[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 124 (Thursday, June 27, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38800-38801]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15470]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0166; Notice 2]

Panda Power LLC, Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Denial of Petition.

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

SUMMARY: Panda Power LLC (Panda Power) \1\, has determined that High
Intensity Discharge (HID) lighting kits \2\ that it imported and sold
during 2007, 2008 and 2009 failed to meet the requirements of paragraph
S7.7 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps,
Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Panda Power has filed an
appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports, dated February 10, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Panda Power, LLC (Panda Power) is organized under the laws
of the State of Arizona and is the importer of the subject
nonconforming replacement equipment. Panda Power sold the
nonconforming replacement equipment while doing business under the
name Mobile HID.
    \2\ Panda Power's high-intensity lighting (HID) kits each
contained 2 light sources, 2 ballasts and a wiring harness with
relay and fuse).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and the rule
implementing those provisions at 49 CFR Part 556, Panda Power has
petitioned for an exemption from the notification and remedy
requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Notice of
receipt of the petition was published, with a 30-day public comment
period, on December 21, 2010 in the Federal Register (75 FR 80110).
Comments were received from Daniel Stern Lighting Consultancy and
Michael F. Turpen. To view the petition, all supporting documents, and
the comments, log onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web
site at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online search
instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2010-0166.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on this
decision, contact Mr. Michael Cole, Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Lighting Kits Involved: Affected are approximately 1,851 headlamp
kits that Panda Power sold during 2007, 2008 and 2009. All of the
affected HID headlamp kits were manufactured by Guangzhou Kingwoodcar
Company, LTD, Guangzhou City, China.
    Summary of Panda Power's Analyses: Panda Power did not describe the
noncompliances in detail, instead it deferred to the agency's concern
that the subject HID headlamp kits may not comply with one or more of
the regulations enforced by the agency. This concern was described as
an apparent noncompliance in a letter NHTSA sent to Panda Power dated
September 2, 2009. The letter was sent to Panda Power as part of a
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Office of
Vehicle Safety Compliance Office Activity.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Office Activity Number: OA-108-090606G.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In their petition, Panda Power argues that the noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for the following reasons: (1)
The HID headlamp kits were originally intended for sale to the
agricultural community to be placed on tractors and combines, for off-
road vehicles, and for exhibition purposes; (2) the HID bulbs that were
sold with the kits in 2007 and 2008 are likely burned out by now and no
longer functioning; and (3) Panda Power no longer sells the HID
headlamp kits.
    Supported by the above stated reasons, Panda Power believes that
although the HID headlamp kits do not meet the required dimensional and
electrical specifications of FMVSS No. 108, the noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and that its petition, to
exempt it from providing recall notification of noncompliance as
required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall noncompliance as
required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.

Discussion
Requirement Background
    Paragraph S7.7 of FMVSS No. 108 requires in pertinent part:

S7.7 Replaceable light sources. Each replaceable light source shall
be designed to conform to the dimensions and electrical
specifications furnished with respect to it pursuant to part 564 of
this chapter, and shall conform to the following requirements: (See
a,b,c,d,e, and f)

    A new motor vehicle must have a headlighting system that includes
upper beams and lower beams. Among other things, the headlamps must
provide light within a specified range of intensity in certain areas,
and not provide light above specified levels in other areas. In
general, vehicle manufacturers use one of a number of standard
replaceable light sources to achieve the regulatory requirements,
although alternatively they may devise or arrange for development of a
new light source for a new vehicle. For each of these types of light
sources, the dimensions and electrical specifications are furnished to
NHTSA under 49 CFR Part 564. The vehicle manufacturer certifies that
the vehicle with a particular light source meets FMVSSs, including
FMVSS No. 108.
    Each headlamp and item of associated equipment (such as a light
source commonly referred to as a headlamp bulb) manufactured to replace
any lamp or item of associated equipment must be designed to conform to
FMVSS No. 108. Each replaceable light source must be designed to
conform to the dimensions and electrical specifications furnished with
respect to it pursuant to 49 CFR Part 564. In addition, NHTSA's
regulations require that the base of the replaceable light source be
marked with the bulb marking designation, that the replaceable light
source meet lighting performance requirements and, if a ballast is
required, additional requirements must be met.
    Headlamp replaceable light sources have standard designations.
NHTSA's regulations use terms for the various types of headlamp bulbs,
such as HB1

and HB2. (Bulb manufacturers tend to use corresponding ANSI trade
numbers such as 9004, as well). Each type of replaceable light source
is unique in dimensional and electrical design so as not to be
interchangeable with another type of replaceable light source. Every
replaceable light source must be designed to conform to the marking,
dimensional, and electrical specifications applicable to the type of
replaceable light source that it replaces. For instance, the
replacement light source must have the same (within a tolerance)
luminous flux (a measure of light output) as the light source it
replaces. When the light source is mounted in a headlamp for that type
of light source, the lamp must discharge light in specified directions
and intensity levels, to satisfy the same requirements of the standard.
If it were otherwise, among other things, the wrong light sources could
be placed in headlamps and the light output would be incorrect or
improper.
    NHTSA'S Analyses: Panda Power argues that the noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, primarily, because the kits
were originally intended for sale to the agricultural community and to
be placed on tractors and combines, or for off-road vehicles, or for
exhibition purposes. NHTSA reviewed the Office Activity file for the
original investigation with Panda Power. Excerpts from Panda Powers Web
site, dated June 24, 2009, clearly indicate that these items are
intended for motor vehicle headlamps. The site displays pictures of
numerous passenger cars (e.g., Mercedes Benz, Lexus, Toyota, and
Mitsubishi), references other motor vehicles (e.g., BMW), provides a
link to Sylvania's replacement bulb guide for motor vehicles, and
provides pictures of beam patterns as seen on roadways. It also
provides troubleshooting tips for installations on motor vehicles
containing daytime running lamps and how to stop lamp flicker when
hitting bumps in the road. Because of this information, we find that
Panda Powers claim that they sold these items for non-road use to be
disingenuous.
    Panda Power further states that its products are likely no longer
functioning. Regardless of the quality of Panda Power's products, the
Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires that manufacturers (defined to
include importers) of noncompliant equipment must notify purchasers of
the noncompliance (pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30119) and provide a free
remedy (pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30120). If a free remedy cannot be
provided then repurchase should be initiated in a reasonable time
frame.
    Panda Power also argues that because it stopped selling the HID
conversion kits, it should not be required to conduct a recall and
remedy campaign. Among other things, 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) prohibits the
importation and sale of noncompliant equipment and Panda Power is
compelled to discontinue this practice to prevent further violations of
49 U.S.C. 30112(a), and not as a waiver from the recall and remedy
requirements. NHTSA'S Response to Comments: NHTSA received comments
from two parties. Both of these parties recommend denying Panda Power's
petition.
    Daniel J. Stern of the Daniel Stern Lighting Consultancy provided a
substantive, practical, and technical argument regarding the effects on
headlamp performance when replacing standardized headlamp replaceable
light sources with HID conversion kits. Mr. Stern stated that
installing HID light sources into headlamps that were designed to
accept tungsten-halogen light sources would create an enormous increase
in glare light directed towards other road users, and reduce the
driver's distance visual acuity due to increased foreground
illumination. Mr. Stern also stated that the noncompliance created by
Panda Power's HID kits appear to be systemic, pervasive, and
substantial, creating a significant safety risk to the motoring public.
    Michael F. Turpen, a private citizen, examined archives of Panda
Power's Web site using www.waybackmachine.org (a Web site maintained by
the Internet Archive, a 501(3)(c) non-profit corporation). He
referenced archived pages of Panda Power's Web site that showed its HID
Conversion kits installed on motor vehicles, photos of headlamp output
on streets in residential neighborhoods, and banners that indicate
``offering HID kits for any vehicle.''
    NHTSA Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has
decided that Panda Power has not met its burden of persuasion that the
FMVSS No. 108 noncompliances identified in Panda Power's Noncompliance
Information Report does not present a significant safety risk resulting
from increases in glare when its HID headlamp conversion kits are used
in headlamps that were not designed for this type of light source.
Therefore, NHTSA does not agree with Panda Power that this specific
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly,
Panda Power's petition is hereby denied, and the Panda Power must
notify owners, purchasers and dealers pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118 and
provide a remedy in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30120.

    Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
CFR 1.95 and 501.8)

    Issued On: June 19, 2013.
Nancy Lummen Lewis,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2013-15470 Filed 6-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 188 (Wednesday, September 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60110-60112]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24864]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65378; File No. SR-CME-2011-07]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Accept Additional Credit
Default Index Swaps for Clearing

September 22, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on September 9, 2011, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. (``CME'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change described in Items I and II below, which items
have been prepared primarily by CME. The Commission is publishing this
Notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The text of the proposed rule change is below. Italicized text
indicates additions; bracketed text indicates deletions.
* * * * *

Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. Rulebook

    Rule 100--80203--No Change.
* * * * *

CME Chapter 802 Rules: Appendix 1

Appendix 1

                               CDX Indices
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Termination date
           CDX Index                 Series             (scheduled
                                                       termination)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CDX North America Investment                  10  20 Jun 2013.
 Grade (CDX.NA.IG).

                                ................  20 Jun 2015.
                                ................  20 Jun 2018.
CDX North America Investment                  11  20 Dec 2011.
 Grade (CDX.NA.IG).
                                ................  20 Dec 2013.
                                ................  20 Dec 2015.
                                ................  20 Dec 2018.
CDX North America Investment                  12  20 Jun 2012.
 Grade (CDX.NA.IG).
                                ................  20 Jun 2014.
                                ................  20 Jun 2016.
                                ................  20 Jun 2019.
CDX North America Investment                  13  20 Dec 2012.
 Grade (CDX.NA.IG).
                                ................  20 Dec 2014.
                                ................  20 Dec 2016.
                                ................  20 Dec 2019.
CDX North America Investment                  14  20 Jun 2013.
 Grade (CDX.NA.IG).
                                ................  20 Jun 2015.
                                ................  20 Jun 2017.
                                ................  20 Jun 2020.
CDX North America Investment                  15  20 Dec 2013.
 Grade (CDX.NA.IG).
                                ................  20 Dec 2015.
                                ................  20 Dec 2017.
                                ................  20 Dec 2020.
CDX North America Investment                  16  20 Jun 2014.
 Grade (CDX.NA.IG).
                                ................  20 Jun 2016.
                                ................  20 Jun 2018.
                                ................  20 Jun 2021.
CDX North America Investment                  17  20 Dec 2014.
 Grade (CDX.NA.IG).
                                ................  20 Dec 2016.
                                ................  20 Dec 2018.
                                ................  20 Dec 2021.
CDX North America High Yield                  11  20 Dec 2013.
 (CDX.NA.HY).
CDX North America High Yield                  12  20 Jun 2014.
 (CDX.NA.HY).
CDX North America High Yield                  13  20 Dec 2014.
 (CDX.NA.HY).
CDX North America High Yield                  14  20 Jun 2015.
 (CDX.NA.HY).
CDX North America High Yield                  15  20 Dec 2015.
 (CDX.NA.HY).
CDX North America High Yield                  16  20 Jun 2016.
 (CDX.NA.HY).
CDX North America High Yield                  17  20 Dec 2016.
 (CDX.NA.HY).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    Rule 80301-End--No change.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, CME included statements
concerning the purpose 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. CME 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 Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    CME offers clearing services for certain credit default swap index
products. Currently, CME offers clearing for Markit CDX North American
Investment Grade Index Series 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 and will
offer Series 17 on September 20, 2011. The proposed rule changes that
are the subject of this filing are intended to expand CME's credit
default swap index product offering by adding clearing for Markit CDX
North American High Yield Index Series 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17.
    CME notes that it has also submitted the proposed rule changes that
are the subject of this filing to its primary regulator, the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission (``CFTC''). The text of the CME proposed
rule amendments is included above, with additions italicized and
deletions in brackets.
    CME believes the proposed rule changes are consistent with the
requirements of the Exchange Act including Section 17A of the Exchange
Act. CME notes that the proposed rule changes involve the addition of
new CFTC-regulated swaps for clearing and therefore are primarily
related to CME's swaps clearing activities pursuant to its registration
as a derivatives clearing organization under the Commodity Exchange Act
(``CEA''). CME further notes that the policies of the CEA with respect
to clearing are comparable to a number of the policies underlying the
Exchange Act, such as promoting market transparency for over-the-
counter derivatives markets, promoting the prompt and accurate
clearance of transactions and protecting investors and the public
interest. The proposed rule changes accomplish those objectives by
offering investors clearing for an expanded range of credit default
swap products based on broad-based indexes.

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

    CME does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any
impact, or impose any burden, on competition.

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

    CME has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments
regarding this proposed rule change. CME has not received any
unsolicited written comments from interested parties.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) As the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. 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 may be submitted by using the
Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml), or send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-CME-2011-07 on the subject line.
     Paper comments should be sent in triplicate to Elizabeth
M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CME-2011-07. 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 Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the
hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of CME.
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-CME-2011-07 and
should be submitted on or before October 19, 2011.

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-24864 Filed 9-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 150 (Friday, August 3, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38136-38138]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16631]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:
    Docket Numbers: EC18-78-000.
    Applicants: Florida Power & Light Company.
    Description: Supplement to July 5, 2018 Response to June 5, 2018
Deficiency Letter of Florida Power & Light Company.
    Filed Date: 7/26/18.
    Accession Number: 20180726-5208.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/16/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:
    Docket Numbers: EG18-115-000.
    Applicants: MHG Solar LLC.
    Description: Self-Certification of EG or FC of MHG Solar LLC.
    Filed Date: 7/30/18.
    Accession Number: 20180730-5059.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER10-3050-003; ER14-2871-012; ER16-182-007; ER17-
1785-002; ER16-1130-005; ER16-1131-005; ER16-1132-005; ER17-47-004;
ER17-1574-002; ER10-3251-012; ER14-2382-012; ER15-621-011; ER15-622-
011; ER15-463-011; ER16-72-007; ER18-2013-001; ER15-110-011; ER17-48-
004; ER13-1586-013; ER10-1992-019; ER16-902-003; ER18-47-002; ER16-
1129-005; ER10-3232-009; ER10-3053-003.
    Applicants: Cabazon Wind Partners, LLC, Cameron Ridge, LLC, Cameron
Ridge II, LLC, Coachella Wind, LLC, DifWind Farms Limited I, DifWind
Farms Limited II, DifWind Farms

Limited V, DifWind Farms LTD VI, EUI Affiliate LLC, Oak Creek Wind
Power, LLC, ON Wind Energy LLC, Pacific Crest Power, LLC, Ridgetop
Energy, LLC, San Gorgonio Westwinds II, LLC, San Gorgonio Westwinds
II--Windustries, Terra-Gen Dixie Valley, LLC, Terra-Gen Energy
Services, LLC, Terra-Gen Mojave Windfarms, LLC, TGP Energy Management,
LLC, Victory Garden Phase IV, LLC, Voyager Wind I, LLC, Voyager Wind
II, LLC, VPI Enterprises, LLC, Wheelabrator Shasta Energy Company Inc.,
Whitewater Hill Wind Partners, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Cabazon
Wind Partners, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 7/27/18.
    Accession Number: 20180727-5230.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/17/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2089-000.
    Applicants: GenOn Holdco 10, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: normal filing to be
effective 7/30/2018.
    Filed Date: 7/27/18.
    Accession Number: 20180727-5175.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/17/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2090-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to Att. Q re FTR
Credit Requirement to be effective 9/3/2018.
    Filed Date: 7/27/18.
    Accession Number: 20180727-5193.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/17/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2091-000.
    Applicants: Titan Solar, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Titan Solar, LLC's
Application for Market-Based Rates to be effective 10/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 7/27/18.
    Accession Number: 20180727-5197.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/17/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2092-000.
    Applicants: Dynegy Killen, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of
Reactive Tariffs and Tariff IDs to be effective 7/30/2018.
    Filed Date: 7/30/18.
    Accession Number: 20180730-5001.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2093-000.
    Applicants: Dynegy Stuart, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of
Reactive Tariffs and Tariff IDs to be effective 7/30/2018.
    Filed Date: 7/30/18.
    Accession Number: 20180730-5002.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2094-000.
    Applicants: Dynegy Stuart, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of MBR
Tariffs and Tariff IDs to be effective 7/31/2018.
    Filed Date: 7/30/18.
    Accession Number: 20180730-5004.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2095-000.
    Applicants: Dynegy Killen, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of MBR
Tariffs and Tariff IDs to be effective 7/31/2018.
    Filed Date: 7/30/18.
    Accession Number: 20180730-5005.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2096-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: DEC-NCMPA No. 1 (SA 212)
Amendment to be effective 8/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 7/30/18.
    Accession Number: 20180730-5071.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2097-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original Interim ISA SA No.
5142; Queue No. AD1-087 to be effective 6/29/2018.
    Filed Date: 7/30/18.
    Accession Number: 20180730-5082.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2098-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Great
River Energy.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2018-07-30_Filing to amend
RS 28 GRE JPZ Revenue Allocation Agreement to be effective 10/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 7/30/18.
    Accession Number: 20180730-5112.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2099-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of WMPA SA
No. 4903; Queue No. AC1-012 to be effective 7/13/2018.
    Filed Date: 7/30/18.
    Accession Number: 20180730-5146.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2100-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.,
MidAmerican Energy Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2018-07-30_SA 1976 MEC-ITC
Midwest 4th Rev TIA to be effective 8/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 7/30/18.
    Accession Number: 20180730-5147.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2101-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: SWE (PowerSouth Territorial)
NITSA 2018 Rollover Filing to be effective 7/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 7/30/18.
    Accession Number: 20180730-5167.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2102-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance filing to Commission's
5/31/2018 order in EL05-121 Settlement to be effective 1/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/30/18.
    Accession Number: 20180730-5168.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2102-001.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance filing to Commission's
5/31/2018 order in EL05-121 Settlement Part 2 to be effective 1/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 7/30/18.
    Accession Number: 20180730-5174.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2103-000.
    Applicants: Liberty Utilities (Granite State Electric) Corp.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Borderline Sales Rate Sheet
Update 2018 to be effective 8/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 7/30/18.
    Accession Number: 20180730-5189.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following public
utility holding company filings:
    Docket Numbers: PH18-10-000.
    Applicants: Unison Energy, LLC, AIM Universal Holdings, LLC, Hunt
Companies, Inc.
    Description: Unison Energy, LLC, et. al. submits FERC 65-A
Exemption Notification.
    Filed Date: 7/30/18.
    Accession Number: 20180730-5136.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 30, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-16631 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 91 (Tuesday, May 12, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27127-27134]
[FR Doc No: 2015-11340]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0297; FRL-9927-54-Region 9]

Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality State
Implementation Plans; Arizona; Infrastructure Requirements for Lead and
Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
partially approve and partially disapprove a State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revision submitted by the State of Arizona to address the
requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
for the 2008 Lead (Pb) and 2008 ozone national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS). Section 110(a) of the CAA requires that each State
adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of each NAAQS. We refer to such SIP revisions as
``infrastructure'' SIPs because they are intended to address basic
structural SIP requirements for each new or revised NAAQS including,
but not limited to, legal authority, regulatory structure, resources,
permit programs, monitoring and modeling necessary to assure attainment
and maintenance of the standards. We are taking comments on this
proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 11, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-
2015-0297, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    2. Email: Jeffrey Buss at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail: Jeffrey Buss, Air Planning Office (AIR-2), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne, San
Francisco, California 94105.
    4. Hand or Courier Delivery: Jeffrey Buss, Air Planning Section
(AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne,
San Francisco, California 94105. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-
2015-0297. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information the disclosure of which
is restricted by statute. Do not submit information through
www.regulations.gov or email that you consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected from disclosure. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an
anonymous access system, which means EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Planning Office (AIR-
2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, California 94105. EPA requests that you contact
the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection during normal business hours.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Buss, Office of Air Planning,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms ``we,''
``us,'' and ``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. EPA's Approach to the Review of Infrastructure SIP Submittals
    B. Statutory Framework and Scope of Infrastructure SIPs
    C. Regulatory Background
II. Arizona's Submittals
III. EPA's Evaluation
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. EPA's Approach to the Review of Infrastructure SIP Submittals

    EPA is acting upon several SIP submittals from Arizona that address
the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)
for the 2008 ozone and 2008 Pb NAAQS. The requirement for states to
make a SIP submittal of this type arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1).
Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP submittals ``within
3 years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe)
after the promulgation of a national primary ambient air quality
standard (or any revision thereof),'' and these SIP submittals are to
provide for the ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of
such NAAQS. The statute directly imposes on states the duty to make
these SIP submittals, and the requirement to make the submittals is not
conditioned upon EPA's taking any action other than promulgating a new
or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific
elements that ``[e]ach such plan'' submittal must address.
    EPA has historically referred to these SIP submittals made for the
purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' submittals. Although the term
``infrastructure SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to
distinguish this particular type of SIP submittal from submittals that
are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as
``nonattainment SIP'' or ``attainment SIP'' submittals to address the
nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of the CAA,
``regional haze SIP'' submittals required by EPA rule to address the
visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A, and
nonattainment new source review (NSR) permit program submittals to
address the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.
    Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for
infrastructure SIP submittals, and section 110(a)(2) provides more
details concerning the required contents of these submittals. The list
of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide
variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required
legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program
provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both
authority and substantive program provisions.\1\ EPA therefore believes
that while the timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) is unambiguous,
some of the other statutory provisions are ambiguous. In particular,
EPA believes that the list of required elements for infrastructure SIP
submittals provided in section 110(a)(2) contains ambiguities
concerning what is required for inclusion in an infrastructure SIP
submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides that states
must provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority
under state and local law to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C)
provides that states must have a SIP-approved program to address
certain sources as required by part C of title I of the CAA; and
section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have legal authority
to address emergencies as well as contingency plans that are
triggered in the event of such emergencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following examples of ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA
to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) requirements
with respect to infrastructure SIP submittals for a given new or
revised NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is that section 110(a)(2)
requires that ``each'' SIP submittal must meet the list of requirements
therein, while EPA has long noted that this literal reading of the
statute is internally inconsistent and would create a conflict with the
nonattainment provisions in part D of title I of the Act, which
specifically address nonattainment SIP requirements.\2\ Section
110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment SIP requirements and part D
addresses when attainment plan SIP submittals to address nonattainment
area requirements are due. For example, section 172(b) requires EPA to
establish a schedule for submittal of such plans for certain pollutants
when the Administrator promulgates the designation of an area as
nonattainment, and section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to two years, or in
some cases three years, for such designations to be promulgated.\3\
This ambiguity illustrates that rather than apply all the stated
requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a strict literal sense, EPA must
determine which provisions of section 110(a)(2) are applicable for a
particular infrastructure SIP submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See, e.g., ``Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine
Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions
to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOX SIP Call;
Final Rule,'' 70 FR 25162, at 25163-25165, May 12, 2005 (explaining
relationship between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)
versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).
    \3\ EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 110(a)(2) is
heightened by the fact that various subparts of part D set specific
dates for submittal of certain types of SIP submittals in designated
nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, e.g., that section
182(a)(1) provides specific dates for submittal of emissions
inventories for the ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific dates are
necessarily later than three years after promulgation of the new or
revised NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another example of ambiguity within sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) with respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to whether
states must meet all of the infrastructure SIP requirements in a single
SIP submittal, and whether EPA must act upon such SIP submittal in a
single action. Although section 110(a)(1) directs states to submit ``a
plan'' to meet these requirements, EPA interprets the CAA to allow
states to make multiple SIP submittals separately addressing
infrastructure SIP elements for the same NAAQS. If states elect to make
such multiple SIP submittals to meet the infrastructure SIP
requirements, EPA can elect to act on such submittals either
individually or in a larger combined action.\4\ Similarly, EPA
interprets the CAA to allow it to take action on the individual parts
of one larger, comprehensive infrastructure SIP submittal for a given
NAAQS without concurrent action on the entire submittal. For example,
EPA has sometimes elected to act at different times on various elements
and sub-elements of the same infrastructure SIP submittal.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, e.g., ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation
Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) State
Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,'' 78 FR
4339, January 22, 2013 (EPA's final action approving the structural
PSD elements of the New Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately
to meet the requirements of EPA's 2008 PM2.5 NSR rule),
and ``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
New Mexico; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport Requirements for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,'' 78 FR 4337, January 22, 2013
(EPA's final action on the infrastructure SIP for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS).
    \5\ On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, through the
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, made a SIP
revision to EPA demonstrating that the State meets the requirements
of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). EPA proposed action for
infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on January 23, 2012 (77 FR
3213) and took final action on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On
April 16, 2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 42997), EPA
took separate proposed and final actions on all other section
110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP elements of Tennessee's December 14,
2007 submittal.

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

    Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) may also arise
with respect to infrastructure SIP submittal requirements for different
NAAQS. Thus, EPA notes that not every element of section 110(a)(2)
would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same way, for
each new or revised NAAQS. The states' attendant infrastructure SIP
submittals for each NAAQS therefore could be different. For example,
the monitoring requirements that a state might need to meet in its
infrastructure SIP submittal for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(B) could
be very different for different pollutants, for example because the
content and scope of a state's infrastructure SIP submittal to meet
this element might be very different for an entirely new NAAQS than for
a minor revision to an existing NAAQS.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS required the deployment of a system of new monitors to measure
ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also
necessary when EPA reviews other types of SIP submittals required under
the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submittals, EPA also has
to identify and interpret the relevant elements of section 110(a)(2)
that logically apply to these other types of SIP submittals. For
example, section 172(c)(7) requires that attainment plan SIP submittals
required by part D have to meet the ``applicable requirements'' of
section 110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment plan SIP submittals
must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) regarding
enforceable emission limits and control measures and section
110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency resources and authority. By
contrast, it is clear that attainment plan SIP submittals required by
part D would not need to meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that
pertains to the air quality prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD) program required in part C of title I of the CAA, because PSD
does not apply to a pollutant for which an area is designated
nonattainment and thus subject to part D planning requirements. As this
example illustrates, each type of SIP submittal may implicate some
elements of section 110(a)(2) but not others.
    Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory language
of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is
appropriate to interpret the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1)
and section 110(a)(2) in the context of acting on a particular SIP
submittal. In other words, EPA assumes that Congress could not have
intended that each and every SIP submittal, regardless of the NAAQS in
question or the history of SIP development for the relevant pollutant,
would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in the same
way. Therefore, EPA has adopted an approach under which it reviews
infrastructure SIP submittals against the list of elements in section
110(a)(2), but only to the extent each element applies for that
particular NAAQS.
    Historically, EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make
recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases
conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some
cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and
applied to individual SIP submittals for particular elements.\7\ EPA
most recently issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on September 13,
2013 (2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance).\8\ EPA developed this document
to provide states with up-to-date guidance for infrastructure SIPs for
any new or revised NAAQS. Within this guidance, EPA describes the duty
of states to make infrastructure SIP submittals to meet basic
structural SIP requirements within three years of promulgation of a new
or revised NAAQS. EPA also made recommendations about many specific
subsections of section 110(a)(2) that are relevant in the context of
infrastructure SIP submittals.\9\ The guidance also discusses the
substantively important issues that are germane to certain subsections
of section 110(a)(2). Significantly, EPA interprets sections 110(a)(1)
and 110(a)(2) such that infrastructure SIP submittals need to address
certain issues and need not address others. Accordingly, EPA reviews
each infrastructure SIP submittal for compliance with the applicable
statutory provisions of section 110(a)(2), as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA requires EPA to
provide guidance or to promulgate regulations for infrastructure SIP
submittals. The CAA directly applies to states and requires the
submittal of infrastructure SIP submittals, regardless of whether or
not EPA provides guidance or regulations pertaining to such
submittals. EPA elects to issue such guidance in order to assist
states, as appropriate.
    \8\ ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),''
Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.
    \9\ EPA's September 13, 2013, guidance did not make
recommendations with respect to infrastructure SIP submittals to
address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA issued the guidance shortly
after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the D.C. Circuit
decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) which had
interpreted the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light
of the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, EPA elected not to
provide additional guidance on the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that time. As the guidance is neither binding
nor required by statute, whether EPA elects to provide guidance on a
particular section has no impact on a state's CAA obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of
section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submittals. Under this
element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of section 128,
which pertain to state boards that approve permits or enforcement
orders and heads of executive agencies with similar powers. Thus, EPA
reviews infrastructure SIP submittals to ensure that the state's SIP
appropriately addresses the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
and section 128. The 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance explains EPA's
interpretation that there may be a variety of ways by which states can
appropriately address these substantive statutory requirements,
depending on the structure of an individual state's permitting or
enforcement program (e.g., whether permits and enforcement orders are
approved by a multi-member board or by a head of an executive agency).
However they are addressed by the state, the substantive requirements
of section 128 are necessarily included in EPA's evaluation of
infrastructure SIP submittals because section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
explicitly requires that the state satisfy the provisions of section
128.
    As another example, EPA's review of infrastructure SIP submittals
with respect to the PSD program requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the structural PSD program
requirements contained in part C, title I of the Act and EPA's PSD
regulations. Structural PSD program requirements include provisions
necessary for the PSD program to address all regulated sources and
regulated NSR pollutants, including greenhouse gases (GHGs). By
contrast, structural PSD program requirements do not include provisions
that are not required under EPA's regulations at 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) 51.166 but are merely available as an option for the
state, such as the option to provide grandfathering of complete permit
applications with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Accordingly, the latter optional provisions are types of provisions EPA
considers irrelevant in the context of an infrastructure SIP action.
    For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, EPA's review of a
state's infrastructure SIP submittal focuses on assuring that the
state's SIP meets basic

structural requirements. For example, section 110(a)(2)(C) includes,
inter alia, the requirement that states have a program to regulate
minor new sources. Thus, EPA evaluates whether the state has a SIP-
approved minor NSR program and whether the program addresses the
pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In the context of acting on an
infrastructure SIP submittal, however, EPA does not think it is
necessary to conduct a review of each and every provision of a state's
existing minor source program (i.e., already in the existing SIP) for
compliance with the requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations that
pertain to such programs.
    With respect to certain other issues, EPA does not believe that an
action on a state's infrastructure SIP submittal is necessarily the
appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in
a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) Existing provisions
related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's
policies addressing such excess emissions (``SSM''); (ii) existing
provisions related to ``director's variance'' or ``director's
discretion'' that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to
allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public
process or not requiring further approval by EPA; and (iii) existing
provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current
requirements of EPA's ``Final NSR Improvement Rule,'' 67 FR 80186,
December 31, 2002, as amended by 72 FR 32526, June 13, 2007 (``NSR
Reform''). Thus, EPA believes it may approve an infrastructure SIP
submittal without scrutinizing the totality of the existing SIP for
such potentially deficient provisions and may approve the submittal
even if it is aware of such existing provisions.\10\ It is important to
note that EPA's approval of a state's infrastructure SIP submittal
should not be construed as explicit or implicit re-approval of any
existing potentially deficient provisions that relate to the three
specific issues just described.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to include a
new provision in an infrastructure SIP submittal that contained a
legal deficiency, such as a new exemption for excess emissions
during SSM events, then EPA would need to evaluate that provision
for compliance against the rubric of applicable CAA requirements in
the context of the action on the infrastructure SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's approach to review of infrastructure SIP submittals is to
identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that
submittal. EPA believes that this approach to the review of a
particular infrastructure SIP submittal is appropriate, because it
would not be reasonable to read the general requirements of section
110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 110(a)(2) as requiring review of
each and every provision of a state's existing SIP against all
requirements in the CAA and EPA regulations merely for purposes of
assuring that the state in question has the basic structural elements
for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have
grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and regulatory
requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include some outmoded
provisions and historical artifacts. These provisions, while not fully
up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the
purposes of ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of a new
or revised NAAQS when EPA evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure SIP
submittal. EPA believes that a better approach is for states and EPA to
focus attention on those elements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA most
likely to warrant a specific SIP revision due to the promulgation of a
new or revised NAAQS or other factors.
    For example, EPA's 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance gives simpler
recommendations with respect to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS
pollutants to meet the visibility requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon monoxide does not affect
visibility. As a result, an infrastructure SIP submittal for any future
new or revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide need only state this fact in
order to address the visibility prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
    Finally, EPA believes that its approach with respect to
infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides other avenues
and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing
SIPs. These other statutory tools allow EPA to take appropriately
tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged
SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a ``SIP
call'' whenever the Agency determines that a state's SIP is
substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate
interstate transport, or to otherwise comply with the CAA.\11\ Section
110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as
past approvals of SIP submittals.\12\ Significantly, EPA's
determination that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submittal
is not the appropriate time and place to address all potential existing
SIP deficiencies does not preclude EPA's subsequent reliance on
provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the basis for action to
correct those deficiencies at a later time. For example, although it
may not be appropriate to require a state to eliminate all existing
inappropriate director's discretion provisions in the course of acting
on an infrastructure SIP submittal, EPA believes that section
110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases that EPA relies upon in
the course of addressing such deficiency in a subsequent action.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to address
specific existing SIP deficiencies related to the treatment of
excess emissions during SSM events. See ``Finding of Substantial
Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State
Implementation Plan Revisions,'' 76 FR 21639, April 18, 2011.
    \12\ EPA has used this authority to correct errors in past
actions on SIP submittals related to PSD programs. See ``Limitation
of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions
Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation
Plans; Final Rule,'' 75 FR 82536, December 30, 2010. EPA has
previously used its authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) to remove
numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it had
approved in error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38664, July 25, 1996 and 62 FR
34641, June 27, 1997 (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona,
California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062, November 16, 2004
(corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051, November 3, 2009
(corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).
    \13\ See, e.g., EPA's disapproval of a SIP submittal from
Colorado on the grounds that it would have included a director's
discretion provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including
section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344, July 21, 2010
(proposed disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76 FR
4540, January 26, 2011 (final disapproval of such provisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Statutory Framework and Scope of Infrastructure SIPs

    As discussed in Section A of this proposed rule, CAA section
110(a)(1) requires each state to submit to EPA, within three years
after the promulgation of a primary or secondary NAAQS or any revision
thereof, an infrastructure SIP revision that provides for the
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of such NAAQS. Section
110(a)(2) sets the content requirements of such a plan, which generally
relate to the information and authorities, compliance assurances,
procedural requirements, and control measures that constitute the
``infrastructure'' of a state's air quality management program. These
infrastructure SIP elements required by section 110(a)(2) are as
follows:
     Section 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control
measures.
     Section 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data
system.

     Section 110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control
measures and regulation of new and modified stationary sources.
     Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i): Interstate pollution transport.
     Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate and international
pollution abatement.
     Section 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources and authority,
conflict of interest, and oversight of local and regional government
agencies.
     Section 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring and
reporting.
     Section 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency episodes.
     Section 110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions.
     Section 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government
officials, public notification, PSD, and visibility protection.
     Section 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling and submittal
of modeling data.
     Section 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
     Section 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by
affected local entities.
    Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not governed by
the three-year submittal deadline of section 110(a)(1) and are
therefore not addressed in this action. These two elements are: section
110(a)(2)(C), to the extent it refers to permit programs required under
CAA part D (nonattainment NSR), and section 110(a)(2)(I), pertaining to
the nonattainment planning requirements of part D. As a result, this
action does not address infrastructure for the nonattainment NSR
portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) or the whole of section 110(a)(2)(I).

C. Regulatory Background

2008 Pb NAAQS
    On October 15, 2008, EPA issued a revised NAAQS for Pb.\14\ This
action triggered a requirement for states to submit an infrastructure
SIP to address the applicable requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)
within three years. On October 14, 2011, EPA issued ``Guidance on
Section 110 Infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 Pb NAAQS'', referred to
herein as EPA's 2011 Pb Guidance.\15\ Depending on the timing of a
given submittal, some states relied on the earlier draft version of
this guidance, referred to herein as EPA's 2011 Draft Pb Guidance.\16\
EPA issued additional guidance on infrastructure SIPs on September 13,
2013.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 73 FR 66964 (November 12, 2008). The 1978 Pb standard (1.5
[mu]g/m\3\ as a quarterly average) was modified to a rolling 3 month
average not to exceed 0.15 [mu]g/m\3\. EPA also revised the
secondary NAAQS to 0.15 [mu]g/m\3\ and made it identical to the
revised primary standard. Id.
    \15\ See Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, to Regional Air Division
Directors, Regions 1-10 (October 14, 2011).
    \16\ ``DRAFT Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections
110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS),'' June 17, 2011 version.
    \17\ See Memorandum dated September 13, 2013 from Stephen D.
Page, Director, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to
Regional Air Directors, EPA Regions 1-10, ``Guidance on
Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean
Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)'' (referred to herein as
``2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2008 Ozone NAAQS
    On March 27, 2008, EPA issued a revised NAAQS for 8-hour Ozone.\18\
This action triggered a requirement for states to submit an
infrastructure SIP to address the applicable requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2) within three years. EPA did not, however, prepare
guidance at this time for states in submitting infrastructure SIP
revisions for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS.\19\ On September 13, 2013, EPA
issued ``Guidance of Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),'' which
provides advice on the development of infrastructure SIPs for the 2008
ozone NAAQS (among other pollutants) as well as infrastructure SIPs for
new or revised NAAQS promulgated in the future.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
    \19\ Preparation of guidance for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS was
postponed given EPA's reconsideration of the standard. See 78 FR
34183 (June 6, 2013).
    \20\ See Memorandum dated September 13, 2013 from Stephen D.
Page, Director, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to
Regional Air Directors, EPA Regions 1-10, ``Guidance on
Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean
Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)'' (referred to herein as
``2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Arizona's Submittals

    The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) has
submitted several infrastructure SIP revisions pursuant to EPA's
promulgation of the Pb and ozone NAAQS addressed by this proposed rule,
including the following:
     October 14, 2011--``Arizona State Implementation Plan
Revision under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(1) and (2); 2008 Lead
NAAQS,'' to address all of the CAA section 110(a)(2) requirements,
except for section 110(a)(2)(G),\21\ for the 2008 Pb NAAQS (2011 Pb I-
SIP Submittal).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ In a separate rulemaking, EPA fully approved Arizona's SIP
to address the requirements regarding air pollution emergency
episodes in CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. 77 FR 62452 (October 15, 2012). Although ADEQ did not submit
an analysis of Section 110(a)(2)(G) requirements, we discuss them in
our TSD, which is in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     December 27, 2012--``Arizona State Implementation Plan
Revision under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(1) and (2); 2008 8-hour
Ozone NAAQS,'' to address all of the CAA section 110(a)(2) requirements
for the 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS (2012 Ozone I-SIP Submittal).
    On February 19, 2015 EPA approved elements of the above submittals
along with others with respect to the 2008 Pb and 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS infrastructure SIP requirements in CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A),
(B), (E), (F), (G), (H), (L) and (M).\22\ That action also explained
that we would separately act on the permitting infrastructure SIP
elements in CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D), (J), and (K) in a
subsequent rulemaking. These permitting related provisions are the
subject of today's proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ ``Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans;
Arizona; Infrastructure requirements for the 2008 Lead (Pb) and the
2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)''
was signed on February 19, 2015 but, as of April 30, 2015, has not
yet published in the Federal Register. This action was proposed in
the Federal Register on November 24, 2014 (79 FR 69796).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the above 2011 and 2012 infrastructure SIP
submittals, ADEQ submitted ``New Source Review State Implementation
Plan Submission'' on October 29, 2012, and ``Supplemental Information
to 2012 New Source Review State Implementation Plan Submission'' on
July 2, 2014 (NSR Submittals). In addition to addressing revisions to
Arizona's New Source Review (NSR) program, these submissions also
relate to infrastructure SIP elements in CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C),
(D), (J), and (K), which EPA is proposing action on in today's
rulemaking.
    As discussed in our November 24, 2014 proposed action, and our
March 18, 2015 proposed action on Arizona's NSR Submittals,\23\ we have
found that the submittals we are acting on today fulfill the procedural
requirements for public participation and other completeness criteria
described in 40 CFR 51 Appendix V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 80 FR 14044.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. EPA's Evaluation

    EPA has evaluated the 2011 Pb I-SIP Submittal, the 2012 Ozone I-SIP
Submittal and the NSR Submittals, as well as existing provisions of the
Arizona SIP for compliance with the following CAA section 110(a)(2)
permit-related infrastructure SIP requirements for the 2008 Pb and
ozone NAAQS:

     Section 110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control
measures and regulation of new and modified stationary sources for the
2008 Pb and ozone NAAQS.
     Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)--Prongs 1 and 2: Interstate
transport--contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere
with maintenance by, any other State for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
     Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)--Prong 3: Interstate transport--
prevention of significant deterioration for the 2008 Pb and ozone
NAAQS.
     Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)--Prong 4: Interstate transport--
protection of visibility for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
     Section 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government
officials, public notification, PSD, and visibility protection for the
2008 Pb and ozone NAAQS.
     Section 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling and submission
of modeling data for the 2008 Pb and ozone NAAQS.
    In general, the submittals demonstrate Arizona's compliance with
most of these permit-related infrastructure requirements by describing
appropriate existing requirements regarding new and modified stationary
source permits, interstate transport, consultation and air quality
modeling. CAA section 110(l) prohibits EPA from approving any SIP
revision that would interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP) or any
other applicable requirement of the Act. We propose to determine that
our approval of these submittals with respect to the permit-related
infrastructure SIP elements would comply with CAA section 110(l)
because nothing in this approval would relax any existing SIP
requirement and the proposed SIP revision would not interfere with the
on-going process for ensuring that requirements for RFP and attainment
of the NAAQS are met.
    Based upon this analysis, EPA proposes to partially approve the
submittals with respect to the permit-related infrastructure SIP
requirements.
    However, we have also identified several infrastructure SIP
requirements that Arizona has not demonstrated are fulfilled by the
submittals. EPA proposes to partially disapprove Arizona's
Infrastructure SIP Submittals with respect to the 2008 Pb and 2008
Ozone NAAQS, as follows (details of the partial disapprovals and
partial approvals are presented after this list):
     110(a)(2)(C) (in part): Program for enforcement of control
measures and regulation of new and modified stationary sources.
     110(a)(2)(D)(i) (in part): Interstate pollution transport.
     110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (in part): Interstate pollution abatement
and international air pollution.
     110(a)(2)(J) (in part): Consultation with government
officials, public notification, PSD, and visibility protection.
     110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling and submission of
modeling data.

PSD Programs

    With respect to the requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to include
a program to provide for regulation of the modification and
construction of stationary sources, including a PSD program under part
C of title I, EPA is proposing to: (1) Disapprove the 2011 Pb and 2012
Ozone Infrastructure SIP for ADEQ and Pinal County because the SIP-
approved PSD programs lack certain ``structural'' PSD program elements
as identified in our TSD, and (2) disapprove the 2011 Pb and 2012 Ozone
Infrastructure SIP for Maricopa and Pima counties, which do not have
SIP-approved PSD programs. We note that although the SIP remains
deficient with respect to PSD requirements in ADEQ, Pinal, Maricopa,
and Pima counties for I-SIP purposes, no further action is necessary
for these purposes because the Federal PSD program addresses the
deficiencies in all four areas. However, we do recommend SIP revisions
consistent with the CAA infrastructure SIP requirements.
    With respect to the first two ``prongs'' of CAA section
110(a)(D)(i) (regarding significant contribution to nonattainment or
interference with maintenance in any other State), we are proposing
approval for the 2008 Pb NAAQS for the reasons stated in our TSD. We
are not proposing any action today on the first two prongs for the 2008
Ozone NAAQS. With respect to the third prong, EPA is proposing to
disapprove the 2011 Pb and 2012 ozone Infrastructure SIP for the
reasons discussed in our TSD regarding ``structural'' PSD requirements
under section 110(a)(2)(C). With respect to the fourth prong, EPA is
proposing approval for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. EPA is not proposing any
action on prong four today for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and will address
this requirement in a subsequent rulemaking. Finally, with respect to
the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), EPA is proposing to
approve the 2011 Pb and 2012 ozone Infrastructure SIP with respect to
ADEQ and Pinal County, which both implement SIP-approved PSD programs
that contain the required notice provisions, but to disapprove the SIP
with respect to Maricopa County and Pima County, which are subject to
the Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21.
    With respect to the requirement in 110(a)(2)(J) to ``meet the
applicable requirements of section 121 (relating to consultation),
section 127 (relating to public notification), and part C (relating to
prevention of significant deterioration of air quality and visibility
protection),'' we propose to find that Arizona meets the requirements
of sections 121 and 127 of the Clean Air Act but to disapprove it for
failure to fully satisfy the requirements of part C relating to PSD.
    With respect to the requirement in 110(a)(2)(K) that the SIP
provide for specified air quality modeling and the submission of data
related to such air quality monitoring to the Administrator, we propose
to disapprove the 2011 Pb I-SIP and 2012 ozone I-SIP because ADEQ,
Pinal, Pima, and Maricopa counties have not submitted adequate
provisions or a narrative that explain how existing state and county
law satisfy the requirements of 110(a)(2)(K). For Pima and Maricopa
counties, the Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21 addresses this
deficiency and therefore no further action is necessary. However, we do
recommend SIP revisions consistent with the CAA infrastructure SIP
requirements.
    For all the elements that do not meet the CAA Section 110(a)(2)
requirements in today's proposed rule, there are existing FIPs in place
with the exception of the modeling requirements under CAA section
110(a)(2)(K) for Pinal County and ADEQ. We note that to the extent our
proposed approval or disapproval of an I-SIP element relies on our
March 18, 2015 proposed action on Arizona's NSR submittals, our final
action on the I-SIP elements identified in this notice is contingent
upon our taking final action on Arizona's NSR submittals to approve the
NSR submittals into the SIP, which may be in the form of a limited
approval/limited disapproval action, as proposed in our March 18, 2015
proposed action on those submittals.
    Our Technical Support Document (TSD) contains more details about
our evaluation and is available in the public docket for this
rulemaking.

IV. Proposed Action

    As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is
proposing a partial approval of the submittals with respect to the
permit-related infrastructure SIP requirements in CAA sections
110(a)(2)(C), (D), (J) and (K) for the 2008 Pb and ozone NAAQS. EPA is
simultaneously proposing a partial disapproval of the submittals
because of

deficiencies summarized above. If this partial disapproval is
finalized, sanctions will not be imposed under section 179 of the Act
because infrastructure SIPs are not required under Title 1, Part D of
the Act.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and
is therefore not subject to review under the EO.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
because this proposed partial approval and partial disapproval of SIP
revisions under CAA section 110 will not in-and-of itself create any
new information collection burdens but simply proposes to approve
certain State requirements, and to disapprove certain other State
requirements, for inclusion into the SIP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.3(b).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule, we
certify that this proposed action will not have a significant impact on
a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule does not
impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities. This
proposed partial SIP approval and partial SIP disapproval under CAA
section 110 will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements but
simply proposes to approve certain State requirements, and to
disapprove certain other State requirements, for inclusion into the
SIP. Accordingly, it affords no opportunity for EPA to fashion for
small entities less burdensome compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables or exemptions from all or part of the rule. Therefore, this
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
    We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related
to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector. EPA has determined that the proposed partial approval and
partial disapproval action does not include a Federal mandate that may
result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State,
local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private
sector. This action proposes to approve certain pre-existing
requirements, and to disapprove certain other pre-existing
requirements, under State or local law, and imposes no new
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this proposed
action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that 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.''
    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, as
specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely proposes to
approve certain State requirements, and to disapprove certain other
State requirements, for inclusion into the SIP and does not alter the
relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities
established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not
apply to this action.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP
on which EPA is proposing action would not apply in Indian country
located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed action.

IV.G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997). This proposed partial approval and partial disapproval under CAA
section 110 will not in-and-of itself create any new regulations but
simply proposes to approve certain State requirements, and to
disapprove certain other State requirements, for inclusion into the
SIP.

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

    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus

standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test
methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA
directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the
Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
    The EPA believes that this proposed action is not subject to
requirements of Section 12(d) of NTTAA because application of those
requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this proposed rulemaking.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: May 1, 2015.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2015-11340 Filed 5-11-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 227 (Friday, November 26, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 72653-72655]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29599]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0892; Directorate Identifier 2010-NE-23-AD;
Amendment 39-16524; AD 2010-24-05]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. (P&WC)
PW305A and PW305B Turboprop Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    As a result of a change in the low-cycle fatigue lifing
methodology for the IMI 834 material, the recommended service life
of certain PW305A and PW305B Impellers has been reduced, as
published in the Airworthiness Limitations (AWL) section of Engine
Maintenance Manual (EMM).
    The in-service life of impellers P/N 30B2185, 30B2486 and
30B2858-01 has been reduced from 12,000 to 7,000 cycles; and of P/N
30B4565-01 from 8,500 to 7,000 cycles.

    We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the impeller, which
could result in an uncontained event and possible damage to the
airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective January 3, 2011. The Director of the
Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain
publications listed in this AD as of January 3, 2011.

ADDRESSES: The Docket Operations office is located at Docket Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-
0001.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on August 19, 2010 (75
FR 51187). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    As a result of a change in the low-cycle fatigue lifing
methodology for the IMI 834 material, the recommended service life
of certain PW305A and PW305B Impellers has been reduced, as
published in the Airworthiness Limitations (AWL) section of Engine
Maintenance Manual (EMM).
    The in-service life of impellers P/N 30B2185, 30B2486 and
30B2858-01 has been reduced from 12,000 to 7,000 cycles; and of P/N
30B4565-01 from 8,500 to 7,000 cycles.
    This Airworthiness Directive (AD) is issued to mandate the
incorporation of the revised in-service life limits for the affected
impellers, in the AWL section of EMM, as introduced by Temporary
Revision (TR) AL-8.
    Within 30 days from the effective date of this AD, update AWL
section of your PW305 EMM P/N 30B1402, to incorporate TR AL-8 for
compliance with the revised in-service limits for the affected
Impellers, installed on PW305A and PW305B engine.

Comments

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

Request To Establish an Ending Engine Serial Number Applicability

    One commenter, Bombardier--Learjet, asked us to establish an ending
engine serial number (S/N) applicability for the proposed AD. The
commenter said that any engine from S/N CA0651 forward will be linked
to the updated engine maintenance manual (EMM) with the 7,000 cycle
exducer life limit. Therefore, engines that have entered or will enter
service with the appropriate Airworthiness Limitations already included
in their EMM, will not be subject to this unsafe condition. To leave
the AD applicability open-ended, will cause hours of unnecessary review
and logbook entries for original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and
operators of engines that do not have an unsafe condition.
    We don't agree. Because there are no mandatory links between the
engine S/N and the EMM, there is no guarantee the EMM will stay with a
particular engine S/N. Also, because the proposed AD is a onetime
requirement to reduce the life limit for the exducer in the
Airworthiness Limitations Section, the proposed AD won't cause hours of
unnecessary review and logbook entries for OEMs and operators of
engines. We didn't change the proposed AD.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data, including the comment received, and
determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the
AD as proposed.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this AD will
affect about 114 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it
will take 0 work-hours per product to comply with this AD. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $54,288
per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on
U.S. operators to be $6,188,832. Our cost estimate is exclusive of
possible warranty coverage.

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 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); 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.
    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 this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations office (phone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is provided 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

0
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:

2010-24-05 Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. (Formerly Pratt & Whitney
Canada, Inc.): Amendment 39-16524. Docket No.

FAA-2010-0829; Directorate Identifier 2010-NE-23-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective January
3, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. (P&WC)
PW305A and PW305B turboprop engines with certain impellers, part
numbers (P/Ns) 30B2185, 30B2486, 30B2858-01, or 30B4565-01
installed. These engines are installed on, but not limited to,
Hawker-Beech Corporation BAe.125 series 1000A, 1000B, and Hawker
1000 airplanes and Learjet Inc. Learjet 60 airplanes.

Reason

    (d) This AD results from:
    As a result of a change in the low-cycle fatigue lifing
methodology for the IMI 834 material, the recommended service life
of certain PW305A and PW305B Impellers has been reduced, as
published in the Airworthiness Limitations (AWL) section of Engine
Maintenance Manual (EMM).
    The in-service life of impellers P/N 30B2185, 30B2486 and
30B2858-01 has been reduced from 12,000 to 7,000 cycles; and of P/N
30B4565-01 from 8,500 to 7,000 cycles.
    We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the impeller, which
could result in an uncontained event and possible damage to the
airplane.

Actions and Compliance

    (e) Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (f) Within 30 days from the effective date of this AD, update
AWL section of your PW305 EMM P/N 30B1402, to incorporate Pratt &
Whitney Canada Corp. Temporary Revision (TR) AL-8, dated January 20,
2010, for compliance with the revised in-service limits for the
affected Impellers, installed on PW305A and PW305B engine.

FAA AD Differences

    (g) None.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (h) The following provisions also apply to this AD:

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (i) The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

Related Information

    (j) Refer to MCAI Transport Canada Airworthiness Directive CF-
2010-09, dated March 17, 2010, for related information.
    (k) Contact James Lawrence, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for more information about this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (l) You must use Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. Temporary Revision
No. AL-8, dated January 20, 2010, to P&WC EMM P/N 30B1402 to do the
actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Pratt
& Whitney Canada Corp., 1000 Marie-Victorin, Longueuil, Quebec,
Canada J4G 1A1; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or go
to: http://www.pwc.ca.
    (3) You may review copies at the FAA, New England Region, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA; or 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 Burlington, Massachusetts, on November 10, 2010.
Peter A. White,
Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-29599 Filed 11-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P