[Federal Register: August 19, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 161)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 48279-48286]
[DOCID:fr19au08-1]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

========================================================================

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 33

[Docket No. FAA-2007-27311, Amendment No. 33-26]
RIN 2120-AI94

Airworthiness Standards; Engine Control System Requirements

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is amending type certification standards for aircraft
engine control systems. These changes reflect current industry
practices and harmonize FAA standards with those recently adopted by
the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). These changes establish
uniform standards for all engine control systems for aircraft engines
certificated by both U.S. and European countries and will simplify
airworthiness approvals for import and export.

DATES: This amendment becomes effective October 20, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this final rule contact Gary Horan, Engine and Propeller Directorate
Standards Staff, ANE-111, Federal Aviation Administration, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803-5299; telephone
(781) 238-7164, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the United States Code. 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.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce, including minimum safety
standards for aircraft engines. This proposed rule is within the scope
of that authority because it updates existing regulations for aircraft
engine control systems.

Background

    U.S. and European aircraft engine regulations differ in several
areas including engine controls. Certifying to a common set of
requirements (harmonization) benefits industry and regulators because
of the lower costs associated with a single set of regulations.
    The FAA, in cooperation with the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA),
the European rulemaking authority before EASA, established an
international engine certification study group to compare part 33 with
the Joint Aviation Requirements--Engines (JAR-E), the European
requirements for engines. As a follow-on, the Aviation Rulemaking
Advisory Committee, through its Engine Harmonization Working Group
(EHWG), looked at harmonizing the engine control requirements of part
33 and the JAR-E. This final rule reflects the agreed harmonization
between the FAA and the JAA that was subsequently adopted by EASA as
CS-E (Certification Specifications for Engines) 50.

Summary of the NPRM

    A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) was published on April 11,
2007 (72 FR 18148) that proposed changes to Sec. Sec.  33.5, 33.7,
33.27, 33.28, 33.29, 33.53, and 33.91. The comment period for the NPRM
closed on July 10, 2007. These proposed changes would harmonize FAA and
EASA regulations for the referenced sections.

Summary of the Final Rule

    This final rule on Engine Control System requirements contains no
significant changes from the NPRM published on April 11, 2007. We made
minor changes to several sections to ensure clarity and better
harmonization with EASA regulations. This rule harmonizes FAA and EASA
regulations for portions of Sec. Sec.  33.5, 33.7, 33.27, 33.28, 33.29,
33.53, and 33.91.

Summary of Comments

    Five commenters, including an aircraft engine manufacturer and a
manufacturer of light business jets, responded to the NPRM request for
comments. The commenters supported the proposed rule while suggesting
minor changes.
    The FAA received comments on the following general areas of the
proposal:
     Instructions for installing the engine control transitions
     Engine control system failures
     Overspeed protection
     System Safety Assessment (SSA) interfaces between engine
and aircraft
     Programmable logic devices
     Instrument connection

Discussion of the Final Rule

    Below is a more detailed discussion of the rule as it relates to
the comments we received to the proposal.

Instructions for Installing and Operating the Engine

    We revised Sec.  33.5, Instruction manual for installing and
operating the engine, to require applicants to list in the installation
instructions the instruments necessary for satisfactory control of the
engine. The new Sec.  33.5 also requires that the limits of accuracy
and transient response required for satisfactory engine operation be
identified so the suitability of the instruments as installed can be
assessed.
    General Electric (GE) indicated the definition of the reliability,
accuracy, and transient response requirements should not be required in
part 33 and would be more appropriate for evaluation as part of
compliance with part 25.
    During the design, development and certification of an engine, the
engine manufacturer must determine the specific information the pilot
needs to control the engine. The engine manufacturer must convey this
information, which includes necessary measurement data, to the
installer. In addition, the FAA notes that the engine manufacturer,
rather than the installer, should know the transient capability needed
by the display to accurately represent the engine behavior. We did

not change the final rule due to this comment.
    In the final rule, we are adding a paragraph (b)(5) that was
originally proposed in the NPRM as paragraph (b)(4). We are doing this
because another final rule, ``Rotorcraft Turbine Engines One-Engine-
Inoperative (OEI) Ratings, Type Certification Standards'' has already
added paragraph (b)(4) to this section.

Engine Ratings and Operating Limitations

    The revised Sec.  33.7 requires that the overall limits of accuracy
of the engine control system and the necessary instruments, as defined
in Sec.  33.5(a)(6), be considered when determining engine performance
and operating limitations.
    Sino Swearingen, a business jet manufacturer, suggested any
assumptions made relative to the accuracy of installer-supplied
instruments should be stated as assumptions in the installation manual.
The FAA believes this level of detail is excessive for a regulatory
requirement. Therefore, we did not change the final rule due to this
comment.
    GE asserted that defining the accuracy limits for the aircraft-
provided instruments should be a task for the airframe manufacturer and
should be part of compliance with part 25 not part 33.
    We find the engine manufacturer needs to determine the accuracy
limits for aircraft-provided instruments and provide this information
to the installer. Without this information, it is unclear if it is
critical that a given parameter must be measured and displayed with an
accuracy of 1% or as much as 20%, which is a significant difference to
the installer. We did not change the final rule due to this comment.
    None of the above comments to the proposed Sec.  33.7 reflect the
complexity of integration encountered during installation of an engine
on an aircraft. Sections 33.7 and 33.5(a)(6) require that the engine
manufacturer and the installer account for the accuracies and the
documentation of these accuracies for the overall system as installed.
This is to ensure the engine, as installed, can be operated within its
limitations.

Engine Control Systems

    We revised the title and contents of Sec.  33.28 to apply to all
types of engine control systems, including hydromechanical and
reciprocating engine controls. Formerly, Sec.  33.28 applied only to
electrical and electronic engine control systems.

Engine Control Systems Validation

    The revised Sec.  33.28(b) prescribes requirements for engine
control system validation. Section 33.28(b)(1) requires that applicants
demonstrate their engine control system performs its intended function
in the declared operating conditions, including the environmental
conditions and flight envelope. Section 33.28(b)(1)(ii) also requires
that the engine control system comply with Sec. Sec.  33.51, 33.65, and
33.73, as appropriate, under all likely system inputs and allowable
engine power or thrust demands.
    GE found proposed Sec.  33.28(b)(1)(ii) difficult to understand. GE
suggested Sec.  33.28(b)(1)(ii) be revised to read: ``Complies with the
operability requirements of Sec. Sec.  33.51, 33.65 and 33.73, as
appropriate, under all likely system inputs and allowable engine power
or thrust demands, unless it can be demonstrated that failure of the
control function results in a non-dispatchable condition in the
intended application.'' The FAA agrees and has revised the final rule
to read as the commenter suggested.

Control Transitions

    We revised Sec.  33.28(c) to clarify the requirements for control
transitions, including crew notification, when fault accommodation is
implemented through alternate modes, channel changes, or changes from
primary to back-up systems.
    GE suggested that revised Sec.  33.28(c)(1)(iii) requires the
action of the flight crew be described in the engine operating
instructions if the crew must respond to changes in control modes. GE
claimed the indication of the mode change to the cockpit crew should be
included in the compliance with part 33 but the action required by the
crew should be reserved for compliance with part 25. GE also noted
Sec.  33.28(c)(2) requires the magnitude of a thrust change associated
with a control mode change be described in the engine installation
manual. GE believes it is only necessary for this information to be
included in the engine installation manual if the flight crew is
required to initiate, respond, or be aware of this mode change.
    We note the intent of these changes to Sec.  33.28(c) is to ensure
the installer is aware of any engine or engine control operational
differences and the recommended differences in procedures. We have
observed this problem in some previous engine installations. The
inclusion of these actions in the operating instructions draws the
attention of the installer to this condition so that the crew action
must be evaluated--and be found acceptable--under aircraft
certification. This recommended crew action in the engine installation
manual is a guideline for the installer and does not replace
requirements for crew action that are normally included in the aircraft
operations manual. We did not change the final rule due to this
comment.

Engine Control System Failures

    Revised Sec.  33.28(d) consists of control system failure
requirements formerly located in Sec.  33.28(c). Section 33.28(d)(1)
addresses integrity requirements, such as Loss of Thrust Control
(LOTC)/Loss of Power Control (LOPC) requirements consistent with the
intended application.
    Section 33.28(d)(2) requires the engine control system be designed
and constructed so that in its full-up configuration it is single fault
tolerant, as determined by the Administrator, for electrical or
electronic failures with respect to LOTC/LOPC events. We received no
comments on proposed Sec.  33.28(d)(2).
    Sino Swearingen pointed out Sec.  33.28(d)(1) requires the
applicant to design a system that will achieve an LOTC rate compatible
with intended application. However, Sino Swearingen notes that
different aircraft categories (normal, commuter, transport, rotorcraft)
have different levels of safety, associated reliability requirements,
and software verification and validation requirements. Sino Swearingen
asserted the ``intended application'' should, therefore, be specified
in the engine installation instructions.
    We do not believe this level of specificity is appropriate for a
regulation, but we will provide appropriate LOTC/LOPC rates and levels
of reliability in the advisory material that accompanies the rule.

System Safety Assessment

    The revised Sec.  33.28(e) requires a System Safety Assessment
(SSA) for the engine control system. The SSA must identify faults or
failures that would have harmful effects on the engine.
    GE expressed concern that the conditions to be analyzed for
compliance with Sec.  33.28(e) are not clearly related to safety, as
would be implied by the requirement that an SSA be done. The commenter
believes the listed conditions would have a minor effect for a typical
installation.
    We note that under the SSA, in complying with Sec. Sec.  33.28 and
33.75, applicants are required to identify faults or failures that
would cause major,

hazardous and catastrophic engine effects. These types of faults would
require an SSA and a reliability assessment. For example, faults that
can lead to an LOTC and subsequent high thrust or an uncontrolled
overspeed can cause a hazardous engine effect. Faults such as thrust in
the wrong direction or excessive drag (propeller airplanes) or `thrust
failed high and not controllable' can produce a catastrophic aircraft
effect. We find, therefore, that the conditions to be analyzed for an
SSA under Sec.  33.28(e) are clearly related to safety. We did not
change the final rule due to this comment.
    GE also claimed the phrase ``an effect on engine operability'' in
Sec.  33.28(e) is not ``bounded.'' The commenter felt this phrase
should be modified to ``an effect on engine operability producing a
surge or stall * * *''
    The suggested phrasing is clearer and places the appropriate
boundaries on the statement. We, therefore, revised Sec.  33.28(e) in
the final rule to include the suggested phrase.
    GE commented that requiring an SSA addressing every single data
element would impose additional costs to applicants. This final rule
requires an aggregate SSA, not a separate analysis on every single data
element. The SSA must identify faults or failures that would have
harmful effects on the engine. It has been used in the certification
process for the last several years and is already an existing
requirement in Europe. Recent examples include certification of Pratt &
Whitney's PW6000, Rolls-Royce's Model 250, and General Electric GEnx
engines. We find that this manufacturer will not face additional cost
from complying with this requirement because it already meets the
existing European requirements.

Protection Systems

    The new Sec.  33.28(f) requires protective functions, such as
overspeed protection systems, that preserve rotor integrity. Section
33.28(f)(2) adds a requirement that the design of electronic overspeed
protection systems include a means for testing at least once per engine
start/stop cycle to establish the availability of the system's
function.
    GE commented that the frequency at which the overspeed protection
must be tested should be determined based on the application, the
possible failure modes, and the potential of those failure modes.
    We have found the requirement to test overspeed protection at least
once per engine start/stop cycle is appropriate based on safety
considerations. We note that if overspeed protection is not available,
then exposure of an engine to a single failure could result in
uncontrolled overspeed. We made no changes to the final rule due to
this comment. We will, however, clarify in the advisory material that
will accompany this rule that testing the overspeed system depends on a
number of design and architecture factors. For example, the system
architecture may implement a number of protection paths that have to be
individually tested to confirm the system's functionality. Thus, while
the test frequency is one flight cycle, it may take more than one
flight cycle to complete the test of the overspeed protection system.

Aircraft-Supplied Data

    The new Sec.  33.28(h) prescribes requirements for single failures
leading to loss, interruption, or corruption of aircraft-supplied data
or data shared between engines. We modified the former fault
accommodation requirement for loss of all aircraft-supplied data to
require detection and accommodation for single failures leading to
loss, interruption, or corruption of aircraft-supplied data. This
accommodation must not result in an unacceptable change in thrust or
power or an unacceptable change in engine operating and starting
characteristics.
    GE suggested the phrase ``as part of certification documentation''
be added to Sec.  33.28(h)(2) to avoid confusion since other parts of
this rule define what needs to be documented in the installation
manual. FAA experience with previous engine programs has been that
information on the effects of failures on engine power or thrust,
engine operability, and starting characteristics is needed in the
engine installation instructions to ensure that it is clearly
communicated by the applicant to the installer. As a result of this
comment, we modified the final rule to clarify that this information
must be documented in the engine installation instructions.
    Also, Sino Swearingen expressed concern that Sec.  33.28(h)(2) does
not define the unacceptable change in thrust or power or ``allowable
degradation'' in engine operating and starting characteristics. We find
that including this information in the rule would be overly
prescriptive. Unacceptable changes or allowable degradation often
depend on the installation. We find, therefore, that it is more
appropriate to explain unacceptable changes in thrust, power, or engine
operating and starting characteristics in the advisory material that
accompanies this rule. We did not change the final rule due to this
comment.

Aircraft-Supplied Electrical Power

    The new Sec.  33.28(i) establishes requirements for the response of
the engine control system to the loss or interruption of electrical
power supplied from the aircraft. Section 33.28(i) applies to all
electrical power supplied to the engine control system, including that
supplied from the aircraft power system and from the dedicated power
source, if required.
    GE commented the applicant should be able to identify the
characteristics of any electrical power supplied from the aircraft to
the engine control system for starting and operating the engine in any
document that is part of the certification process rather than in the
engine instructions for installation, as required by the proposed rule.
    The FAA has observed a significant number of problems caused by
inadequate communication between the applicant and the installer
regarding aircraft-supplied electrical power. We have found it is
critical that this level of detail be clearly communicated by the
applicant to the installer. The FAA notes also that at the time of
engine certification, it is not always clear who the ultimate
installer(s) will be. Providing these details, therefore, in the engine
instructions for installation will help to ensure the installer has the
needed information. We did not change the final rule due to this
comment.

Programmable Logic Devices

    The new Sec.  33.28(m) establishes safety requirements for
programmable logic devices (PLDs) that include application-specific
integrated circuits and programmable gate arrays. The rule requires
that development of the devices and associated encoded logic used in
their design and implementation be at a level equal to the hazard level
of the functions performed via the devices.
    EASA suggested that the FAA should clarify the rule to ensure it is
not the FAA's intent to mandate that the type certificate (TC) holder
design and implement PLD logic. EASA argued the TC holder should only
be required to provide evidence that these devices have been developed
using a method, for example DO-254, that is acceptable to the FAA.
    We agree with EASA that the proposed language might be
misinterpreted. We, therefore, have revised Sec.  33.28(m) in the final
rule to indicate the applicant must provide evidence that PLDs have
been developed in accordance with a method approved by the FAA.

Instrument Connection

    We revised Sec.  33.29 by adding new paragraphs (e) through (h).
The new Sec.  33.29(e) requires that applicants provide instrumentation
necessary to ensure engine operation in compliance with the engine
operating limitations. The new Sec.  33.29(f) requires that applicants
provide a means to minimize the possibility of incorrect fitting of
instruments, sensors and connectors. The new Sec.  33.29(g) reduces the
probability of faults propagating from the instrumentation and
monitoring functions to the control functions, or vice versa, by
prescribing that the probability of propagation of faults be consistent
with the criticality of the function performed. The new Sec.  33.29(h)
adds requirements for instrumentation that enables the flight crew to
monitor the functioning of the turbine case cooling system.
    Sino Swearingen agreed it is appropriate in Sec.  33.29(f) to
specify that the engine design should include means to prevent improper
installation or ``fit'' of instruments, sensors and connectors. Sino
Swearingen commented, however, that it is virtually impossible to
consider the effects of multiple possible incorrect assembly and
installation scenarios within the engine control system's SSA
especially since it must consider airplane-installed instruments to be
comprehensive.
    The FAA notes the intent of this rule is to achieve an engine
design where the fit of the installation will prevent an accidental
incorrect assembly. When incorrect fit cannot be ensured, the SSA needs
to address the effects of the incorrect assembly. The FAA is not
intending to include aircraft-installed instruments in this assessment.
We did not change the final rule due to this comment.

Engine Overtemperature Test

    We did not propose changes to this section in the NPRM. We are,
however, changing a reference in this section in the final rule from
Sec.  33.67(d) to Sec.  33.28(k) because this rule eliminates Sec.
33.67(d) and moves its contents to Sec.  33.28(k). We did not make any
other changes to Sec.  33.88 by this rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. We have determined there is
no current or new requirement for information collection associated
with this amendment.
    An agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information,
nor may it impose an information collection requirement unless it
displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
control number.

International Compatibility

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has
reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and
has identified no differences with these regulations.

Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination,
International Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs each Federal agency
propose or adopt a regulation only upon a determination that the
benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires agencies
to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities.
Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from
setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign
commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, this Trade
Act also requires agencies to consider international standards and,
where appropriate, use them as the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies
to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other
effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate
likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by private sector, of $100 million or
more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This
portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic
impacts of this final rule.
    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations.
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement
to that effect, and the basis for it, be included in the preamble if a
full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared.
Such a determination has been made for this final rule.
    Presently, engine manufacturers must satisfy both United States and
European requirements to certify and market part 33 engines in both the
United States and in Europe. Meeting two sets of certification
requirements raises the cost of developing a new engine often with no
increase in safety. In the interest of fostering international trade,
lowering the cost of engine development, and making the certification
process more efficient, the FAA, EASA, and manufacturers have worked to
create to the maximum extent possible a single set of certification
requirements accepted in both the United States and Europe. These
efforts are referred to as harmonization.
    This final rule codifies current industry practices and harmonizes
FAA requirements for aircraft engine control systems with similar
requirements recently adopted by EASA, thereby simplifying
airworthiness approvals for import and export. Similar international
requirements reduce duplicative testing which will reduce certification
costs. The FAA has not attempted to quantify the cost savings that may
accrue due to this specific rule, beyond noting that while they may be
minimal they contribute to harmonization savings. In addition, a
potential for increased safety lies in having clearer and more explicit
regulations. The agency concludes that there is consensus among
potentially impacted manufacturers that savings will result, and
further analysis is not required. The benefits of this final rule
justify the costs and the existing level of safety will be preserved.

Economic Summary

    The FAA has determined that the benefits of this final rule justify
the costs. It is not a ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as
defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities,

including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
    However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the
agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required. The certification must include a statement providing the
factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be
clear.
    During the comment period, one individual questioned our
determination that the rule would not affect a substantial number of
small entities. In the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination, we
found there would not be a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities and used the broadest category, ``more than
just a few,'' in determining if a substantial number of small entities
were impacted. There were no other comments on the potential effect on
small businesses.
    Although there are engine manufacturers who qualify as small
businesses based on Small Business Administration Size Standards, this
rule reduces cost. Our final regulatory flexibility determination is
that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    Therefore, as the Acting FAA Administrator, I certify that this
final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related
activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of
the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are
not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires
consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that
they be the basis for U.S. standards.
    This final rule considers and incorporates an international
standard as the basis of an FAA regulation. Thus this final rule
complies with The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 and does not create
unnecessary obstacles to international trade.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(adjusted annually for inflation with the base year 1995) in any one
year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by
the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a ``significant
regulatory action.'' The level equivalent of $100 million in CY 1995,
adjusted for inflation to CY 2007 levels by the Consumer Price Index
for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) as published by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, is $136.1 million.
    This final rule does not contain such a mandate. The requirements
of Title II do not apply.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We have determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or
the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government, and, therefore, does not have federalism implications.

Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical
exclusion identified in paragraph 312d and involves no extraordinary
circumstances.

Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use

    The FAA has analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We have determined that it is not
a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order because it is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866,
and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You can get an electronic copy of rulemaking documents using the
Internet by--
    1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://
www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://
www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or
    3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://
www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
    You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. Make
sure to identify the amendment number or docket number of this
rulemaking.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit
http://docketsinfo.dot.gov.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 requires the FAA to comply with small entity requests for
information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations
within its jurisdiction. If you are a small entity and you have a
question regarding this document, you may contact your local FAA
official, or the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT heading at the beginning of the preamble. You can find out more
about SBREFA on the Internet at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_
policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 33

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Life-limited parts, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

The Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends Chapter I of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 33--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: AIRCRAFT ENGINES

0
1. The authority citation for part 33 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704

0
2. Amend Sec.  33.5 by adding new paragraphs (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6),
and (b)(5), to read as follows:

Sec.  33.5  Instruction manual for installing and operating the engine.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (4) A definition of the physical and functional interfaces with the
aircraft and aircraft equipment, including the propeller when
applicable.
    (5) Where an engine system relies on components that are not part
of the engine type design, the interface conditions and reliability
requirements for those components upon which engine type certification
is based must be specified in the engine installation instructions
directly or by reference to appropriate documentation.
    (6) A list of the instruments necessary for control of the engine,
including the overall limits of accuracy and transient response
required of such instruments for control of the operation of the
engine, must also be stated so that the suitability of the instruments
as installed may be assessed.
    (b) * * *
    (5) A description of the primary and all alternate modes, and any
back-up system, together with any associated limitations, of the engine
control system and its interface with the aircraft systems, including
the propeller when applicable.
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  33.7 by adding new paragraph (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  33.7  Engine ratings and operating limitations.

* * * * *
    (d) In determining the engine performance and operating
limitations, the overall limits of accuracy of the engine control
system and of the necessary instrumentation as defined in Sec.
33.5(a)(6) must be taken into account.

0
4. Amend Sec.  33.27 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  33.27  Turbine, compressor, fan, and turbosupercharger rotors.

* * * * *
    (b) The design and functioning of engine systems, instruments, and
other methods, not covered under Sec.  33.28 must give reasonable
assurance that those engine operating limitations that affect turbine,
compressor, fan, and turbosupercharger rotor structural integrity will
not be exceeded in service.
* * * * *

0
5. Revise Sec.  33.28 to read as follows:

Sec.  33.28  Engine control systems.

    (a) Applicability. These requirements are applicable to any system
or device that is part of engine type design, that controls, limits, or
monitors engine operation, and is necessary for the continued
airworthiness of the engine.
    (b) Validation.
    (1) Functional aspects. The applicant must substantiate by tests,
analysis, or a combination thereof, that the engine control system
performs the intended functions in a manner which:
    (i) Enables selected values of relevant control parameters to be
maintained and the engine kept within the approved operating limits
over changing atmospheric conditions in the declared flight envelope;
    (ii) Complies with the operability requirements of Sec. Sec.
33.51, 33.65 and 33.73, as appropriate, under all likely system inputs
and allowable engine power or thrust demands, unless it can be
demonstrated that failure of the control function results in a non-
dispatchable condition in the intended application;
    (iii) Allows modulation of engine power or thrust with adequate
sensitivity over the declared range of engine operating conditions; and
    (iv) Does not create unacceptable power or thrust oscillations.
    (2) Environmental limits. The applicant must demonstrate, when
complying with Sec. Sec.  33.53 or 33.91, that the engine control
system functionality will not be adversely affected by declared
environmental conditions, including electromagnetic interference (EMI),
High Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF), and lightning. The limits to
which the system has been qualified must be documented in the engine
installation instructions.
    (c) Control transitions.
    (1) The applicant must demonstrate that, when fault or failure
results in a change from one control mode to another, from one channel
to another, or from the primary system to the back-up system, the
change occurs so that:
    (i) The engine does not exceed any of its operating limitations;
    (ii) The engine does not surge, stall, or experience unacceptable
thrust or power changes or oscillations or other unacceptable
characteristics; and
    (iii) There is a means to alert the flight crew if the crew is
required to initiate, respond to, or be aware of the control mode
change. The means to alert the crew must be described in the engine
installation instructions, and the crew action must be described in the
engine operating instructions;
    (2) The magnitude of any change in thrust or power and the
associated transition time must be identified and described in the
engine installation instructions and the engine operating instructions.
    (d) Engine control system failures. The applicant must design and
construct the engine control system so that:
    (1) The rate for Loss of Thrust (or Power) Control (LOTC/LOPC)
events, consistent with the safety objective associated with the
intended application can be achieved;
    (2) In the full-up configuration, the system is single fault
tolerant, as determined by the Administrator, for electrical or
electronic failures with respect to LOTC/LOPC events;
    (3) Single failures of engine control system components do not
result in a hazardous engine effect; and
    (4) Foreseeable failures or malfunctions leading to local events in
the intended aircraft installation, such as fire, overheat, or failures
leading to damage to engine control system components, do not result in
a hazardous engine effect due to engine control system failures or
malfunctions.
    (e) System safety assessment. When complying with this section and
Sec.  33.75, the applicant must complete a System Safety Assessment for
the engine control system. This assessment must identify faults or
failures that result in a change in thrust or power, transmission of
erroneous data, or an effect on engine operability producing a surge or
stall together with the predicted frequency of occurrence of these
faults or failures.
    (f) Protection systems.
    (1) The design and functioning of engine control devices and
systems, together with engine instruments and operating and maintenance
instructions, must provide reasonable assurance that those engine
operating limitations that affect turbine, compressor, fan, and
turbosupercharger rotor structural integrity will not be exceeded in
service.
    (2) When electronic overspeed protection systems are provided, the
design must include a means for testing, at least once per engine
start/stop cycle, to establish the availability of the protection
function. The means must be such that a complete test of the system can
be achieved in the minimum number of cycles. If the test is not fully
automatic, the requirement for a manual test must be contained in the
engine instructions for operation.

    (3) When overspeed protection is provided through hydromechanical
or mechanical means, the applicant must demonstrate by test or other
acceptable means that the overspeed function remains available between
inspection and maintenance periods.
    (g) Software. The applicant must design, implement, and verify all
associated software to minimize the existence of errors by using a
method, approved by the FAA, consistent with the criticality of the
performed functions.
    (h) Aircraft-supplied data. Single failures leading to loss,
interruption or corruption of aircraft-supplied data (other than thrust
or power command signals from the aircraft), or data shared between
engines must:
    (1) Not result in a hazardous engine effect for any engine; and
    (2) Be detected and accommodated. The accommodation strategy must
not result in an unacceptable change in thrust or power or an
unacceptable change in engine operating and starting characteristics.
The applicant must evaluate and document in the engine installation
instructions the effects of these failures on engine power or thrust,
engine operability, and starting characteristics throughout the flight
envelope.
    (i) Aircraft-supplied electrical power.
    (1) The applicant must design the engine control system so that the
loss, malfunction, or interruption of electrical power supplied from
the aircraft to the engine control system will not result in any of the
following:
    (i) A hazardous engine effect, or
    (ii) The unacceptable transmission of erroneous data.
    (2) When an engine dedicated power source is required for
compliance with paragraph (i)(1) of this section, its capacity should
provide sufficient margin to account for engine operation below idle
where the engine control system is designed and expected to recover
engine operation automatically.
    (3) The applicant must identify and declare the need for, and the
characteristics of, any electrical power supplied from the aircraft to
the engine control system for starting and operating the engine,
including transient and steady state voltage limits, in the engine
instructions for installation.
    (4) Low voltage transients outside the power supply voltage
limitations declared in paragraph (i)(3) of this section must meet the
requirements of paragraph (i)(1) of this section. The engine control
system must be capable of resuming normal operation when aircraft-
supplied power returns to within the declared limits.
    (j) Air pressure signal. The applicant must consider the effects of
blockage or leakage of the signal lines on the engine control system as
part of the System Safety Assessment of paragraph (e) of this section
and must adopt the appropriate design precautions.
    (k) Automatic availability and control of engine power for 30-
second OEI rating. Rotorcraft engines having a 30-second OEI rating
must incorporate a means, or a provision for a means, for automatic
availability and automatic control of the 30-second OEI power within
its operating limitations.
    (l) Engine shut down means. Means must be provided for shutting
down the engine rapidly.
    (m) Programmable logic devices. The development of programmable
logic devices using digital logic or other complex design technologies
must provide a level of assurance for the encoded logic commensurate
with the hazard associated with the failure or malfunction of the
systems in which the devices are located. The applicant must provide
evidence that the development of these devices has been done by using a
method, approved by the FAA, that is consistent with the criticality of
the performed function.

0
6. Amend Sec.  33.29 by adding new paragraphs (e) through (h) to read
as follows:

Sec.  33.29  Instrument connection.

* * * * *
    (e) The applicant must make provision for the installation of
instrumentation necessary to ensure operation in compliance with engine
operating limitations. Where, in presenting the safety analysis, or
complying with any other requirement, dependence is placed on
instrumentation that is not otherwise mandatory in the assumed aircraft
installation, then the applicant must specify this instrumentation in
the engine installation instructions and declare it mandatory in the
engine approval documentation.
    (f) As part of the System Safety Assessment of Sec.  33.28(e), the
applicant must assess the possibility and subsequent effect of
incorrect fit of instruments, sensors, or connectors. Where necessary,
the applicant must take design precautions to prevent incorrect
configuration of the system.
    (g) The sensors, together with associated wiring and signal
conditioning, must be segregated, electrically and physically, to the
extent necessary to ensure that the probability of a fault propagating
from instrumentation and monitoring functions to control functions, or
vice versa, is consistent with the failure effect of the fault.
    (h) The applicant must provide instrumentation enabling the flight
crew to monitor the functioning of the turbine cooling system unless
appropriate inspections are published in the relevant manuals and
evidence shows that:
    (1) Other existing instrumentation provides adequate warning of
failure or impending failure;
    (2) Failure of the cooling system would not lead to hazardous
engine effects before detection; or
    (3) The probability of failure of the cooling system is extremely
remote.

0
7. Amend Sec.  33.53 by revising the section heading and paragraph (a)
to read as follows:

Sec.  33.53  Engine system and component tests.

    (a) For those systems and components that cannot be adequately
substantiated in accordance with endurance testing of Sec.  33.49, the
applicant must conduct additional tests to demonstrate that systems or
components are able to perform the intended functions in all declared
environmental and operating conditions.
* * * * *

Sec.  33.67  [Amended]

0
8. Remove paragraph (d) from Sec.  33.67.
0
9. Amend Sec.  33.88 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  33.88  Engine overtemperature test.

* * * * *
    (b) In addition to the test requirements in paragraph (a) of this
section, each engine for which 30-second OEI and 2-minute OEI ratings
are desired, that incorporates a means for automatic temperature
control within its operating limitations in accordance with Sec.
33.28(k), must run for a period of 4 minutes at the maximum power-on
rpm with the gas temperature at least 35 [deg]F (19 [deg]C) higher than
the maximum operating limit at 30-second OEI rating. Following this
run, the turbine assembly may exhibit distress beyond the limits for an
overtemperature condition provided the engine is shown by analysis or
test, as found necessary by the FAA, to maintain the integrity of the
turbine assembly.
* * * * *

0
10. Amend Sec.  33.91 by revising the section heading and paragraph (a)
to read as follows:

Sec.  33.91  Engine system and component tests.

    (a) For those systems or components that cannot be adequately
substantiated in accordance with endurance testing of Sec.  33.87, the
applicant must conduct additional tests to demonstrate that the systems
or components are able to perform the intended functions in all
declared environmental and operating conditions.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 2, 2008.
Robert A. Sturgell,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. E8-19048 Filed 8-18-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 82 (Monday, April 29, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 24985]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09496]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2004-18033; Directorate Identifier 2004-CE-16-AD;
Amendment 39-17400; AD 2004-21-08 R1]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Cessna Aircraft Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is correcting an airworthiness directive (AD) that
published in the Federal Register. That AD applies to all Cessna
Aircraft Company (Cessna) Models 190, 195 (L-126A,B,C), 195A, and 195B
airplanes that are equipped with certain inboard aileron hinge
brackets. The AD docket number in the preamble section and the rule
portion of the AD is incorrect. Also, the statement that no comments on
the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) were received is incorrect.
This document corrects these errors. In all other respects, the
original document remains the same.

DATES: This correction is effective April 29, 2013. The effective date
for AD 2004-21-08 R1 remains May 9, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Document Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Park, Aerospace Engineer, Wichita
ACO, FAA, 1801 Airport Road, Wichita, KS 67209; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AD 2004-21-08 R1, amendment 39-17400 (78 FR
20227, April 4, 2013), currently requires you to repetitively inspect
the affected inboard aileron hinge brackets for cracks or corrosion and
replace them if cracks or corrosion is found for all Cessna Models 190,
195 (L-126A,B,C), 195A, and 195B airplanes that are equipped with
certain inboard aileron hinge brackets. Replacement with aluminum
brackets would terminate the need for the repetitive inspections.
Future compliance requires following a revised service bulletin that
clarifies the casting numbers and part numbers to be inspected.
    As published, the AD docket number in the final rule headings and
in the headings of the AD is incorrect.
    It was incorrectly stated in the comments section that we received
no comments on the NPRM (78 FR 1155, January 8, 2013). We received one
supportive comment on the NPRM.
    No other part of the preamble or regulatory information has been
changed; therefore, only the changed portion of the final rule is being
published in the Federal Register.
    The effective date of this AD remains May 9, 2013.

Correction of Non-Regulatory Text

    In the Federal Register of April 4, 2013, AD 2004-21-08 R1;
Amendment 39-17400 is corrected as follows:
    On page 20227, in the first column, on line 4 in the headings of
the final rule, change ``Docket No. FAA-2012-18033 * * *.'' to ``Docket
No. FAA-2004-18033 * * *.''
    On page 20227, in the third column, beginning on the second line
under the ``Comments'' section, change the second sentence from ``We
received no comments on the NPRM (78 FR 1155, January 8, 2013) or on
the determination of the cost to the public.'' to ``We received one
supportive comment on the NPRM (78 FR 1155, January 8, 2013) and no
comments on the determination of the cost to the public.''

Correction of Regulatory Text

Sec.  39.13  [Corrected]

0
In the Federal Register of April 4, 2013, on page 20228, in the second
column, the AD headings immediately following the second amendatory
instruction are corrected to read as follows:

2004-21-08 R1 Cessna Aircraft Company: Amendment 39-17400; Docket
No. FAA-2004-18033; Directorate Identifier 2004-CE-16-AD.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on April 17, 2013.
John Colomy,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-09496 Filed 4-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: August 8, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 152)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 44920-44926]
[DOCID:fr08au06-8]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[EPA-R09-OAR-2006-AZ-0388; FRL-8206-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Designation of
Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of Arizona; Finding of
Attainment for Rillito Particulate Matter of 10 Microns or Less
(PM10) Nonattainment Area; Determination Regarding
Applicability of Certain Clean Air Act Requirements; Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to determine that the
Rillito moderate PM10 nonattainment area in Arizona attained
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for particulate matter with
an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers
(PM10) by the applicable attainment date. EPA also finds
that the Rillito area is currently attaining the PM10
standards, and based on this latter finding, EPA is determining that
certain Clean Air Act requirements are not applicable for so long as
the Rillito area continues to attain the PM10 standards.
Lastly, EPA is correcting an error in a previous rulemaking that
involved the classification of PM10 nonattainment areas
within the State of Arizona.

DATES: This rule is effective on October 10, 2006, without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by September 7, 2006. If
adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of
the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that
the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2006-AZ-0388 by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> (please alert the individual listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
     Mail: Wienke Tax, Office of Air Planning, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 9, Mailcode AIR-2, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, California 94105-3901.
     Hand Delivery: Wienke Tax, Office of Air Planning,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 9, Mailcode AIR-2, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901. Such deliveries
are only accepted Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:55 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-
2006-AZ-0388. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal

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

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

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm
.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov
 index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the

Office of Air Planning, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region
9, Mailcode AIR-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California
94105-3901. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the
docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wienke Tax, Office of Air Planning,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 9, Mailcode AIR-2, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. What National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Are
Considered In Today's Finding?
    B. What Is The Designation and Classification of This PM\10\
Nonattainment Area?

    C. How Do We Make Attainment Determinations?
II. What Is The Basis for EPA's Determination That the Rillito Area
Has Attained The PM10 NAAQS?
III. What Are the Applicable Planning Requirements For the Rillito
Area as a Result of EPA's Attainment Determination?
IV. EPA's Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. What National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Are Considered
In Today's Finding?

    National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are safety
thresholds for certain ambient air pollutants set by EPA to protect
public health and welfare. Particulate matter with an aerodynamic
diameter of less than or equal to 10 micrometers, or PM10,
is the subject of this action. PM10 is among the ambient air
pollutants for which EPA has established health-based standards.
    PM10 causes adverse health effects by penetrating deep
in the lungs, aggravating the cardiopulmonary system. Children, the
elderly, and people with asthma and heart conditions are the most
vulnerable.
    On July 1, 1987 (52 FR 24634), EPA revised the NAAQS for
particulate matter with an indicator that includes only those particles
with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10
micrometers. See 40 CFR 50.6. The 24-hour primary PM10
standard is 150 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m3) with no more than
one expected exceedance per year. The annual primary PM10
standard is 50 [mu]g/m3 as an annual arithmetic mean. The secondary
PM10 standards, promulgated to protect against adverse
welfare effects, are identical to the primary standards.

B. What Is the Designation and Classification of This PM10
Nonattainment Area?

    Upon enactment of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAA or the
Act), PM10 areas meeting the requirements of either (i) or
(ii) of section 107(d)(4)(B) of the Act were designated nonattainment
for PM10 by operation of law and classified ``moderate.''
These areas included all former Group I PM10 planning areas
identified in 52 FR 29383 (August 7, 1987) and further clarified in 55
FR 45799 (October 31, 1990), and any other areas violating the NAAQS
for PM10 prior to January 1, 1989 (many of these areas were
identified by footnote 4 in the October 31, 1990 Federal Register
document). A Federal Register notice announcing the areas designated
nonattainment for PM10 upon enactment of the 1990 Act
Amendments, known as ``initial'' PM10 nonattainment areas,
was published on March 15, 1991 (56 FR 11101). A subsequent Federal
Register document correcting some of these areas was published on
August 8, 1991 (56 FR 37654). These nonattainment designations and
moderate area classifications were codified in 40 CFR part 81 in a
Federal Register document published on November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56694).
All other areas in the nation not designated nonattainment at enactment
were designated unclassifiable (see section 107(d)(4)(B)(iii) of the
Act).
    The Rillito planning area was among the areas listed by EPA as a
Group I area (see 52 FR 29383, August 7, 1987) and was designated
nonattainment for PM10 by operation of law and classified
``moderate.'' In accordance with section 189(a)(2) of the CAA, Arizona
was to submit a state implementation plan (SIP) by November 15, 1991
demonstrating attainment of the PM10 standards by December
31, 1994 for the Rillito area.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Arizona submitted a moderate area PM10 plan for
the Rillito area on November 14, 1991. EPA found this plan to be
incomplete by letter dated May 14, 1992. On April 22, 1994, ADEQ
submitted a revised PM10 plan for Rillito, and EPA found
it to be complete by letter dated August 18, 1994. EPA has not taken
action on this 1994 PM10 plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. How Do We Make Attainment Determinations?

    Pursuant to sections 179(c)(1) and 188(b)(2) of the Act, we have
the responsibility of determining within six months of the applicable
attainment date whether, based on air quality data, PM10
nonattainment areas attained the NAAQS by that date. The ``applicable
attainment date'' is December 31, 1994 for areas, such as Rillito, that
were designated as ``moderate'' nonattainment for PM10 by
operation of law under the 1990 Amended Act. Determinations under
section 179(c)(1) of the Act are to be based upon an area's ``air
quality as of the attainment date.'' Section 188(b)(2) is consistent
with this requirement.
    Generally, we will determine whether an area's air quality meets
the PM10 NAAQS for purposes of section 179(c)(1) and
188(b)(2) based upon data gathered at established state and local air
monitoring stations (SLAMS) and national air monitoring stations (NAMS)
in the nonattainment area and entered into EPA's Air Quality System
(AQS) database. Data entered into the AQS have been determined to meet
federal monitoring requirements (see 40 CFR 50.6; 40 CFR part 50,
appendix J; 40 CFR part 53; 40 CFR part 58, appendices A and B) and may
be used to determine the attainment status of areas. We will also
consider air quality data from other air monitoring stations in the
nonattainment area provided that the stations meet the federal
monitoring requirements for SLAMS. All data are reviewed to determine
the area's air quality status in accordance with our guidance at 40 CFR
part 50, appendix K.
    Attainment of the annual PM10 standard is achieved when
the annual arithmetic mean PM10 concentration over a three-
year period is equal to or less than 50 [mu]g/m\3\. Attainment of the
24-hour standard is determined by calculating the expected number of
days in a year with PM10 concentrations greater than 150
[mu]g/m\3\. The 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number
of days with levels above 150 [mu]g/m\3\ (averaged over a three-year
period) is less than or equal to one. Three consecutive years of air
quality data are necessary to show attainment of the 24-hour and annual
standards for PM10. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix K. A
complete year of air quality data, as referred to in 40 CFR part 50,
appendix K, is composed of all four calendar quarters with each quarter
containing data from at least 75 percent of the scheduled sampling
days.

II. What Is the Basis for EPA's Determination That the Rillito Area Has
Attained the PM10 NAAQS?

    The Rillito PM10 nonattainment area is located in north
central Pima County, just northwest of the Tucson metropolitan area in
southern Arizona.\2\ The nonattainment area encompasses the following
nine townships: T11S, R9E through R12E; and T12S, R8E through R12E. The
incorporated Town of Marana with a population of approximately 8,000 is
located within the nonattainment area. A smaller community, the
unincorporated town of Rillito, is located in the portion of the
nonattainment area historically associated with maximum ambient
PM10 concentrations. The land use around Rillito is
predominantly agricultural. The only major (i.e., greater than 100 tons
per year) stationary point source of air pollution in the nonattainment
area

is an Arizona Portland Cement (APC) plant. APC is permitted by ADEQ.
Most of the other stationary sources are sand and gravel operations
mining the alluvial deposits of the Santa Cruz River basin. The area in
and around the nonattainment area is expected to change from rural
agricultural to residential because it will absorb residential
development from the Tucson metropolitan area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In a 1996 rulemaking (61 FR 21372, May 10, 1996) in which we
found that the Phoenix Planning Area had not attained the
PM10 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date for moderate
PM10 nonattainment areas and thus reclassified the area
as ``serious'', we inadvertently introduced an error into the
``Arizona--PM-10'' table in 40 CFR 81.303 by moving the entry for
the Rillito planning area from Pima County to Santa Cruz County. We
are correcting this error in today's notice under CAA section
110(k)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Rillito PM10 nonattainment area has one SLAMS
monitor operated by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
(ADEQ). Located at 8820 West Water Street within the community of
Rillito, this monitor is approximately 0.5 miles northwest of the
Arizona Portland Cement plant. This monitor was selected by ADEQ to
represent maximum PM10 concentration in the area to which
the public is exposed. Table 1 summarizes the one-in-six day
PM10 data collected there from 1988-2005.

         Table 1.--Summary of 24 Hour and Annual PM10 Concentrations ([mu]g/m\3\) for Rillito, 1988-2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             PM10 Concentrations
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
                           Year                              Maximum 24-hour                      3-year annual
                                                              concentration    Annual average        average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1988......................................................               163             *69.2                NA
1989......................................................               170             *83.3                NA
1990......................................................                94             *39.0             *63.8
1991......................................................               133              37.1             *53.1
1992......................................................                96              33.6            * 36.6
1993......................................................                68              27.6              32.8
1994......................................................                63              28.3              29.8
1995......................................................                91              36.2              30.7
1996......................................................                84              38.3              34.3
1997......................................................               129              41.9              38.8
1998......................................................                81              32.4              37.5
1999......................................................               102              37.8              37.4
2000......................................................               129            * 42.1            * 37.4
2001......................................................                89              33.6            * 37.8
2002......................................................                70              37.1            * 37.6
2003......................................................               118              39.5              36.7
2004......................................................                93              32.2              36.3
2005......................................................                84              39.1              36.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Indicates that the mean does not satisfy criteria for a complete data set.
* Values shown in bold text represent exceedances of the applicable standard.

    As noted above, the 24-hour PM10 standard is attained
when the expected number of days with levels above 150 [mu]g/m\3\
(averaged over a three-year period) is less than or equal to one. Based
on the data summarized in table 1, above, we find no exceedances of the
24-hour PM10 standard for the 1992-1994 period and thus the
expected number of days with levels above 150 [mu]g/m\3\ (averaged over
that three-year period) is zero. As such, we find that Rillito attained
the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date
(1994). Furthermore, since 1994, no exceedances of the 24-hour
PM10 standard have been recorded at the Rillito monitoring
station and thus, we find that the area has continued to attain, and is
currently attaining, the 24-hour standard.
    Also as noted above, attainment of the annual PM10
standard is achieved when the annual arithmetic mean PM10
concentration over a three-year period is equal to or less than 50
[mu]g/m\3\. Review of the data for calendar years 1992-1994 reveals an
arithmetic average of 29.8 [mu]g/m\3\. As such, we find that Rillito
attained the annual PM10 standard by the applicable
attainment date (1994). Since 1994, there have been no exceedances of
the annual PM10 standard, and thus, we find that the area
has continued to attain, and is currently attaining, the annual
standard.

III. What Are The Applicable Planning Requirements For The Rillito Area
As A Result Of EPA's Attainment Determination?

    The air quality planning requirements for moderate PM10
nonattainment areas, such as the Rillito nonattainment area, are set
out in part D, subparts 1 and 4 of title I of the Act. We have issued
guidance in a General Preamble \3\ describing how we will review SIPs
and SIP revisions submitted under title I of the Act, including those
containing moderate PM10 nonattainment area SIP provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990'' (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992, as
supplemented 57 FR 18070, April 28, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In some designated nonattainment areas, monitored data demonstrates
that the NAAQS has already been achieved. Based on its interpretation
of the Act, EPA has determined that certain requirements of part D,
subparts 1 and 2 (of title I) of the Act do not apply and therefore do
not require certain submissions for an area that has attained the
NAAQS. These include reasonable further progress (RFP) requirements,
attainment demonstrations and contingency measures, because these
provisions have the purpose of helping achieve attainment of the NAAQS.
    EPA's Clean Data Policy is the subject of two memoranda setting
forth our interpretation of the provisions of the Act as they apply to
areas that have attained the relevant NAAQS. EPA also finalized the
statutory interpretation set forth in the policy in a final rule, 40
CFR 51.918, as part of its ``Final Rule to Implement the 8-hour Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard--Phase 2'' (Phase 2 Final Rule).
See discussion in the preamble to the rule at 70 FR 71645-71646
(November 29, 2005). EPA believes that the legal bases set forth in
detail in our Phase 2 Final Rule; our May 10, 1995 memorandum from John
S. Seitz, entitled ``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment
Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas
Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard'' (Seitz memo);
and our

December 14, 2004 memorandum from Stephen D. Page entitled ``Clean Data
Policy for the Fine Particle National Ambient Air Quality Standards''
(Page memo) are equally pertinent to the interpretation of provisions
of subparts 1 and 4 applicable to PM10. EPA's interpretation
of how the provisions of the Act apply to areas with ``clean data'' is
not logically limited to ozone and PM2.5, because the
rationale is not dependent upon the type of pollutant. Our
interpretation that an area that is attaining the standard is relieved
of obligations to demonstrate RFP and to provide an attainment
demonstration and contingency measures pursuant to part D of the CAA,
pertains whether the standard is PM10, ozone, or
PM2.5.
    The reasons for relieving an area that has attained the relevant
standard of certain part D, subparts 1 and 2 obligations, applies
equally to part D, subpart 4, which contains specific attainment
demonstration and RFP provisions for PM10 nonattainment
areas. As we have explained in the Phase 2 Final Rule and our ozone and
PM2.5 clean data memoranda, EPA believes it is reasonable to
interpret provisions regarding RFP and attainment demonstrations, along
with related requirements, so as not to require SIP submissions if an
area subject to those requirements is already attaining the NAAQS
(i.e., attainment of the NAAQS is demonstrated with three consecutive
years of complete, quality-assured air quality monitoring data). Three
U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals have upheld EPA rulemakings applying its
interpretation of subparts 1 and 2 with respect to ozone. Sierra Club
v. EPA, 99 F.3d 1551 (10th Cir. 1996); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537
(7th Cir. 2004); Our Children's Earth Foundation v. EPA, No. 04-73032
(9th Cir. June 28, 2005)(memorandum opinion). It has been EPA's
longstanding interpretation that the general provisions of part D,
subpart 1 of the Act (sections 171 and 172) do not require the
submission of SIP revisions concerning RFP for areas already attaining
the ozone NAAQS. In the General Preamble, we stated:

    [R]equirements for RFP will not apply in evaluating a request
for redesignation to attainment since, at a minimum, the air quality
data for the area must show that the area has already attained.
Showing that the State will make RFP towards attainment will,
therefore, have no meaning at that point. 57 FR at 13564.

EPA believes the same reasoning applies to the PM10
provisions of part D, subpart 4.
    With respect to RFP, section 171(1) states that, for purposes of
part D of title I, RFP ``means such annual incremental reductions in
emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required by this part or
may reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose of
ensuring attainment of the applicable NAAQS by the applicable date.''
Thus, whether dealing with the general RFP requirement of section
172(c)(2), the ozone-specific RFP requirements of sections 182(b) and
(c), or the specific RFP requirements for PM10 areas of part
D, subpart 4, section 189(c)(1), the stated purpose of RFP is to ensure
attainment by the applicable attainment date. Section 189(c)(1) states
that:

    Plan revisions demonstrating attainment submitted to the
Administrator for approval under this subpart shall contain
quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every 3 years until
the area is redesignated attainment and which demonstrate reasonable
further progress, as defined in section 7501(1) of this title,
toward attainment by the applicable date.

    Although this section states that revisions shall contain
milestones which are to be achieved until the area is redesignated to
attainment, such milestones are designed to show reasonable further
progress ``toward attainment by the applicable attainment date'', as
defined by section 171. Thus, it is clear that once the area has
attained the standard, no further milestones are necessary or
meaningful. This interpretation is supported by language in section
189(c)(3), which mandates that a state that fails to achieve a
milestone must submit a plan that assures that the state will achieve
the next milestone or attain the NAAQS if there is no next milestone.
Section 189(c)(3) assumes that the requirement to submit and achieve
milestones does not continue after attainment of the NAAQS.
    If an area has in fact attained the standard, the stated purpose of
the RFP requirement will have already been fulfilled.\4\ EPA took this
position with respect to the general RFP requirement of section
172(c)(2) in the April 16, 1992 General Preamble and also in the May
10, 1995 memorandum with respect to the requirements of sections 182(b)
and (c). We are extending that interpretation to the specific
provisions of part D, subpart 4. In the General Preamble, we stated, in
the context of a discussion of the requirements applicable to the
evaluation of requests to redesignate nonattainment areas to
attainment, that the ``requirements for RFP will not apply in
evaluating a request for redesignation to attainment since, at a
minimum, the air quality data for the area must show that the area has
already attained. Showing that the State will make RFP towards
attainment will, therefore, have no meaning at that point.'' (57 FR
13564). See also our September 4, 1992 memorandum from John Calcagni,
entitled ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment'' (Calcagni memo), p. 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Thus we believe that it is a distinction without a
difference that section 189(c)(1) speaks of the RFP requirement as
one to be achieved until an area is ``redesignated attainment'', as
opposed to section 172(c)(2), which is silent on the period to which
the requirement pertains, or the ozone nonattainment area RFP
requirements in sections 182(b)(1) or 182 (c)(2), which refer to the
RFP requirements as applying until the ``attainment date'', since,
section 189(c)(1) defines RFP by reference to section 171(1) of the
Act. Reference to section 171(1) clarifies that, as with the general
RFP requirements in section 172(c)(2) and the ozone-specific
requirements of section 182(b)(1) and 182(c)(2), the PM-specific
requirements may only be required ``for the purpose of ensuring
attainment of the applicable national ambient air quality standard
by the applicable date.'' 42 U.S.C. section 7501(1). As discussed in
the text of this rulemaking, EPA interprets the RFP requirements, in
light of the definition of RFP in section 171(1), and incorporated
in section 189(c)(1), to be a requirement that no longer applies
once the standard has been attained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the attainment demonstration requirements of
section 189(a)(1)(B), an analogous rationale leads to the same result.
Section 189(a)(1)(B) requires that the plan provide for ``a
demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the [SIP] will
provide for attainment by the applicable attainment date. * * *'' As
with the RFP requirements, if an area is already monitoring attainment
of the standard, EPA believes there is no need for an area to make a
further submission containing additional measures to achieve
attainment. This is also consistent with the interpretation of the
section 172(c) requirements provided by EPA in the General Preamble,
the Page memo, and the section 182(b) and (c) requirements set forth in
the Seitz memo. As EPA stated in the General Preamble, no other
measures to provide for attainment would be needed by areas seeking
redesignation to attainment since ``attainment will have been
reached.'' (57 FR at 13564).
    Other SIP submission requirements are linked with these attainment
demonstration and RFP requirements, and similar reasoning applies to
them. These requirements include the contingency measure requirements
of sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9). We have interpreted the
contingency measure requirements of sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) as
no longer applying when an area has attained the standard because those
``contingency measures are directed at ensuring RFP

and attainment by the applicable date.'' (57 FR at 13564); Seitz memo,
pp. 5-6.
    Both sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C) require ``provisions to
assure that reasonably available control measures'' (i.e., RACM) are
implemented in a nonattainment area. The General Preamble, 57 FR at
13560 (April 16, 1992), states that EPA interprets section 172(c)(1) so
that RACM requirements are a ``component'' of an area's attainment
demonstration. Thus, for the same reason the attainment demonstration
no longer applies by its own terms, the requirement for RACM no longer
applies. EPA has consistently interpreted this provision to require
only implementation of potential RACM measures that could contribute to
reasonable further progress or to attainment. General Preamble, 57 FR
at 13498. Thus, where an area is already attaining the standard, no
additional RACM measures are required.\5\ EPA is interpreting section
189(a)(1)(C) consistent with its interpretation of section 172(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The EPA's interpretation that the statute only requires
implementation of RACM measures that would advance attainment was
upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
(Sierra Club v. EPA, 314 F.3d 735, 743-745 (5th Cir. 2002), and by
the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (Sierra Club
v. EPA, 294 F.3d 155, 162-163 (D.C. Cir. 2002)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Here, as in both our Phase 2 Final Rule and ozone and
PM2.5 clean data memoranda, we emphasize that the suspension
of a requirement to submit SIP revisions concerning these RFP,
attainment demonstration, RACM, and other related requirements exists
only for as long as a nonattainment area continues to monitor
attainment of the standard. If such an area experiences a violation of
the NAAQS, the basis for the requirements being suspended would no
longer exist. Therefore, the area would again be subject to a
requirement to submit the pertinent SIP revision or revisions and would
need to address those requirements. Thus, a determination that an area
need not submit one of the SIP submittals amounts to no more than a
suspension of the requirements for so long as the area continues to
attain the standard. However, once EPA ultimately redesignates the area
to attainment, the area will be entirely relieved of these requirements
to the extent the maintenance plan for the area does not rely on them.
    Therefore, we believe that, for the reasons set forth here and
established in our prior ``clean data'' memoranda and rulemakings, a
PM10 nonattainment area that has ``clean data,'' should be
relieved of the part D, subpart 4 obligations to provide an attainment
demonstration pursuant to section 189(a)(1)(B), the RACM provisions of
section 189(a)(1)(C), and the RFP provisions established by section
189(c)(1) of the Act, as well as the aforementioned attainment
demonstration, RACM, RFP and contingency measure provisions of part D,
subpart 1 contained in section 172 of the Act.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In prior rulemakings involving the Clean Data Policy and
PM10, EPA has applied criteria in addition to that of
attainment of the standard. See, e.g., 67 FR 43020 (June 26, 2002).
EPA does not believe that those additional criteria are required by
statute or are necessary for application of the policy for
PM10 areas, and does not employ them in applying the
policy to ozone and PM2.5 areas. EPA intends to make its
application of the policy consistent for ozone, PM10, and
PM2.5, and does not intend to require an area to meet
additional criteria for PM10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Should EPA at some future time determine that an area that had
clean data, but which has not yet been redesignated as attainment for a
NAAQS, has violated the relevant standard, the area would again be
required to submit the pertinent requirements under the SIP for the
area. Attainment determinations under the policy do not shield an area
from other required actions, such as provisions to address pollution
transport.
    As set forth above, EPA finds that because the Rillito area has
continued to attain the NAAQS, the requirement of an attainment
demonstration, reasonable further progress, reasonably available
control measures and contingency measures no longer applies for so long
as the area continues to monitor attainment of the PM10
NAAQS. If measurements of ambient PM10 concentration in the
Rillito area reveal a violation of the PM10 NAAQS, then the
State of Arizona would again be required to submit the pertinent CAA
requirements for this nonattainment area.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Note, however, that on January 17, 2006, EPA published
proposed revisions to the NAAQS for particulate matter. See http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2006/January/Day-17/.
 The proposed

revisions address two categories of particulate matter: fine
particles which are particles 2.5 micrometers in diameter and
smaller; and ``inhalable coarse'' particles which are particles
between 2.5 and 10 micrometers (PM10-2.5). Upon
finalization of a primary 24-hour standard for PM10-2.5,
EPA proposes to revoke the current 24-hour PM10 standard
in all areas of the country except in areas where there is at least
one monitor located in an urbanized area (as defined by the U.S.
Bureau of the Census) with a minimum population of 100,000 that
violates the current 24-hour PM10 standard based on the
most recent three years of data. In addition, EPA proposes to revoke
the current annual PM10 standard upon finalization of a
primary 24-hour standard for PM10-2.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. EPA's Final Action

    Based on quality-assured data meeting the requirements of 40 CFR
part 50, appendix K, we find that the Rillito, Arizona nonattainment
area attained the PM10 NAAQS by the applicable attainment
date (1994) and is currently attaining the standard. This action is not
a redesignation to attainment under CAA section 107(d)(3) because we
have not yet approved a maintenance plan as meeting the requirements of
section 175A of the CAA or determined that the area has met the other
CAA requirements for redesignation. The classification and designation
status in 40 CFR part 81 will remain moderate nonattainment for this
area until such time as Arizona meets the CAA requirements for
redesignation of the Rillito area to attainment. See footnote 7.
    EPA also finds that, because the Rillito area has continued to
attain the NAAQS, the following CAA requirements no longer apply: The
part D, subpart 4 obligations to provide an attainment demonstration
pursuant to section 189(a)(1)(B), the RACM provisions of 189(a)(1)(C),
the RFP provisions established by section 189(c)(1), and the attainment
demonstration, RACM, RFP and contingency measure provisions of part D,
subpart 1 contained in section 172 of the Act.
    Lastly, under CAA section 110(k)(6), we are correcting the entry
for the Rillito moderate PM10 nonattainment area in the
``Arizona--PM-10'' table in 40 CFR 81.303 so that it is identified as a
subarea within Pima County instead of Santa Cruz County.
    We are publishing this rule without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial action and anticipates no
adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposal should adverse comments be filed. This
action will be effective October 10, 2006, without further notice
unless the EPA receives relevant adverse comments by September 7, 2006.
    If we receive such comments, then we will publish a document
withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will
not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. We will not
institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting
should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public
is advised that this rule will be effective on October 10,

2006 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely makes a determination based on air quality data and does not
impose any additional requirements. Accordingly, the Administrator
certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule does not impose any
additional enforceable duty, it does not contain any unfunded mandate
or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 97249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely makes a determination
based on air quality data and does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This
rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    The requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.
This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by October 10, 2006. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

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

    Dated: July 25, 2006.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region 9.

0
Part 81, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 81--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart C--[Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  81.303, the table entitled ``Arizona--PM-10'' is amended by
revising the entries for Santa Cruz County and Pima County to read as
follows:

Sec.  81.303  Arizona.

* * * * *

                                                 Arizona.--PM-10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Designation                          Classification
          Designated area           ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Date                Type               Date               Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Santa Cruz County:
    Nogales planning area..........    11/15/90  Nonattainment............    11/15/90  Moderate.
        The portions of the
         following Townships which
         are within the State of
         Arizona and lie east of
         111 degrees longitude:
         T23S, R13E, T23S, R14E,
         T24S, R13E, T24S, R14E
Pima County:
    Rillito planning area..........    11/15/90   Nonattainment...........    11/15/90  Moderate.
        Townships: T11S, R9E, T11S,
         R10E, T11S, R11E, T11S,
         R12E, T12S, R8E, T12S,
         R9E, T12S, R10E, T12S,
         R11E, T12S, R12E
    Ajo planning area..............    11/15/90  Nonattainment............    11/15/90  Moderate.
        Township T12S, R6W, and the
         following sections of
         Township T12S, R5W:
            a. Sections 6-8
            b. Sections 17-20, and
            c. Sections 29-32

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
 [FR Doc. E6-12756 Filed 8-7-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P