[Federal Register: October 24, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 204)]
[Notices]
[Page 61479-61480]
[DOCID:fr24oc05-88]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-52625; File No. SR-CBOE-2005-81

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval
of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Options on a Reduced-Value Version
of the Standard and Poor's 500 Stock Index

October 18, 2005.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is
hereby given that on October 5, 2005, the Chicago Board Options
Exchange, Incorporated (``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule
change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been
substantially prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons and is approving the proposal on an accelerated
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(l).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The CBOE proposes to amend its rules to allow the Exchange to list
options on a reduced-value version of the Standard and Poor's 500 Stock
Index at $1 strike price intervals.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the CBOE's Web
site (http://www.cboe.com), at the CBOE's Office of the Secretary, and

at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the CBOE included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item III below. The CBOE has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections
A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend CBOE Rule 24.9 (``Terms of Index
Option Contracts'') by adding a new interpretation that would allow the
Exchange to list series on the reduced-value version of the Standard &
Poor's 500 Stock Index (``S&P 500 Index'') option (``Mini-SPX
option''), which is based on \1/10\th of the value of the S&P 500
Index, at strike price intervals no less than $1.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Currently, under Interpretation and Policy .01 to CBOE Rule
24.9, the Exchange has authority to list options on the Mini-SPX at
$2.50 strike price intervals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the Exchange currently lists and trades options at $1
strike price interval on an exchange traded fund (``ETF'') based on the
S&P 500 index; specifically, the Standard & Poor's Depositary Receipts
(commonly known as the ``SPDRs'') ETF.\4\ The SPDR, like the Mini-SPX
option, is designed to track the performance of the S&P 500 Index and
the price of one SPDR roughly approximates \1/10\th the value of the
S&P 500 Index. The Exchange believes it would be logical to set the
strike price interval for the Mini-SPX option at the same interval as
options on the SPDR, because setting the price interval higher for
Mini-SPX options than for SPDR options could cause confusion to
investors and would put Mini-SPX options at a competitive disadvantage
to SPDR options. As such, the Exchange proposes to list series on Mini-
SPX options at $1 strike price intervals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange has authority to list option series on any
qualifying ETF at $1 strike price intervals. See Interpretation and
Policy .08 to CBOE Rule 5.5. See also Interpretation and Policy .07
to CBOE Rule 5.5, which allows the Exchange to list $1 strike price
series on options based on an ETF that represents an interest in the
securities that make up the Nasdaq-100 Index (``QQQQ''), regardless
of the whether the value of the QQQQ exceeds $200.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to impose certain conditions upon the
listing of $1 strike price series on Mini-SPX options, as described
below. First, to limit the number of series listed, the Exchange would
not be allowed to list new series at less than $1 strike price
intervals on Mini-SPX options at strike prices that are more than
twenty percentage points (20%) away from one-tenth (\1/10\th) the
current index value of the S&P 500 Index. For example, if the current
index value of the S&P 500 Index were 1,200.00, the Exchange would be
permitted to list $1 strike price series on Mini-SPX options at strike
prices ranging from $96 to $144.
    The Exchange would be permitted to list series on Mini-SPX options
at $3 or greater strike price intervals with strike prices that are no
more than twenty-five percentage points (25%) away from \1/10\th the
current value of the S&P 500 Index and the Exchange would be permitted
to list series at $5 or greater strike price intervals on Mini-SPX
options that are more than 25% away from one-tenth of the current value
of the S&P 500 Index. Also, the Exchange would not be permitted to list
LEAPS or reduced-value LEAPS on Mini-SPX options at intervals less than
$5.
    Finally, as long as there are open Mini-SPX option series listed at
$1 strike price intervals, the Exchange would be required to surrender
one of its five selections under the CBOE $1 Strike Price Pilot Program
(``Pilot'').\5\ Under the terms of the Pilot, the Exchange may select
up to five different equity option classes on which series may be
listed at $1 strike price intervals.\6\ This proposal would limit the
listing of option series at $1 strike price intervals on the Exchange
in the Pilot to four classes when Mini-SPX options are listed at $1
strike price intervals. If the Exchange were to determine to
discontinue listing Mini-SPX option series at $1 strike price
intervals, the Exchange would again be free to select up to five option
classes for inclusion in the Pilot. Accordingly, CBOE's Rule provisions
relating to the Pilot will be amended to reference these measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Interpretation and Policy .01(a) to CBOE Rule 5.5.
    \6\ Under the terms of the Pilot, the Exchange also may list
series at $1 strike price intervals on any other option classes if
those classes are specifically designated by other securities
exchanges that employ a similar Pilot under their respective rules.
The CBOE Pilot also provides for other restrictions that will not
necessarily apply to Mini-SPX options. See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a technical matter, the Exchange also proposes to amend
Interpretation and Policy .09 to Rule 24.9, which describes the current
index value of a ``reduced-value option on the Standard & Poor's 500
Stock Index'',\7\ to indicate that the new term ``Mini-SPX'' will be
used to describe the option product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ This description was added at the time the Exchange was
granted approval to list and trade Mini-SPX options. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 32893 (September 14, 1993); 58 FR 49070
(September 21, 1993) (allowing CBOE to list options on the Mini-
SPX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with

Section 6(b) of the Act,\8\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ in particular, in that it is designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will impose no
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received by the Exchange on
this proposal.

III. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-CBOE-2005-81 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2005-81. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the CBOE. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-CBOE-2005-81 and should be submitted on or before
November 14, 2005.

IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
Proposed Rule Change

    After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder, applicable to a national securities
exchange,\10\ and, in particular, with the requirements of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ which requires, among other things, that the
Exchange's rules promote just and equitable principles of trade and
facilitate transactions in securities, and, in general, protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered
its impact on efficiecy, competition, and capital formation. 15
U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the CBOE's proposal should provide
investors with increased flexibility in satisfying their investment
objectives by allowing them to purchase and sell (under certain
conditions) Mini-SPX options at strike price intervals of no less than
$1. In addition, the proposed restrictions that would permit the
listing of options at $1 and $3 strike price intervals only for strike
prices that are within 20% and 25%, respectively, of \1/10\ of the
current value of the S&P 500 Index should help to mitigate the effect
of this proposal on the use of options system capacity.
    The Exchange has requested that the Commission approve the proposed
rule change on an accelerated basis. The Commission finds good cause,
pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\12\ for approving the proposed
rule change prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of
notice in the Federal Register. The Commission notes that the CBOE
received approval to list and trade options on the Mini-SPX more than
10 years ago. At that time, the proposal was noticed for the full
comment period and no comments were received. The Commission believes
that the proposal, which would permit the exchange to begin listing
options on the Mini-SPX at $1 strike price intervals on an expedited
basis, raises no new issues of regulatory concern. Accordingly, the
Commission finds that good cause exists, consistent with Sections
6(b)(5) and 19(b)(2) of the Act,\13\ to approve the proposed rule
change on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5) and 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\14\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2005-81) is hereby
approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-5859 Filed 10-21-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 69 (Wednesday, April 10, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21227-21229]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08047]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0111; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-089-AD;
Amendment 39-17407; AD 2013-07-03]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus Model A330-200, A330-200 Freighter, A330-300, A340-200, and
A340-300 series airplanes; and Model A340-541 airplanes and Model A340-
642 airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of cracks in the bogie
pivot pin caused by material heating due to friction between the bogie
pivot pin and bush, leading to chrome detachment and chrome dragging on
the bogie pivot pin. This AD requires repetitive detailed inspections
for degradation of the bogie pivot pins and for any cracks and damage
of the pivot pin bushes of the main and central landing gear; a
magnetic particle inspection of the affected bogie pivot pins for
corrosion and base metal cracks; and repairing or replacing bogie pivot
pins and pivot pin bushes, if necessary. We are issuing this AD to
detect and correct cracks and damage to the main and central landing
gear, which could result in the collapse of the landing gear and
adversely affect the airplane's continued safe flight and landing.

DATES: This AD becomes effective May 15, 2013.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of May 15, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1138; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to
amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified
products. That SNPRM was published in the Federal Register on September
7, 2012 (77 FR 55163). That SNPRM proposed to correct an unsafe
condition for the specified products. The Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information (MCAI) states:

    During removals of A330/340 Main Landing Gear (MLG) Bogie Beams
and A340-500/600 Center Landing Gear (CLG) Bogie Beams, cracks in
the bogie pivot pin were found.
    Investigations indicated that these findings were the result of
material heating, caused by friction between bogie pivot pin and
bush, leading to chrome detachment and stress corrosion cracking.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to
collapse of the main or center landing gear, possibly resulting in
damage to the aeroplane and/or injury to occupants.
    As a precautionary measure, EASA [European Aviation Safety
Agency] issued AD 2011-0040 to require a one-time [detailed]
inspection of the MLG (all types of A330 and A340 aeroplanes) and
CLG (A340-500/600 aeroplanes only) to detect degradation or cracking
of the bogie pivot pin [and to detect cracks and damage of the
bushes], as applicable to aeroplane model, and the reporting of
inspections results.
    Following issuance of EASA AD 2011-0040, several operators
reported finding chrome detachment or chrome dragging on bogie pivot
pin. New cases of cracks were also reported. It has been confirmed
as well that, due to similar design, the enhanced MLG bogie pivot
pin (Airbus modification 54500) could also be affected by this
condition.
    Prompted by these findings, Airbus have developed an inspection
programme consisting of repetitive inspections of the bogie pivot
pin and applicable corrective actions.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD, which
supersedes EASA AD 2011-0040 and extends the applicability to all
A330 and A340 aeroplanes, requires accomplishment of repetitive
inspections of the MLG and CLG (for A340-500 and A340-600
aeroplanes) bogie pivot pins and pivot pin bushes, and corrective
actions, depending on findings.

Required actions also include, for certain airplanes, a magnetic
particle inspection of the bogie pivot pin for corrosion and base metal
cracks. The corrective actions include replacing any cracked or damaged
pivot pin bush with a new or serviceable pivot pin bush, and replacing
any corroded or cracked bogie pin with a new bogie pin. You may obtain
further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We have considered the comments received.

Request To Change the Compliance Time

    Delta Air Lines, Inc. (DAL) requested that the initial compliance
time in paragraph (g) of the SNPRM (77 FR 55163, September 7, 2012) be
changed from ``* * * first flight of the airplane,'' to ``* * * first
flight of the new or overhauled landing gear,'' in two locations in
that paragraph. The commenter did not provide rationale for this
request.
    We disagree with DAL's request. Our compliance time coincides with
EASA AD 2012-0053, dated March 30, 2012, which specifically states,
``Accomplishment of an overhaul of the landing gear does not substitute
the accomplishment of an inspection as required by paragraph (1) of
this [EASA] AD.'' The inspections required by this final rule are not
equivalent to what is accomplished during landing gear overhaul.
However, if the inspections required by this final rule are positively
verified to have been accomplished during overhaul, the overhaul date
may be used to determine the next repetitive inspection date. We have
not changed this final rule in this regard.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed--except for
minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
SNPRM (77 FR 55163, September 7, 2012) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the SNPRM (77 FR 55163, September 7, 2012).

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 29 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 22 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of
this AD to the U.S. operators to be $54,230, or $1,870 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 6 work-hours and require parts costing $21,222, for a cost
of $21,732 per product. We have no way of determining the number of
products that may need these actions.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains the SNPRM (77 FR 55163, September 7,
2012), the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for the Docket Operations office
(telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2013-07-03 Airbus: Amendment 39-17407. Docket No. FAA-2012-0111;
Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-089-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective May 15,
2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -
243, -223F, -243F, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342,
and -343 airplanes; Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, and -313
airplanes; and Model A340-541 and Model A340-642 airplanes;
certificated in any category; all manufacturer serial numbers.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing
gear.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracks in the bogie pivot pin
caused by material heating due to friction between the bogie pivot
pin and bush, leading to chrome detachment and chrome dragging on
the bogie pivot pin. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct
cracks and damage to the main and central landing gear, which could
result in the collapse of the landing gear and adversely affect the
airplane's continued safe flight and landing.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Detailed Inspection

    Within 26 months after the effective date of this AD or 26
months after the first flight of the airplane, whichever occurs
later, but no earlier than 12 months after the first flight of the
airplane: Do a detailed inspection for degradation (i.e., loss of
chromium plate, loose chromium, sharp edges) of the bogie pivot pins
and for any cracks and damage of the pivot pin bushes of the main
landing gear, and, as applicable, the central landing gear, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable
service bulletin specified in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of
this AD. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed
26 months. Accomplishment of an overhaul of the landing gear does
not substitute the accomplishment of the inspection as required by
this paragraph.
    (1) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-32-3240, Revision 02,
including Appendices 01 and 02, dated December 2, 2011 (for Model
A330-200 series airplanes, Model A330-200 Freighter series
airplanes, and Model A330-300 series airplanes).
    (2) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-32-4281, Revision 01,
including Appendices 01 and 02, dated December 2, 2011 (for Model
A340-200 series airplanes and Model A340-300 series airplanes).
    (3) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-32-5096, Revision 01,
including Appendices 01 and 02, dated December 2, 2011 (for Model
A340-541 airplanes and Model A340-642 airplanes).

(h) Corrective Action for Any Pivot Pin Bush Found Cracked or Damaged

    If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD,
any pivot pin bush is found cracked or damaged: Before further
flight, repair or replace the pivot pin bush with a new or
serviceable pivot pin bush, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of the applicable service bulletin specified paragraph
(h)(1), (h)(2), or (h)(3) of this AD.
    (1) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-32-3240, Revision 02,
including Appendices 01 and 02, dated December 2, 2011 (for Model
A330-200 series airplanes, Model A330-200 Freighter series
airplanes, and Model A330-300 series airplanes).
    (2) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-32-4281, Revision 01,
including Appendices 01 and 02, dated December 2, 2011 (for Model
A340-200 series airplanes and Model A340-300 series airplanes).
    (3) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-32-5096, Revision 01,
including Appendices 01 and 02, dated December 2, 2011 (for Model
A340-541 airplanes and Model A340-642 airplanes).

(i) Corrective Action for Any Bogie Pivot Pin Found With Degraded
Chrome Plating

    If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD,
degraded chrome plating on any bogie pivot pin is found: Before
further flight, do a non-destructive test (magnetic particle
inspection) of the affected bogie pivot pin for corrosion and base
metal cracks, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
the applicable service bulletin specified paragraph (i)(1), (i)(2),
or (i)(3) of this AD.
    (1) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-32-3240, Revision 02,
including Appendices 01 and 02, dated December 2, 2011 (for Model
A330-200 series airplanes, Model A330-200 Freighter series
airplanes, and Model A330-300 series airplanes).
    (2) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-32-4281, Revision 01,
including

Appendices 01 and 02, dated December 2, 2011 (for Model A340-200
series airplanes and Model A340-300 series airplanes).
    (3) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-32-5096, Revision 01,
including Appendices 01 and 02, dated December 2, 2011 (for Model
A340-541 airplanes and Model A340-642 airplanes).

(j) Corrective Action for Any Bogie Pivot Pin Found Corroded or Found
With Cracked Base Metal

    If, during the non-destructive test (magnetic particle
inspection) specified in paragraph (i) of this AD, the bogie pivot
pin is found corroded or the base metal is found cracked: Before
further flight, repair or replace the bogie pin with a new or
serviceable bogie pin, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of the applicable service bulletin specified paragraph
(j)(1), (j)(2), or (j)(3) of this AD.
    (1) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-32-3240, Revision 02,
including Appendices 01 and 02, dated December 2, 2011 (for Model
A330-200 series airplanes, Model A330-200 Freighter series
airplanes, and Model A330-300 series airplanes).
    (2) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-32-4281, Revision 01,
including Appendices 01 and 02, dated December 2, 2011 (for Model
A340-200 series airplanes and Model A340-300 series airplanes).
    (3) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-32-5096, Revision 01,
including Appendices 01 and 02, dated December 2, 2011 (for Model
A340-541 airplanes and Model A340-642 airplanes).

(k) No Terminating Action

    Accomplishment of the corrective actions required by paragraphs
(h) and (j) of this AD does not terminate the repetitive inspections
required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

(l) Reporting Requirement

    Submit a one-time report of the findings (both positive and
negative) of the inspections required by paragraphs (g) and (i) of
this AD to Airbus, Customer Services Directorate, 1 Rond Point
Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex France, ATTN: SDC32 Technical
Data and Documentation Services; fax (+33) 5 61 93 28 06; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>at the applicable time specified in
paragraph (l)(1) or (l)(2) of this AD. The report must include the
inspection results and a description of any discrepancies found.
    (1) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 90 days after the inspection.
    (2) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this
AD: Submit the report within 90 days after the effective date of
this AD.

(m) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraphs (g) through (j) of this AD, if those actions were
performed before the effective date of this AD using the service
information specified in paragraphs (m)(1) through (m)(4) of this
AD, which are not incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (1) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-32-3240, including
Appendix 1, dated December 8, 2010 (for Model A330-200 series
airplanes, Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes, and Model
A330-300 series airplanes).
    (2) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-32-3240, including
Appendix 1, Revision 01, dated May 4, 2011 (for Model A330-200
series airplanes, Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes, and
Model A330-300 series airplanes).
    (3) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-32-4281, including
Appendix 1, dated December 8, 2010 (for Airbus Model A340-200 series
airplanes and Model A340-300 series airplanes).
    (4) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-32-5096, including
Appendix 1, dated December 8, 2010 (for Model A340-541 airplanes and
Model A340-642 airplanes).

(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 ATTN: Vladimir
Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
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. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this
AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: 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

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness
Directive 2012-0053, dated March 30, 2012, and the service
information specified in paragraphs (o)(1) through (o)(3) of this
AD, for related information.
    (1) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-32-3240, Revision 02,
including Appendices 01 and 02, dated December 2, 2011.
    (2) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-32-4281, Revision 01,
including Appendices 01 and 02, dated December 2, 2011.
    (3) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-32-5096, Revision 01,
including Appendices 01 and 02, dated December 2, 2011.

(p) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Registe approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-32-3240, Revision 02,
including Appendices 01 and 02, dated December 2, 2011.
    (ii) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-32-4281, Revision
01, including Appendices 01 and 02, dated December 2, 2011.
    (iii) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-32-5096, Revision
01, including Appendices 01 and 02, dated December 2, 2011.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS--Airworthiness Office--EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.airbus.com.
    (4) You may review copies of the 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>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 28, 2013.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-08047 Filed 4-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 106 (Tuesday, June 2, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33571-33577]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09732]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2019-0541; FRL-10009-19-Region 9]

Clean Air Plans; 2008 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area
Requirements; Phoenix-Mesa, Arizona

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action on a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Arizona on behalf of the Maricopa Association of Governments
(MAG) to meet Clean Air Act (CAA or ``the Act'') requirements for the
2008 ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or
``standards'') in the Phoenix-Mesa (``Phoenix'') ozone nonattainment
area (NAA). The EPA is finalizing approval of the portions of the ``MAG
2017 Eight-Hour Ozone Moderate Area Plan for the Maricopa Nonattainment
Area (December 2016)'' (``MAG 2017 Ozone Plan'' or ``Plan'') that
address the requirements for emissions inventories, a demonstration of
attainment by the applicable attainment date, reasonably available
control measures (RACM), reasonable further progress (RFP), motor
vehicle emission budgets for transportation conformity, vehicle
inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs, new source review (NSR)
rules, and offsets. The EPA is finalizing a disapproval of the portion
of the MAG 2017 Ozone Plan that addresses the requirements for
contingency measures for failure to attain or to make RFP. However,
based on a separate finding that the Phoenix 2008 ozone NAA (``Phoenix
NAA'') attained the 2008 ozone standards by the applicable attainment
date, we previously determined that the requirement for the State to
submit a SIP revision addressing attainment contingency measures no
longer applies for the Phoenix NAA. We are also finalizing our
determination that the requirement for the State to submit a SIP
revision addressing RFP contingency measures no longer applies for the
Phoenix NAA. Finally, we are finalizing approval of the portions of a
SIP revision, the ``MAG 2014 Eight-Hour Ozone Plan--Submittal of
Marginal Area Requirements for the Maricopa Nonattainment Area (June
2014)'' (``MAG 2014 Ozone Plan''), on which we previously deferred
action.

DATES: This rule is effective on July 2, 2020.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2019-0541. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information 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 through https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for
additional availability information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Levin, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action

    On October 3, 2019, the EPA proposed action on a SIP revision
submitted by the State of Arizona on behalf of MAG to meet CAA
requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS \1\ in the Phoenix NAA.\2\ We
also proposed to approve the portions of a SIP revision, the MAG 2014
Ozone Plan, on which we previously deferred action. Our proposed action
contains more information on the MAG 2017 Ozone Plan, the MAG 2014
Ozone Plan, and our evaluation of these submittals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Since the 2008 primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone are
identical, for convenience, we refer to both as ``the 2008 ozone
NAAQS'' or ``the 2008 ozone standard.''
    \2\ 84 FR 52838.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this period, we received comments from two commenters: (1)
Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest (ACLPI) on behalf of
ACLPI, the Sierra Club-Grand Canyon Chapter, and their supporters and
members who live and work in the Phoenix metropolitan area; and (2) the
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). We summarize the
comments and provide our responses below. All the comments received are
included in the docket for this action.

Commenter #1--ACLPI

    Comment 1.a: The commenter asserted that MAG should do more to
combat worsening ozone pollution, particularly given the area's
economic expansion and population, but that in this Plan, MAG relied on
existing controls, tightening fuel standards, and fleet turnover, which
are not enough to achieve attainment. Specifically, ACLPI noted that
the Act and the 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule (SRR) require
implementation of RACM to achieve attainment as expeditiously as
practicable and to meet RFP requirements; and that ``[s]tates should
consider all available measures, including those being implemented in
other areas.'' The commenter stated that ``MAG did not incorporate any
new control measures in the Plan'' and that the Plan's reliance on
existing control measures, tighter fuel standards, and fleet turnover,
is ``clearly not enough to reach attainment in the Phoenix NAA.'' The
commenter also asserted that economic expansion and population growth
in the Phoenix area will continue to drive onroad and nonroad mobile
source emissions upwards, and that ``MAG and its member agencies should
lead the way in finding more effective and long-lasting solutions to
Phoenix's ozone pollution problem.''
    Response: We do not agree that the controls reflected in the Plan
are insufficient to achieve attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the
Phoenix NAA. For the reasons described in our proposal and in response
to ACLPI's other comments in this document, we find that the Plan
adequately demonstrates that the area will attain the 2008 Ozone NAAQS
by the attainment date and meets all other applicable requirements,
including RACM requirements. In particular, the Plan documents that the
State did consider whether additional measures

were reasonably available as part of its RACM analysis, but determined
that no new control measures were needed to attain the NAAQS or achieve
RFP in the Phoenix NAA at this time.\3\ As described in our proposal,
this analysis follows the approach outlined in the SRR, which provides
that states need only adopt those control measures that ``will advance
the attainment date or contribute to RFP for the area.'' \4\ ACLPI has
not provided any information or analysis that undermines our conclusion
that the MAG 2017 Ozone Plan meets this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Plan Chapter 4.
    \4\ 80 FR 12264, 12282 (March 6, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 1.b: ACLPI commented that the area exceeded the 2008 ozone
standard multiple days in 2015 through 2019, and that the design value
for the 2017 attainment year exceeded the 2008 ozone NAAQS when
``unsupported `exceptional events' exceedances on June 20, 2015 are
included in the calculation.'' The commenter also stated that, even
assuming these exceedances were properly excluded, the design value for
2018 was 77 parts per billion (ppb). On this basis, the commenter
asserted that ``any paper `attainment' of the 2008 standard in 2017 was
fleeting and not the result of permanent emission reductions.''
Finally, the commenter stated that 2018 monitoring data indicate that
ozone concentrations have increased since 2016 and that the Phoenix
metropolitan area is ranked 7th on the American Lung Association's list
of the most ozone-polluted cities in the U.S.
    Response: Under the CAA, a determination of whether an area has
attained by the attainment date is a separate action from the review of
an attainment demonstration in a SIP revision. The EPA's review of the
SIP revision occurs under CAA section 110(k), while a determination of
whether an area has failed to attain is governed by CAA section
181(b)(2). Under section 181(b)(2), the EPA must determine whether an
ozone NAA has attained the applicable NAAQS ``[w]ithin 6 months
following the applicable attainment date (including any extension
thereof).'' In this instance, the EPA has already undertaken a separate
final action to determine, pursuant to section 181(b)(2), that the
Phoenix NAA attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the ``Moderate'' area
attainment date, based on 2015-2017 monitoring data.\5\ That separate
action was based, in part, on our prior concurrence with ADEQ's
demonstration that, based on the weight of evidence, the ozone
exceedances that occurred on June 20, 2015, were caused by wildfire
ozone exceptional events.\6\ These separate actions are beyond the
scope of this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 84 FR 60920 (November 12, 2019).
    \6\ Letter dated May 7, 2019, from Elizabeth J. Adams, Director,
Air Division, EPA Region IX, to Timothy S. Franquist, Director, Air
Quality Division, ADEQ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We do not consider the exceedances of the 2008 ozone standard in
2018 and 2019, years after the area's applicable attainment date, to be
relevant to the approvability of the State's demonstration that this
area would attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the attainment date, as
discussed in our response to comment 1.d.
    Comment 1.c: ACLPI stated that the EPA's approval of the Plan
``would defer or significantly delay taking meaningful actions to
protect . . . vulnerable residents, contravening the Act's express
policy that `protection of public health is the highest priority' ''
(quoting CAA section 319(b)(3)(A)).
    The commenter further asserted that MAG and its member agencies
should act now to ``promote and implement clean mobility measures,''
such as converting all or part of government fleets to zero-emission
vehicles and offering tax incentives and rebate programs to residents
who purchase electric vehicles, to bring the Phoenix area into
compliance with ozone standards ``with an adequate margin of safety and
to ensure that such compliance is maintained.'' In addition, the
commenter argued that ``MAG should do more to control ozone precursor
emissions from gas-powered lawn equipment.'' Finally, citing MAG's RACM
analysis in Chapter 4 of the Plan, the commenter argued that MAG should
evaluate additional control measures from the EPA's menu of control
measures and measures adopted by the Sacramento Metropolitan Air
Quality Management District, at least as contingency measures.
    Response: Our approval is based on our finding that the Plan meets
all of the applicable requirements of the Act, as described in our
proposal and in this document. Under CAA section 110(k)(3), the EPA is
required to approve any SIP submittal that meets all such requirements.
The EPA cannot require states to adopt measures that are more stringent
than necessary to meet CAA requirements. While we encourage ADEQ, MAG,
and Maricopa and Pinal Counties to consider adopting the measures
suggested by the commenter, we have determined that these measures are
not necessary to provide for attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the
Phoenix NAA by the attainment date or to meet RFP requirements, and are
therefore not needed to meet RACM requirements. As noted in our
response to comment 1.b, the EPA has determined, pursuant to section
181(b)(2), that the Phoenix NAA attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the
``Moderate'' area attainment date. In addition, for the reasons
described in our response to comment 1.f, we find that RFP contingency
measures are not required for the Phoenix NAA at this time. Therefore,
ADEQ, MAG, and the counties are not required to adopt any additional
control measures for purposes of the MAG 2017 Ozone Plan.
    Furthermore, the commenter's reliance on CAA section 319(b)(3)(A)
is misplaced. This provision establishes five principles that the EPA
must follow in developing implementing regulations for exceptional
events, including that ``protection of public health is the highest
priority.'' \7\ As noted in our response to comment 1.b, we previously
concurred with ADEQ's demonstration that, based on the weight of
evidence, the ozone exceedances that occurred on June 20, 2015, were
caused by wildfire ozone exceptional events.\8\ This was done through a
separate Agency action and is beyond the scope of this final rule.
Requirements for exceptional events demonstrations are not directly
relevant to the EPA's action on an attainment plan pursuant to CAA
section 110(k)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ CAA section 319(b)(3)(A)(i).
    \8\ Letter dated May 7, 2019, from Elizabeth J. Adams, Director,
Air Division, EPA Region IX, to Timothy S. Franquist, Director, Air
Quality Division, ADEQ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 1.d: ACLPI asserted that ``the EPA should disapprove the
Plan's attainment demonstration because it does not demonstrate that
the Phoenix NAA attained the 2008 standard by the July 20, 2018
attainment date or made RFP goals.'' The commenter stated that MAG
erred in omitting ozone exceedances that occurred on June 20, 2015,
from the 2015-2017 design value calculation. The commenter also argued
that the ``EPA cannot simply ignore the fact that monitors in the
Phoenix NAA have continued to record numerous violations of the 2008
ozone standard in 2018 and 2019, or that the 8-hour ozone design value
for the Phoenix NAA in 2018 was 77 ppb.''
    Response: We do not agree with the commenter's argument that the
EPA should disapprove the attainment demonstration because it did not
demonstrate that the area factually attained or achieved RFP, or with
the commenter's assertions concerning

exceptional events and the consideration of monitoring data collected
after the Moderate attainment date.
    MAG has satisfied the legal and regulatory criteria for attainment
demonstrations. Contrary to the commenter's suggestion, the CAA does
not require an attainment demonstration to show that an area has
attained the NAAQS based on monitored values, or that it has achieved
emissions reductions corresponding to RFP. Such demonstrations would
not be practical, given that attainment demonstrations are generally
required to be submitted to the EPA well before the milestone and
attainment dates.\9\ Rather, the CAA requires states to submit SIP
revisions that ``provide for attainment'' of the NAAQS by the
attainment date and ``require'' RFP.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See, e.g., CAA section 181(a)(1) (setting the attainment
date for Moderate areas of 6 years after November 15, 1990); and
182(b)(1)(A) (requiring submittal of attainment demonstration for
Moderate areas 3 years after November 15, 1990 and setting RFP
milestone date of 6 years after November 15, 1990).
    \10\ CAA sections 172(c)(1), (2), and (6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address the requirements to provide for attainment and submit an
attainment demonstration, the MAG 2017 Ozone Plan includes an
attainment demonstration using air quality modeling that shows that
existing control measures are sufficient for the Phoenix area to attain
the 2008 ozone standard by 2017. In particular, to predict future ozone
levels, the modeled attainment demonstration uses a baseline design
value derived from historical monitoring data, historical
meteorological data from the baseline period, emissions inventories
representing the baseline design value period, and modeled reductions
in emissions based on SIP control measures. The modeled attainment
demonstration is intended to assess whether SIP controls are adequate
to reduce ambient ozone to a level at or below the NAAQS by the
attainment date.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 40 CFR 51.1108(c)(attainment demonstration must be ``based
on photochemical grid modeling or any other analytical method
determined . . . to be at least as effective.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The modeled attainment demonstration showed that the emissions
reductions would provide for attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the
attainment date. As a separate matter, as described in our response to
comment 1.b, the monitoring data for 2015-2017 show attainment, and the
EPA has already determined in a prior final Agency action that the area
attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the attainment date based on these
data.\12\ Data from 2018 and preliminary data from 2019 for the area do
not alter our assessment of the modeled attainment demonstration for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. However, we note that the Phoenix area is
currently designated and classified as a ``Marginal'' NAA for the 2015
ozone NAAQS and has a maximum attainment date of August 3, 2021.\13\
The EPA will consider the monitoring data from 2018 through 2020 to
determine whether the area attained the 2015 ozone NAAQS by the
attainment deadline.\14\ If these data show that the area has not
attained, the area would be reclassified to a Moderate NAA for the 2015
ozone NAAQS, and the State would be required to submit a new attainment
plan that addresses the Moderate area requirements for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS.\15\ Therefore, while the 2018-2019 monitoring data for the
Phoenix NAA are not pertinent to our action on the 2017 MAG Ozone Plan,
these data will be relevant to our determination of whether the area
has attained the 2015 ozone standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 84 FR 60920.
    \13\ 40 CFR 81.303, 51.1303(b).
    \14\ The 2015 ozone primary and secondary NAAQS are 0.070 parts
per million (ppm), while 2008 NAAQS are 0.075 ppm. Both are based on
a three-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-
hour average ozone concentrations. Accordingly, exceedances of the
2008 NAAQS are also exceedances of the 2015 NAAQS.
    \15\ CAA section 181(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 1.e: The commenter argued that approval of the attainment
demonstration would be ``problematic, given the weaknesses of MAG's
modeling'' that the EPA identified in the proposed rule.
    Response: We do not agree that the ``weaknesses'' identified in our
proposal concerning meteorological inputs and model performance are
obstacles to approving the attainment demonstration in the MAG 2017
Ozone Plan. As an initial matter, it is important to note that the
EPA's ``Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality
Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze'' (``Modeling
Guidance'') states, ``[b]y definition, models are simplistic
approximations of complex phenomena'' and ``all models have strengths
and weaknesses.'' \16\ Accordingly, the Modeling Guidance recommends
conducting evaluations of both meteorological inputs and air quality
model performance to evaluate the reliability of the modeling results.
These are important aspects of the attainment demonstration. However,
the Modeling Guidance recommendations are not regulatory requirements,
and there are no recommended pass/fail thresholds for any particular
evaluation metric. The guidance recommendations are generally
applicable to evaluating model performance, but there are no specific
requirements that are applicable or must be met in all cases. The
particular analyses used may vary on a case-by-case basis, depending on
the availability of modeled and observational data (both meteorological
and air quality data).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ ``Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating Attainment of Air
Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze'',
November 2018, EPA 454/R-18-009 (``Modeling Guidance''), 169, 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In evaluating the meteorological inputs to the modeling, MAG
followed the recommendations of the Modeling Guidance by conducting an
``operational evaluation'' focusing on ``the values and distributions
of specific meteorological parameters as paired with and compared to
observed data.'' \17\ Specifically, MAG used a series of statistical
metrics to compare wind speed, wind direction, temperature, and water
vapor mixing ratio values from the model to observations from weather
stations in the NAA. As described in our proposal, temperature and
water vapor mixing ratios showed good agreement with observations, with
little bias. The modeled wind speed showed an overestimate at low wind
speeds and an underestimate at high wind speed. Modeled wind direction
showed poorer performance for wind directions from the south-east. MAG
asserted that modeling wind speed and direction in Phoenix is difficult
due to the complex terrain in the area, but that results are comparable
to the benchmarks described in the Modeling Guidance.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Modeling Guidance, 33.
    \18\ 84 FR 52838, 52844.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Modeling Guidance explains that these benchmarks are to be
``used as a means of assessing general confidence in the meteorological
model data'' rather than as ``as a `pass/fail' indicator of the
acceptability of a model simulation.'' \19\ The fact the metrological
parameters used in MAG's modeling are comparable to these benchmarks,
despite the challenges presented by the complex terrain of the area,
supports a conclusion that the meteorological inputs used by MAG
``represent a reasonable approximation of the actual meteorology that
occurred during the modeling period.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Modeling Guidance, 33.
    \20\ Id. at 32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to an operational evaluation of meteorological inputs
based on statistical comparisons, the Modeling Guidance also recommends
that states conduct a phenomenological

evaluation (i.e., a qualitative comparison of observed features versus
their depiction in the model data). As noted in our proposal, while the
inclusion of such an analysis ``would have provided additional
confidence, the model adequately simulates the temporal and spatial
variability in ozone concentrations across the area, suggesting the
model captures the meteorological phenomena that are important for
ozone formation in the Phoenix area.'' \21\ Therefore, we find that the
absence of a phenomenological evaluation of meteorological data does
not undermine the overall adequacy of the modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 84 FR 52838, 52844.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Concerning air quality model performance evaluation, the EPA's
``Guideline on Air Quality Models'' explains that, ``[t]here are no
specific levels of any model performance metric that indicate
`acceptable' model performance.'' \22\ Thus, ``[t]he EPA recommends
that air agencies conduct a variety of performance tests and weigh them
qualitatively to assess model performance.'' \23\ Specifically, as part
of an operational evaluation, the EPA recommends evaluating the
following statistical metrics: mean observed, mean model, mean bias,
mean error and/or root mean square error, normalized mean bias and/or
fractional bias, normalized mean error and/or fractional error, and the
correlation coefficient.\24\ In this case, as part of its air quality
model evaluation, MAG evaluated each of the recommended (except for the
correlation coefficient, for which it substituted the related
``coefficient of determination'') to evaluate ozone model
performance.\25\ Figures IV-5 through IV-10 of the Modeling technical
support document provide time-series plots, scatter plots, spatial maps
of mean error and bias, and box plots comparing model performance with
previous studies. As described in the proposal, these analyses show
that, although there were ``a few periods where peak ozone
concentrations were underpredicted in July and overpredicted in August,
MAG modeling statistics are within or close to the distribution of
other published modeling studies.'' \26\ Accordingly, we concluded
that, ``[o]verall, the operational evaluation shows good model
performance.'' \27\ As we further noted in our proposal, the ``addition
of some dynamic and diagnostic evaluations as described in the Modeling
Guidance would have provided additional confidence.'' \28\ However, the
Modeling Guidance also explains that, ``[g]iven that air agencies might
have limited resources and time to perform diagnostic and dynamic
evaluation, the use of these methods may be limited in scope in a
typical regulatory modeling application.'' \29\ Accordingly, we do not
consider the omission of such dynamic and diagnostic evaluations to
undercut the adequacy of the modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ ``Guideline on Air Quality Models,'' 40 CFR part 51,
appendix W, section 5.2.d.
    \23\ Modeling Guidance, 69.
    \24\ Id. at 70-72.
    \25\ MAG 2017 Ozone Plan, Appendix B, Exhibit 1, (``Modeling
Technical Support Document'' or ``Modeling TSD''), section IV.
    \26\ 84 FR 52838, 52844.
    \27\ Id.
    \28\ Id.
    \29\ Modeling Guidance, 68.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, the meteorological inputs were reasonable, and the Plan
demonstrated good air quality model performance. Furthermore, in
addition to the modeling demonstration, the Plan also contains a
comprehensive ``weight of evidence'' analysis, consisting of several
supplemental analyses that further support the modeled attainment
demonstration.\30\ These include ozone air quality trends and precursor
emission trends, both of which show continued progress and support the
conclusion that the attainment demonstration is sound. Other analyses
include: an evaluation of the sensitivity of the model to oxides of
nitrogen (NOX) and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions
reductions; a comparison to the EPA's modeling for the Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule, which projects the area will be in attainment in 2017;
a process analysis using the VOC:NOX ratio as a
photochemical indicator; and an examination of weekday versus weekend
effects. These analyses provide assurance that the model is adequately
simulating the physical and chemical processes leading to ozone in the
atmosphere and that the model responds in a scientifically reasonable
way to emissions changes. Therefore, we do not agree with the commenter
that we should disapprove the attainment demonstration in the MAG 2017
Ozone Plan based on the modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 84 FR 52838, 52845.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 1.f: The commenter supported the EPA's proposal to
disapprove the contingency measure element of the Plan based on Bahr v.
EPA,\31\ but argued that there is no statutory basis for ``excusing''
MAG from including contingency measures in the Plan. The commenter
stated that CAA section 172(e) ``expressly prevents EPA from loosening
controls applicable to a nonattainment area when a NAAQS is relaxed,''
and the EPA applies the same concept ``where the NAAQS is made more
stringent.'' Citing South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA
(``South Coast''),\32\ the commenter noted that contingency measures
are ``controls'' because they are ``designed to constrain ozone
pollution.'' Citing South Coast, the commenter argued that MAG cannot
withdraw its contingency measures because ``withdrawing measures from a
SIP would also constitute impermissible backsliding.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 836 F.3d 1218, 1235-1237 (9th Cir. 2016).
    \32\ 472 F.3d 882, 900-902 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: The commenter's reliance on CAA section 172(e) is
misplaced. This provision applies if the EPA relaxes a NAAQS and
requires the EPA to promulgate ``requirements applicable to all areas
which have not attained that standard as of the date of such
relaxation.'' \33\ The commenter alleges that this provision would
preclude our determination that a SIP revision providing for
contingency measures for the Phoenix NAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS is no
longer required. The promulgation of the 2008 ozone NAAQS was a
strengthening from the prior 1997 ozone NAAQS. Accordingly, CAA section
172(e) is not directly applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 42 U.S.C. 7502.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter further discusses, but mischaracterizes, the EPA's
past actions invoking the principles of section 172(e) when revoking an
ozone standard. The commenter wrongly suggests that the EPA has applied
section 172(e) in cases where the Agency strengthens the NAAQS; this is
not true. The EPA has looked to the principles of section 172(e) to
develop anti-backsliding regulations when the EPA has revoked ozone
standards in order to ensure air quality protections are preserved
during the transition to a more protective NAAQS.\34\ The EPA has not
taken any action to revoke the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015) (revoking the 1997 ozone
NAAQS); 69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004) (revoking the 1979 1-hour ozone
NAAQS).
    \35\ 83 FR 62998 (December 6, 2018) (``The EPA is not taking any
final action regarding our proposed approach for revoking a prior
ozone NAAQS and establishing anti-backsliding requirements; the
agency intends to address any revocation of the 2008 ozone NAAQS and
any potential anti-backsliding requirements in a separate future
rulemaking.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The relevant provision of the CAA, section 172(c)(9), requires
nonattainment plans to ``provide for the implementation of specific
measures to be undertaken if the area fails to make [RFP], or to attain
the [NAAQS] by the attainment date applicable under this part.'' Thus,
contingency measures are required for two purposes: attainment

contingency measures and RFP contingency measures. On November 12,
2019, the EPA took final action to determine that the Phoenix NAA
attained the Moderate area 2008 ozone NAAQS by the attainment date, and
Arizona was no longer required to provide a SIP submission that
includes attainment contingency measures for the 2008 NAAQS for the
Phoenix NAA because attainment contingency measures for this NAAQS
would never be required to be implemented.\36\ With regard to the RFP
contingency measure requirement, we proposed, in conjunction with our
proposal on the MAG 2017 Ozone Plan, to find that the RFP contingency
measure requirement would also no longer apply to the Phoenix NAA for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\37\ We explained that the EPA's long-standing
interpretation is that RFP contingency measures for Moderate areas
would be triggered only by a finding that the area failed to attain the
standard by the Moderate area attainment date.\38\ Because we have
determined that the area has attained the standard by the attainment
date, the RFP contingency measures have not, and will not, be
triggered. Thus, we have determined that a SIP revision addressing RFP
contingency measures is no longer needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 84 FR 60920.
    \37\ 84 FR 52838, 52847.
    \38\ Id. (citing 57 FR 13498, 13511 (April 16, 1992) and
Memorandum dated March 11, 1993, from G.T. Helms, Chief Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, to Air Branch Chief, Regions I-X).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 1.g: The commenter noted that section 107(d)(3)(E)(v)
prohibits the EPA from redesignating a NAA to attainment unless ``the
State . . . has met all requirements applicable to this area'' under
section 110 and part D of the CAA, including contingency measures under
section 172(c)(9). The commenter also quoted CAA section 110(l), which
prohibits the EPA from approving a SIP revision that would interfere
with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and RFP or any
other applicable requirement of the CAA.
    Response: None of the provisions cited by the commenter are
relevant either to our disapproval of the contingency measures for the
Phoenix NAA or to our determination that a SIP revision addressing
contingency measures is no longer required for the Phoenix NAA. CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) applies when the EPA is redesignating an area
from nonattainment to attainment. ADEQ has not submitted a
redesignation request for the Phoenix NAA, and we have not proposed to
redesignate the area. Therefore, CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) does not
apply to this action.
    CAA section 110(l) prohibits the EPA from approving a SIP revision
that would interfere with any applicable requirement of the CAA.
Because we are disapproving the contingency measure element of the
Plan, this requirement does not apply to our action on the contingency
measure portion of the Plan. To the extent the commenter is suggesting
that our approval of the remainder of the 2017 MAG Ozone Plan would
interfere with any applicable requirement of the CAA, we do not agree.
First, in this action, the EPA is not approving the removal of any
existing provisions in the approved Arizona SIP, and thus there is no
concern that our approval action would interfere with any applicable
CAA requirement. Second, to the extent that the commenter is concerned
that the EPA's approval of the nonattainment plan without contingency
measures contravenes the requirements of the CAA to include such
measures, the EPA has determined that such measures are not in fact
required for this area for this NAAQS for the reasons described in our
response to comment 1.f in this action. Section 110(l) prohibits the
EPA's approval of a SIP revision if it would interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further
progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Given that
attainment contingency measures and RFP contingency measures are no
longer applicable requirements, following the EPA's final action to
determine the area attained by the attainment date, the EPA's approval
of the remainder of the SIP submission is consistent with CAA section
110(l). For the reasons discussed in our proposal and in this document,
we find that the Plan meets all applicable CAA requirements. Therefore,
our approval of the other elements of the Plan complies with CAA
section 110(l).
    Comment 1.h: The commenter stated that there was no merit to the
EPA's argument that based on the ``milestone'' requirement for ozone
NAAs classified as ``Serious'' or higher, the RFP contingency measures
are no longer required. In particular, citing South Coast, the
commenter asserted that ``[t]his provision demonstrates that when
Congress intended to exempt nonattainment areas from statutory
requirements, it did so expressly.'' The commenter concluded that the
EPA must disapprove the contingency measure element of the Plan and
require the adoption of additional contingency measures consistent with
Bahr.
    Response: In our proposal, we explained that under CAA section
182(g), ozone nonattainment areas classified Serious or higher are
required to meet RFP emissions reduction milestones and to demonstrate
compliance with those milestones, except when the milestone coincides
with the attainment date and the standard has been attained. We noted
that this specific statutory exemption from milestone compliance
demonstration submittals for areas that attained by the attainment date
indicates that Congress intended that a finding that an area attained
the standard--the finding made in a determination of attainment by the
attainment date--would serve as a demonstration that RFP requirements
for the area have been met. Therefore, a finding that a Serious or
above area has attained the NAAQS by the attainment date would also
indicate that RFP contingency measures could not be triggered and are
therefore no longer necessary.
    The commenter points to the absence of a similar exemption (i.e.,
an exemption from RFP milestone compliance demonstration submittals
when the milestone coincides with the attainment date and the standard
has been attained) for Moderate areas. The commenter appears to be
arguing that this omission indicates that Congress intended to subject
Moderate areas to the requirement for RFP contingency measures, even if
they attained the NAAQS by the attainment date. Contrary to the
commenter's suggestion, however, Congress expressly exempted Moderate
areas from all RFP milestone compliance demonstration submittals.\39\
Accordingly, unlike for Serious and above areas, Congress did not need
to provide a specific exemption for a milestone coinciding with the
attainment date for Moderate areas. The overall statutory exemption
from requirements for RFP milestone compliance demonstration submittals
in Moderate areas supports the EPA's interpretation that RFP
contingency measures in Moderate ozone NAAs can be triggered only by a
finding that the area has failed to attain the standard by the
attainment date.\40\ Therefore, while

we are disapproving the contingency measure element of the Plan, we are
also determining that Arizona is no longer required to submit a SIP
revision including contingency measures for the Phoenix NAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ CAA section 182(g)(1) (``6 years after November 15, 1990,
and at intervals of every 3 years thereafter, the State shall
determine whether each nonattainment area (other than an area
classified as Marginal or Moderate)'' has achieved the applicable
milestone).
    \40\ As noted in our proposal, ``a determination of attainment
by the attainment date for a Moderate area serves as demonstration
that RFP requirements for the area have been met and that RFP
contingency measures are no longer needed. Thus, the EPA concludes
that RFP contingency measures for Moderate areas are no longer
needed if the area has attained the relevant NAAQS.'' 84 FR 52847.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter #2--ADEQ

    Comment: ADEQ expressed support for the EPA's proposed action,
including disapproval of the contingency measure requirements, provided
the EPA finalizes its determination that the Phoenix NAA attained the
2008 ozone standard by the attainment date.
    Response: The EPA finalized its determination that the Phoenix NAA
attained the 2008 ozone standard by the applicable attainment date on
November 12, 2019.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 84 FR 60920.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Final Action

    No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the
determinations as described in our proposed action. Therefore, for the
reasons discussed in the preceding sections and in our proposed rule,
under CAA section 110(k)(3), the EPA is finalizing approval as a
revision to the Arizona SIP the following portions of the ``MAG 2017
Eight-Hour Ozone Moderate Area Plan for the Maricopa Nonattainment
Area,'' submitted by ADEQ on December 19, 2016:
     Base year and periodic emission inventories as meeting the
requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(3), 182(a)(1), and 182(a)(3)(A) and
40 CFR 51.1115(a) and (b);
     RACM demonstration and control strategy as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(1) and 172(c)(6) and 40 CFR
51.1112(c);
     Attainment demonstration as meeting the requirements of
CAA section 182(b)(1)(A)(i) and 40 CFR 51.112 and 51.1108(c);
     Rate of progress plan and RFP demonstration as meeting the
requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(2) and 182(b)(1) and 40 CFR
51.1110(a)(3)(i);
     Motor vehicle emissions budgets for the 2017 attainment
year because they are consistent with the RFP demonstration and the
attainment demonstration approved herein and meet the other criteria in
40 CFR 93.118(e);
     Vehicle I/M provisions as meeting the requirements of 40
CFR part 51, subpart S;
     NSR discussion as demonstrating that the requirements of
CAA sections 173 and 182(a)(2)(C) have been met; and
     Offset discussion as demonstrating that the requirements
of CAA sections 173 and 182(b)(5) have been met.
    The EPA is finalizing disapproval of the contingency measure
element of the MAG 2017 Ozone Plan for failing to meet the requirements
of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9). However, based on our November
12, 2019 finding of attainment by the applicable attainment date,\42\
we are also finalizing our determination that Arizona is no longer
required to submit a SIP revision addressing the contingency measures
requirement for failure to meet RFP for the Phoenix 2008 ozone NAA.
Therefore, our disapproval does not trigger sanctions or FIP clocks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, we are finalizing approval of the NSR and offset elements
of the MAG 2014 Ozone Plan as meeting the Marginal area requirements of
CAA section 182(a)(2)(C) and CAA sections 173 and 182(b)(5),
respectively, for the Phoenix 2008 ozone NAA.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about the following statutes and Executive
orders can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Executive Order 13711: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

    This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action
because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA because this action does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities beyond those
imposed by state law.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This action does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, no additional costs to
state, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, will
result from this action.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will 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.

G. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175, because the SIP is not approved to apply on any
Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian
tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA
believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section
12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be
inconsistent with the CAA.

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population

    The EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this rulemaking.

L.Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

M. 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 August 3, 2020. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: May 1, 2020.
John Busterud,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart D--Arizona

0
2. Section 52.120 is amended in table 1 in paragraph (e), under the
heading ``Part D Elements and Plans for the Metropolitan Phoenix and
Tucson Areas,'' by adding entries for ``MAG 2017 Eight-Hour Ozone
Moderate Area Plan for the Maricopa Nonattainment Area (December
2016)'' and ``MAG 2014 Eight-Hour Ozone Plan--Submittal of Marginal
Area Requirements for the Maricopa Nonattainment Area (June 2014),
Sections titled ``A Nonattainment Area Preconstruction Permit Program--
CAA section 182(a)(2)(C),'' ``New Source Review--CAA, Title I, Part
D,'' and ``Offset Requirements: 1:1 to 1 (Ratio of Total Emission
Reductions of Volatile Organic Compounds to Total Increased
Emissions)--CAA Section 182(a)(4)'' on pages 8 and 9'' after the entry
for ``Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Analysis, Negative
Declaration and Rules Adoption'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.120  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                       Table 1--EPA-Approved Non-Regulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
       [Excluding certain resolutions and statutes, which are listed in tables 2 and 3, respectively] \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Applicable
                                   geographic or
     Name of SIP provision         nonattainment     State submittal date   EPA approval date     Explanation
                                   area or title/
                                      subject
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         The State of Arizona Air Pollution Control Implementation Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Part D Elements and Plans for the Metropolitan Phoenix and Tucson Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
MAG 2017 Eight-Hour Ozone        Phoenix-Mesa 2008  December 19, 2016.....  [Insert Federal    Adopted by the
 Moderate Area Plan for the       8-hour ozone                               Register           Arizona
 Maricopa Nonattainment Area      nonattainment                              Citation], June    Department of
 (December 2016).                 area.                                      2, 2020.           Environmental
                                                                                Quality on
                                                                                December 13,
                                                                                2016.
MAG 2014 Eight-Hour Ozone Plan-- Phoenix-Mesa 2008  July 2, 2014..........  [Insert Federal    Other provisions
 Submittal of Marginal Area       8-hour ozone                               Register           of the MAG 2014
 Requirements for the Maricopa    nonattainment                              Citation], June    Eight-Hour Ozone
 Nonattainment Area (June         area.                                      2, 2020.           Plan--Submittal
 2014), Sections titled ``A                                                                     of Marginal Area
 Nonattainment Area                                                                             Requirements for
 Preconstruction Permit                                                                         the Maricopa
 Program--CAA section                                                                           Nonattainment
 182(a)(2)(C),'' ``New Source                                                                   Area (June 2014)
 Review--CAA, Title I, Part                                                                     were approved on
 D,'' and ``Offset                                                                              October 16,
 Requirements: 1:1 to 1 (Ratio                                                                  2015.
 of Total Emission Reductions
 of Volatile Organic Compounds
 to Total Increased Emissions)--
 CAA Section 182(a)(4)'' on
 pages 8 and 9.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Table 1 is divided into three parts: Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2) State Implementation Plan Elements
  (excluding Part D Elements and Plans), Part D Elements and Plans (other than for the Metropolitan Phoenix or
  Tucson Areas), and Part D Elements and Plans for the Metropolitan Phoenix and Tucson Areas.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2020-09732 Filed 6-1-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P