[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 200 (Friday, October 16, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62457-62462]
[FR Doc No: 2015-26023]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0240; FRL-9935-56-Region 9]

Approval of Implementation Plans; Arizona, Phoenix-Mesa; 2008
Ozone Standard Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve revisions to the Arizona State Implementation
Plan (SIP) concerning the emission inventory, emission statements,
reasonably available control technology corrections and the vehicle
inspection and maintenance requirements for the Phoenix-Mesa 2008
eight-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) Marginal
nonattainment area. We are approving these revisions under the Clean
Air Act (CAA or the Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on December 15, 2015 without further
notice, unless the EPA receives adverse comments by November 16, 2015.
If we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will
not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number [EPA-R09-OAR-
2015-0240 by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Nancy Levin (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
withdrawn. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. If you need to include CBI as part
of your comment, please visit http://www.epa.gov/

dockets/comments.html for further instructions. Multimedia submissions
(audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The
written comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. For the full EPA public
comment policy and general guidance on making effective comments,
please visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.
    Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901.
While all documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov,
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be
publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard
copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Levin, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-
3848<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Procedural Requirements for Adoption and Submittal of SIP
Revisions
III. Analysis of the State's Submittal
    A. Base Year Emissions Inventory
    B. Emission Statements
    C. Reasonably Available Control Technology Corrections
    D. Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Programs
    E. Permit Programs: Nonattainment Area Preconstruction, New
Source Review
    F. Offset Requirements
    G. Transportation Conformity
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On March 12, 2008, the EPA strengthened the primary and secondary
eight-hour ozone NAAQS to 0.075 ppm (annual fourth-highest daily
maximum eight-hour concentration, averaged over three years) (73 FR
16436).\1\ In accordance with section 107(d) of the CAA, the EPA must
designate an area ``nonattainment'' if it is violating the NAAQS or if
it is contributing to a violation of the NAAQS in a nearby area. The
EPA designated the Phoenix-Mesa (hereinafter referred to as
``Maricopa'') area as nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS on May 21,
2012, effective July 20, 2012 (77 FR 30088). The Maricopa nonattainment
area (NAA), which includes a portion of Maricopa County and a portion
of Pinal County, was classified by operation of law as a Marginal
nonattainment area (40 CFR 81.303). The Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality (ADEQ) submitted the ``Maricopa Association of
Governments 2014 Eight-Hour Ozone Plan--Submittal of Marginal Area
requirements for the Maricopa Nonattainment Area (June 2014)'' (``MAG
2014 Eight-Hour Ozone Plan'' or ``Submittal'') on July 2, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The EPA proposed the 2008 ozone NAAQS SIP Requirements Rule (SRR)
on June 6, 2013 (78 FR 34178) and finalized the SRR on March 6, 2015
(80 FR 12264, codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart AA), effective April
6, 2015. The SRR both promulgated implementation requirements for the
2008 ozone NAAQS and revoked the 1997 ozone NAAQS.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The SRR revokes the 1997 NAAQS, but not all of the
requirements for implementing the 1997 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 27, 2015, the EPA proposed to reclassify the Maricopa NAA
as Moderate for the 2008 ozone NAAQs because the Maricopa NAA failed to
attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the Marginal area attainment deadline of
July 20, 2015 (80 FR 51992). Should this action be finalized, the
Maricopa NAA would be subject to additional requirements, including (1)
an attainment demonstration; (2) provisions for reasonably available
control technology (RACT) and reasonably available control measures
(RACM); (3) reasonable further progress (RFP) reductions in volatile
organic compounds (VOC) and/or nitrogen oxide (NOX)
emissions; (4) contingency measures; (5) a vehicle inspection and
maintenance program; and (6) NOX and VOC emission offsets at
a ratio of 1.15 to 1 for major source permits (see 40 CFR part 51,
subpart AA and CAA sections 182(b) and 172(c)). A SIP revision
addressing all of these requirements would be due to the EPA by January
1, 2017.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 80 FR 51992, 51999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Procedural Requirements for Adoption and Submittal of SIP Revisions

    CAA section 110(a)(1) and 110(l) require states to provide
reasonable notice and public hearing prior to adoption of SIP
revisions. Section 110(k)(1)(B) requires the EPA to determine whether a
SIP submittal is complete within 60 days of receipt. Any plan that we
have not affirmatively determined to be complete or incomplete will
become complete six months after the day of submittal by operation of
law. A finding of completeness does not approve the submittal as part
of the SIP nor does it indicate that the submittal is approvable. It
does start a 12-month clock for the EPA to act on the SIP submittal
(see CAA section 110(k)(2)).
    ADEQ's Submittal documents the public review process followed by
MAG and ADEQ in adopting the ``MAG 2014 Eight-Hour Ozone Plan--
Submittal of Marginal Area Requirements for the Maricopa Nonattainment
Area'' prior to submittal to the EPA as a revision to the SIP (See
Appendix B.1). In addition, ADEQ's Submittal documents the adoption of
the MAG 2014 Eight-Hour Ozone Plan by the MAG Regional Council and
includes a letter dated June 27, 2014 from MAG to ADEQ, requesting that
ADEQ submit the MAG 2014 Eight-Hour Ozone Plan to the EPA for approval.
    Based on the documentation included in ADEQ's Submittal, we find
that the submittal of the MAG 2014 Eight-Hour Ozone Plan, as a SIP
revision, satisfies the procedural requirements of sections 110(a)(1)
and 110(l) of the Act requiring states to provide reasonable notice and
public hearing prior to adoption of SIP revisions. The MAG 2014 Eight-
Hour Ozone Plan became complete by operation of law on January 2, 2015
pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(B). The technical support document (TSD)
for our action has more information on our evaluation.

III. Analysis of the State's Submittal

    For Marginal nonattainment areas, states are required to comply
with sections 172(c) and 182(a) of the Act. Marginal areas have up to
three years from the effective date of designation to attain the NAAQS
(40 CFR 51.1103(a)). Unlike areas classified as Moderate and above,
Marginal areas are not required to submit an attainment demonstration
or RFP provisions (see CAA section 182(a) and 80 FR 12268). Below we
summarize the CAA and SRR requirements, how they are addressed in the
Submittal, and our recommended action. Please refer to the TSD in the
docket for this action for additional information.

A. Base Year Emissions Inventory

1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
    CAA section 182(a)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1115(a) require states to
submit a ``base year inventory'' for each 2008 ozone nonattainment area
within two years of the effective date of designation. This inventory
must be ``a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual
emissions from sources of VOC and NOX emitted within the
boundaries of the nonattainment area as required by CAA section
182(a)(1)'' (40 CFR 51.1100(bb), see also CAA section 172(c)(3)). The
inventory year must be selected consistent with the baseline year for
the RFP plan, which is typically the most recent calendar year for
which a complete triennial inventory is required to be submitted to the
EPA under the Air Emissions Reporting Requirements (AERR) (40 CFR part
51, subpart A) (see 40 CFR 51.1115(a), 51.1110(b)). The emission values
in the base year must be ``actual ozone season day emissions,'' i.e.
``an average day's emissions for a typical ozone season work weekday.''
(40 CFR 51.1115(c), 51.1100(cc)).
2. Summary of the State's Submittal
    The Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD) prepared a base
year emissions inventory, with the assistance of MAG, and MAG submitted
the base year inventory as part of the MAG 2014 Eight-hour Ozone
Plan.\4\ MCAQD selected 2011 as the base year. The base year inventory
includes ozone season-day emissions from point sources, area sources,
nonroad mobile sources, and on-road mobile sources. Appendix A, Exhibit
1 of the MAG 2014 Eight-Hour Ozone Plan includes a description of the
methods used to estimate emissions for each category (or subcategory).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ MAG 2014 Eight-hour Ozone Plan, Table 1--Summary Table of
Nonattainment Area Emissions from the Maricopa County Air Quality
Department 2011 Periodic Emissions Inventory for Ozone Precursors,
February 2014, page 5. See also Appendix A, Exhibit 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following is a summary of the 2011 Maricopa NAA Emissions
Inventory.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ MAG 2014 Eight-Hour Ozone Plan, Table 1, pp. 5-6.

                   Maricopa NAA 2011 Base Year Eight-Hour Ozone Season Day Emission Inventory
                                                [July-September]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Category                       VOC lbs/day      % of Total       NOX lbs/day      % of Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point sources...............................             4,908               1            15,407             3.1
Area sources:
    Fuel combustion.........................               593             0.1            23,484             4.8
    Industrial processes....................            17,452               4             1,490             0.3
    Solvent use.............................           166,557              34                 0               0
    Storage/transport.......................            28,766               6                 0               0
    Waste treatment/disposal................               838               0               316             0.1
    Miscellaneous area sources..............            13,650               3             6,532             1.3
Mobile--Non road sources....................           111,798              23           141,444            28.8
Mobile--On road sources.....................           148,186              30           301,824            61.5
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total (excluding biogenic) *............           492,748             100           490,495           100.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Differences due to rounding.

    The TSD for this action contains more information about how MCAQD
developed the emission inventory (EI) data for each category of
sources.
3. EPA Evaluation of the State's Submittal
    The EPA has reviewed the 2011 ozone season day base year inventory
including emission estimates for point source, area source, nonroad and
onroad sources. We find that MCAQD's selection of 2011 as the base year
is appropriate because 2011 was the most recent calendar year for which
a complete triennial inventory was required to be submitted to the EPA
under the AERR (see 40 CFR 51.30(b)). We also find that the data
elements in the base year inventory are ``consistent with the detail''
required by the AERR. Generally, MCAQD used published emission factors
from EPA's National Emissions Inventory,\6\ made assumptions consistent
with the EPA's Emission Inventory Improvement Program Guidance,\7\ and
used the most recent EPA models available at the time of inventory
preparation. In addition, the Submittal provides sufficient
documentation and explanation to allow the EPA to make a determination
on the acceptability of the base year inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The National Emissions Inventory (NEI) is a comprehensive
and detailed estimate of air emissions of air pollutants from all
air emissions sources. The NEI is prepared every three years by the
EPA based primarily upon emission estimates and emission model
inputs provided by State, Local and Tribal air agencies for sources
in their jurisdictions, and supplemented by data developed by the
EPA. See http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiinformation.html.
    \7\ See, e.g., EPA, Emissions Inventory Improvement Program
(EIIP), Volume III, Chapter 1. Introduction to Area Source Emission
Inventory Development (Revised Final January 2001), Chapter 11.
Gasoline Marketing (Stage I and Stage II) (Revised Final January
2001); Chapter 18. Structure Fires (Revised Final January 2001), and
Area Source Category Method Abstract--Leaking Underground Storage
Tanks, May 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, we believe that MCAQD's initial selection of July-
September as the basis for calculating the ``ozone season day
emissions'' was not appropriate because it was based on 1981-1991
exceedance data for a previous ozone NAAQS.\8\ Accordingly, we
requested that MCAQD review more recent ozone monitoring data. Upon
review of these data, MCAQD determined that the appropriate months to
use to calculate ozone season day emissions are June-August.\9\
Therefore, MCAQD provided a ``recast'' ozone season day EI for June-
August.\10\ The MCAQD's ``recast'' analysis shows that, compared with
the July-September EI, the June-August EI showed a small net increase
in season day emissions for anthropogenic sources: VOC increased 0.41
and NOX increased 2.15. MCAQD

also added emission reduction credits (ERCs) to the June-August EI for
point sources. Total VOC ERCs were adjusted from 114.7 to 213.03 tons/
year (1,167 lbs/season day) and total NOX ERCs were adjusted
from 9.8 to 14.14 tons/year (77.5 lbs/season day) to account for
additional VOC and NOX ERCs.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Appendix A, Exhibit 1: 2011 Periodic Emissions Inventory
for Ozone Precursors for the Maricopa County, Arizona, Eight-Hour
Ozone Nonattainment Area. Maricopa County Air Quality Department.
February 2014. An ``exceedance'' is an ambient concentration that
exceeds the relevant NAAQS.
    \9\ Maricopa County Air Quality Department, 2011 Periodic
Emissions Inventory for Ozone Precursors for the Maricopa County,
Arizona, Eight-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area, Addendum, August 2015,
section 3.1.
    \10\ Ibid. section 3.2.
    \11\ ERCs from Penn Racquet Sports Inc. (March 6, 2009). See
Addendum, Table A.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We agree with MCAQD that using June-August to calculate ozone
season day emissions for the base year inventory is appropriate for the
Maricopa NAA, given that it was the three-month period with the highest
average Air Quality Index value and the greatest number of exceedances
of the 2008 ozone standard in the NAA in 2011. However, in light of the
relatively small differences in total anthropogenic emissions between
the June-August 2011 and July-September 2011 periods, we do not believe
it is necessary for MCAQD, MAG and ADEQ to submit a formal SIP revision
reflecting the June-August period at this time. Accordingly, we find
that the base year emission estimates approaches and methodologies are
acceptable and that the state has met the requirements of the Act and
the SRR with respect to base year inventories. We recommend that a
revised 2011 season-day EI based on June-August data be included as
part of a subsequent SIP revision to meet the CAA's Moderate ozone
nonattainment area requirements, as described above.

B. Emission Statements

1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
    Section 182(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act requires States to submit a SIP
revision requiring owners or operators of stationary sources of VOC or
NOX to provide the State with statements of actual emissions
from such sources. Statements must be submitted at least every year and
must contain a certification that the information contained in the
statement is accurate to the best knowledge of the individual
certifying the statement. Section 182(a)(3)(B)(ii) allows States to
waive the emission statement requirement for any class or category of
stationary sources that emit less than 25 tons per year of VOCs or
NOX, if the state provides an inventory of emissions from
such class or category of sources as part of the baseline or periodic
inventory. This inventory must be based on the use of the emission
factors established by the EPA or other methods acceptable to the EPA.
2. Summary of the State's Submittal
    ADEQ references three SIP-approved rules as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B): Maricopa County Rule 100,
Section 500--Monitoring and Records, ADEQ Rule 18-2-327--Annual
Emissions Inventory Questionnaire and Pinal County rule PG3-1-103--
Annual EI questionnaire.
3. EPA Evaluation of the State's Submittal
    Maricopa County Rule 100 (Section 500, Subsection 503) (approved
into the Arizona SIP on November 5, 2012 (77 FR 66405)) requires
owners/operators of sources that emit NOX or VOC to submit,
upon request of the Control Officer, emission statements showing actual
or estimated actual emissions of NOX and VOC, containing (at
a minimum) all information required by Consolidated Emissions Reporting
Rule,\12\ 40 CFR subpart A, appendix A, table 2a.\13\ Section 503 also
requires that Emissions Statements be submitted annually. The Control
Officer may waive this requirement for the owner/operator of any source
that emits less than 25 tons per year of NOX or VOC with an
approved emission inventory for sources based on AP-42 or other
methodologies approved by the EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule is now part of
the AERR (see 73 FR 76539).
    \13\ Appendix G of the Maricopa County Air Pollution Control
Rules, section 4, specifies that 40 CFR, Subpart A, Appendix A,
Table 2a is incorporated by reference as of July 1, 2014. Table 2a
was revised on February 19, 2015 (80 FR 8787, 8790).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ADEQ Rule 18-2-327, Annual Emissions Inventory Questionnaire
(approved into the Arizona SIP on November 5, 2012 (77 FR 66405)),
requires every source subject to air permit requirements to complete
and submit an annual emissions inventory questionnaire including
facility contact information, process and control device descriptions,
and a quantification of actual emissions of regulated air pollutants
\14\ using the appropriate quantification method as described in the
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Regulated air pollutant is defined by SIP-approved ADEQ
rule R18-2-101, section 120 to include NOX and VOC. (See
40 CFR 52.120(c)(162)(i)(A)(2),
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pinal County Rule PG3-1-103 (approved into the Arizona SIP on
December 20, 2000 (65 FR 79742)) requires every source that is subject
to a permit or obtains an authorization to operate, to complete and
submit to the Control Officer an annual emissions inventory
questionnaire. The questionnaire must include the source's name,
address, contact information, address, and process information (e.g.,
including design capacity, operations schedule, emission control
devices).\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ On September 27, 2006 ADEQ submitted an amendment to PG
Rule 3-1-103, however, the change does not substantively change the
rule. Rather it reflected ADEQ's reclassification of Class A and
Class B permits to Class I, Class II, and Class III. Under this
amendment, the term ``Class B permits'' is replaced by ``Class II or
Class II permits.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the contents of these rules, we find that Arizona has met
the requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) for emission statements.

C. Reasonably Available Control Technology Corrections

1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
    Section 182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA requires the State to submit,
within six months of classification under section 181(a), all rules and
corrections to existing RACT rules that were required under section
172(b) of the old (pre-1990 Amendments) CAA. Newly designated
nonattainment areas are not subject to the RACT ``fix-ups'' required by
section 182(a)(2)(A) because they were not subject to section 172(b) of
the old law (see 57 FR 13498, 13503).
2. Summary of the State's Submittal
    The Submittal lists the SIP-approved Rules that apply to source
categories subject to CAA section 182(a)(2)(A) and notes that the EPA
approved Arizona's RACT demonstration for the Maricopa County 1-hour
Serious Area Ozone NAA on June 14, 2005 (70 FR 34362).
3. EPA Evaluation of the State's Submittal
    As noted in the Submittal, the EPA previously determined that
Arizona had met the VOC RACT requirements under section 182(a)(2)(A)
for the Maricopa one-hour ozone NAA (see 70 FR 13435 and 70 FR 34363).
Although the NAA for the 2008 eight-hour ozone standard is larger than
that the one-hour NAA, only the original one-hour area is subject to
the RACT correction requirement of 182(a)(2)(A). Therefore, we find
that Arizona has met the requirements of CAA section 182(a)(2)(A) with
respect to the Maricopa 2008 eight-hour ozone NAA.

D. Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Programs

1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
    Section 182(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Act requires the State to submit a
revision, immediately after November 15, 1990, to correct any pre-1990
schedules for vehicle emission control inspection and

maintenance programs, immediately after November 15, 1990. In addition,
section 182(a)(2)(B)(ii) requires that the State shall review, revise,
update, and republish in the Federal Register the guidance for the
States for motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs
within 1 year of November 15, 1990. The EPA's I/M regulations are
codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart S (``Inspection/Maintenance Program
Requirements''), sections 51.350 through 51.373. As explained in the
preambles to proposed and final SRR, no new vehicle I/M programs are
currently required for purposes of the 2008 ozone NAAQS (78 FR 34194-
34196, 80 FR 12283).
2. Summary of the State's Submittal
    The Submittal notes that the EPA approved ADEQ's Basic and Enhanced
Vehicle Emissions Inspection and Maintenance Programs on January 22,
2003, and approved a statutory provision extending the State's vehicle
emissions inspection program on December 21, 2009 (74 FR 67819).
3. EPA Evaluation of the State's Submittal
    As noted in the Submittal, the EPA previously approved an
``enhanced'' I/M program that exceeds the requirements of section
182(a)(2)(B) for the Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area (69 FR 2912
(January 22, 2003)). Therefore, we find that Arizona has met the
requirements of CAA section 182(a)(2)(B) with respect to the Maricopa
2008 eight-hour ozone NAA.

E. Permit Programs: Nonattainment Area Preconstruction, New Source
Review

1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
    Section 182(a)(2)(C) of the Act, requires states to submit a SIP
revision within two years after November 15, 1990 to require pre-
construction permits for new or modified major stationary sources in
the NAA, and to correct requirements regarding pre-1990 permit
programs. However, as explained in the preambles to the EPA's final
Phase 2 implementation rule for the 1997 eight-hour standard and the
final SRR, the EPA considers the submission of new source review (NSR)
SIPs due on November 15, 1992 to have fulfilled this CAA requirement
(See 75 FR 71683, n. 110, and 80 FR 12267). Therefore, the EPA has
concluded that the two-year deadline contained in CAA section
182(a)(2)(C)(i) does not apply to subsequent NSR SIPs for revised ozone
standards, including the nonattainment NSR SIPs for implementing the
eight-hour ozone NAAQS. (Id.) Accordingly, the SRR at 40 CFR 51.1114
sets a deadline of three years from the date of designation for states
to submit their nonattainment NSR program SIPs for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS.
2. Summary of the State's Submittal
    The Submittal describes the roles of ADEQ, MCAQD and PCAQCD in
implementing the preconstruction permit program in the Maricopa NAA. In
particular, the Submittal explains that ADEQ has permitting
jurisdiction for the following stationary source categories: smelting
of metal ores, coal-fired electric generating stations, petroleum
refineries, Portland cement plants, and portable sources. ADEQ also has
permitting jurisdiction over other major sources in Pinal County, but
has delegated implementation of the major source program to PCAQCD,
which implements ADEQ's major NSR rules. MCAQD has jurisdiction over
other sources in Maricopa County. The Submittal also described various
SIP revisions submitted by ADEQ to meet nonattainment NSR requirements.
3. EPA Evaluation of the State's Submittal
    The EPA recently finalized a limited approval and limited
disapproval of various rules that comprise ADEQ's NSR program.\16\ We
expect that ADEQ will revise these rules in the near future. With
regard to MCAQD's rules, we note that ADEQ had submitted MCAQD Rule
240--Permits for New Major Sources and Major Modifications to Existing
Major Sources to the EPA on August 31, 1995, but withdrew it on April
25, 2014 in order to revise and resubmit it to the EPA for SIP
approval. ADEQ published a proposed notice of rulemaking for amendments
to Rule 240 and other related rules on August 31, 2015.\17\ Given the
expected submittal of revised ADEQ and MCAQD NSR rules in the near
future, we are deferring action on this element of the MAG 2014 Eight-
Hour Ozone Plan at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Final rule, Revisions to Air Plan; Arizona; Stationary
Sources; New Source Review (pre-publication version, signed June 29,
2015).
    \17\ On July 31, 2015 the Arizona Secretary of State published a
notice of proposed rulemaking to amend MCAQD's rules relating to
NSR, including Rule 240. See Arizona Administrative Register (AAR)
Vol. 21, Issue 31, page 1302 (July 31, 2015), available at: http://apps.azsos.gov/public_services/register/2015/31/28_county_notices.pdf. It also announced a 30-day comment period
that ended August 31, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Offset Requirements

    CAA Section 173 requires new and modified major sources in
nonattainment areas to secure emissions reductions (i.e., ``offsets'')
to compensate for a proposed emissions increase. For Marginal areas,
section 182(a)(4) of the Act sets a general offset ratio of 1.1 to 1
for total VOC and NOX emission reductions as compared to VOC
and NOX emission increases. The Submittal references ADEQ
Rule R18-2-404(J) and Maricopa County Air Pollution Control
Regulations, Rule 240, Section 306.3 as fulfilling the requirements of
CAA section 182(a)(4). Given the expected submittal of revised ADEQ and
MCAQD NSR rules in the near future, we are deferring action on this
element of the MAG 2014 Eight-Hour Ozone Plan at this time.

G. Transportation Conformity

    The Submittal lists ``Meet Transportation Conformity Requirements--
CAA Section 176(c)'' as a marginal area requirement. We note that motor
vehicle emission budgets, used in transportation conformity
determinations, are not required for marginal areas because such areas
are not required to submit a ``control strategy implementation plan
revision.'' \18\ However, as noted above, the EPA has proposed to
reclassify the Maricopa NAA to Moderate nonattainment. If the
reclassification is finalized, MAG would be required to develop motor
vehicle emission budgets as part of a Moderate area attainment
demonstration. In the meantime, MAG may continue to rely on its
emission budgets for the 1997 ozone NAAQS,\19\ which the EPA approved
on September 17, 2014 (79 FR 55645). Accordingly, we are not taking
further action on these budgets at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See 40 CFR 93.101.
    \19\ See 40 CFR 93.109(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Final Action

    The EPA is taking direct final action to approve the MAG 2014
Eight-Hour Ozone Plan with respect to the requirements of CAA section
182(a)(1), (2)(A) and (B), and (3)(B) and is deferring action with
respect to the requirements of CAA sections 176(c) and 182(a)(2)(C) and
(4). We do not think anyone will object to this approval, so we are
finalizing it without proposing it in advance. However, in the Proposed
Rules section of this Federal Register, we are simultaneously proposing
approval of the same submitted rule(s). If we receive adverse comments
by November 16, 2015, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register to notify the public that the direct final approval
will not take effect and we will address the

comments in a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do
not receive timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be
effective without further notice on December 15, 2015.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly,
this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements
and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 15, 2015. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final
rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel
notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the Proposed
Rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an
immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so
that the EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the
comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged
later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section
307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: September 25, 2015.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart D--Arizona

0
2. Section 52.120 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(172) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.120  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (172) The following plan was submitted July 2, 2014, by the
Governor's designee.
    (i) [Reserved]
    (ii) Additional materials.
    (A) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ).
    (1) MAG 2014 Eight-Hour Ozone Plan--Submittal of Marginal Area
Requirements for the Maricopa Nonattainment Area (June 2014),
excluding:
    (i) Sections titled ``A Nonattainment Area Preconstruction Permit
Program--CAA section 182(a)(2)(C),'' ``New Source Review--CAA, Title I,
Part D,'' and ``Offset Requirements: 1:1 to 1 (Ratio of Total Emission
Reductions of Volatile Organic Compounds to Total Increased
Emissions)--CAA Section 182(a)(4)'' on pages 8 and 9 and section titled
``Meet Transportation Conformity Requirements--CAA Section 176(c)'' on
pages 10 and 11.
    (ii) Appendices A and B.

[FR Doc. 2015-26023 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: November 24, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 225)]
[Notices]
[Page 61402-61403]
[DOCID:fr24no09-92]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61023; File No. SR-MSRB-2009-16]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of New Rule A-16,
on Examination Fees

November 18, 2009.
    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 November 5, 2009, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board
(``MSRB'' or ``Board''), filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared by the MSRB.
The MSRB has designated the proposed rule change as charging a fee
applicable to brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective upon filing with
the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The MSRB is filing new Rule A-16, which provides for examination
fee assessments on persons taking certain qualification examinations as
of January 4, 2010. Any person associated with a broker, dealer or
municipal securities dealer (``dealer'') engaged in municipal
securities activities who is a municipal securities representative,
municipal securities principal, or municipal fund securities limited
principal must take and pass a qualification examination to demonstrate
competence in each area in which he or she intends to work. The Series
51 (Municipal Fund Securities Limited Principal Qualification
Examination), Series 52 (Municipal Securities Representative
Qualification Examination), and Series 53 (Municipal Securities
Principal Qualification Examination) are developed, maintained, and
owned by the MSRB. The new rule will assess a $60 examination
development fee on each individual taking the Series 51, 52, or 53
examinations. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
MSRB's Web site at www.msrb.org/msrb1/sec.asp, at the MSRB's principal
office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The proposed rule change establishes examination fees that shall be
assessed on persons taking certain qualification examinations as of
January 4, 2010. Any person associated with a broker, dealer or
municipal securities dealer (``dealer'') engaged in municipal
securities activities who is a municipal securities representative,
municipal securities principal, or municipal fund securities limited
principal must take and pass a qualification examination to demonstrate
competence in each area in which he or she intends to work. The Series
51 (Municipal Fund Securities Limited Principal Qualification
Examination), Series 52 (Municipal Securities Representative
Qualification Examination), and Series 53 (Municipal Securities
Principal Qualification Examination) are developed, maintained, and
owned by the MSRB. These examinations are intended to safeguard the
investing public by helping to ensure that certain persons associated
with dealers meet minimum qualifications to perform their job. Given
this purpose, the examinations seek to measure accurately and reliably
the degree to which each candidate possesses the knowledge, skills and
abilities necessary to perform his or her job. The Series 51
examination is 1\1/2\ hours and consists of 60 multiple-choice
questions, and the Series 52 and 53 examinations are 3 hours each and
consist of 100 multiple-choice questions per examination.
    Currently, the fee assessed by the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority (``FINRA''), which administers the examination on behalf of
the MSRB, is $85 for the Series 51 examination, $95 for the Series 52
examination, and $95 for the Series 53 examination. At present, FINRA
receives the entire amount of the fee for each of the examinations,
which is intended to cover the cost to FINRA to schedule, administer
the examinations, maintain records, and undertake systems changes.
Pursuant to the proposed rule change, the MSRB will assess a
development fee of $60 per examination, which will be collected by
FINRA along with FINRA's administrative fee. With the addition of the
MSRB development fee, the total fee will be $145 for the Series 51
examination, $155 for the Series 52 examination, and $155 for the
Series 53 examination. On a periodic basis, FINRA will remit the fees
it collects on behalf of the MSRB for development of the examinations
to the MSRB and will retain the administrative fees it collects for the
delivery of the examinations.
    The proposed MSRB development fee is intended to partially cover
costs incurred to develop and implement the examinations, costs
associated with monitoring the examinations for effectiveness, and
costs associated with updating the examinations' content and questions.
The development fees will be effective as of January 4, 2010.
2. Statutory Basis
    The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the requirements of Section 15B(b)(2)(J) of the Act,\5\ which requires,
in pertinent part, that the MSRB's rules shall:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(J).

    Provide that each municipal securities broker and each municipal
securities dealer shall pay to the Board such reasonable fees

and charges as may be necessary or appropriate to defray the costs
and expenses of operating and administering the Board. Such rules
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
shall specify the amount of such fees and charges.

    The proposed rule change provides for reasonable fees to partially
offset costs associated with the development of the Series 51, 52, and
53 examinations.

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

    The Board does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act since it would apply equally to
all individuals who take the Series 51, 52, and 53 examinations.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \6\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\7\ in
that new Rule A-16 charges fees applicable to brokers, dealers and
municipal securities dealers. The proposed rule change applies to
individuals taking the Series 51, 52, or 53 examinations on or after
January 4, 2010. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
    \8\ See Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MSRB-2009-16 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments 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-MSRB-2009-16. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 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 the MSRB. 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-MSRB-2009-16 and should be
submitted on or before December 15, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-28120 Filed 11-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 230 (Wednesday, November 30, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 74012-74013]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30821]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-1257; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-124-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; the Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Boeing Company Model 777-200, -200LR, and -300ER series
airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report from the
manufacturer indicating that the lowered ceiling support structure of
Section 41, in airplanes incorporating the overhead space utilization
(OSU) option, was found to be under-strength when subjected to a 9.0 g
forward load. This proposed AD would require installing new structural
members in and new tie rod(s) and attach fittings on the left and right
sides of the lowered ceiling support structure. We are proposing this
AD to prevent the forward lowered ceiling panels and support structure
from becoming dislodged during an occurrence of a 9.0 g forward load
and consequent injury to personnel or interference with an emergency
evacuation.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 17,
2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone
(206) 544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may
review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ana Martinez Hueto, Aerospace
Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA,
Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2011-1257;
Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-124-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We received a report from the manufacturer indicating that the
lowered ceiling support structure of Section 41, in airplanes
incorporating the OSU option, was found to be under-strength when
subjected to a 9.0 g forward load. This condition, if not corrected,
could cause the forward lowered ceiling panels and support structure to
become dislodged during an occurrence of a 9.0 g forward load and
consequent injury to personnel or interference with an emergency
evacuation.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-25-0482,
dated February 24, 2011. This service information describes procedures
for installing new structural members and new tie rod(s) and attach
fittings on the left and right sides of the lowered ceiling support
structure.

FAA's Determination

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

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 4 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
               Action                         Labor cost            Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection and Installation........  19 work-hours x $85 per             $13,329         $14,944         $59,776
                                      hour = $1,615.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed
AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2011-1257; Directorate Identifier
2011-NM-124-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by January 17, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    (1) This AD applies to the Boeing Company Model 777-200, -200LR,
and -300ER series airplanes, certificated in any category, as
identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-25-0482,
dated February 24, 2011.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 25: Equipment/Furnishings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report from the manufacturer
indicating that the lowered ceiling support structure of Section 41,
in airplanes incorporating the overhead space utilization (OSU)
option, was found to be under-strength when subjected to a 9.0 g
forward load. We are issuing this AD to prevent the forward lowered
ceiling panels and support structure from becoming dislodged during
an occurrence of a 9.0 g forward load and consequent injury to
personnel or interference with an emergency evacuation.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Installation of Lowered Ceiling Support Structure

    Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, install
new structural members and new tie rod(s) and attach fittings on the
left and right sides of the lowered ceiling support structure in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 777-25-0482, dated February 24, 2011.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Ana Martinez
Hueto, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems
Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone
(206) 544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You
may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 22, 2011.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-30821 Filed 11-29-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Reader =

s Guide to Carbofuran Docket # EPA HQ OPP 2005 0162 EPA has created this document to provide an organizational structure to the Carbofuran Docket. The docket index can be broken into groups of related documents. The first group, then, contains the Federal Register Notice and docket organizational documents; the second group contains revised human health risk assessment and supporting documents and the third group contains the revised environmental risk assessment and supporting documents. The Agency is providing the A Reader =

s Guide @

to allow the reader to more easily access and navigate the various items contained in the Carbofuran docket.

Federal Register and Docket Organizational Documents:

Docket Item 1. Carbofuran Revised Risk Assessments; Notice of Availability and Solicitation of Risk Reduction Options Docket Item 2. Reader =

s Guide to the Carbofuran Docket # EPA HQ OPP 2005 0162 03/ 1/ 06 Hackley This document is designed to annotate all the documents in the Carbofuran Docket.

Docket Item 3. Note to Reader TBD Plummer This document will provide a very brief summary of the current risk picture and solicit information from the public on benefits information or risk management suggestions.

Health Effects Documents for Phase 5 Public Comments Docket Item 4. Carbofuran. HED Response to Registrant's Comments Received during Phase 3 of the Reregistration Process. 1/ 31/ 06 Drew This document addresses only those comments submitted by the technical registrant in Phase 3.

Docket Item 5 Carbofuran. HED Response to NRDC Phase 3 Comments on the Preliminary Risk Assessment for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( RED) Document. Phase 4. 1/ 31/ 06 Drew This document memo addresses only those comments submitted by NRDC in Phase 3.

Docket Item 6. Carbofuran. HED Revised Risk Assessment for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( RED) Document ( Phase 4). TBD Drew This document provides was a revised to incorporate comments and new data received in Phase 3. Significant changes occurred.

Docket Item 7. Revised Carbofuran Acute Probablistic Dietary Exposure Assessment for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( Phase IV). TBD Stanton This document describes The dietary assessment was revised to incorporate comments and new data received in Phase 3.

Docket Item 8 Benchmark Dose Analysis of Cholinesterase Inhibition Data in Neonatal and Adult Rats ( MRID no. 46688914) Following Exposure to Carbofuran. 1/ 19/ 05 Lowit This document provides BMD estimates calculated for a comparative cholinesterase study on rats, which was submitted by the technical registrant in Phase 3.

Environmental Fate and Effects Documents for Phase 5 Public Comment Docket Item 9. Response to Phase 3 Comments on Carbofuran Environmental Risk Assessment and Human Health Drinking Water Exposure Assessment. 2/ 17/ 06 Fite This document addresses comments received on the ecological risk assessment and drinking water assessment.

Docket Item 10. Reregistration Eligibility Science Chapter for Carbofuran. Environmental Fate and Effects Chapter. 2/ 13/ 06 Fite This document describes The environmental fate and effects risk assessment was revised to incorporate comments received during Phase 3.

Biological & Economic Analysis Documents for Phase 5 Public Comment Docket Item 11. Alternative and Brief Benefit Analysis for Selected Carbofuran Uses. 2/ 9/ 06 Brassard This document includes a table that lists available alternatives for the major uses of carbofuran. This is a preliminary analysis, and the Agency encourages comments on it.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 188 (Wednesday, September 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 60078]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24927]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4027-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

Rhode Island; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for State of Rhode Island (FEMA-4027-DR), dated September 3, 2011, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: September 20, 2011.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, James N. Russo,
of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for
this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Gracia B. Szczech as
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

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

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-24927 Filed 9-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P