[Federal Register: August 2, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 148)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 42344-42349]
[DOCID:fr02au07-27]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0360-200717; FRL-8449-2]

Approval of Implementation Plans of Florida: Clean Air Interstate
Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Florida State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted on March 16, 2007. This revision
addresses the requirements of EPA's Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR),
promulgated on May 12, 2005, and subsequently revised on April 28,
2006, and December 13, 2006. EPA is proposing to determine that the SIP
revision fully implements the CAIR requirements for Florida. Therefore,
as a consequence of the SIP approval, EPA will also withdraw the CAIR
Federal Implementation Plans (CAIR FIPs) concerning sulfur dioxide
(SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX) annual, and
NOX ozone season emissions for Florida. The CAIR FIPs for
all States in the CAIR region were promulgated on April 28, 2006, and
subsequently revised on December 13, 2006.
    CAIR requires States to reduce emissions of SO2 and
NOX that significantly contribute to nonattainment of, and
interfere with maintenance of, the national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) for fine particulates and/or ozone in any downwind
state. CAIR establishes State budgets for SO2 and
NOX and requires States to submit SIP revisions that
implement these budgets in States that EPA concluded did contribute to
nonattainment in downwind states. States have the flexibility to choose
which control measures to adopt to achieve the budgets, including
participating in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs. In the
SIP revision that EPA is proposing to approve, Florida would meet CAIR
requirements by participating in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade
programs addressing SO2, NOX annual, and
NOX ozone season emissions.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 4, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2007-0360 by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0360,'' Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Stacy Harder, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The
Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday,
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. ``EPA-R04-OAR-
2007-0360.'' EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal

information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential

Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through http://www.regulations.gov

or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous

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

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

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

information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 in http://www.regulations.gov
 or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development

Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30,
excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions concerning this
proposal, please contact Ms. Stacy Harder, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404)
562-9042. Ms. Harder can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What Action Is EPA Proposing To Take?
II. What Is the Regulatory History of CAIR and the CAIR FIPs?
III. What Are the General Requirements of CAIR and the CAIR FIPs?
IV. What Are the Types of CAIR SIP Submittals?
V. Analysis of Florida's CAIR SIP Submittal
    A. State Budgets for Allowance Allocations
    B. CAIR Cap-and-Trade Programs
    C. Applicability Provisions for non-EGU NOX SIP Call
Sources
    D. NOX Allowance Allocations
    E. Allocation of NOX Allowances from Compliance
Supplement Pool
    F. Individual Opt-In Units
VI. Proposed Actions
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Action Is EPA Proposing To Take?

    EPA is proposing to approve a revision to Florida's SIP, submitted
on March 16, 2007. In its SIP revision, Florida would meet CAIR
requirements by requiring certain electric generating units (EGUs) to
participate in the EPA-administered State CAIR cap-and-trade programs
addressing SO2, NOX annual, and NOX
ozone season emissions. EPA is proposing to determine that the SIP, as
revised, will meet the applicable requirements of CAIR. Any final
action approving the SIP will be taken by the Regional Administrator
for Region 4. As a consequence of the SIP approval, the Administrator
of EPA will also issue a final rule to withdraw the FIPs concerning
SO2, NOX annual, and NOX ozone season
emissions for Florida. This action will delete and reserve 40 CFR
52.540 and 40 CFR 52.541. The withdrawal of the CAIR FIPs for Florida
is a conforming amendment that must be made once the SIP is approved
because EPA's authority to issue the FIPs was premised on a deficiency
in the SIP for Florida. Once the SIP is fully approved, EPA no longer
has authority for the FIPs. Thus, EPA will not have the option of
maintaining the FIPs following the full SIP approval. Accordingly, EPA
does not intend to offer an opportunity for a public hearing or an
additional opportunity for written public comment on the withdrawal of
the FIPs.

II. What Is the Regulatory History of the CAIR and the CAIR FIPs?

    The CAIR was published by EPA on May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162). In
this rule, EPA determined that 28 States and the District of Columbia
contribute significantly to nonattainment and interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS for fine particles (PM2.5) and/or
8-hour ozone in downwind States in the eastern part of the country. As
a result, EPA required those upwind States to revise their SIPs to
include control measures that reduce emissions of SO2, which
is a precursor to PM2.5 formation, and/or NOX,
which is a precursor to both ozone and PM2.5 formation. For
jurisdictions that contribute significantly to downwind
PM2.5 nonattainment, CAIR sets annual State-wide emission
reduction requirements (i.e., budgets) for SO2 and annual
State-wide emission reduction requirements for NOX.
Similarly, for jurisdictions that contribute significantly to 8-hour
ozone nonattainment, CAIR sets State-wide emission reduction
requirements for NOX for the ozone season (May 1st to
September 30th). Under CAIR, States may implement these reduction
requirements by participating in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade
programs or by adopting any other control measures.
    CAIR explains to subject States what must be included in SIPs to
address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) with regard to interstate transport with respect to the 8-hour
ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA made national findings, effective
on May 25, 2005, that the States had failed to submit SIPs meeting the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D). The SIPs were due in July 2000,
three years after the promulgation of the 8-hour ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS. These findings started a two-year clock for EPA
to promulgate a FIP to address the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D). Under CAA section 110(c)(1), EPA may issue a FIP anytime
after such findings are made and must do so within two years, unless a
SIP revision correcting the deficiency is approved by EPA before the
FIP is promulgated.
    On April 28, 2006, EPA promulgated FIPs for all States covered by
CAIR in order to ensure the emissions reductions required by CAIR are
achieved on schedule. Each CAIR State is subject to the FIPs until the
State fully adopts, and EPA approves, a SIP revision meeting the
requirements of CAIR. The CAIR FIPs require EGUs to participate in the
EPA-administered CAIR SO2, NOX annual, and
NOX ozone season trading programs, as appropriate. The CAIR
FIP SO2, NOX annual, and NOX ozone
season trading programs impose essentially the same requirements as,
and are integrated with, the respective CAIR SIP trading programs. The

integration of the FIP and SIP trading programs means that these
trading programs will work together to create effectively a single
trading program for each regulated pollutant (SO2,
NOX annual, and NOX ozone season) in all States
covered by the CAIR FIP or SIP trading program for that pollutant. The
CAIR FIPs also allow States to submit abbreviated SIP revisions that,
if approved by EPA, will automatically replace or supplement certain
CAIR FIP provisions (e.g., the methodology for allocating
NOX allowances to sources in the State), while the CAIR FIP
remains in place for all other provisions.
    On April 28, 2006, EPA published two additional CAIR-related final
rules that added the States of Delaware and New Jersey to the list of
States subject to CAIR for PM2.5 and announced EPA's final
decisions on reconsideration of five issues, without making any
substantive changes to the CAIR requirements.

III. What Are the General Requirements of CAIR and the CAIR FIPs?

    CAIR establishes State-wide emission budgets for SO2 and
NOX and is to be implemented in two phases. The first phase
of NOX reductions starts in 2009 and continues through 2014,
while the first phase of SO2 reductions starts in 2010 and
continues through 2014. The second phase of reductions for both
NOX and SO2 starts in 2015 and continues
thereafter. CAIR requires States to implement the budgets by either:
(1) Requiring EGUs to participate in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade
programs; or (2) adopting other control measures of the State's
choosing and demonstrating that such control measures will result in
compliance with the applicable State SO2 and NOX
budgets.
    The May 12, 2005, and April 28, 2006, CAIR rules provide model
rules that States must adopt (with certain limited changes, if desired)
if they want to participate in the EPA-administered trading programs.
    With two exceptions, only States that choose to meet the
requirements of CAIR through methods that exclusively regulate EGUs are
allowed to participate in the EPA-administered trading programs. One
exception is for States that adopt the opt-in provisions of the model
rules to allow non-EGUs individually to opt into the EPA-administered
trading programs. The other exception is for States that include all
non-EGUs from their NOX SIP Call trading programs in their
CAIR NOX ozone season trading programs.

IV. What Are the Types of CAIR SIP Submittals?

    States have the flexibility to choose the type of control measures
they will use to meet the requirements of CAIR. EPA anticipates that
most States will choose to meet the CAIR requirements by selecting an
option that requires EGUs to participate in the EPA-administered CAIR
cap-and-trade programs. For such States, EPA has provided two
approaches for submitting and obtaining approval for CAIR SIP
revisions. States may submit full SIP revisions that adopt the model
CAIR cap-and-trade rules. If approved, these SIP revisions will fully
replace the CAIR FIPs. Alternatively, States may submit abbreviated SIP
revisions. These SIP revisions will not replace the CAIR FIPs; however,
the CAIR FIPs provide that, when approved, the provisions in these
abbreviated SIP revisions will be used instead of or in conjunction
with, as appropriate, the corresponding provisions of the CAIR FIPs
(e.g., the NOX allowance allocation methodology).
    A State submitting a full SIP revision may either adopt regulations
that are substantively identical to the model rules or incorporate by
reference the model rules. CAIR provides that States may only make
limited changes to the model rules if the States want to participate in
the EPA-administered trading programs. A full SIP revision may change
the model rules, only by altering their applicability and allowance
allocation provisions to:
    1. Include NOX SIP Call trading sources that are not
EGUs under CAIR in the CAIR NOX ozone season trading
program;
    2. Provide for State allocation of NOX annual or ozone
season allowances using a methodology chosen by the State;
    3. Provide for State allocation of NOX annual allowances
from the compliance supplement pool (CSP) using the State's choice of
allowed, alternative methodologies; or
    4. Allow units that are not otherwise CAIR units to opt
individually into the CAIR SO2, NOX annual, or
NOX ozone season trading programs under the opt-in
provisions in the model rules.
    An approved CAIR full SIP revision addressing EGUs' SO2,
NOX annual, or NOX ozone season emissions will
replace the CAIR FIP for that State for the respective EGU emissions.

V. Analysis of Florida's CAIR SIP Submittal

A. State Budgets for Allowance Allocations

    The CAIR NOX annual and ozone season budgets were
developed from historical heat input data for EGUs. Using these data,
EPA calculated annual and ozone season regional heat input values,
which were multiplied by 0.15 pounds per million British thermal units
(lb/mmBtu), for phase 1, and 0.125 lb/mmBtu, for phase 2, to obtain
regional NOX budgets for 2009-2014 and for 2015 and
thereafter, respectively. EPA derived the State NOX annual
and ozone season budgets from the regional budgets using State heat
input data adjusted by fuel factors.
    The CAIR State SO2 budgets were derived by discounting
the tonnage of emissions authorized by annual allowance allocations
under the Acid Rain Program under title IV of the CAA. Under CAIR, each
allowance allocated in the Acid Rain Program for the years in phase 1
of CAIR (2010 through 2014) authorizes 0.5 ton of SO2
emissions in the CAIR trading program, and each Acid Rain Program
allowance allocated for the years in phase 2 of CAIR (2015 and
thereafter) authorizes 0.35 ton of SO2 emissions in the CAIR
trading program.
    In this action, EPA is proposing approval of Florida's SIP revision
that adopts the budgets established for the State in CAIR, i.e., 99,445
(2009-2014) and 82,871 (2015-thereafter) tons for NOX annual
emissions, 47,912 (2009-2014) and 39,926 (2015-thereafter) tons for
NOX ozone season emissions, and 253,450 (2010-2014) and
177,415 (2015-thereafter) tons for SO2 emissions. Florida's
SIP revision sets these budgets as the total amounts of allowances
available for allocation for each year under the EPA-administered cap-
and-trade programs.
    Florida has committed to revising the definitions of ``permitting
authority'' and ``State'' in its CAIR rules in order to ensure that
allowances issued by all States with approved rules providing for
participation in the respective EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs
are fungible and can be traded and used by all sources in all these
States, as intended. EPA discovered after review of other States'
rules, but after Florida had adopted its CAIR rules, that there was an
issue related to these definitions when they are revised to refer only
to a specific State.
    In Florida's rules for CAIR, the EPA model trading rules were
revised to limit all references to ``permitting authority'' to refer to
the Florida

Department of Environmental Protection. Similarly, references to
``State'' were limited to refer to Florida. These changes are
acceptable in most, but not all, instances under the current model
rules. In certain definitions in the model rules incorporated by
Florida (i.e., ``allocate'' or ``allocation,'' ``CAIR NOX
allowance,'' ``CAIR SO2 allowance,'' and ``CAIR
NOX Ozone Season allowance''), it is important that the term
``permitting authority'' cover permitting authorities in all States
that choose to participate in the respective EPA-administered trading
programs and that the term ``State'' cover all such States. This is
necessary to ensure that all allowances issued in each EPA-administered
trading program are fungible and can be traded and used for compliance
with the allowance-holding requirement in any State in the program.
    On May 24, 2007, EPA participated in a teleconference with Florida
and outlined necessary definition revisions. EPA received a letter from
Florida dated June 22, 2007, and a supplemental electronic mail
submission on July 11, 2007, that provide a commitment to make these
rule revisions in its CAIR rules in early 2008. Specifically, in the
June 22, 2007, letter and supplemental submission on July 11, 2007,
Florida commits to revising section 62-296.470(1) of Florida's rule to
state that: the limitation of the ``permitting authority'' definition
only to Florida does not apply when this term is used in the
definitions of ```allocate' or `allocation','' ``CAIR NOX
allowance,'' ``CAIR SO2 allowance,'' and ``CAIR
NOX Ozone Season allowance;'' and the limitation of the
``State'' definition only to Florida does not apply when the term is
used in the definitions of ``CAIR NOX allowance,'' ``CAIR
SO2 allowance,'' and ``CAIR NOX Ozone Season
allowance.''

B. CAIR Cap-and-Trade Programs

    The CAIR NOX annual and ozone-season model trading rules
both largely mirror the structure of the NOX SIP Call model
trading rule in 40 CFR part 96, subparts A through I. While the
provisions of the NOX annual and ozone-season model rules
are similar, there are some differences. For example, the
NOX annual model rule (but not the NOX ozone
season model rule) provides for a CSP, which is discussed below and
under which allowances may be awarded for early reductions of
NOX annual emissions. As a further example, the
NOX ozone season model rule reflects the fact that the CAIR
NOX ozone season trading program replaces the NOX
SIP Call trading program after the 2008 ozone season and is coordinated
with the NOX SIP Call program. The NOX ozone
season model rule provides incentives for early emissions reductions by
allowing banked, pre-2009 NOX SIP Call allowances to be used
for compliance in the CAIR NOX ozone-season trading program.
In addition, States have the option of continuing to meet their
NOX SIP Call requirement by participating in the CAIR
NOX ozone season trading program and including all their
NOX SIP Call trading sources in that program.
    The provisions of the CAIR SO2 model rule are also
similar to the provisions of the NOX annual and ozone season
model rules. However, the SO2 model rule is coordinated with
the ongoing Acid Rain SO2 cap-and-trade program under CAA
title IV. The SO2 model rule uses the title IV allowances
for compliance, with each allowance allocated for 2010-2014 authorizing
only 0.5 ton of emissions and each allowance allocated for 2015 and
thereafter authorizing only 0.35 ton of emissions. Banked title IV
allowances allocated for years before 2010 can be used at any time in
the CAIR SO2 cap-and-trade program, with each such allowance
authorizing 1 ton of emissions. Title IV allowances are to be freely
transferable among sources covered by the Acid Rain Program and sources
covered by the CAIR SO2 cap-and-trade program.
    EPA also used the CAIR model trading rules as the basis for the
trading programs in the CAIR FIPs. The CAIR FIP trading rules are
virtually identical to the CAIR model trading rules, with changes made
to account for federal rather than state implementation. The CAIR model
SO2, NOX annual, and NOX ozone season
trading rules and the respective CAIR FIP trading rules are designed to
work together as integrated SO2, NOX annual, and
NOX ozone season trading programs.
    In the SIP revision, Florida chooses to implement its CAIR budgets
by requiring EGUs to participate in EPA-administered cap-and-trade
programs for SO2, NOX annual, and NOX
ozone season emissions. Florida has adopted a full SIP revision that
adopts, with certain allowed changes discussed below, the CAIR model
cap-and-trade rules for SO2, NOX annual, and
NOX ozone season emissions.

C. Applicability Provisions for Non-EGU NOX SIP Call Sources

    In general, the CAIR model trading rules apply to any stationary,
fossil-fuel-fired boiler or stationary, fossil-fuel-fired combustion
turbine serving at any time, since the later of November 15, 1990, or
the start-up of the unit's combustion chamber, a generator with
nameplate capacity of more than 25 MWe producing electricity for sale.
    States have the option of bringing in, for the CAIR NOX
ozone season program only, those units in the State's NOX
SIP Call trading program that are not EGUs as defined under CAIR. EPA
advises States exercising this option to add the applicability
provisions in the State's NOX SIP Call trading rule for non-
EGUs to the applicability provisions in 40 CFR 96.304 in order to
include in the CAIR NOX ozone season trading program all
units required to be in the State's NOX SIP Call trading
program that are not already included under 40 CFR 96.304. Under this
option, the CAIR NOX ozone season program must cover all
large industrial boilers and combustion turbines, as well as any small
EGUs (i.e. units serving a generator with a nameplate capacity of 25
MWe or less) that the State currently requires to be in the
NOX SIP Call trading program.
    Because Florida was not included in the NOX SIP Call
trading program, Florida did not have an option of expanding the
applicability provisions of the CAIR NOX ozone season
trading program.

D. NOX Allowance Allocations

    Under the NOX allowance allocation methodology in the
CAIR model trading rules and in the CAIR FIP, NOX annual and
ozone season allowances are allocated to units that have operated for
five years, based on heat input data from a three-year period that are
adjusted for fuel type by using fuel factors of 1.0 for coal, 0.6 for
oil, and 0.4 for other fuels. The CAIR model trading rules and the CAIR
FIP also provide a new unit set-aside from which units without five
years of operation are allocated allowances based on the units' prior
year emissions.
    States may establish in their SIP submissions a different
NOX allowance allocation methodology that will be used to
allocate allowances to sources in the States, if certain requirements
are met concerning the timing of submission of units' allocations to
the Administrator for recordation and the total amount of allowances
allocated for each control period. In adopting alternative
NOX allowance allocation methodologies, States have
flexibility with regard to:
    1. The cost to recipients of the allowances, which may be
distributed for free or auctioned;
    2. The frequency of allocations;
    3. The basis for allocating allowances, which may be distributed,
for example, based on historical heat input or electric and thermal
output; and

    4. The use of allowance set-asides and, if used, their size.
    Florida has chosen to replace the provisions of the CAIR
NOX annual model trading rule concerning the allocation of
NOX annual allowances with its own methodology. Florida has
chosen to distribute NOX annual allowances based upon a
methodology that is similar, but not identical, to that in the CAIR
model trading rule for existing and new units. Under Florida's rule and
the CAIR model rule, existing units are allocated NOX
allowances in proportion to their ``fuel-adjusted control period heat
input'' during the baseline period. However, in addition to the fuel
adjustment factors used to calculate adjusted heat input in the CAIR
model rule, Florida has also developed a separate 150% fuel factor for
existing biomass-fired units that use best available control technology
(BACT). Further, in Florida's rule, as in the CAIR model rule, new
units are allocated NOX allowances in proportion to their
``converted control period heat input.'' However, unlike the CAIR model
rule, Florida's rule categorizes new units as those commencing
operation on or after January 1, 2007, (rather than January 1, 2001),
and establishes a new unit set set-aside of five percent for all
control years (rather than five percent through 2014 and three percent
thereafter). Moreover, under Florida's rule, allocations are scheduled
to be made in 2006, 2009, and every three years thereafter, with three-
year blocks of allocations being made generally four years in advance.
Florida's rule also limits the number of years for which permanently
retired units are allocated allowances after retirement.
    Florida has chosen to replace the provisions of the CAIR
NOX ozone season model trading rule concerning allowance
allocations with its own methodology. Florida has chosen to distribute
NOX ozone season allowances based upon the same allowance
allocation methodology described above for NOX annual
allowances.

E. Allocation of NOX Allowances From Compliance Supplement
Pool

    The CAIR rule establishes a CSP to provide an incentive for early
reductions in NOX annual emissions. The CSP consists of
200,000 CAIR NOX annual allowances of vintage 2009 for the
entire CAIR region, and a State's share of the CSP is based upon the
projected magnitude of the emission reductions required by CAIR in that
State. States may distribute CSP allowances, one allowance for each ton
of early reduction, to sources that make NOX reductions
during 2007 or 2008 beyond what is required by any applicable State or
Federal emission limitation. States also may distribute CSP allowances
based upon a demonstration of need for an extension of the 2009
deadline for implementing emission controls.
    The CAIR annual NOX model trading rule establishes
specific methodologies for allocations of CSP allowances. States may
choose an allowed, alternative CSP allocation methodology to be used to
allocate CSP allowances to sources in the States.
    Florida has not chosen to modify the provisions of the CAIR
NOX annual model trading rule concerning the allocation of
allowances from the CSP. Florida has chosen to distribute CSP
allowances using an allocation methodology that is the same as EPA's
model rule. The CSP is an additional 8,335 annual NOX
allowances given to the State for 2009, and there is no CSP for ozone-
season allowances.

F. Individual Opt-In Units

    The opt-in provisions of the CAIR SIP model trading rules allow
certain non-EGUs (i.e., boilers, combustion turbines, and other
stationary fossil-fuel-fired devices) that do not meet the
applicability criteria for a CAIR trading program to participate
voluntarily in (i.e., opt into) the CAIR trading program. A non-EGU may
opt into one or more of the CAIR trading programs. In order to qualify
to opt into a CAIR trading program, a unit must vent all emissions
through a stack and be able to meet monitoring, recordkeeping, and
recording requirements of 40 CFR part 75. The owners and operators
seeking to opt a unit into a CAIR trading program must apply for a CAIR
opt-in permit. If the unit is issued a CAIR opt-in permit, the unit
becomes a CAIR unit, is allocated allowances, and must meet the same
allowance-holding and emissions monitoring and reporting requirements
as other units subject to the CAIR trading program. The opt-in
provisions provide for two methodologies for allocating allowances for
opt-in units, one methodology that applies to opt-in units in general
and a second methodology that allocates allowances only to opt-in units
that the owners and operators intend to repower before January 1, 2015.
    States have several options concerning the opt-in provisions.
States may adopt the CAIR opt-in provisions entirely or may adopt them
but exclude one of the methodologies for allocating allowances. States
may also decline to adopt the opt-in provisions at all.
    Florida has chosen not to allow non-EGUs meeting certain
requirements to opt into the CAIR NOX annual trading
program.
    Florida has chosen not to allow non-EGUs meeting certain
requirements to opt into the CAIR NOX ozone season trading
program.
    Florida has chosen not to allow certain non-EGUs to opt into the
CAIR SO2 trading program.

VI. Proposed Actions

    EPA is proposing to approve Florida's full CAIR SIP revision
submitted on March 16, 2007. Under this SIP revision, Florida is
choosing to participate in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs
for SO2, NOX annual, and NOX ozone
season emissions. The SIP revision (revised as discussed above) meets
the applicable requirements in 40 CFR 51.123(o) and (aa), with regard
to NOX annual and NOX ozone season emissions, and
40 CFR 51.124(o), with regard to SO2 emissions. Further,
Florida has agreed to make the technical corrections to certain
definitions as discussed above. Therefore, EPA is proposing to
determine that the SIP, as revised, will meet the requirements of CAIR.
As a consequence of the SIP approval, the Administrator of EPA will
also issue, without providing an opportunity for a public hearing or an
additional opportunity for written public comment, a final rule to
withdraw the CAIR FIPs concerning SO2, NOX
annual, NOX ozone season emissions for Florida. This action
will delete and reserve 40 CFR 52.540 and 40 CFR 52.541.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely proposes to approve State law as meeting Federal requirements
and would impose no additional requirements beyond those imposed by
State law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.). Because this action proposes to approve pre-existing
requirements under State law and would not impose any additional

enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it does not contain
any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4).
    This proposal also does not have tribal implications because it
would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This proposed action also
does not have Federalism implications because it would not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This
action merely proposes to approve a State rule implementing a Federal
standard and will result, as a consequence of that approval, in the
Administrator's withdrawal of the CAIR FIP. It does not alter the
relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities
established in the CAA. This proposed rule also is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because
it would approve a State rule implementing a Federal Standard.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule would not impose
an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Electric
utilities, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
dioxide.

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

    Dated: July 25, 2007.
J.I. Palmer, Jr.,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
 [FR Doc. E7-14981 Filed 8-1-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 19, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 201)]
[Notices]
[Page 64320-64321]
[DOCID:fr19oc10-70]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1940-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2010-0002]

Arizona; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Arizona (FEMA-1940-DR), dated October 4,
2010, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: October 4, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated October 4, 2010, the President issued a major disaster
declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Arizona resulting from severe storms and flooding during the
period of July 20 to August 7, 2010, is of sufficient severity and
magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C.
5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such
a major disaster exists in the State of Arizona.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Sandy Coachman, of FEMA is appointed
to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.

    The following areas of the State of Arizona have been designated as
adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Coconino County for Public Assistance.
    All counties within the State of Arizona are eligible to apply
for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2010-26211 Filed 10-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: June 28, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 123)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 36579-36581]
[DOCID:fr28jn10-17]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0553; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-070-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Corporation Model DC-
10-30, DC-10-30F, DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10), DC-10-40, DC-10-40F,
and MD-10-30F Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Model DC-10-30, DC-10-30F, DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10), DC-
10-40, DC10-40F, and MD-10-30F airplanes. This proposed AD would
require doing a one-time inspection of the wire bundles to determine if
wires touch the upper surface of the center upper auxiliary fuel tank,
and marking the location if necessary; a one-time inspection for
splices and damage of all wire bundles routed above the center upper
auxiliary fuel tank; a one-time inspection for damage to the fuel vapor
barrier seal and upper surface of the center upper auxiliary fuel tank;
and corrective actions, if necessary. This proposed AD would also
require installing non-metallic barrier/shield sleeving to the wire
harnesses, new clamps, new attaching hardware, and new extruded
channels. This proposed AD results from fuel system reviews conducted
by the manufacturer. We are proposing this AD to prevent the potential
of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with
flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and
consequent loss of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 12, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
3855 Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800-0019, Long Beach, California 90846-
0001; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 2; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may
review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. 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; 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: Samuel Lee, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137;
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-2010-0553;
Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-070-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
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

    The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel
tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the
adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes
subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for
fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a
regulation titled ``Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review,
Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements''
(66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards
for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule
included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (``SFAR 88,''
Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83).
    Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (i.e.,
type certificate (TC) and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders
to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition
sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design
holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for
subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It

requires them to perform design reviews and to develop design changes
and maintenance procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel
tank safety standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we
intended to adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found
necessary to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these
reviews.
    In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four
criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel
tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of
operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable
conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address
the failure types under evaluation: Single failures, single failures in
combination with a latent condition(s), and in-service failure
experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included
consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for
further action.
    We have determined that the actions identified in this AD are
necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel
tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result
in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.
    Fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer have determined
that wires routed above the center upper auxiliary fuel tank are in
close proximity to the upper surface of the tank. In addition, some
wire harness mounts may have loosened, allowing the wires to contact
the tank. This condition can cause wire damage or chafing that could
lead to possible arcing and sparking on the fuel tank upper surface. If
not corrected, wires in contact with the fuel tank could become
damaged, and the possible resulting arcing and sparking could lead to
burn-through of the upper surface of the fuel tank.

Relevant Service Information

    We have reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin DC10-28-244, dated
February 25, 2010. The service bulletin describes procedures for the
following actions.
     Doing a one-time general visual inspection of the wire
bundles to determine if wires touch the upper surface of the center
upper auxiliary fuel tank, and marking the location(s) where the wire
bundle(s) contacts the upper surface of the center upper auxiliary fuel
tank.
     Doing a one-time detailed inspection of all wire bundles
routed above the center upper auxiliary fuel tank for splices and
damage (such as wire chafing, arcing, or broken insulation or burn
marks), and corrective actions, which include repairing or replacing
damaged wires, and relocating any splice; and repairing or replacing
wires causing damage.
     Doing a one-time detailed inspection for damage (burn
marks) on the upper surface of the center upper auxiliary fuel tank and
fuel vapor barrier seal, and doing corrective actions, which include
repairing the vapor barrier seal, and contacting Boeing for repair
instructions and doing the repair.
     Installing non-metallic barrier/shield sleeving to the
wire harnesses, new clamps, new attaching hardware, and new extruded
channels to raise the wire harnesses off the upper surface of the
center upper auxiliary fuel tank.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type
designs. This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions
specified in the service information described previously.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 166 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The following table provides the estimated costs for
U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD.

                                                                 Table--Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of U.S.-
               Inspection and installation                  Work hours     Average labor       Parts         Cost per       registered      Fleet cost
                                                                           rate per hour                      product        airplanes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group 1 Inspection......................................              16             $85              $0          $1,360              75        $102,000
Group 1 Installation....................................             200              85          13,309          30,309              75       2,273,175
Group 2 Inspection......................................              16              85               0           1,360              58          78,880
Group 2 Installation....................................             232              85          16,660          36,380              58       2,110,040
Group 3 Inspection......................................              16              85               0           1,360              18          24,480
Group 3 Installation....................................             200              85          12,258          29,258              18         526,644
Group 4 Inspection......................................              16              85               0           1,360              15          20,400
Group 4 Installation....................................             200              85          12,372          29,372              15         440,580
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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), and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of
compliance in the AD Docket.

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

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

McDonnell Douglas Corporation: Docket No. FAA-2010-0553; Directorate
Identifier 2010-NM-070-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by August 12, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to McDonnell Douglas Corporation Model DC-
10-30, DC-10-30F, DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10), DC-10-40, DC10-40F,
and MD-10-30F airplanes, certificated in any category; as specified
in Boeing Service Bulletin DC10-28-244, dated February 25, 2010.

Subject

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

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the
manufacturer. The Federal Aviation Administration is issuing this AD
to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks,
which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in
fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Actions

    (g) Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD do the
actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), (g)(3), and (g)(4)
of this AD, as applicable, and do all applicable corrective actions,
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service
Bulletin DC10-28-244, dated February 25, 2010, except as required by
paragraph (h) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions
before further flight.
    (1) Do a one-time general visual inspection of the wire bundles
to determine if wires touch the upper surface of the center upper
auxiliary fuel tank, and mark the location as applicable.
    (2) Do a one-time detailed inspection for splices and damage of
all wire bundles between Stations Y=1219.000 and Y=1381.000 between
X=-40 to X=-90 (right side) and X=15 to X=85 (left side) above the
center upper auxiliary fuel tank.
    (3) Do a one-time detailed inspection for damage (burn marks) on
the upper surface of the center upper auxiliary fuel tank and to the
fuel vapor barrier seal.
    (4) Install non-metallic barrier/shield sleeving to the wire
harnesses, new clamps, new attaching hardware, and new extruded
channels.
    (h) Where Boeing Service Bulletin DC10-28-244, dated February
25, 2010, specifies to contact Boeing for repair instructions:
Before further flight, repair the center upper auxiliary fuel tank
using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified
in paragraph (i) of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (i)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if
requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Samuel Lee, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion
Branch, ANM-140L, FAA, Los Angeles ACO, 3960 Paramount Boulevard,
Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (562)
627-5210.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.
The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO to
make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair
must meet the certification basis of the airplane and the approval
must specifically refer to this AD.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 16, 2010.
Robert D. Breneman,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-15653 Filed 6-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P