[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 21, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28274-28277]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12630]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-9386; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-056-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (Formerly
Known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM); reopening
of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier proposal for all Airbus Defense and
Space S.A. Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, and CN-235-300
airplanes; and Model C-295 airplanes. This action revises the notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) by reducing a certain compliance time,
adding repetitive inspections and operational checks of the affected
fuel valves, and providing corrective action if necessary. We are
proposing this airworthiness directive (AD) to address the unsafe
condition on these products. Since these actions impose an additional
burden over those proposed in the NPRM we are reopening the comment
period to allow the public the chance to comment on these changes.

DATES: The comment period for the NPRM published in the Federal
Register on November 25, 2016 (81 FR 85169), is reopened.
    We must receive comments on this SNPRM by August 7, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this SNPRM, contact Airbus
Defense and Space Services/Engineering Support, Avenida de
Arag[oacute]n 404, 28022 Madrid, Spain; telephone +34 91 585 55 84; fax
+34 91 585 31 27; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet
http://www.eads.net. You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. 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-2016-
9386; 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: Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace
Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356;
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-2016-9386;
Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-056-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 we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that
would apply to all Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model CN-235, CN 235-
100, CN-235-200, and CN-235-300 airplanes, and Model C-295 airplanes.
The NPRM published in the Federal Register on November 25, 2016 (81 FR
85169). The NPRM was prompted by leakage of a motorized cross-feed fuel
valve. The NPRM proposed to require an inspection of the affected fuel
valves and, depending on findings, applicable corrective actions.

Actions Since the NPRM Was Issued

    Since we issued the NPRM, an additional report of a fuel leak in a
motorized cross-feed valve has resulted in the need for a change to the
compliance time for the initial inspection, the addition of repetitive
inspections and operational checks, and corrective action if necessary.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued AD 2017-
0004, dated January 9, 2017, (referred to after this as the Mandatory
Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an
unsafe condition on all Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model CN-235, CN-
235-100, CN-235-200, and CN-235-300 airplanes; and Model C-295
airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Leakage of a motorised cross-feed fuel valve Part Number (P/N)
7923227F was reported on a CN-235-100M aeroplane. The leakage was
observed through the valve electrical connectors and detected during
accomplishment of a functional check in accordance with task 28.007
of the CN-235 Maintenance Review Board Report (MRB CN-235-PV01).
Identical motorised fuel valves are installed on civilian CN-235 and
C-295 aeroplanes, as cross-feed, shut-off and defueling valves.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to
failure of a motorised fuel valve and consequent improper
functioning of the fuel system or, in case of

an ignition source, could lead to a fire, possibly resulting in
damage to the aeroplane and injury to occupants.
    To address this potentially unsafe condition, Airbus Defence &
Space (D&S) issued Alert Operators Transmission (AOT)-CN235-28-0001
and AOT-C295-28-0001 to provide inspection instructions.
    Consequently, EASA issued AD 2016-0071 to require a one-time
inspection of the affected motorised fuel valves and, depending on
findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s).
    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, new occurrences of fuel leakage
involving the affected motorised fuel valves were reported and
Airbus D&S issued Revision 1 of AOT-CN235-28-0001 and Revision 1 of
AOT-C295-28-0001 to introduce repetitive inspections and operational
checks of the affected motorised fuel valves.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the
requirements of EASA AD 2016-0071, which is superseded, and
introduces repetitive inspections and operational checks [and
corrective action, if necessary] of the affected fuel valves.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
9386.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus Defense and Space S.A. has issued Alert Operators
Transmission (AOT) AOT-CN235-28-0001, Revision 1, dated September 27,
2016; and AOT AOT-C295-28-0001, Revision 1, dated September 27, 2016.
The service information describes procedures for repetitive
inspections, replacement of the motorized fuel valves, and performing
operational checks and corrective actions on affected motorized fuel
valves. These documents are distinct since they apply to different
airplane models. 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.

Comments

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

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This SNPRM

    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 the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these
same type designs.
    Certain changes described above expand the scope of the NPRM. As a
result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment
period to provide additional opportunity for the public to comment on
this SNPRM.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this SNPRM affects 14 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on  U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection and operational check......  3 work-hours x $85 per                $0            $255          $3,570
                                         hour = $255.
Reporting.............................  1 work-hour x $85 per                  0              85           1,190
                                         hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement...................................  5 work-hours x $85 per hour =            $38,448         $38,873
                                                 $425.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition corrective actions for the
operational check specified in this proposed AD.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for
failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control
number for the collection of information required by this proposed AD
is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been
detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and
includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and
reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting
associated with this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy
of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be
directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591,
ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (Formerly known as Construcciones
Aeronauticas, S.A.): Docket No. FAA-2016-9386; Directorate
Identifier 2016-NM-056-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 7, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (formerly known
as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-
235-200, and CN-235-300 airplanes; and Model C-295 airplanes;
certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by leakage of a motorized cross-feed fuel
valve, which was detected during accomplishment of a functional
check. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct leaks in a
motorized cross-feed fuel valve, which could lead to failure of the
fuel valve and consequent improper fuel system functioning or, in
case of the presence of an ignition source, an airplane fire.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection of Motorized Fuel Valves

    Within the applicable compliance time defined in paragraph
(g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD: Do an initial general visual inspection
of each motorized cross-feed fuel valve having part number (P/N)
7923227F for the presence of fuel on the electrical connectors and
inside the receptacles, in accordance with the instructions of
Airbus Defense and Space Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) AOT-
CN235-28-0001, Revision 1, or Airbus Defense and Space AOT AOT-C295-
28-0001, Revision 1, both dated September 27, 2016, as applicable.
Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 300
flight hours.
    (1) For airplanes that, as of the effective date of this AD,
have accumulated 6,000 flight cycles or more since first flight of
the airplane: Do the inspection within 30 flight cycles or 30 days
after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
    (2) For airplanes that, as of the effective date of this AD,
have accumulated less than 6,000 flight cycles since first flight of
the airplane: Do the inspection within 300 flight hours or 30 days
after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

(h) Replacement of Affected Parts

    If, during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD,
any leaking of a motorized cross-feed fuel valve having P/N 7923227F
is detected: Before the next flight, replace the affected fuel valve
with a serviceable part, in accordance with the instructions of
Airbus Defense and Space AOT AOT-CN235-28-0001, Revision 1, or
Airbus Defense and Space AOT AOT-C295-28-0001, Revision 1, both
dated September 27, 2016, as applicable. A serviceable part is
defined as a part that is not defective; it could be a used or new
part. Replacement of a motorized fuel valve on an airplane does not
constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections
required by paragraph (g) of this AD for that airplane.

(i) Operational Check

    Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, and
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 12 months, accomplish an
operational check of each motorized fuel valve P/N 7923227F, in
accordance with the instructions of Airbus Defense and Space AOT
AOT-CN235-28-0001, Revision 1, or Airbus Defense and Space AOT AOT-
C295-28-0001, Revision 1, both dated September 27, 2016, as
applicable.

(j) Corrective Action

    If, during any operational check, as required by paragraph (i)
of this AD, any discrepancy is detected, as described in Airbus
Defense and Space AOT AOT-CN235-28-0001, Revision 1, or Airbus
Defense and Space AOT AOT-C295-28-0001, Revision 1, both dated
September 27, 2016, as applicable: Before further flight, contact
the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or
Airbus Defense and Space S.A.'s EASA Design Organization Approval
(DOA) to obtain instructions for corrective actions, and within the
compliance time indicated in those instructions accomplish the
corrective actions accordingly.

(k) Parts Installation Limitation

    As of the effective date of this AD, replacement of a motorized
fuel valve having P/N 7923227F with a serviceable part on an
airplane is allowed, provided that, within 30 flight cycles or 30
days, whichever occurs first after installation, the part passes an
inspection done in accordance with the instructions of Airbus
Defense and Space AOT AOT-CN235-28-0001, Revision 1, or Airbus
Defense and Space AOT AOT-C295-28-0001, Revision 1, both dated
September 27, 2016, as applicable.

(l) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed
before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Defense and Space
AOT AOT-CN235-28-0001, or Airbus Defense and Space AOT AOT-C295-28-
0001, both dated February 19, 2016, as applicable.

(m) Reporting Requirement

    At the applicable time specified in paragraph (m)(1) or (m)(2)
of this AD, report all inspection results to Airbus Defense and
Space Technical Assistance Center (AMTAC); telephone +34 91 600 79
99; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The report must include
the inspection results, a description of any discrepancies found,
operator name, the airplane model and serial number, valve part
number and serial number, and the number of landings and flight
hours on the airplane.
    (1) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 60 days after the inspection.
    (2) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this
AD: Submit the report within 60 days after the effective date of
this AD.

(n) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the International Branch, send it to send it
to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (o)(2) of
this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC, notify your
appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office/
certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or
Airbus Defense and Space S.A.'s EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA,
the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: A federal agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a
person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a
collection of information subject to the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information
displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number
for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for
this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5
minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
completing and reviewing the collection of information. All
responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments
concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing
the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave.
SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance
Officer, AES-200.

(o) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA AD 2017-0004, dated January 9, 2017, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2016-9386.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Shahram
Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus Defense and Space Services/Engineering Support, Avenida de
Arag[oacute]n 404, 28022 Madrid, Spain; telephone +34 91 585 55 84;
fax +34 91 585 31 27; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.eads.net You may view this service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 12, 2017.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-12630 Filed 6-20-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029

DATE:

	July 24, 2008

SUBJECT:

	Technical Support Document for the Stafford County, Virginia Reasonably
Available Control Technology Under the 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard

 FROM:

	Gregory Becoat, Environmental Scientist  /s/

Air Quality Planning Branch (3AP21)

TO:

REVIEWED BY:	SIP Docket File

               /s/

Cristina Fernandez, Branch Chief

Air Quality Planning Branch (3AP21)

I.	Affected Regulation

The revision to the Commonwealth of Virginia State Implementation Plan
(SIP), submitted on April 21, 2008, applies to the demonstration that
Stafford County, which is part of the Fredericksburg 8-hour maintenance
area, meets the requirements of Reasonably Available Control Technology
(RACT) set forth by the federal Clean Air Act (CAA).  This determination
is necessary because section 184 of the CAA requires that areas within
the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) perform certain moderate nonattainment
requirements, regardless of the ozone designation or classification of
the particular area.

II.	 Background

Ozone is formed in the atmosphere by photochemical reactions between
volatile organic compounds (VOC), oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and carbon
monoxide (CO) in the presence of sunlight.  In order to reduce ozone
concentrations in the ambient air, the CAA requires all nonattainment
areas to apply control on VOC/NOx emission sources to achieve emission
reductions.  Among effective control measures, RACT controls are a major
group for reducing VOC and NOx emissions from stationary sources.

The counties of Fairfax, Loudoun, Prince William, and Arlington, as well
as the cities of Fairfax, Alexandria, Manassas, Manassas Park, and Falls
Church (Northern Virginia Area), along with Stafford County, Virginia,
Washington, D.C., and portions of southern Maryland, are part of the
OTR.  The OTR is established by section 184 of the CAA.  Areas under the
OTR are subject to OTR-specific RACT requirements.  Under the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS, these jurisdictions, including Stafford County, Virginia,
Washington, D.C., and portions of southern Maryland were originally
classified as part of the Metropolitan Washington serious 1-hour ozone
nonattainment area located in OTR (56 FR 56694 at 56844, November 6,
1991).  As part of the planning process, section 182(b)(2) of the CAA
required the Commonwealth of Virginia to implement RACT on all sources
and source categories covered by a CTG issued by EPA.  Point sources
with the potential to emit 50 tons per year or more of VOCs or 100 tons
per year or more of NOx that were not covered by a CTG were also
required to implement RACT.  As a result of failure to meet the
attainment date of November 15, 1999, the Metropolitan Washington area
was reclassified as a severe nonattainment area for the 1-hour standard
(68 FR 3410 at 3425, January 24, 2003).  As a result of the
reclassification, the Commonwealth of Virginia was required to perform
RACT evaluations on point sources with the potential to emit 25 tons per
year for either VOC (62 FR 11334, March 12, 1997) or NOx (69 FR 48150,
August 9, 2004).

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated the new 8-hour NAAQS for ozone (62 FR
38856, July 18, 1997).  Under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the Metropolitan
Washington Area, with the exception of Stafford County, was designated
nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standard and classified as a moderate
nonattainment area.  Stafford County was included as part of the
Fredericksburg area, and was designated as a moderate nonattainment area
for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS (69 FR 23858, April 30, 2004).  On May 2,
2005 and May 4, 2005, the Commonwealth of Virginia submitted a
redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Fredericksburg area,
respectively.  EPA issued a final rule approving Virginia’s
redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Fredericksburg area
on December 23, 2005 (70 FR 76165, December 23, 2005).  Consequently,
Stafford County is currently a maintenance area for the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.

On October 23, 2006, the Commonwealth of Virginia submitted a SIP
revision for the Northern Virginia Area in order to recertify RACT as
part of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS planning process for the Metropolitan
Washington Area.  Stafford County was not included in the submittal due
to the fact that is now part of the Fredericksburg maintenance area.
However, the requirements of section 184 of the CAA must still be
satisfied.  The first requirement, contained in section 184(b)(1)(B),
requires the implementation of RACT with respect to all sources of VOC
covered by a CTG.  The second requirement, set forth in section
184(b)(2), requires the implementation of major stationary source
requirements as if the area were a moderate nonattainment area on any
stationary source with a potential to emit of at least 50 tons per year
of VOC or 100 tons per year of NOx.

Since Stafford County is part of the OTR, the Commonwealth of Virginia
submitted this SIP revision to demonstrate that all requirements for
RACT are met, either through certification hat previously required RACT
controls represent RACT for 8-hour implementation purposes, through new
RACT determinations, or by demonstrating that no facilities exist in
Stafford County that are applicable to CTG categories.

Since the 1970's, EPA has consistently interpreted RACT to mean the
lowest emission limit that a particular source is capable of meeting by
the application of the control technology that is reasonably available
considering technological and economic feasibility.  See, e.g., 72 FR
20586 at 20610 (April 25, 2007).   Section 182 of the CAA sets forth two
separate RACT requirements for ozone nonattainment area.  The first
requirement, contained in section 182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, and referred
to as RACT fix-up, requires the correction of RACT rules for which the
EPA identified deficiencies before the CAA was amended in 1990. The
second requirement, set forth in section 182(b)(2) of the CAA, requires
that moderate (or worse) ozone nonattainment areas, as well as marginal
and attainment areas the OTR established pursuant to section 184 of the
CAA, implement RACT controls on all major VOC and NOx emission sources
and on all sources and source categories covered by a CTG issued by EPA.

The first RACT requirement for ozone nonattainment areas, contained in
section 182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, required the Commonwealth of Virginia
to submit a SIP revision correcting RACT rules prior to the CAA
amendment in 1990.  On May 10, 1991, the Virginia Department of Air
Pollution Control (VADAPC) submitted a SIP revision consisting of
revised VOC emission regulations applicable in the Commonwealth of
Virginia.  EPA proposed to approve the revisions to the Commonwealth of
Virginia’s SIP as meeting the RACT fix-up requirements of the amended
CAA.  These revisions included amendments to Virginia’s Regulations
for Control and Abatement of Air Pollution, specifically revisions to
parts I, II, IV, V, VII and appendices K, L, N, P, R, and S (58 FR
34392, June 25, 1993).  On March 31, 1994, EPA published a final
rulemaking notice approving the Commonwealth of Virginia’s SIP
revision in order to correct the Commonwealth’s VOC RACT regulations
and establish and require the implementation for revised SIP regulations
to control VOCs (59 FR 15117, March 31, 1994).

The second RACT requirement for ozone nonattainment areas, set forth in
section 182(b)(2) of the CAA, requires the Commonwealth of Virginia to
implement RACT for each category of VOC sources covered by a CTG
document issued between the date of the 1990 Amendments and the date of
attainment, for VOC sources covered by any CTG issued before the 1990
Amendments, and for all other major stationary sources of VOCs.  On
November 6, 1992, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
(VADEQ) submitted a revision to its ozone SIP (Article 4 of 9 VAC 5
Chapter 40) to comply with the RACT “Catch-up” provisions of the
CAA, which included the Metropolitan Washington, DC and Richmond
nonattainment areas.  EPA published a direct final to approve the
revisions to the Commonwealth of Virginia’s SIP as meeting the RACT
“Catch-up” provisions of the CAA.  Concurrently, a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPR) was published in the Federal Register on
September 27, 1995, pertaining to the same amendments to Virginia’s
VOC RACT requirements, in the event that adverse comments were submitted
to EPA within 30 days of publication of the final rule (60 FR 49813,
September 27, 1995).

Since the Metropolitan Washington, DC nonattainment area was previously
required to adopt RACT for all CTG sources, to meet the RACT
“Catch-up” requirement, Virginia was not required to submit
additional CTG RACT rules for the area.  However, since the major source
definition for serious areas was lowered under the amended CAA, Virginia
was required to adopt RACT rules for all sources that exceeded the
cut-off in the Virginia portion of the Washington, DC nonattainment
area.  To fully comply with the RACT “Catch-up” provisions of the
CAA, the Commonwealth of Virginia was required to adopt RACT regulations
to the areas which were added to the Virginia portion of the
pre-enactment Metropolitan Washington, DC nonattainment area.  The
revision consisted of amendments to Virginia’s major source VOC RACT
regulation to: (1) require RACT for all sources emitting 50 tons per
year or greater of VOC in the Virginia portion of the Washington, DC
nonattainment area and; (2) add a compliance date of May 31, 1995 for
major VOC sources in the Virginia portion of the Washington, DC
nonattainment area to comply with RACT emissions standards (60 FR 49767,
September 27, 1995).

As a result of one adverse comment, during the prescribed comment
period, the final rule converted to a proposal, and on December 8, 1995
(60 FR 62990), EPA withdrew its otherwise effective date.  However, on
March 12, 1997, EPA published a final rulemaking notice approving the
Commonwealth of Virginia’s SIP revision, since EPA disagreed with the
commenter’s remarks (62 FR 11332, March 12, 1997).

EPA requires under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS that states meet the CAA RACT
requirements, either through a certification that previously adopted
RACT controls in their SIP revisions approved by EPA under the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS represent adequate RACT control levels for 8-hour attainment
purposes, through the adoption of new or more stringent regulations that
represent RACT control levels, or by submitting a negative declaration
that there are no CTG major sources of VOC and NOx emissions within
Virginia.  A certification must be accompanied by appropriate supporting
information such as consideration of information received during the
public comment period and consideration of new data.  This information
may supplement existing RACT guidance documents that were developed for
the 1-hour standard, such that the SIP accurately reflects RACT for the
8-hour ozone standard based on the current availability for technically
and economically feasible controls.  Adoption of new RACT regulations
will occur when states have new stationary sources not covered by
existing RACT regulations, or when new data or technical information
indicates that a previously adopted RACT measure does not represent a
newly available RACT control level.

VOC RACT Controls

Virginia’s Regulations and Statues, under 9 VAC 5 Chapter 40, contain
the Commonwealth’s VOC RACT controls that were implemented and
approved in the Virginia SIP under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.

Table 1 lists Virginia’s VOC RACT controls.

Table 1	Virginia’s VOC RACT Controls

Regulation

9 VAC 5-40-	Existing Stationary Sources

	Title of Regulation	State Effective Date	Federal Register Date	Citation

460	Emission Standards for Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products
Manufacturing Operations	02/01/02	03/03/06	71 FR 10838

610	Emission Standards for Rubber Tire Manufacturing Operations	04/17/95
04/21/00	65 FR 21315

1400	Emission Standards for Petroleum Refinery Operations	04/17/95
04/21/00	65 FR 21315

3290	Emission Standards for Solvent Metal Cleaning Operations Using
Non-Halogenated Solvents	04/01/97	11/03/99	64 FR 59635

3590	Emission Standards for Large Appliance Coating Application Systems
04/17/95	04/21/00	65 FR 21315

3740	Emission Standards for Magnet Wire Coating Application Systems
04/17/95	04/21/00	65 FR 21315

3890	Emission Standards for Automobile and Light Duty Truck Coating
Application Systems	04/17/95	04/21/00	65 FR 21315

4040	Emission Standards for Can Coating Application Systems	04/17/95
04/21/00	65 FR 21315

4190	Emission Standards for Metal Coil Coating Application Systems
04/17/95	04/21/00	65 FR 21315

4340	Emission Standards for Paper and Fabric Coating Application Systems
04/17/95	04/21/00	65 FR 21315

4490	Emission Standards for Vinyl Coating Application Systems	04/17/95
04/21/00	65 FR 21315

4640	Emission Standards for Metal Furniture Coating Application Systems
04/17/95	04/21/00	65 FR 21315

4790	Emission Standards for Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products
Coating Application Systems	04/17/95	04/21/00	65 FR 21315

4940	Emission Standards for Flatwood Paneling Coating Application
Systems	04/17/95	04/21/00	65 FR 21315

5080	Flexographic, Packaging Rotogravure, and Publication Rotogravure
Printing Lines	04/01/96	03/12/97	62 FR 11334

5230	Emission Standards for Petroleum Liquid Storage and Transfer
Operations – Stage I Vapor Control Systems – Gasoline Service
Stations	02/01/02	03/03/06	71 FR 10838

5230	Emission Standards for Petroleum Liquid Storage and Transfer
Operations – Tank Truck Gasoline Loading Terminals	02/01/02	03/03/06
71 FR 10838

5230	Emission Standards for Petroleum Liquid Storage and Transfer
Operations – Bulk Gasoline Plants	02/01/02	03/03/06	71 FR 10838

5230	Emission Standards for Petroleum Liquid Storage and Transfer
Operations – Petroleum Liquids in Fixed Roof Tanks	02/01/02	03/03/06
71 FR 10838

5230	Emission Standards for Petroleum Liquid Storage and Transfer
Operations – Petroleum Liquid Storage in External Floating Roof Tanks
02/01/02	03/03/06	71 FR 10838

5230	Emission Standards for Petroleum Liquid Storage and Transfer
Operations – Gasoline Tank Trucks and Vapor Collection Systems
02/01/02	03/03/06	71 FR 10838

5510	Emission Standards for Asphalt Paving Operations	03/24/04	04/27/05
70 FR 21625

6840	Emission Standards for Solvent Metal Cleaning Operations in the
Northern Virginia Volatile Organic Compound Emissions Control Area
03/24/04	06/09/04	69 FR 32277

6840	Emission Standards for Solvent Metal Cleaning Operations in the
Northern Virginia Volatile Organic Compound Emissions Control Area –
Available Control Technique (ACT) Document	03/24/04	06/09/04	69 FR 32277

3440	Emission Standards for Volatile Organic Compound Transfer and
Storage Operations - ACT	04/17/95	04/21/00	65 FR 21315

6840	Emission Standards for Solvent Metal Cleaning Operations in the
Northern Virginia Volatile Organic Compound Emissions Control Area –
ACT Document – Industrial Cleaning Solvents	03/24/04	06/09/04	69 FR
32277

6990	Emission Standards for Mobile Equipment Repair and Refinishing
Operations in the Northern Virginia Volatile Organic Compound Emission
control Area – ACT 	03/24/04	06/24/04	69 FR 35253

Although ACTs are not regulatory documents and have no legal effect on
state regulations, EPA requires that states verify that ACTs have been
considered in the RACT program development process.  Therefore, VADEQ
included ACTs in their review of applicable RACT requirements in this
submittal.

VADEQ also submitted a negative declaration that the following VOC CTG
major sources do not exist in Stafford County.  The determination was
made after review of the existing registration database for the counties
comprising the 8-hour ozone nonattainment area in Stafford County.

Table 2 lists Virginia’s negative declaration for VOC CTG major
sources.

Table 2 – Documents for which no Applicable Facilities Exist in
Stafford County

Document Title

Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks from Petroleum Refinery
Equipment

Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions form Large Petroleum Dry
Cleaners

Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Manufacture of High
Density Polyethylene, Polypropylene, and Polystyrene Resins

Control of Volatile Organic Compound Equipment Leaks form Natural
Gas/Gasoline Processing Plants

Control of Volatile Organic Compound fugitive Emission from Synthetic
Organic Chemical Polymer and Resin Manufacturing Equipment

Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Air Oxidation
Processes in Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry

SOCMI Distillation and Reactor Processes CTG

Wood Furniture (CTG-MACT) draft Maximum Achievable Control Technology
(MACT) out 5-94; final CTG

Shipbuilding/repair Available Control Technique (ACT) and CTG

Aerospace (CTG & MACT)

Control Techniques for Organic Emissions from Plywood Veneer Dryers -
ACT

Ethylene Oxide Sterilization - ACT

Organic Waste Process Vents - ACT

Polystyrene Foam Manufacturing - ACT

Bakery Ovens - ACT

Control Techniques for VOC Emissions from Stationary Sources - ACT

Industrial Wastewater – ACT

Control of VOC Emissions from the Application of Agricultural Pesticides
– ACT

Control of VOC Compound Emission from Batch Processes – ACT

Business machine Plastic Parts coating/Automobile Plastic Parts Coating
– ACT

NOx Emissions from Nitric and Adipic Acid Manufacturing Plants - ACT

NOx Emissions from Cement Manufacturing

NOx Emissions from Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Boilers

NOx Emissions from Glass Manufacturing

NOx Emissions from Iron and Steel

NOx RACT Controls

The Commonwealth of Virginia must recertify Stafford County’s previous
source specific RACT determinations made under the 1-hour ozone
nonattainment area’s attainment plan as meeting RACT for the
requirements of section 184.  This process must be done for all
facilities that do not have an applicable CTG and whose potential to
emit is at least 50 tons/year of VOC or at least 100 tons/year of NOx.
The recertification process does not apply to facilities with no
applicable CTG and with the potential to emit between 25 tons/year and
50 tons/year of VOC, as well as facilities with no applicable CTG or ACT
and with the potential to emit between 23 tons/year and 100 tons/year of
NOx.  These facilities were considered to be major for RACT purposes
under the 1-hour ozone nonattainment area’s classification of severe;
however, they are not considered to be major for RACT purposes under the
requirements of the OTR in section 184.  Therefore, no RACT
determination under the OTR requirements is necessary for these
facilities.

Stafford County has one facility that is considered a major stationary
source for either VOC or NOx, Cellofoam (registration number 40696 and
county-plant number 179-0029).  Prior to the current RACT agreement, the
facility had a potential to emit of approximately 137 tons/year of VOC
(NOx emission from the facility are negligible).  Cellofoam has a
federally enforceable limit of 98.4 tons/year on the potential to emit
of VOC, based on the most recent Title V permit.  This limitation is
supported by the document entitled, “Control of VOC Emissions form
Polystyrene Foam Manufacturing,” EPA-450/3-90-020, September, 1990).
Further controls were not deemed feasible and the RACT determination was
approved by the EPA (66 FR 8, January 2, 2001).  Because actual VOC
emissions from Cellofoam are significantly below the facility’s
federally enforceable limit, further controls would not be feasible and
the Cellofoam existing source specific new RACT determination is
appropriate and therefore the existing RACT controls can be recertified.

Area Source VOC Regulations

        In addition to the CTG and source specific RACTs, Stafford
County implemented limitations on VOC emissions from various area
sources, including consumer products, portable fuel containers, and
architectural and industrial maintenance coatings, in order to generate
further VOC reductions within the 1-hour ozone nonattainment area with
the goal of attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard.

III.       Evaluation

Virginia’s SIP revision contains the requirements of RACT set forth by
the CAA under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.  Virginia’s SIP revision for
Stafford County satisfies the 8-hour RACT requirements through (1)
certification that previously adopted RACT controls in Virginia’s SIP
that were approved by EPA under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS are based on the
currently available technically and economically feasible controls, and
that they continue to represent RACT for the 8-hour implementation
purposes; (2) a negative declaration demonstrating that no facilities
exist in Stafford County for the applicable CTG categories; and (3) new
RACT determinations.  Therefore, approval of the Stafford County’s
8-hour RACT SIP is recommended.

IV.       Conclusion

This SIP revision request satisfies all requirements for an acceptable
SIP revision.

V.	    Recommended Agency Action

The SIP revision request should be approved.


[Federal Register: January 25, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 16)]
[Notices]
[Page 4135-4137]
[DOCID:fr25ja06-72]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0320; FRL-7750-4]

Notice of Filing of a Pesticide Petition for the Establishment of
an Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance for Residues of C9
Rich Aromatic Hydrocarbon Fluid (Aromatic 100 Fluid) in or on Food
Commodities When Used as an Inert Ingredient in Pesticide Products

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide
petition proposing the establishment of an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for residues of C9 rich aromatic hydrocarbon
fluid (Aromatic 100 Fluid) in or on food commodities when used as an
inert ingredient in pesticide products.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 24, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0320 and pesticide petition (PP) number 4E6935, may be
submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery or courier.
Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bipin Gandhi, Registration Division
(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this
action under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0320. The official public
docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this
action, any public comments received, and other information related to
this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket
does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official
public docket is the collection of materials that is available for
public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch
(PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall 2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington,
VA. This docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number
is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    2. Electronic access. You may access this document electronically
through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register'' listings at
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

    EDOCKET, EPA's electronic public docket and comment system was
replaced on November 25, 2005, by an enhanced Federal-wide electronic
docket management and comment system located at http://www.regulations.gov/.
 Follow the on-line instructions.

    An electronic version of the public docket is available through
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may
use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public

comments, to access the index listing of the contents of the official
public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that
are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be
available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly
available docket materials through the docket facility identified in
Unit I.B.1. Once in the system, select ``search,'' then key in the
appropriate docket ID number.
    Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets.
Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public
docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic
public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be
placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in
printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent
feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in
EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the
index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the
document is available for viewing in

EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may
be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly
available docket materials through the docket facility identified in
Unit I.B.1. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to
all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic
public docket.
    For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is
that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper,
will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public
docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment
contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment
containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that
material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's
electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the
copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.
    Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or
delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public
docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will
be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where
practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph
will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief
description written by the docket staff.

C. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments?

    You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand
delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the
appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of
your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the
specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the
comment period will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider
these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is
otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit
I.D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e-mail to submit CBI or information
protected by statute.
    1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as
prescribed in this unit, EPA recommends that you include your name,
mailing address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in
the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the
outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter
accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be
identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact
you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's
policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or
contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included
as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket,
and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. 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.
    i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to
submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for
receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/
, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

Once in the system, select ``search,'' and then key in docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0320. The system is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
    ii. E-mail. Comments may be sent by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Attention: Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0320. In contrast to EPA's
electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an ``anonymous
access'' system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the docket
without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail
system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses
that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as
part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and
made available in EPA's electronic public docket.
    iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM
that you mail to the mailing address identified in Unit I.C.2. These
electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file
format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption.
    2. By mail. Send your comments to: Public Information and Records
Integrity Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001, Attention: Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-
0320.
    3. By hand delivery or courier. Deliver your comments to: Public
Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Office of Pesticide
Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall
2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID
Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0320. Such deliveries are only accepted during
the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I.B.1.

D. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency?

    Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI
electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. You
may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part
or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM,
mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify
electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that
is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not
contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion
in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit
the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside
of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information
not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's
electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any
questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult
the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used
that support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at the estimate that you provide.
    5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
    6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this
notice.
    7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket
ID number

assigned to this action and the pesticide petition number of the
summary of interest in the subject line on the first page of your
response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and
Federal Register citation related to your comments.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA is printing the summary of a pesticide petition received under
section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21
U.S.C. 346a, proposing the establishment of an exemption from the
requirement of regulations in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of C9 rich
aromatic hydrocarbon fluid (Aromatic 100 Fluid) in or on food
commodities when used as an inert ingredient in pesticide products. EPA
has determined that the pesticide petition contains data or information
regarding the elements set forth in FFDCA section 408(d)(2); however,
EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at
this time or whether the data support granting of the pesticide
petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the
pesticide petition.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of the petition, prepared by
the petitioner along with a description of the analytical method
available for the detection and measurement of the pesticide chemical
residues is available on EPA's Electronic Docket at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/.
 To locate this information, on the home page of EPA's

Electronic Docket select ``Quick Search'' and type the OPP docket ID
number for the pesticide petition (as specified in Unit I.B.1.) in the
search field. Once the search has located the docket, clicking on the
``Docket ID'' will bring up a list of all documents in the docket for
the pesticide including the petition summary.

New Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance

    PP 5E6935. ExxonMobil Chemical Company (ExxonMobil), Division of
Exxon Mobil Corporation, 13501 Katy Freeway, Houston, TX 77079,
proposes to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance
for residues of C9 rich aromatic hydrocarbon fluid (Aromatic 100 Fluid)
in or on food commodities when used as an inert ingredient in pesticide
products. Because this petition is a request for a tolerance exemption
without numerical limitations, no analytical method is required.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives,
Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: January 5, 2006.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 06-625 Filed 1-24-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register: June 5, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 107)]
[Notices]
[Page 27061-27062]
[DOCID:fr05jn09-90]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) received a request for a waiver of compliance from certain
requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is
described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory
provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the
petitioner's arguments in favor of relief.

BNSF Railway

[Docket Number FRA-2008-0032]

    The BNSF Railway (BNSF) seeks a waiver of compliance from certain
provisions of 49 CFR Part 232, Brake System Safety Standards for
Freight and Other Non-Passenger Trains and Equipment. Specifically,
they are requesting a waiver from the requirements for performing the
single car air brake test as prescribed in 49 CFR 232.305(b)(2), ``A
railroad shall perform a single car air brake test on a car when * * *
a car is on a shop or repair track, as defined in 232.303(a), for any
reason and has not received a single car air brake test within the
previous 12-month period.''
    BNSF requests that the single car air brake tests be waived for the
replacement of wheels, as this would allow for the efficient systemwide
removal and replacement of damaged wheels to include high-impact
wheels. BNSF would like to perform these repairs in-train on cars in
yards across their system without having to perform a single car air
brake test on such cars. BNSF contends this practice would be
consistent with the regulatory exception provided in 49 CFR
232.303(a)(2), which states that wheel change-outs on intermodal
loading ramps are not defined as ``major repairs,'' and therefore
excepts such intermodal ramps from the definition of a shop or repair
track, which excepts such wheel change-outs from single car air brake
tests.
    BNSF further contends that the removal and replacement of wheels
does not affect the brake system and believes that subjecting these
cars to single car air brake requirements is unnecessary. BNSF states
that by granting this request, they will be able to process more wheel
change-outs, thereby increasing the ability to make these safety
improvements. BNSF does not believe that granting this waiver will have
an adverse effect on the safety of railroad operations.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-
2008-0032) and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice
will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments
received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All
written communications concerning these proceedings are available for
examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above
facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for
inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web
site at  http://www.regulations.gov.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the

comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an
association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 1, 2009.
Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program
Development.
[FR Doc. E9-13202 Filed 6-4-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 194 (Friday, October 5, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60910-60914]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24524]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2009-0882; FRL-9738-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Streamlining Amendments to the Plan Approval Regulations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is granting limited approval to a State Implementation
Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (PADEP) on April 14, 2009. The revision
pertains to PADEP's plan approval requirements for the construction,
modification, and operation of sources, and is primarily intended to
streamline the process for minor permitting actions. This action is
being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This final rule is effective on November 5, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2009-0882. All documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic
docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III,
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State
submittal are available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market
Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Talley,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Throughout this document, whenever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is
used, we mean EPA. On April 12, 2012 (77 FR 21908), EPA published a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. The NPR proposed approval of amendments to the plan
approval requirements for the construction, modification, reactivation,
and operation of sources under 25 Pa. Code chapter 127. The formal SIP
revision was submitted by PADEP on April 14, 2009.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    The primary purpose of the amendments is to streamline the
permitting process by eliminating some of the administrative burden and
costs associated with processing minor permitting actions, while
preserving the right of the public to review and comment on those
proposed actions. The proposed amendments generally affect five
regulations: Section 127.12b, pertaining to ``shakedown'' periods for
new or modified sources; section 127.12d, pertaining to completeness
determinations; sections 127.44 and 127.45, pertaining to public notice
requirements; and section 127.48, pertaining to conferences and
hearings. The specific requirements of the SIP revision and the
rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPR and will
not be restated here.

III. EPA's Response to Comments Received on the Proposed Action

    EPA received a single set of comments on its April 12, 2012
proposed action to approve revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP. These
comments, provided by the Clean Air Council, (hereinafter referred to
as ``the Commenter''), raised concerns with regard to EPA's April 12,
2012 proposed action. A full set of these comments is provided in the
docket for today's final action. A summary of the comments and EPA's
responses are provided below.
    Generally, the Commenter raises three areas of concern. First, the
Commenter asserts that the proposal to increase the duration of
``shakedown period'' extensions from 120 days to 180 days is
inappropriate. Second, the Commenter asserts that the addition of the
completeness determination requirements adds to PADEP's permitting
burden, and together with the other contested revisions, ``* * *
increases the burden on the public contrary to the stated purpose of
the Clean Air Act * * *'' (See, Comments at 3). Third, the Commenter
raises several specific concerns regarding the proposed revisions to
the public participation requirements under 25 Pa. Code section 127.
EPA's response to these comments is below.
    Comment 1: The Commenter notes that PADEP's previously approved
regulations allow a 180-day shakedown period, with provisions for
obtaining a 120-day extension. The Commenter further asserts that PADEP
has not provided any justification as to why the existing 120-day
extension period should be expanded to 180 days, and that, in the
absence of such justification, the proposed longer extension period is
``* * * both unnecessary and improper,'' (See, Comments at 2).
    Response 1: 25 Pa. Code section 127.12b outlines the terms and
conditions which must be included in each plan approval. Under section
127.12b(c), each plan approval ``* * * must authorize temporary
operation to facilitate shakedown of sources and air cleaning devices,
to permit operations pending issuance of a permit under Subchapter F
(relating to operating permit requirements) or Subchapter G (relating
to Title V operating permits) or to permit the evaluation of the air
contamination aspects of the source.'' The currently approved
regulations already allow for a 120-day extension of this temporary
operating authorization. EPA disagrees with the Commenter's assertion
that allowing a longer, 180-day extension is improper, and we leave to
PADEP's discretion the issue of whether it is necessary. CAA section
110(k)(3) requires the Administrator to approve a SIP submittal ``* * *
if it meets all of the applicable requirements of this chapter.'' We
cannot identify, nor did the Commenter point to any CAA requirement or
provision of its implementing regulations which is contrary to PADEP's
proposed expansion of the temporary operating authorization period.
Furthermore, we note that 25 Pa. Code section 127.12b requires each
plan approval to contain all applicable CAA requirements, including
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting, and prohibits PADEP from
approving or extending the temporary authorization period in any
instance which would circumvent the requirements of 25 Pa. Code section
127. Therefore, we are approving the revisions to 25 Pa. Code 127.12b
as submitted.
    Comment 2: Although acknowledging that the proposed addition of the
completeness determination requirements of 25 Pa. Code section

127.12d complies with the CAA, the Commenter asserts that, ``It defies
common understanding of fairness to push burdens away from the booming
private industry while at the same time increasing the burden on
government, especially when PADEP is facing budget cuts'' (See,
Comments at 3).
    Response 2: EPA disagrees that the addition of completeness
determinations imposes an undue burden on permitting authorities. On
the contrary, clearly defining what is required of both the applicant
and the permitting authority (PADEP in this case), as well as
establishing deadlines on both parties eliminates potentially open
ended, back-and-forth correspondence between the applicant and PADEP
that draws the permitting process out unnecessarily. Such a situation
is much more burdensome on a permitting authority than a requirement
for completeness determinations. In any event, the point is moot. The
completeness determination provision proposed by PADEP is not only
compliant with the CAA, it is required by 40 CFR 51.166(q)(1). We are
therefore approving the revisions as submitted.
    Comment 3: The third area of concern raised by the Commenter
relates to the proposed revisions to the public participation
requirements for plan approvals. The specific provisions with which the
Commenter takes issue are discussed in detail as follows:
    First, the Commenter asserts that the proposed revision to 25 Pa.
Code 127.44, specifically the elimination of the receipt of application
notice for minor permitting actions, ``* * * would significantly
decrease the public's awareness of the permitting activity in their own
communities and consequently diminish the public's ability to provide
meaningful input into the permitting process,'' (See, Comments at 3).
Second, the Commenter asserts that the elimination of the newspaper
publication requirement for minor permitting actions in favor of
publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin under the proposed revision to
section 127.44 is contrary to 40 CFR sections 51.166(q), 51.161(b)(3),
and 70.7(h), arguing that because the Pennsylvania Bulletin is a ''
highly esoteric publication with very limited and specialized
readership'' (See, Comments at 4), it fails to meet the CAA's
``prominent advertisement'' requirements. Third, the Commenter asserts
that eliminating the requirement for notice to be sent to affected
states is contrary to 40 CFR 70.7(h)(3), 70.8, and 51.166(q)(2)(iv).
Fourth, the Commenter asserts that the proposed revisions to section
127.45, related to the required contents of the public notices, are
contrary to 40 CFR 51.161(a) because the revised provisions do not
include the requirement to disclose the proposed emissions limitations,
PADEP's analysis of the applicant's proposal, and the project's impact
on ambient air quality (See, Comments at 7). Finally, the Commenter
asserts that section 127.48 is contrary to 40 CFR 51.166(q)(iii) and
(v) because it gives PADEP too much discretion in determining when to
hold conferences and public hearings.
    Response 3: Generally, the proposed revisions to the public notice
requirements pertain to Pennsylvania's minor NSR program. In contrast
to the considerable requirements prescribed for major NSR, the CAA, at
section 110(a)(2)(C), addresses minor source programs only by requiring
that each SIP include a program that provides for ``* * * regulation of
the modification and construction of any stationary source within the
areas covered by the plan as necessary to assure that [NAAQS] are
achieved * * *'' The implementing regulations for minor NSR are at 40
CFR 51.160-51.164. In sum, states have considerable discretion with
regard to developing their minor NSR programs.
    With regard to the elimination of the receipt of application
notice, the Commenter is incorrect in the assertion that the previously
approved version of the Pennsylvania SIP requires both a notice of
receipt and a notice of intent to issue. Only one notice, a notice of
intent to take action (issue/deny) was required by the previously
approved version of 25 Pa. Code 127.44(a). PADEP was, as a matter of
policy, issuing two notices. It was never a requirement, and it is
within PADEP's discretion to stop that practice. The revisions to
section 127.44(a) are consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR
51.161(a).
    The Commenter's assertion that the elimination of the newspaper
publication requirement for minor permitting actions in favor of
publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin under the proposed revision to
section 127.44 is contrary to 40 CFR 51.166(q), 51.161(b)(3), and
70.7(h) is also incorrect. First, the types of actions that are subject
to the revised requirements of 25 Pa. Code 127.44(a) are not subject to
the major NSR requirements of 40 CFR 51.166(q). With regard to section
70.7(h), in certain circumstances, Pennsylvania operates a ``merged''
permit program in which a plan approval is both an NSR and a title V
action, and the requirements of the plan approval are brought into the
facility's title V permit as an administrative amendment with no
additional public notice. In such instances, all of the public notice
requirements of part 70, including the newspaper requirement of section
70.7(h) are applicable. It is unclear how frequently this situation
occurs in the types of minor facilities that are subject to the
proposed revisions to 25 Pa. Code 127.44. Nevertheless, this is a title
V implementation issue, and does not affect the approvability of the
proposed revisions to Pennsylvania's NSR SIP. Furthermore, we disagree
that publication in the Pa. Bulletin fails to meet the ``prominent
advertisement'' requirements of 40 CFR 51.161(b)(3). EPA has repeatedly
recognized that the prominent advertisement requirements of section
51.161(b)(3) are media neutral, and that state programs may meet the
requirement with alternative methods, provided that it is reasonable to
conclude that the public would have ``ready and routine access to any
alternative publishing venues,'' (See, April 17, 2012, Janet McCabe
Memo to Regional Administrators entitled, ``Minor New Source Review
Public Notice Requirements under 40 CFR 51.161(b)(3)'', available at
http://www.epa.gov/region07/air/nsr/nsrmemos/pubnot.pdf). We believe
publication in the Pa. Bulletin meets this standard.
    With regard to the Commenter's assertion that eliminating the
requirement for notice to be sent to affected states is contrary to 40
CFR 70.7(h)(3), 70.8, and 51.166(q)(2)(iv), as we stated above, the
types of actions that are subject to the proposed revised requirements
of 25 Pa. Code 127.44(a) are not subject to the major NSR requirements
of 40 CFR 51.166. The applicable regulations of 40 CFR 51.160-51.164
contain no such notice requirement. As discussed above, the
applicability of the title V requirements of part 70 is dependent on
whether the specific plan approval is being processed as a ``merged''
permit, and is an implementation issue that does not impact the
approvability of the proposed SIP revision.
    EPA agrees with the Commenter's assertion that the proposed
revisions to 25 Pa. Code 127.45 fall short of what is required by 40
CFR 51.161. However, as we discussed in our proposal, we believe that
to some extent, the intent of section 51.161(a) was met in 25 Pa. Code
sections 127.45(a)(3) and (4), which contain the requirements for what
must be included in the public notice. These sections require a
description of the proposed construction or modification, the

control technology being installed, the conditions in the proposed
permit (with reference to applicable federal requirements), and the
type and quantity of air contaminants being emitted. Nevertheless, the
agency analysis required by 40 CFR 51.161(a) is not explicitly required
in the proposed SIP revision, nor do the regulations of sections 127.44
and 127.45 require that the agency's analysis be made available for
public inspection in at least one location, in accordance with 40 CFR
51.161(b)(1). Section 127.44(f)(1) requires only that the application
be made available. This is the basis for granting limited approval. In
order to receive full approval, PADEP must adopt regulations that
explicitly require that the agency's analysis be included in the
materials made available to the public, and that the materials be made
available for public inspection in at least one location.
    Additionally, the Commenter asserts that the proposed revisions
have lead to inadequate information being provided in the notices of
receipt and intent to issue, thus limiting the public's ability to
participate meaningfully in the permitting process (See, Comments at
7). The Commenter further asserts that not only should the application
materials and the agency's analysis be provided to the public, but that
the proposed permit itself should also be provided. There is no
requirement in section 51.161 that the proposed permit be made public.
Nevertheless, EPA agrees that the generic, boilerplate language cited
by the Commenter falls short of the intent of section 51.161 (See,
Comments at 7-8). However, this is an implementation issue which is
outside of the scope of the SIP revision process. Once PADEP submits
regulations which correct the deficiencies leading to our limited
approval, the regulations at 25 Pa. Code section 127.45 will be fully
approvable on their face.
    Finally, EPA disagrees with the Commenter's assertion that 25 Pa.
Code 127.48 is contrary to 40 CFR 51.166(q)(iii) and (v) because it
gives PADEP too much discretion in determining when to hold conferences
and public hearings. The requirements of section 127.48 apply not to
routine public hearings held in the course of the public notice
process, but to hearings held as a result of an official protest having
been filed in accordance with section 127.46. There are no public
hearing requirements in 40 CFR 51.161 for minor NSR actions.
Additionally, we note that Pennsylvania has met the plan requirements
of 40 CFR 51.166 by incorporating by reference in their entirety the
federal regulations at 40 CFR 52.21. Therefore, the applicable
requirements are not under section 51.166(q), but rather are under
section 52.21(q). Section 52.21(q) requires that the applicable
procedures of 40 CFR section 124 be followed in the processing of
applications. According to section 124.12(a), ``The Director shall hold
a public hearing whenever he or she finds, on the basis of requests, a
significant degree of public interest in a draft permit(s).'' It is
clear that there is some discretion afforded to the permitting
authority in determining when a public hearing should be held.
    For the reasons discussed above, EPA believes that with the
exception of the noted deficiencies, PADEP's proposed SIP revision
meets all applicable CAA requirements, and that a limited approval is
warranted.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is granting limited approval of the submitted amendments to 25
Pa. Code chapter 127 as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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 CAA. 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 requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     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.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    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).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by December 4, 2012. 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 regarding streamlining amendments to Pennsylvania's
plan

approval process may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce
its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 21, 2012.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart NN--Pennsylvania

0
2. In Sec.  52.2020, the table in paragraph (c)(1) is amended by:
0
a. Revising the entry for Title 25, Section 127.12b.
0
b. Adding an entry for Title 25, Section 127.12d after the existing
entry for Section 127.12c.
0
c. Revising the entries for Sections 127.44, 127.45, and 127.48.
    The amendments read as follows:

Sec.  52.2020  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          State
         State citation              Title/subject      effective    EPA approval date   Additional explanation/
                                                           date                         Sec.   52.2063  citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Title 25--Environmental Protection Article III--Air Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Chapter 127--Construction, Modification, Reactivation and Operation of Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Subchapter B--Plan Approval Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 127.12b.................  Plan Approval Terms      5/24/08  10/5/12 [Insert     Revised; limited
                                   and Conditions.                   page number where   approval.
                                                                     the document
                                                                     begins].

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 127.12d.................  Completeness             5/24/08  10/5/12 [Insert     Added; limited approval.
                                   Determination.                    page number where
                                                                     the document
                                                                     begins].

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 127.44..................  Public Notice......      5/24/08  10/5/12 [Insert     Revised; limited
                                                                     page number where   approval.
                                                                     the document
                                                                     begins].
Section 127.45..................  Contents of Notice.      5/24/08  10/5/12 [Insert     Revised; limited
                                                                     page number where   approval.
                                                                     the document
                                                                     begins].

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 127.48..................  Conferences and          5/24/08  10/5/12 [Insert     Revised; limited
                                   Hearings.                         page number where   approval.
                                                                     the document
                                                                     begins].

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-24524 Filed 10-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 1. Public Law 104 113 104th Congress An Act To amend the Stevenson Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 with respect to inventions made under cooperative research and development agreements, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the " National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995"

* * * * *

SECTION 12. STANDARDS CONFORMITY.

( a) USE OF STANDARDS. Section 2( b) of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act ( 15 U. S. C. 272( b)) is amended ( 1) in paragraph ( 2), by striking ", including comparing standards" and all that follows through " Federal Government"; ( 2) by redesignating paragraphs ( 3) through ( 11) as paragraphs ( 4) through ( 12), Respectively; and ( 3) by inserting after paragraph ( 2) the following new paragraph: "( 3) to compare standards used in scientific investigations, engineering, manufacturing, commerce, industry, and educational institutions with the standards adopted or recognized by the Federal Government and to coordinate the use by Federal agencies of private sector standards, emphasizing where possible the use of standards developed by private, consensus organizations;". ( b) CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES. Section 2( b) of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act ( 15 U. S. C. 272( b)) is amended ( 1) by striking " and" at the end of paragraph ( 11), as so redesignated by subsection ( a)( 2) of this section;

( 2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph ( 12), as so redesignated by subsection ( a)( 2) of this section, and inserting in lieu thereof "; and"; and ( 3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph: "( 13) to coordinate Federal, State, and local technical standards activities and conformity assessment activities, with private sector technical standards activities and conformity assessment activities, with the goal of eliminating unnecessary duplication and complexity in the development and promulgation of conformity assessment requirements and measures.". ( c) TRANSMITTAL OF PLAN TO CONGRESS. The National Institute of Standards and Technology shall, within 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, transmit to the Congress a plan for implementing the amendments made by this section. ( d) UTILIZATION OF CONSENSUS TECHNICAL STANDARDS BY FEDERAL AGENCIES; REPORTS. ( 1) IN GENERAL. Except as provided in paragraph ( 3) of this subsection, all Federal agencies and departments shall use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies and departments. ( 2) CONSULTATION; PARTICIPATION. In carrying out paragraph ( 1) of this subsection, Federal agencies and departments shall consult with voluntary, private sector, consensus standards bodies and shall, when such participation is in the public interest and is compatible with agency and departmental missions, authorities, priorities, and budget resources, participate with such bodies in the development of technical standards. ( 3) EXCEPTION. If compliance with paragraph ( 1) of this subsection is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical, a Federal agency or department may elect to use technical standards that are not developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies if the head of each such agency or department transmits to the Office of Management and Budget an explanation of the reasons for using such standards. Each year, beginning with fiscal year 1997, the Office of Management and Budget shall transmit to Congress and its committees a report summarizing all explanations received in the preceding year under this paragraph. ( 4) DEFINITION OF TECHNICAL STANDARDS. As used in this subsection, the term " technical standards" means performance based or design specific technical specifications and related management systems practices. program should be spent in support of the goals of the program.

Approved March 7, 1996.