[Federal Register: September 25, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 185)]
[Notices]
[Page 54440]
[DOCID:fr25se07-39]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OR07-22-000]

BP West Coast Products LLC, Complainant, v. Calnev Pipe Line LLC,
Respondent; Notice of Complaint

September 18, 2007.
    Take notice that on September 13, 2007, BP West Coast Products LLC
(BP), pursuant to Rule 206 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of
the Commission's Regulations, 18 CFR 385.206, the Procedural Rules
Applicable to Oil Pipeline Proceedings, 18 CFR 385.343.2 sections 1(5),
8, 9, 13, 15, and 16 of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. App.
Sec. Sec.  1(5), 8, 9, 13, 15, and 16 (1994), and section 1803 of the
Energy Policy Act of 1992, hereby files this second complaint against
Calnev Pipe Line LLC (Calnev), challenging the justness and
reasonableness of rates for transportation, surcharged services, and
terminalling on Calnev's interstate pipeline system.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on October 15, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-18838 Filed 9-24-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 179 (Monday, September 16, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48609-48610]
[FR Doc No: 2019-19954]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD19-19-000]

Notice of Workshop; Grid-Enhancing Technologies

    Take notice that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) will convene a staff-led workshop in the above-referenced
proceeding on Tuesday and Wednesday, November 5-6, 2019 from
approximately 8:45 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time. The conference will
be held at Commission headquarters, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426. Commissioners may attend and participate.
    The purpose of this workshop is to discuss grid-enhancing
technologies that increase the capacity, efficiency, or reliability of
transmission facilities. Panelists and staff will discuss how grid-
enhancing technologies are currently used in transmission planning and
operations, the challenges to their deployment and implementation, and
what the Commission can do regarding those challenges, including
incentivizing or requiring the adoption of grid-enhancing technologies
by utilities and RTOs/ISOs. These technologies include, but are not
limited to: (1) Power flow control and transmission switching
equipment; (2) storage technologies, and (3) advanced line rating
management technologies. Participants at this workshop will include
representatives from utilities, RTOs/ISOs, technology vendors,
researchers, and other interested parties. Further details and a formal
agenda will be issued prior to the conference.
    The workshop will be open for the public to attend. Advance
registration is not required to attend, but is encouraged. Attendees
may register at the following web page: http://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/11-06-19-form.asp. In-person attendees should allow time
to pass through building security procedures before the start time of
the workshop.
    Those wishing to participate as a panel member in this conference
should submit a nomination form online by 5:00 p.m. on September 20,
2019 at: http://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/11-06-19-speaker-form.asp. At this web page, please provide an abstract of the issue(s)
you propose to address. Due to time constraints, we may not be able to
accommodate all those interested in being panelists. There will also be
opportunity for audience participation.

    The workshop will be transcribed and webcast. Transcripts will be
available for a fee from Ace Reporting<PHONE_NUMBER>). A link to the
webcast of this event will be available in the Commission Calendar of
Events at www.ferc.gov. The Capitol Connection provides technical
support for the webcasts and offers the option of listening to the
workshop via phone-bridge for a fee. For additional information, visit
www.CapitolConnection.org or call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please
send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free 1-866-208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER> with
the required accommodations.
    For more information about this workshop, please contact Samin
Peirovi at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>. For information
related to logistics, please contact Sarah McKinley at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 9, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-19954 Filed 9-13-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 127 (Friday, July 2, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 38589]
[FR Doc No: C1-2010-14360]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34--62239; File No. SR--NYSEAMEX--2010--48]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Amex LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Deleting Rule
405(4)-NYSE Amex Equities to Correspond with Rule Changes of the
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.

June 8, 2010.

Correction

    In notice document 2010-14360 beginning on page 33880 in the issue
of Tuesday, June 15, 2010, make the following correction:
    On page 33880, in the first column, the docket number is corrected
to read as it appears above.

[FR Doc. C1-2010-14360 Filed 7-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 22 (Wednesday, February 2, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5828-5829]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02053]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2022-N-0074]

Watson Laboratories, Inc., et al.; Withdrawal of Approval of
Eight Abbreviated New Drug Applications

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is
withdrawing approval of eight abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs)
from multiple applicants. The applicants notified the Agency in writing
that the drug products were no longer marketed and requested that the
approval of the applications be withdrawn.

DATES: Approval is withdrawn as of March 4, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha Nguyen, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 1676, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-
402-6980, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The applicants listed in the table have
informed FDA that these drug products are no longer marketed and have
requested that FDA withdraw approval of the applications under the
process described in Sec.  314.150(c) (21 CFR 314.150(c)). The
applicants have also, by their requests, waived their opportunity for a
hearing. Withdrawal of approval of an application or abbreviated
application under Sec.  314.150(c) is without prejudice to refiling.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Application No.               Drug                  Applicant
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANDA 075152.............  Diclofenac Potassium    Watson Laboratories,
                           Tablets, 50             Inc. (an indirect,
                           milligrams (mg).        wholly owned
                                                   subsidiary of Teva
                                                   Pharmaceuticals USA,
                                                   Inc.), 400 Interpace
                                                   Pkwy., Bldg. A,
                                                   Parsippany, NJ 07054.
ANDA 091376.............  Topotecan               Fresenius Kabi USA,
                           Hydrochloride (HCl)     LLC, Three Corporate
                           for Injection,          Dr., Lake Zurich, IL
                           Equivalent to (EQ) 4    60047.
                           mg base/vial.
ANDA 091471.............  Efavirenz Tablets, 600  Mylan Pharmaceuticals
                           mg.                     Inc., a Viatris
                                                   Company, 3711 Collins
                                                   Ferry Rd.,
                                                   Morgantown, WV 26505.
ANDA 200463.............  Itraconazole Capsules,  Mylan Pharmaceuticals
                           100 mg.                 Inc., a Viatris
                                                   Company, 781 Chestnut
                                                   Ridge Rd.,
                                                   Morgantown, WV 26504.
ANDA 202395.............  Ziprasidone HCl         Do.
                           Capsules, EQ 20 mg
                           base, EQ 40 mg base,
                           EQ 60 mg base, and EQ
                           80 mg base.
ANDA 203170.............  Docetaxel Injection,    Jiangsu Hengrui
                           40 mg/milliliter.       Pharmaceuticals Co.,
                                                   Ltd., U.S. Agent,
                                                   eVenus Pharmaceutical
                                                   Laboratories Inc.,
                                                   506 Carnegie Center,
                                                   Suite 100, Princeton,
                                                   NJ 08540.
ANDA 203574.............  Mesalamine Delayed      Mylan Pharmaceuticals
                           Release Tablets, 1.2    Inc., a Viatris
                           grams.                  Company, 781 Chestnut
                                                   Ridge Rd.,
                                                   Morgantown, WV 26504.
ANDA 208177.............  Atazanavir Sulfate      Do.
                           Capsules, EQ 150 mg
                           base, EQ 200 mg base,
                           and EQ 300 mg base.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, approval of the applications listed in the table, and
all amendments and supplements thereto, is hereby withdrawn as of March
4, 2022. Approval of each entire application is withdrawn, including
any strengths and dosage forms inadvertently missing from the table.
Introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of
products without approved new drug applications violates section 301(a)
and (d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 331(a)
and (d)). Drug products that are listed in the table that are in
inventory on March 4, 2022 may continue to be dispensed until the
inventories have been depleted or the drug products have reached their
expiration dates or otherwise become violative, whichever occurs first.

    Dated: January 25, 2022.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-02053 Filed 2-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:FDA-201-4-N-0189-0001

Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time. I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. Quite simply, I firmly believe that they saved my life. I smoked cigarettes for 47 years and I have tried every NRT and drug to free myself of cigarettes.  Then for my 10th attempt to quit I tried the eciigarette. It gave me the hand to mouth habit and the vapor. I have not had a combustible cigarette in 6 months.  My nicotine level has decreased from 24 mg to 4 mg. It would have been great if I was able to quit cold turkey or with the patch or gum or wellbutrin but I couldn't. Why some people can or cannot is beyond me.

I wish to provide you with my personal health story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further. .

A healthier ex-smoker thanks to this product.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 10, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46938-46940]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21226]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0952; Product Identifier 2017-CE-028-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Stemme AG Gliders

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2017-10-
11 for Stemme AG Model Stemme S10-VT gliders (type certificate
previously held by Stemme GmbH & Co. KG). This proposed AD results from
mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an
aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as certain propeller front transmission gear wheels having
insufficient material strength because of improper heat treatment
during manufacturing. We are issuing this proposed AD to require
actions to address the unsafe condition on these products and to add
Stemme AG Model Stemme S 12 to the applicability.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 24,
2017.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
STEMME AG, Flugplatzstrasse F2, Nr. 6-7, D-15344 Strausberg, Germany;
telephone: +49 (0) 3341 3612-0, fax: +49 (0) 3341 3612-30; Internet:
https://www.stemme.com. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Policy and Innovation Division, 901 Locust,

Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0952; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments
will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Standards Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas
City, Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2017-0952;
Product Identifier 2017-CE-028-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider
all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed
AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We issued AD 2017-10-11, Amendment 39-18885 (82 FR 24239, May 26,
2017) (``AD 2017-10-11'') to address an unsafe condition on all Stemme
AG Model Stemme S10-VT gliders (type certificate previously held by
Stemme GmbH & Co. KG) equipped with a certain front gearbox, part
number 11AG, and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country.
    Since we issued AD 2017-10-11, we have type certificated Stemme AG
Model Stemme S 12 gliders in the United States and have determined
those model gliders should also be included in the applicability of AD
2017-10-11. In addition, Stemme AG has issued new service information
with procedures for addressing the unsafe condition.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Stemme AG has issued STEMME Service Bulletin Dok. Nr.: P062-980010,
Issue: 01, dated June 14, 2017, and STEMME Procedural Specification
Dok. Nr.: P320-900060, dated June 14, 2017. In combination, the service
information describes procedures for replacing the front gearbox. This
service information is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this NPRM.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they
have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because
we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type
design.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    The service information for this proposed AD allows the owner/
operator to do certain maintenance tasks. Also, the service information
specifies certain maintenance tasks be done by Stemme AG. However, for
this proposed AD, we do not allow the owner/operator to do any
maintenance tasks; all maintenance tasks must be done by an
appropriately certified mechanic or maintenance shop. In addition, we
do not require any maintenance tasks be done specifically by Stemme AG;
any appropriately certified mechanic or maintenance shop may do the
tasks required by this proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    According to the U.S. registry, we have a total of 51 of both
glider types registered, but there are still only 14 serial numbers of
the part number 11AG front gearbox. Therefore, the most gliders that
could be affected remains 14. According to Stemme AG, there are a total
of 4 of the affected front gearboxes on both glider types of U.S.
registry (2 for each model).
    It will take an estimated 19 work-hours per product to comply with
the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is
$85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $2,000 per product.
    Based on these figures, if we consider the costs for all 14
affected gearboxes, then we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $50,610, or $3,615 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to small airplanes, gliders, and
domestic business jet transport airplanes to the Director of the Policy
and Innovation Division.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:

    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Amendment 39-18885 (82 FR
24239, May 26, 2017), and adding the following new AD:

Stemme AG: Docket No. FAA-2017-0952; Product Identifier 2017-CE-028-
AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by November 24, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2017-10-11, Amendment 39-18885 (82 FR 24239,
May 26, 2017) (``AD 2017-10-11'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Stemme AG Model Stemme S10-VT gliders (type
certificate previously held by Stemme GmbH & Co. KG), all serial
numbers, and Stemme AG Model Stemme S 12 gliders, all serial
numbers, that are:
    (1) Equipped with a front gearbox, part number (P/N) 11AG, with
a serial number listed in table 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD; and
    (2) are certificated in any category.
    Table 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD--Affected P/N 11AG (front
gearbox) S/Ns

80058/0814, 80059/0915, 80060/0915, 80061/1115, 80062/1215, 80063/
0116, 80064/0416, 80065/0616, 80066/0716, 80067/0916, 80068/1016,
80069/0117, 80070/0217, 80071/0217.

    Note 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD: Page 2 of Stemme AG Service
Bulletin No. P062-980010, dated April 21, 2017, provides a pictorial
of where the serial number of the affected gearboxes are located.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 61: Propellers/
Propulsors.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as certain
propeller front transmission gear wheels having insufficient
material strength because of improper heat treatment during
manufacturing. We are issuing this proposed AD to add Stemme AG
Model Stemme S 12 to the applicability, paragraph (c), of this AD,
and to prevent failure of the propeller front transmission gear
wheels. This failure could cause loss of power between the engine
and the propeller, which could result in reduced control.

(f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions:
    (1) For Model Stemme S10-VT gliders: Before further flight after
June 15, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2017-10-11), replace the
front gearbox following STEMME Procedural Specification Dok. Nr.:
P320-900060, dated June 14, 2017, as specified in STEMME Service
Bulletin Dok. Nr.: P062-980010, Issue: 01, dated June 14, 2017.
    (2) For Model Stemme S 12 gliders: Before further flight after
the effective date of this AD, replace the front gearbox following
STEMME Procedural Specification Dok. Nr.: P320-900060, dated June
14, 2017, as specified in STEMME Service Bulletin Dok. Nr.: P062-
980010, Issue: 01, dated June 14, 2017.
    (3) As of the effective date of this AD, do not install a front
gear box listed in table 1 of paragraph (c) of this AD.
    (4) The service information for this AD allows the owner/
operator to do certain maintenance tasks. Also, the service
information specifies certain maintenance tasks be done by Stemme
AG. However, for this AD, we do not allow the owner/operator to do
any maintenance tasks; all maintenance tasks must be done by an
appropriately certifiedmechanic or maintenance shop. In addition, we
do not require any maintenance tasks be done specifically by Stemme
AG; any appropriately certified mechanic or maintenance shop may do
the tasks required by this AD.

 (g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Small Airplane Standards Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. Send information to ATTN: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Standards Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas
City, Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (816) 329-
4090; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (i) Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the
AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in
the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI,
your local FSDO.
    (ii) AMOCs approved for AD 2017-10-11, Amendment 39-18885 (82 FR
24239, May 26, 2017) are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding
provisions of this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, Small Airplane
Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA).

(h) Related Information

    (1) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.
2017-0072-E, dated April 26, 2017, and Stemme AG Service Bulletin
No. P062-980010, dated April 21, 2017, for related information. You
may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0952. For service
information related to this AD, contact STEMME AG, Flugplatzstrasse
F2, Nr. 6-7, D-15344 Strausberg, Germany; telephone: +49 (0) 3341
3612-0, fax: +49 (0) 3341 3612-30; Internet: https://www.stemme.com.
You may review copies of the referenced service information at the
FAA, Policy and Innovation Division, 901 Locust, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on September 26, 2017.
Pat Mullen,
Acting Deputy Director, Policy & Innovation Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-21226 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: November 4, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 212)]
[Notices]
[Page 57180]
[DOCID:fr04no09-81]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-D-0348]

Draft Guidance for Industry: Guide to Minimize Microbial Food
Safety Hazards of Leafy Greens; Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is extending to January
4, 2010, the comment period for the draft guidance entitled ``Guidance
for Industry: Guide to Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards of Leafy
Greens'' that appeared in the Federal Register of August 3, 2009 (74 FR
38439), as corrected on August 21, 2009 (74 FR 42311). In the notice of
availability, FDA requested comments by November 2, 2009. The agency is
taking this action in response to requests for an extension to allow
interested persons additional time to submit comments.

DATES:  Submit written or electronic comments by January 4, 2010.

ADDRESSES:  Submit electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers lane, rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Green, Center for Food Safety and
Applied Nutrition (HFS-317), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint
Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In the Federal Register of August 3, 2009 (74 FR 38439), as
corrected on August 21, 2009 (74 FR 42311), FDA published a notice of
availability with a 90-day comment period to request comments on the
draft guidance entitled ``Guidance for Industry: Guide to Minimize
Microbial Food Safety Hazards of Leafy Greens'' (the draft guidance).
Comments on the draft guidance will inform FDA's current thinking for
finalization of this Level 1 guidance consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices.
    The agency has received requests for an extension of the comment
period for the draft guidance. FDA has considered the requests and is
extending the comment period for the draft guidance until January 4,
2010. The agency believes that this extension allows adequate time for
interested persons to submit comments without significantly delaying
finalization of this Level 1 guidance.

II. Request for Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) electronic or written comments on this document. Submit
a single copy of electronic comments or two paper copies of any mailed
comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy. Comments
are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the
heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division
of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Dated: October 30, 2009.
David Horowitz,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-26637 Filed 11-2-09; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 79 (Monday, April 27, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19025-19027]
[FR Doc No: E9-9479]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-1369; Directorate Identifier 2003-NE-03-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc RB211 Trent 800 Series
Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness
directive (AD) for Rolls-Royce plc RB211 Trent 875-17, Trent 877-17,
Trent 884-17, Trent 892-17, Trent 892B-17, and Trent 895-17 turbofan
engines with high pressure (HP) compressor rotor rear stage 5 and 6
discs and cone shafts, part numbers (P/Ns) FK25230 and FK27899
installed. This proposed AD would require removing these parts at new
reduced cycle limits. This proposed AD results from Rolls-Royce plc
reducing the lives of these parts and changing the life calculating
method to use ``Standard Duty Cycles'' with ``Multiple Flight Profile
Monitoring'' and ``Flight Cycles'' with ``Heavy Flight Profile
Monitoring''. We are proposing this AD to prevent stage 5 and 6 disc
crack initiation and propagation that might lead to uncontained disc
failure and damage to the airplane.

DATES: We must receive any comments on this proposed AD by June 26,
2009.

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this
proposed AD.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Lawrence, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12
New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2009-1369;
Directorate Identifier 2003-NE-03-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact
with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search
function of the Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any
of our dockets, including, if provided, the name of the individual who
sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy
Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65
FR 19477-78).

Examining the AD Docket

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

Discussion

    On July 23, 2003, we issued AD 2003-15-06, Amendment 39-13249 (68
FR 44610, July 30, 2003). That AD requires removal from service of HP
compressor rotor rear stage 5 and 6 discs and cone shafts, P/Ns FK25230
and FK27899, before reaching newly reduced life limits. The Civil
Aviation Authority (CAA), which is the airworthiness authority for the
United Kingdom (U.K.), had notified the FAA that an unsafe condition
may exist on Rolls-Royce plc RB211 Trent 875, Trent 877, Trent 884,
Trent 892, Trent 892B, and Trent 895 turbofan engines. The CAA advised
that three HP compressor rotor rear stage 5 and 6 discs and cone
shafts, P/Ns FK25230 and FK27899, were found with crack indications in
the stage 5 and 6 blade loading slots, during overhaul inspection. The
manufacturer's analysis had not yet been able to identify the root
cause of these cracks, or to fully explain the crack propagation rate.
As a result of the analysis, a new lower life limit of 7,500 cycles-
since-new had been assigned by the manufacturer to these HP compressor
rotor rear stage 5 and 6 discs and cone shafts. This condition, if not
corrected,

could result in stage 5 and 6 disc crack initiation and propagation
that might lead to uncontained disc failure and damage to the airplane.

Actions Since AD 2003-15-06 Was Issued

    Since AD 2003-15-06 was issued, Rolls-Royce plc has further reduced
the lives of HP compressor rotor rear stage 5 and 6 discs and cone
shafts, P/Ns FK25230 and FK27899, and changed the life calculating
method to use ``Standard Duty Cycles'' with ``Multiple Flight Profile
Monitoring'' and ``Flight Cycles'' with ``Heavy Flight Profile
Monitoring''.

Bilateral Agreement Information

    This engine model is manufactured in the United Kingdom and is type
certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of
Section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and
the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Under this bilateral
airworthiness agreement, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
kept us informed of the situation described above. We have examined the
findings of EASA, reviewed all available information, and determined
that AD action is necessary for products of this type design that are
certificated for operation in the United States.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an
unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other products
of this same type design. We are proposing this AD, which would require
changing the life calculating method to use ``Standard Duty Cycles''
with ``Multiple Flight Profile Monitoring'' and ``Flight Cycles'' with
``Heavy Flight Profile Monitoring'', and reducing the lives of the
affected parts to 5,000 ``Standard Duty Cycles'' or 5,000 Flight
cycles'', respectively.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 94 Rolls-Royce plc
RB211 Trent 875-17, Trent 877-17, Trent 884-17, Trent 892-17, Trent
892B-17, and Trent 895-17 turbofan engines installed on airplanes of
U.S. registry. Removal of these HP compressor rotor rear stage 5 and 6
discs and cone shafts would not impose any additional labor costs if
performed at the time of scheduled engine overhaul. The prorated life
loss is about $225,000 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate
the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $21,150,000.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Amendment 39-13249 (68 FR
44610, July 30, 2003) and by adding a new airworthiness directive, to
read as follows:

Rolls-Royce plc: Docket No. FAA-2009-1369; Directorate Identifier
2003-NE-03-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) must receive
comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) action by June 26,
2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 2003-15-06, Amendment 39-13249.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Rolls-Royce plc RB211 Trent 875-17, Trent
877-17, Trent 884-17, Trent 892-17, Trent 892B-17, and Trent 895-17
turbofan engines with high pressure (HP) compressor rotor rear stage
5 and 6 discs and cone shafts, part numbers (P/Ns) FK25230 and
FK27899 installed. These engines are installed on, but not limited
to, Boeing 777 series airplanes.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from Rolls-Royce plc reducing the lives of
these parts and changing the life calculating method to use
``Standard Duty Cycles'' with ``Multiple Flight Profile
Monitoring'', and ``Flight Cycles'' with ``Heavy Flight Profile
Monitoring''. We are issuing this AD to prevent stage 5 and 6 disc
crack initiation and propagation that might lead to uncontained disc
failure and damage to the airplane.

Compliance

    (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified unless the
actions have already been done.
    (f) For operators using ``Multiple Flight Profile Monitoring''
(Flight Profiles ``A'' through ``F''), remove HP compressor rotor
rear stage 5 and 6 discs and cone shafts from service at or before
accumulating 5,000 ``Standard Duty Cycles''. Information on
``Multiple Flight Profile Monitoring'' can be found in the Aircraft
Maintenance Manual, Chapter 70-01-10.
    (g) For operators using ``Heavy Flight Profile Monitoring'',
remove HP compressor rotor rear stage 5 and 6 discs and cone shafts
from service at or before accumulating 5,000 ``Flight Cycles''.
Information on ``Heavy Flight Profile Monitoring'' can be found in
the Aircraft Maintenance Manual, Chapter 70-01-10.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

    (h) The Manager, Engine Certification Office, has the authority
to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD if
requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

Related Information

    (i) Contact James Lawrence, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (781) 238-
7199, for more information about this AD.
    (j) European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2007-0004, dated January
8, 2007, also addresses the subject of this AD.
    (k) Rolls-Royce plc Alert Service Bulletin No. RB.211-72-AE082,
Revision 7, dated June 18, 2008, pertains to the subject of this AD.
Contact Rolls-Royce plc, P.O. Box 31, Derby, DE24 8BJ, UK, telephone
44 (0) 1332 242424; fax 44 (0) 1332 249936, for a copy of this
service information.
    (l) Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,
Washington 98124-2207, for a copy of the Aircraft Maintenance Manual
referenced in this AD.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on April 17, 2009.
Peter A. White,
Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E9-9479 Filed 4-24-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 4 (Monday, January 7, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 900-907]
[FR Doc No: 2012-31431]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[Docket : EPA-R10-OAR-2010-0914; FRL--9764-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Alaska: Eagle River PM10 Nonattainment Area Limited
Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve the Limited
Maintenance Plan (LMP) submitted by the State of Alaska on September
29, 2010 for the Eagle River nonattainment area (Eagle River NAA) and
the State's request to redesignate the area to attainment for the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter
with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10
micrometers (PM10).

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective March 8, 2013, without
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by February 6,
2013. If adverse comments are 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-R10-
OAR-2010-0914, by any of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Justin A. Spenillo, EPA Region 10, Office of Air,
Waste and Toxics (AWT-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle WA,
98101.
     Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Suite 900, Seattle WA, 98101. Attention: Justin A. Spenillo, Office of
Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT-107. Such deliveries are only accepted
during normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-
2010-0914. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information the disclosure of which
is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider
to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available
docket materials are available either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle WA, 98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Justin A. Spenillo at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the above EPA, Region 10 address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we'',
``us'' or ``our'' are used, it is intended to refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. This Action
II. Background
    A. PM10 NAAQS
    B. Eagle River NAA and Planning Background
III. Requirements for Redesignation
    A. CAA Requirements for Redesignation of Nonattainment Areas
    B. The LMP Option for PM10 Nonattainment Areas
    C. Conformity Under the LMP Option
IV. Review of the Alaska Submittal Addressing the Requirements for
Redesignation and LMPs
    A. Has the Eagle River NAA attained the applicable NAAQS?
    B. Does the Eagle River NAA have a fully approved SIP under
section 110(k) of the CAA?
    C. Has the State met all applicable requirements under section
110 and part D of the CAA?
    D. Has the State demonstrated that the air quality improvement
is due to permanent and enforceable reductions?
    E. Does the area have a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant
to section 175A of the CAA?
    F. Has the State demonstrated that the Eagle River NAA qualifies
for the LMP option?
    G. Does the State have an approved attainment emissions
inventory which can be used to demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS?
    H. Does the LMP include an assurance of continued operation of
an appropriate EPA-approved air quality monitoring network, in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58?
    I. Does the plan meet the Clean Air Act requirements for
contingency provisions?
    J. Has the State met conformity requirements?
V. Final Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. This Action

    EPA is taking direct final action to approve the Limited
Maintenance Plan (LMP) submitted by the State of Alaska on September
29, 2010, for the Eagle River nonattainment area (Eagle River NAA) and
to concurrently redesignate the area to attainment for the
PM10 NAAQS. EPA has reviewed air quality

data for the area and determined that the Eagle River NAA attained the
PM10 NAAQS by the required attainment date, and that
monitoring data continue to show attainment. EPA also approves
exclusion of data from a high wind exceptional event on October 30,
2009.

II. Background

A. PM10 NAAQS

    ``Particulate matter,'' also known as particle pollution or PM, is
a complex mixture of extremely small particles and liquid droplets. The
size of particles is directly linked to their potential for causing
health problems. EPA is concerned about particles that are 10
micrometers in diameter or smaller because those are the particles that
generally pass through the throat and nose and enter the lungs. Once
inhaled, these particles can affect the heart and lungs and cause
serious adverse health effects. People with heart or lung diseases,
children and older adults are the most likely to be affected by
particle pollution exposure. However, even healthy individuals may
experience temporary symptoms from exposure to elevated levels of
particle pollution.
    On July 1, 1987, EPA promulgated a NAAQS for PM10 (52 FR
24634). EPA established a 24-hour standard of 150 [mu]g/m\3\ and an
annual standard of 50 [mu]g/m\3\, expressed as an annual arithmetic
mean. EPA also promulgated secondary PM10 standards that
were identical to the primary standards. In a rulemaking action dated
October 17, 2006, EPA retained the 24-hour PM10 standard but
revoked the annual PM10 standard (71 FR 61144, effective
December 18, 2006).

B. Eagle River NAA and Planning Background

    On August 7, 1987, EPA designated the ``Anchorage (Eagle River)''
(referred to as Eagle River henceforth) area as a PM10
nonattainment area due to measured violations of the 24-hour
PM10 standard (52 FR 29383). The notice announcing the
designation upon enactment of the 1990 CAA Amendments was published on
March 15, 1991 (56 FR 11101). On November 6, 1991, the Eagle River NAA
was subsequently classified as moderate under sections 107(d)(4)(B) and
188(a) of the CAA (56 FR 56694).
    After the Eagle River NAA was designated nonattainment for
PM10, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
(ADEC) and Municipality of Anchorage (MOA) worked with the community of
Eagle River to develop a plan to bring the area into attainment no
later than December 31, 1994. The State submitted the plan to EPA on
October 15, 1991, as a moderate PM10 State Implementation
Plan (SIP) under section 189(a) of the CAA. The primary control measure
submitted by the State was a comprehensive road paving program. EPA
took final action to approve the State's moderate PM10 SIP
on August 13, 1993 (58 FR 43084). On October 19, 2010, EPA made an
attainment determination that the Eagle River nonattainment area
attained the PM10 NAAQS (75 FR 64162).
    The State of Alaska prepared a LMP and provided notice and an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed plan. On September 29,
2010, the State submitted to EPA for approval the Eagle River
PM10 LMP and requested that EPA redesignate the Eagle River
NAA to attainment for the PM10 NAAQS.

III. Requirements for Redesignation

A. CAA Requirements for Redesignation of Nonattainment Areas

    A nonattainment area can be redesignated to attainment after the
area has measured air quality data showing the NAAQS has been attained
and when certain planning requirements are met. Section 107(d)(3)(E) of
the CAA, and the General Preamble to Title I provide the criteria for
redesignation (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992). These criteria are further
clarified in a policy and guidance memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management Division, EPA Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards dated September 4, 1992, entitled ``Procedures
for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment'' (Calcagni
memo). The criteria for redesignation are:
    1. The Administrator has determined that the area has attained the
applicable NAAQS;
    2. The Administrator has fully approved the applicable SIP for the
area under section 110(k) of the CAA;
    3. The State containing the area has met all requirements
applicable to the area under section 110 and part D of the CAA;
    4. The Administrator has determined that the improvement in air
quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions;
and
    5. The Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the
area as meeting the requirements of section 175A of the CAA.

B. The LMP Option for PM10 Nonattainment Areas

    On August 9, 2001, EPA issued guidance on streamlined maintenance
plan provisions for certain moderate PM10 nonattainment
areas seeking redesignation to attainment (Memo from Lydia Wegman,
Director, Air Quality Standards and Strategies Division, entitled
``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate PM10
Nonattainment Areas'' (LMP Option memo)). The LMP Option memo contains
a statistical demonstration that areas meeting certain air quality
criteria will, with a high degree of probability, maintain the standard
10 years into the future. Thus, EPA has already provided the
maintenance demonstration for areas meeting the criteria outlined in
the LMP Option memo. It follows that future year emission inventories
for these areas, and some of the standard analyses to determine
transportation conformity with the SIP are no longer necessary.
    To qualify for the LMP Option, the area should have attained the
PM10 NAAQS and, based upon the most recent five years of air
quality data at all monitors in the area, the 24-hour design value
should be at or below 98 [mu]g/m\3\. If an area cannot meet this test,
it may still be able to qualify for the LMP Option if the average
design value (ADV) for the site is less than the site-specific critical
design value (CDV). In addition, the area should expect only limited
growth in on-road motor vehicle PM10 emissions (including
fugitive dust) and should have passed a motor vehicle regional
emissions analysis test. The LMP Option memo also identifies core
provisions that must be included in the LMP. These provisions include
an attainment year emissions inventory, assurance of continued
operation of an EPA-approved air quality monitoring network, and
contingency provisions.

C. Conformity Under the LMP Option

    The transportation conformity rule and the general conformity rule
(40 CFR parts 51 and 93) apply to nonattainment areas and maintenance
areas covered by an approved maintenance plan. Under either conformity
rule, an acceptable method of demonstrating that a Federal action
conforms to the applicable SIP is to demonstrate that expected
emissions from the planned action are consistent with the emissions
budget for the area.
    While EPA's LMP Option does not exempt an area from the need to
affirm conformity, it explains that the area may demonstrate conformity
without submitting an emissions budget. Under the LMP Option, emissions
budgets are treated as essentially not constraining for the length of
the maintenance period because it is unreasonable to expect that the
qualifying areas would experience so much growth in that period that a
violation of the PM10 NAAQS would result. For transportation
conformity purposes, EPA would conclude that

emissions in these areas need not be capped for the maintenance period
and therefore a regional emissions analysis would not be required.
Similarly, Federal actions subject to the general conformity rule could
be considered to satisfy the ``budget test'' specified in 40 CFR 93.158
(a)(5)(i)(A) for the same reasons that the budgets are essentially
considered to be unlimited.

IV. Review of the Alaska Submittal Addressing the Requirements for
Redesignation and LMPs

A. Has the Eagle River NAA attained the applicable NAAQS?

    To demonstrate that an area has attained the PM10 NAAQS
States must submit an analysis of ambient air quality data from an
ambient air monitoring network representing peak PM10
concentrations. The data should be quality-assured and stored in the
EPA Air Quality System database. EPA has reviewed air quality data for
the area and has determined that the Eagle River NAA attained the
PM10 NAAQS \1\ by the applicable attainment date of December
31, 1994, and continues to attain the PM10 NAAQS. EPA's
analysis is described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Because the annual PM10 standard was revoked
effective December 18, 2006, see 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006),
this notice discusses only attainment of the 24-hour PM10
standard.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 24-hour PM10 NAAQS is 150 [mu]g/m\3\. An area has
attained this 24-hour standard when the average number of expected
exceedances per year is less than or equal to one, when averaged over a
three-year period (40 CFR 50.6). To make this determination, three
consecutive years of complete ambient air quality data must be
collected in accordance with Federal requirements (40 CFR part 58
including appendices).
    A comprehensive air quality monitoring plan, meeting the
requirements of 40 CFR part 58, was submitted by ADEC to EPA on January
18, 1980 (40 CFR 52. 70), and approved by EPA on April 15, 1981 (72 FR
21944). Updated monitoring plans have been subsequently submitted, with
the most recent approval by EPA on October 25, 2012. The monitoring
plan describes the Alaska monitoring network throughout the State,
which includes site 02-020-1004 (Parkgate Site) in the Eagle
River area. In the LMP submittal, ADEC States that the nonattainment
designation was based on data collected at the Parkgate Site. With the
exception of two volcanic eruptions and high wind exceptional events, a
review of data from 1988 through the present show that PM10
concentrations recorded at this site remain well below the 24-hour
PM10 NAAQS. In addition, ADEC states that the Parkgate Site
is operated in compliance with EPA monitoring guidelines set forth in
40 CFR part 58, Ambient Air Quality Surveillance. More information on
the monitoring plan can be found at http://dec.alaska.gov/air/am/am_airmonplan.htm.
    Data from the Parkgate Site has been quality assured by ADEC and
submitted to EPA's Air Quality System (AQS), accessible through EPA's
AirData Web site at http://www.epa.gov/airdata/. To show attainment for
the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS the three most recent years of data,
calendar years 2009-2011, must be below 1.0 Expected number of
Exceedances (EE), as established in Appendix K to 40 CFR part 50. The
Parkgate Site recorded one exceedance during the 2009-2011 period on
October 30, 2009. ADEC has flagged this exceedance as being caused by a
high wind exceptional event. Under EPA's Exceptional Events Rule, the
Agency may exclude data from a regulatory determination related to an
exceedance or violation of the NAAQS if the State adequately
demonstrates that an exceptional event caused the exceedance or
violation. 40 CFR 50.1 and 50.14. For the reasons set forth in the AK
Eagle River PM10 October 30, 2009 Exceptional Event
concurrence letter and analysis (November 2, 2012), EPA excluded data
showing an exceedance on October 30, 2009 in determining whether the
Eagle River NAA has attained the PM10 NAAQS. ADEC also
submitted an exceedance on October 31, 2009 for consideration as an
exceptional event however this request was not approved as described in
the concurrence letter. The concurrence letter explains how ADEC met
its burden to demonstrate that the October 30, 2009 exceedance
qualifies as an exceptional event. Based on this demonstration, the
area's EE was 0.4, which is well below the 1.0 upper limit. EPA
therefore concludes that the area was not violating the PM10
NAAQS during the three-year period 2009 to 2011 (Eagle River
PM10 NAAQS and LMP Determination, November 8, 2012).

B. Does the Eagle River NAA have a fully approved SIP under section
110(k) of the CAA?

    To qualify for redesignation, the SIP for an area must be fully
approved under section 110(k) of the CAA, and must satisfy all
requirements that apply to the area. As discussed in Section II.B.
above, Alaska submitted a moderate PM10 SIP for the Eagle
River NAA on October 15, 1991. EPA took final action to fully approve
the State's moderate PM10 SIP on August 13, 1993 (58 FR
43084), as satisfying all requirements that apply to the area. Thus the
area has a fully approved nonattainment area SIP under section 110(k)
of CAA.

C. Has the State met all applicable requirements under section 110 and
Part D of the CAA?

    Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA requires that a state containing a
nonattainment area meet all applicable requirements under section 110
and Part D of the CAA for the area to be redesignated to attainment.
EPA interprets this to mean that the state must meet all requirements
that applied to the area prior to, and at the time of, the submission
of a complete redesignation request. The following is a summary of how
Alaska meets these requirements.
(1) Clean Air Act Section 110 Requirements
    Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA contains general requirements for
nonattainment plans. These requirements include, but are not limited
to: Submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the state after
reasonable notice and public hearing; provisions for establishment and
operation of appropriate apparatus, methods, systems and procedures
necessary to monitor ambient air quality; implementation of a permit
program; provisions for Part C--Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) and Part D--New Source Review (NSR) permit programs; criteria for
stationary source emission control measures, monitoring and reporting;
provisions for modeling; and provisions for public and local agency
participation. See the General Preamble for further explanation of
these requirements (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992). EPA's approval of
Alaska's SIP for attainment and maintenance of national standards can
be found at 40 CFR 52.72. For purposes of redesignation of the Eagle
River PM10 NAA, EPA has reviewed the Alaska SIP and finds
that the State has satisfied all applicable requirements under CAA
section 110(a)(2) for the PM10 NAAQS.
(2) Part D Requirements
    Part D of the CAA contains general requirements applicable to all
areas designated nonattainment. The general requirements are followed
by a series of subparts specific to each pollutant. All PM10
nonattainment areas must meet the general provisions of Subpart 1 and
the specific PM10 provisions in Subpart 4, ``Additional
Provisions for Particulate Matter Nonattainment Areas.'' The following
paragraphs discuss these

requirements as they apply to the Eagle River PM10 NAA.
(2)(a) Part D, Section 172(c)(2)--Reasonable Further Progress
    Section 172(c) contains general requirements for nonattainment area
plans. A thorough discussion of these requirements may be found in the
General Preamble (57 FR 13538, April 16, 1992). CAA section 172(c)(2)
requires nonattainment plans to provide for reasonable further progress
(RFP). Section 171(1) of the CAA defines RFP as ``such annual
incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as
are required by this part (part D of title I) or may reasonably be
required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of
the applicable national ambient air quality standard by the applicable
date.'' The requirements for reasonable further progress,
identification of certain emissions increases and other measures needed
for attainment were satisfied with the approved Eagle River
PM10 SIP (58 FR 43084). In the October 19, 2010 action (75
FR 64162), EPA determined that the Eagle River NAA attained the 24-hour
PM10 NAAQS by the December 31, 1994, attainment date.
Therefore, EPA believes no further showing of RFP or quantitative
milestones is necessary.
(2)(b) Part D, Section 172(c)(3)--Emissions Inventory
    For redesignation, Section 172(c)(3) of CAA requires a
comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all
sources in the Eagle River PM10 NAA. Alaska included an
emissions inventory for the Eagle River area for the year 2007 in the
September 29, 2010 submittal. The inventory estimated emissions during
spring break-up and fall freeze-up include: Dust from paved roads;
wind-generated dust from roads, parking lots and un-vegetated areas;
fireplaces and woodstoves; natural gas combustion; and motor vehicles
exhaust, tire and brake wear. The emissions inventory included
emissions estimates for unpaved roads for the initial SIP attainment
plan (Eagle River PM10 Control Plan), but all roads have been paved and
so those emissions have not been included in the 2007 nor 2020
inventories. Emissions estimates for road dust and motor vehicle
exhaust, brake wear, and tire wear were developed using the EPA-
approved MOBILE6.2 model, and vehicle miles traveled estimates were
obtained from the 2007 Chugiak-Eagle River Long Range Transportation
Plan. The remaining emissions estimates were calculated using EPA
approved AP-42 emission factors. EPA reviewed the inventory and
associated calculations submitted by Alaska and believes that the 2007
Eagle River emissions inventory is current, accurate and comprehensive
and therefore meets the requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA.
(2)(c) Part D, Section 172(c)(5)--New Source Review (NSR)
    The CAA requires all nonattainment areas to meet several
requirements regarding NSR. The state must have an approved major NSR
program that meets the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(5). EPA
evaluated and initially approved the Alaska major NSR program on July
5, 1983 (48 FR 30623) and most recently approved revisions to Alaska's
NSR program on February 11, 2011 (76 FR 7116). In the Eagle River
PM10 NAA, the requirements of the Part D NSR program will be
replaced by the State's PSD program requirements upon the effective
date of redesignation.
(2)(d) Part D, Section 172(c)(7)--Compliance With CAA Section
110(a)(2): Air Quality Monitoring Requirements
    Once an area is redesignated, the state must continue to operate an
appropriate air monitoring network in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 to
verify the attainment status of the area. On July 18, 1980 Alaska
submitted a comprehensive air quality monitoring plan (40 CFR 52.70),
meeting the requirements of 40 CFR part 58, to EPA. EPA approved the
plan on April 15, 1981 (72 FR 21944). This monitoring plan has been
updated, with the most recent approval by EPA on October 25, 2012
(Alaska Air Monitoring Plan Approval Letter, dated October 25, 2012).
As described in section IV. A., ADEC operate a comprehensive monitoring
network.
(2)(e) Part D, Section 172(c)(9)--Contingency Measures
    The CAA requires that contingency measures take effect if an area
fails to meet RFP requirements or fails to attain the NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date. Because, as part of this action, EPA has
determined the Eagle River NAA attained the PM10 NAAQS by
the applicable attainment date of December 31, 1994, contingency
measures are no longer required under section 172(c)(9) of the CAA.
However, contingency provisions are required for maintenance plans
under Section 175A. See section VI. F. for a description of Alaska's
maintenance plan contingency provisions.
(2)(f) Part D, Section 189(a), (c), and (e)--Additional Provisions for
Particulate Matter Nonattainment Areas
    Section 189(a), (c), and (e) apply to moderate PM10
nonattainment areas. Any of these requirements which were applicable
and due prior to the submission of the redesignation request must be
fully approved into the SIP before redesignating the area to
attainment. With respect to the Eagle River PM10 NAA, these
requirements include:
    (a) Provisions to assure that reasonably available control measures
were implemented by December 10, 1993 (section 189(a)(1)(C));
    (b) Either a demonstration that the plan provided for attainment as
expeditiously as practicable, but not later than December 31, 1994, or
a demonstration that attainment by that date was impracticable (section
189(a)(1)(B));
    (c) Quantitative milestones which were achieved every three years
and which demonstrate RFP toward attainment by December 31, 1994
(section 189(c)(1)); and
    (d) Provisions to assure that the control requirements applicable
to major stationary sources of PM10 also apply to major
stationary sources of PM10 precursors except where the
Administrator determined that such sources do not contribute
significantly to PM10 levels which exceed the NAAQS in the
area (section 189(e)).
    Provisions for reasonably available control measures, attainment
demonstration, and RFP milestones were fully approved into the SIP upon
EPA approval of the moderate PM10 SIP for the Eagle River
NAA on August 13, 1993 (58 FR 43084). EPA most recently approved
revisions to Alaska's NSR program on February 9, 2011 (76 FR 7116).
Alaska's major NSR rules include control requirements that apply to
major stationary sources of PM10 in nonattainment areas and
attainment/unclassifiable areas. For the Eagle River area, EPA
determined that major stationary sources do not contribute
significantly to PM10 levels in excess of the NAAQS.
Therefore, in EPA's action to approve the moderate PM10 SIP
for Eagle River, EPA granted the exclusion from control requirements
authorized under section 189(e) for major stationary sources of
PM10 precursors (58 FR 43084).

D. Has the State demonstrated that the air quality improvement is due
to permanent and enforceable reductions?

    Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) of the CAA provides that a nonattainment
area may

not be redesignated unless EPA determines that the improvement in air
quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions
resulting from implementation of the SIP. Therefore, a State must be
able to reasonably attribute the improvement in air quality to
permanent and enforceable emission reductions by demonstrating that air
quality improvements are the result of actual enforceable emission
reductions. This showing should consider emission rates, production
capacities, and other related information. The analysis should assume
that sources are operating at permitted levels (or historic peak
levels) unless evidence is presented that such an assumption is
unrealistic.
    Permanent and enforceable control measures in the Eagle River
moderate PM10 SIP include road paving and surfacing projects
to address fugitive dust. These controls were approved by EPA into the
Eagle River PM10 SIP, and they are both permanent and
federally enforceable (58 FR 43084). As described in the submittal, the
primary control measure relied on is the road paving program which
either paved or surfaced all of the roads in the area by 2007. The
program paved 22 miles of road which equals almost half of the roads in
the area. The Municipality of Anchorage (MOA) commits itself to
maintenance of the roads during their 10-15-year lifetime and
resurfacing thereafter. The MOA also will work with the Alaska
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities to limit the amount
of silt allowed in winter traction sand as well as explore other road
maintenance techniques that minimize road dust while still cleaning and
maintaining safe roads.
    EPA believes that areas that qualify for the LMP Option will meet
the NAAQS, even under worst case meteorological conditions. Therefore,
under the LMP Option, the maintenance demonstration is presumed to be
satisfied if an area meets the qualifying criteria. A description of
the LMP qualifying criteria and how the Eagle River area meets these
criteria is provided below. By qualifying for the LMP Option, Alaska
presumptively demonstrates that the air quality improvements in the
Eagle River area are the result of permanent emission reductions and
not a result of either economic trends or meteorology.

E. Does the area have a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant to
section 175A of the CAA?

    In this action, we are approving the LMP in accordance with the
principles outlined in the LMP Option memo. Upon the effective date of
this action, the area will have a fully approved maintenance plan.

F. Has the State demonstrated that the Eagle River NAA qualifies for
the LMP option?

    The LMP Option memo outlines the requirements for an area to
qualify for the LMP Option. First, the area should be attaining the
NAAQS. In this action, EPA has determined that the Eagle River NAA
attained the PM10 NAAQS by the required attainment date, and
continues to be in attainment with the PM10 NAAQS. Please
see section V. A. for a detailed discussion.
    Second, the average design value (ADV) for the past five years of
monitoring data must be at or below the critical design value (CDV).
The CDV is a margin of safety value at which an area has been
determined to have a one in ten probability of exceeding the NAAQS. The
LMP Option memo provides two methods to review monitoring data for the
purpose of determining qualification for the LMP Option. The first
method is a comparison of a site's ADV with the CDV of 98 [micro]g/m\3\
for the 24 hour PM10 NAAQS and 40 [micro]g/m\3\ for the
annual PM10 NAAQS. A second method that applies to the 24-
hour PM10 NAAQS is the calculation of a site-specific CDV
and a comparison of the site-specific CDV with the ADV for the past
five years of monitoring data. The State's submittal provides a
comparison of five-year ADVs compared to the 24-hour CDV, as described
in the first method for review of monitoring data to determine
qualification for the LMP Option. Alaska's analysis demonstrates that
the Eagle River NAA meets the LMP design value criteria for the period
2003-2007. Using EPA-recommended methodology, Alaska calculated the
average 24-hour design value for the area to be 92.3 [micro]g/m\3\,
which is below the CDV of 98 [micro]g/m\3\. Alaska did not include two
events that they considered to be exceptional events on March 12, 2003
and December 2, 2007.
    Given that the LMP memo requires that the most recent five years of
data be used to determine LMP eligibility, EPA calculated average
design values using more recent data from 2007-2011. EPA found that the
Eagle River area meets the LMP design value criteria for both the 24-
hour ADV (95 [micro]g/m\3\ compared to the 98 [micro]g/m\3\ 24 hr ADV)
and the annual ADV (17 [micro]g/m\3\ compared to the 40 [micro]g/m\3\
annual ADV) (Eagle River PM10 NAAQS and LMP Determination
Memo, November 8, 2012). EPA's calculations did not include data from
October 30, 2009, which EPA agreed was an exceedance caused by an
exceptional event. EPA finds that Eagle River meets the design value
criteria outlined in the LMP Option memo.
    Third, the area must meet the motor vehicle regional emissions
analysis test in attachment B of the LMP Option memo. Using the
methodology outlined in attachment B, Alaska submitted an analysis of
whether increased emissions from on-road mobile sources would increase
PM10 concentrations in the Eagle River NAA to levels that
would threaten the assumption of maintenance that underlies the LMP
policy. Based on monitoring data for the period 2003-2007, Alaska has
determined that the Eagle River NAA passes the motor vehicle regional
emissions analysis test. EPA has reviewed the calculations in Appendix
A of the State's submittal and concurs with this conclusion.
    As described above, the Eagle River NAA meets the qualification
criteria set forth in the LMP Option memo and therefore qualifies for
the LMP Option. The LMP Option memo also indicates that once a state
selects the LMP Option and it is in effect, the state will be expected
to determine, on an annual basis, that the LMP criteria are still being
met. If the state determines that the LMP criteria are not being met,
it should take action to reduce PM10 concentrations enough
to requalify for the LMP Option. One possible approach the state could
take is to implement contingency provisions. The State's submittal
included a description of contingency provisions which are discussed in
Section V. I. EPA believes the contingency provisions submitted by
Alaska meet the requirements of CAA section 175A as outlined in the LMP
Option memo.
    As a result of the above analysis, EPA is approving the LMP for the
Eagle River area and the State's request to redesignate the Eagle River
NAA to attainment for PM10.

G. Does the State have an approved attainment emissions inventory which
can be used to demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS?

    Pursuant to the LMP Option memo, the state's approved attainment
plan should include an emissions inventory which can be used to
demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS. The inventory should represent
emissions during the same five-year period associated with air quality
data used to determine whether the area meets the applicability
requirements of the LMP Option. The state should review its inventory
every three years to ensure emissions growth is incorporated in the
inventory if necessary.

    Alaska's submittal includes an emissions inventory for the year
2007. After reviewing the 2007 emissions inventory and determining that
it is current, accurate and complete, as well as reviewing monitoring
data for the years 2003-2007, EPA has determined that the 2007
emissions inventory is representative of the attainment year inventory
because the NAAQS was not violated during 2007. In addition, the year
2007 is representative of the level of emissions during the time period
used to calculate the average design value because 2007 is one of the
years during the five-year period used to calculate the design value
(2003-2007). The submittal meets EPA guidance, as described above, for
purposes of an attainment emissions inventory.

H. Does the LMP include an assurance of continued operation of an
appropriate EPA-approved air quality monitoring network, in accordance
with 40 CFR part 58?

    PM10 monitoring was established in the Eagle River area
in 1985. ADEC currently maintains a PM10 monitoring network
which includes the Parkgate Site within the Eagle River area. This
monitoring network was developed and has been maintained in accordance
with Federal siting and design criteria in 40 CFR part 58 and in
consultation with Region 10. EPA most recently approved Alaska's air
monitoring plan on October 25, 2012 (Alaska Air Monitoring Plan
Approval Letter, dated October 25, 2012). In the September 29, 2010
submittal, Alaska states that it will continue to monitor for
PM10 in the Eagle River NAA through the end of the
maintenance planning period (2020).

I. Does the plan meet the Clean Air Act requirements for contingency
provisions?

    CAA Section 175A states that a maintenance plan must include
contingency provisions, as necessary, to ensure prompt correction of
any violation of the NAAQS which may occur after redesignation of the
area to attainment. As explained in the LMP Option memo and Calcagni
memo, these contingency provisions are considered to be an enforceable
part of the SIP. The plan should clearly identify the provisions to be
adopted, a schedule and procedures for adoption and implementation, and
a specific time limit for action by the state. The maintenance plan
should identify the events that would ``trigger'' the adoption and
implementation of a contingency provision, the contingency provision
that would be adopted and implemented, and the schedule indicating the
time frame by which the state would adopt and implement the provision.
The LMP Option memo and Calcagni memo state that EPA will review what
constitutes a contingency plan on a case-by-case basis. At a minimum,
it must require that the State will implement all measures contained in
the Part D nonattainment plan for the area prior to redesignation.
    ADEC has included maintenance plan contingency provisions to ensure
the area continues to meet the PM10 NAAQS. Specifically, the
submittal includes a list of potential contingency measures based on
the primary sources of PM10 identified in the emission
inventory. These include traffic-related paved road dust, wind-blown
dust from roadways, parking lots and cleared areas, and fireplaces and
woodstoves. Traffic-related road dust and wind-blown dust contingency
provisions include application of chemical dust palliatives based on a
successful field study in 2008 during their spring break-up period, and
the potential use of road sweeping. Another provision primarily
directed at wind-blown dust would require that traction sand materials
meet specifications which would reduce the amount of re-entrained dust.
Fireplace and woodstove provisions would include curtailment scenarios
if economics or meteorology increased the amount of PM10
emissions generated by residential wood combustion.
    The contingency provisions submitted by ADEC will be formally
assessed by MOA within 30 days following the violation of the
PM10 NAAQS. Within 120 days a report, will be prepared and
ultimately approved by ADEC. The report will assess existing controls
and provide a recommendation with respect to the contingency provisions
or alternatives. Actions will occur at the discretion of the Municipal
Mayor and Assembly. Some measures may require changes to the local
ordinances. The contingency provisions identify potential control
measures and provide a specific schedule for review, recommendation,
adoption and implementation. EPA believes the contingency provisions
are adequate to meet CAA Section 175A requirements and the LMP Option
memo.

J. Has the State met conformity requirements?

(1) Transportation Conformity
    Under the LMP Option, emissions budgets are treated as essentially
not constraining for the maintenance period because it is unreasonable
to expect that qualifying areas would experience so much growth in that
period that a NAAQS violation would result. While areas with
maintenance plans approved under the LMP Option are not subject to the
budget test, the areas remain subject to the other transportation
conformity requirements of 40 CFR part 93, subpart A. Thus, the
metropolitan planning organization (MPO) in the area or the state must
document and ensure that:
    (a) Transportation plans and projects provide for timely
implementation of SIP transportation control measures (TCMs) in
accordance with 40 CFR 93.113;
    (b) Transportation plans and projects comply with the fiscal
constraint element as set forth in 40 CFR 93.108;
    (c) The MPO's interagency consultation procedures meet the
applicable requirements of 40 CFR 93.105;
    (d) Conformity of transportation plans is determined no less
frequently than every three years, and conformity of plan amendments
and transportation projects is demonstrated in accordance with the
timing requirements specified in 40 CFR 93.104;
    (e) The latest planning assumptions and emissions model are used as
set forth in 40 CFR 93.110 and 40 CFR 93.111;
    (f) Projects do not cause or contribute to any new localized carbon
monoxide or particulate matter violations, in accordance with
procedures specified in 40 CFR 93.123; and
    (g) Project sponsors and/or operators provide written commitments
as specified in 40 CFR 93.125.
    In the 2012 adequacy finding for the Eagle River, Alaska
Particulate Matter (PM10) Limited Maintenance Plan, EPA
determined that the Eagle River area met the criteria to be exempted
from regional emissions analysis for PM10 (77 FR 25164,\2\
April 27, 2012). However, project level conformity requirements would
continue to apply to the area. With EPA's approval of the LMP, the area
continues to be exempt from performing a regional emissions analysis,
but must meet project-level conformity analyses as well as the
transportation conformity criteria mentioned above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This adequacy finding for Eagle River AK incorrectly
references a submission of date of September 20, 2011. The correct
submission date was September 29, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) General Conformity
    For Federal actions required to address the specific requirements
of the general conformity rule, one set of requirements applies
particularly to ensuring that emissions from the action will not cause
or contribute to new

violations of the NAAQS, exacerbate current violations, or delay timely
attainment. One way that this requirement can be met is to demonstrate
that ``the total of direct and indirect emissions from the action (or
portion thereof) is determined and documented by the State agency
primarily responsible for the applicable SIP to result in a level of
emissions which, together with all other emissions in the nonattainment
area, would not exceed the emissions budgets specified in the
applicable SIP'' (40 CFR 93.158(a)(5)(i)(A)).
    The decision about whether to include specific allocations of
allowable emissions increases to sources is one made by the state and
local air quality agencies. These emissions budgets are different than
those used in transportation conformity. Emissions budgets in
transportation conformity are required to limit and restrain emissions.
Emissions budgets in general conformity allow increases in emissions up
to specified levels. Alaska has not chosen to include specific
emissions allocations for Federal projects that would be subject to the
provisions of general conformity.

V. Final Action

    EPA is taking direct final action to approve the LMP submitted by
the State of Alaska for the Eagle River NAA and concurrently
redesignate the area to attainment for the PM10 NAAQS. EPA
has reviewed air quality data for the area and determined that the
Eagle River NAA attained the PM10 NAAQS by the required
attainment date, and that air monitoring data continue to show
attainment.
    EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment 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 to approve the SIP revision should
adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective March 8, 2013
without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by
February 6, 2013.
    If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule 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. The
EPA will not institute a second comment period on this rule. Any
parties interested in commenting on this rule should do so at this
time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this
rule will be effective on March 8, 2013 and no further action will be
taken on the proposed rule.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to the requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    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 action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 8, 2013. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

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

40 CFR Part 81

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

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

    Dated: December 17, 2012.
Dennis J. McLerran,

Regional Administrator, Region 10.

    40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart C--Alaska

0
2. Section 52.73 is amended by adding paragraph (e)(1) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.73  Approval of plans.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) Eagle River. (i) EPA approves as a revision to the Alaska State
Implementation Plan, the Eagle River PM-10 Limited Maintenance Plan
(Volume II Sections III.D.2 of the State Air Quality Control Plan
adopted August 20, 2010, effective October 29, 2010, and Volume III
Sections III.D.2.2 of the Appendices adopted August 20, 2010, effective
October 29, 2010) submitted by the Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation on September 29, 2010.
    (ii) [Reserved]
* * * * *

PART 81--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
4. In Sec.  81.302, the table entitled ``Alaska--PM-10'' is amended by
revising the entry for ``Anchorage, Community of Eagle River'' to read
as follows:

Sec.  81.302  Alaska.

* * * * *

                                                  Alaska--PM-10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Designation                           Classification
         Designated area         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Date                Type                Date                Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Anchorage
    Community of Eagle River....  March 8, 2013.....  Attainment........

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-31431 Filed 1-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P