy SIP revision or maintenance plan (40 CFR 93.101, 93.118, and
93.124). A MVEB is defined as the level of mobile source emissions of a
pollutant relied upon in the attainment or maintenance demonstration to
attain or maintain compliance with the NAAQS in the nonattainment or
maintenance area.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Further information concerning the EPA's interpretations
regarding MVEBs can be found in the preamble to EPA's November 24,
1993 transportation conformity rule (see 58 FR 62193-62196).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the LMP guidance, MVEBs generally are treated as not
constraining for the length of the maintenance period. While the EPA's
LMP guidance does not exempt an area from the need to affirm
conformity, it explains that the area may demonstrate conformity
without submitting a MVEB. According to the LMP guidance, it is
unreasonable to expect that a LMP area will experience so much growth
in that period that a violation of the CO NAAQS would result.\13\ We
note that the CO maintenance plan for Missoula that we approved in 2007
(72 FR 46158, August 17, 2007) contains a MVEB for 2020 of 42.67 tons
per day of CO. However, the State did not revise or remove this 2020
MVEB from the SIP with the revised Missoula Maintenance Plan.
Therefore, under our conformity regulation, consistency with the 2020
MVEB must continue to be demonstrated by the Missoula Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO) as long as that year is within the
timeframe of the RTP (i.e., through 2020). See 40 CFR 93.118(b)(2)(i)
and (d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ LMP Guidance at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the year 2020 is no longer within the timeframe of the
transportation plan (i.e., 2021 and beyond), there will no longer be a
need to demonstrate conformity with any MVEB for the Missoula CO
maintenance area, for the reasons described in the EPA's LMP guidance.
From that point forward, all actions that require conformity
determinations for the Missoula CO maintenance area under our
conformity rule provisions will be considered to have already satisfied
the regional emissions analysis and ``budget test'' requirements in 40
CFR 93.118, because of our approval of the revised Missoula Maintenance
Plan.
    However, since LMP areas are still maintenance areas, certain
aspects of transportation conformity determinations will be required
for transportation plans, programs and projects. Specifically, for such
determinations, RTPs, TIPs and projects will have to demonstrate that
they are fiscally constrained (40 CFR 93.108) and meet the criteria for
consultation and timely implementation of Transportation Control
Measures (40 CFR 93.112 and 40 CFR 93.113, respectively). In addition,
projects in LMP areas will be required to meet the applicable criteria
for localized CO hot spot analyses to satisfy ``project level''
conformity determinations (40 CFR 93.116 and 40 CFR 93.123), which must
also incorporate the latest planning assumptions and models available
(40 CFR 93.110 and 40 CFR 93.111, respectively).
    Our approval of the revised Missoula Maintenance Plan affects
future CO RTP and TIP transportation conformity determinations as
prepared by the Missoula MPO, the Montana Department of Transportation,
the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit
Administration. See 40 CFR 93.100.

IV. Final Action

    We are approving the revised Missoula Maintenance Plan submitted on
September 19, 2016. This maintenance plan meets the applicable CAA
requirements, and we have determined it is sufficient to provide for
maintenance of the 8-hour CO NAAQS over the course of the second 10-
year maintenance period out to 2027.
    We are publishing this rule without prior proposal because we view
this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse
comments. However, in the Proposed Rules section of today's Federal
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments
are filed. This rule will be effective November 13, 2017 without
further notice unless we receive adverse comments by October 16, 2017.
If we receive adverse comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in
the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take
effect. We will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment
period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so
at this time. Please note that if we receive adverse comment on an
amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may
be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those
provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state actions,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves some state law provisions as meeting federal
requirements; this action does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP does not apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the
rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the 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 November 13, 2017. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final
rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel
notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed
rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an
immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so
that the EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the
comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged
later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See CAA section
307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: August 31, 2017.
Debra H. Thomas,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart BB--Montana

0
2. Section 52.1373 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1373  Control strategy: Carbon monoxide.

* * * * *
    (d) Revisions to the Montana State Implementation Plan, revised
Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan for Missoula, as submitted by the
Governor on September 19, 2016.

[FR Doc. 2017-19460 Filed 9-13-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 190 (Friday, September 30, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67345-67346]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23675]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP16-502-000]

Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.; Notice of Request Under
Blanket Authorization

    Take notice that on September 16, 2016, Southern Star Central Gas
Pipeline, Inc. (Southern Star), 4700 State Highway 56, Owensboro,
Kentucky 42301, filed in Docket No. CP16-502-000 a prior notice request
pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.216(b) of the Commission's
regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), as amended, requesting
authorization to abandon in place Units 1, 2, 3, and 4, each compressor
unit rated at 170 horsepower, and associated appurtenances at its
Atchison

Compressor Station in Atchison County, Kansas. Southern Star notes that
is Atchison Compressor will continue to operate using Unit 5. Southern
Star asserts that these units are not needed operationally or to
provide firm service, all as more fully set forth in the application
which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The
filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Ronnie
C. Hensley II, Regulatory Compliance, Manager, Southern Star Central
Gas Pipeline, Inc., 4700 State Highway 56, Owensboro, Kentucky 42301,
by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to section 157.205 of
the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the
request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day
after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and
not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for
authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenter's will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenter's will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentary, will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.

    Dated: September 23, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-23675 Filed 9-29-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P