Rules and Regulations. Final rule
35,730 words·~162 min read·
/register/2007/01/24/07-287A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. 2001-NM-183-AD; Amendment 39-14889; AD 2007-02-02] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8-55, DC-8F-54, and DC-8F-55 Airplanes; and Model DC-8-60, DC-8-70, DC-8-60F, and DC-8-70F Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8 airplanes.
This AD requires a one-time inspection for previous repairs of the aft fuselage skin panel at the longeron 28 skin splice; repetitive inspections for cracks of the same area; and related investigative and corrective actions. This AD also provides optional actions for extending the repetitive inspection intervals. The actions specified by this AD are intended to detect and correct cracks in the aft fuselage skin at the longeron 28 skin splice, which could lead to loss of structural integrity of the aft fuselage, resulting in rapid decompression of the airplane.
This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition. DATES: Effective February 28, 2007. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of February 28, 2007. ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD may be obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept.
C1-L5A (D800-0024). This information may be examined at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jon Mowery, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone
(562)627-5322; fax
(562)627-5210. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive
(AD)that is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8-55, DC-8F-54, and DC-8F-55 airplanes; and Model DC-8-60, DC-8-70, DC-8-60F, and DC-8-70F series airplanes; was published as a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)in the **Federal Register** on July 25, 2006 (71 FR 42062). That action proposed to require a one-time inspection for previous repairs of the aft fuselage skin panel at the longeron 28 skin splice; repetitive inspections for cracks of the same area; related investigative and corrective actions; and reporting inspection findings to the manufacturer. That action also proposed to provide optional actions for extending the repetitive inspection intervals. Comments Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to the comments received. Request To Lengthen Inspection Threshold for Certain Airplanes Air Transport Association (ATA), on behalf of one of its members, UPS, does not agree with the inspection threshold of 12 months for airplanes that have accumulated 24,000 total flight cycles or more as of the effective date of the AD, as specified in paragraph (a)(2) of the supplemental NPRM. The commenters note that all U.S.-registered McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8 airplanes are now freighters, which typically have low cycle utilization. UPS states that, out of a fleet of 47 airplanes, it has found only two instances of cracking in the subject area. The commenter believes that, based on these facts, the 24-month threshold indicated in paragraph (a)(1) of the supplemental NPRM should apply to all airplanes. The commenter believes that changing the threshold would have no adverse effect on airplane safety. We disagree with the request to lengthen the inspection threshold. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, we considered the low utilization rate as one factor. Other factors we considered were a crack finding on an airplane that had accumulated 27,072 total landings, normal scatter associated with fatigue initiation, input from the manufacturer, the difficulty of the inspection, and the urgency associated with the subject unsafe condition. However, according to the provisions of paragraph
(f)of the final rule, we may approve requests to adjust the compliance time if the request includes data that prove that the new compliance time would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed the AD in this regard. Request To Change Incorporation of Certain Information The Modification and Replacement Parts Association (MARPA) states that, typically, airworthiness directives are based on service information originating with the type certificate holder or its suppliers. MARPA adds that manufacturer service documents are privately authored instruments generally having copyright protection against duplication and distribution. MARPA notes that when a service document is incorporated by reference into a public document, such as an airworthiness directive, it loses its private, protected status and becomes a public document. MARPA adds that if a service document is used as a mandatory element of compliance, it should not simply be referenced, but should be incorporated into the regulatory document; by definition, public laws must be public, which means they cannot rely upon private writings. MARPA is concerned that the failure to incorporate essential service information could result in a court decision invalidating the AD. MARPA adds that incorporated by reference service documents should be made available to the public by publication in the Docket Management System (DMS), keyed to the action that incorporates them. MARPA notes that the stated purpose of the incorporation by reference method is brevity, to keep from expanding the **Federal Register** needlessly by publishing documents already in the hands of the affected individuals; traditionally, “affected individuals” means aircraft owners and operators, who are generally provided service information by the manufacturer. MARPA adds that a new class of affected individuals has emerged, since the majority of aircraft maintenance is now performed by specialty shops instead of aircraft owners and operators. MARPA notes that this new class includes maintenance and repair organizations, component servicing and repair shops, parts purveyors and distributors, and organizations manufacturing or servicing alternatively certified parts under section 21.303 (“Parts Manufacturer Approval”) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 21). MARPA adds that the concept of brevity is now nearly archaic as documents exist more frequently in electronic format than on paper. Therefore, MARPA asks that the service documents deemed essential to the accomplishment of the NPRM be incorporated by reference into the regulatory instrument, and published in DMS. We do not agree that documents should be incorporated by reference during the NPRM phase of rulemaking. The Office of the Federal Register
(OFR)requires that documents that are necessary to accomplish the requirements of the AD be incorporated by reference during the final rule phase of rulemaking. This final rule incorporates by reference the document necessary for the accomplishment of the requirements mandated by this AD. Further, we point out that while documents that are incorporated by reference do become public information, they do not lose their copyright protection. For that reason, we advise the public to contact the manufacturer to obtain copies of the referenced service information. Additionally, we do not publish service documents in DMS. We are currently reviewing our practice of publishing proprietary service information. Once we have thoroughly examined all aspects of this issue, and have made a final determination, we will consider whether our current practice needs to be revised. However, we consider that to delay this AD action for that reason would be inappropriate, since we have determined that an unsafe condition exists and that the requirements in this AD must be accomplished to ensure continued safety. Therefore, we have not changed the AD in this regard. Explanation of Change to Cost Impact We have changed the cost estimate to include estimated costs for all required actions, including the repetitive inspections and the repair. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the change described previously. We have determined that this change will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD. Cost Impact There are approximately 508 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 244 airplanes of U.S. registry are affected by this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work hour. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Cost per airplane Fleet cost Initial Inspection for doubler installation 2 to 4 $160 to $320 $39,040 to $78,080. Repetitive Inspections (per inspection cycle) 2 to 8 $160 to $640 $39,040 to $156,160. Repair 164 to 184 $13,120 to $14,720 $3,201,280 to $3,591,680. The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Impact The regulations adopted herein 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. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action
(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2)is not a “significant rule” under 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. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (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. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new airworthiness directive: **2007-02-02 McDonnell Douglas:** Amendment 39-14889. Docket 2001-NM-183-AD. Applicability McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8-55, DC-8F-54, DC-8F-55, DC-8-61, DC-8-62, DC-8-63, DC-8-61F, DC-8-62F, DC-8-63F, DC-8-71, DC-8-72, DC-8-73, DC-8-71F, DC-8-72F, and DC-8-73F airplanes; certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC8-53A080, dated June 22, 2004. Compliance Required as indicated, unless accomplished previously. To detect and correct cracks in the aft fuselage skin at the longeron 28 skin splice, which could lead to loss of structural integrity of the aft fuselage, resulting in rapid decompression of the airplane, accomplish the following: One-Time Inspection for Previous Repairs
(a)*For all airplanes:* At the applicable time in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this AD, do a general visual inspection to determine if there are previous repairs of the aft fuselage skin panel at the longeron 28 skin splice; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC8-53A080, dated June 22, 2004. Then do the applicable actions specified in paragraphs
(b)and
(c)of this AD.
(1)*For airplanes that have accumulated fewer than 24,000 total flight cycles as of the effective date of this AD:* Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD or prior to accumulating 24,000 total flight cycles, whichever occurs later.
(2)*For airplanes that have accumulated 24,000 total flight cycles or more as of the effective date of this AD:* Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD. Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection is: “A visual examination of an interior or exterior area, installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure, or irregularity. This level of inspection is made from within touching distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be necessary to ensure visual access to all surfaces in the inspection area. This level of inspection is made under normally available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or droplight and may require removal or opening of access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be required to gain proximity to the area being checked.” Repetitive Inspections for Areas That Do Not Have a Previous Repair
(b)*For areas that do not have a previous repair:* Before further flight after the initial inspection in paragraph
(a)of this AD, do general visual and high-frequency eddy current
(HFEC)inspections for discrepancies of the unrepaired areas at longeron 28 between the bolted connection of the tail section to forward of the flat aft pressure bulkhead, on both the left and right sides, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Do all actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC8-53A080, dated June 22, 2004. Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 2,000 flight cycles until an optional action in paragraph
(d)of this AD is accomplished. Repetitive Inspections and Repair for Areas That Have a Previous Repair
(c)For areas that have a previous repair: Within 24 months after accomplishing the initial inspection in paragraph
(a)of this AD, remove the previous repair(s), and install a local repair, in accordance with Boeing DC-8 Service Rework Drawing SR08530032, dated January 13, 2004, including Boeing Parts List PL SR08530032, dated January 7, 2004, Boeing Advance Engineering Order, Advanced Drawing Change A, dated April 1, 2004, and Boeing Engineering Order, dated January 13, 2004. Do the inspections in paragraph
(d)of this AD thereafter at the applicable interval specified in paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this AD. Optional Actions, Extended Repetitive Inspection Intervals
(d)Installing a full-length preventive modification, doing a full-length repair, or doing a local repair, in accordance with Boeing DC-8 Service Rework Drawing SR08530032, dated January 13, 2004, including Boeing Parts List PL SR08530032, dated January 7, 2004, Boeing Advance Engineering Order, Advanced Drawing Change A, dated April 1, 2004, and Boeing Engineering Order, dated January 13, 2004, ends the repetitive inspection intervals in paragraph
(b)of this AD; repeat the inspection thereafter at the applicable interval in paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this AD.
(1)For airplanes that have internal finger doublers: Within 30,000 flight cycles after doing the optional action, do general visual and HFEC inspections for discrepancies of the unrepaired areas at longeron 28 between the bolted connection of the tail section to forward of the flat aft pressure bulkhead, on both the left and right sides, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Do all actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC8-53A080, dated June 22, 2004. Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 5,000 flight cycles.
(2)*For airplanes that do not have internal finger doublers:* Use the applicable intervals and inspections in paragraph (d)(2)(i) or (d)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(i)For repairs (full-length preventive modification, doing a full-length repair, or doing a local repair) that are 12 inches or less along the longeron: Within 15,000 flight cycles after doing the optional action, use only the external general visual inspection method for discrepancies of the unrepaired areas at longeron 28 between the bolted connection of the tail section to forward of the flat aft pressure bulkhead, on both the left and right sides, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Do all actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC8-53A080, dated June 22, 2004. Repeat the external general visual inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 5,000 flight cycles.
(ii)For repairs (full-length preventive modification, doing a full-length repair, or doing a local repair) that are more than 12 inches in length along the longeron: Within 15,000 flight cycles after doing the optional action, use only the low-frequency eddy current
(LFEC)inspection method for cracks of the unrepaired areas at longeron 28 between the bolted connection of the tail section to forward of the flat aft pressure bulkhead, on both the left and right sides, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Do all actions in accordance with Boeing DC-8 Service Rework Drawing SR08530032, dated January 13, 2004, including Boeing Parts List PL SR08530032, dated January 7, 2004, Boeing Advance Engineering Order, Advanced Drawing Change A, dated April 1, 2004, and Boeing Engineering Order, dated January 13, 2004. Repeat the LFEC inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 10,000 flight cycles, using only LFEC inspection outward along all four edges of the doubler. Reporting of Results
(e)Submit a report of positive findings of the inspections required by paragraphs
(b)and
(d)of this AD to Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Manager, Structure/Payloads, Technical and Fleet Support, Service Engineering/Commercial Aviation Services, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, at the applicable time specified in paragraph (e)(1) or (e)(2) of this AD. The report must include the inspection results, a description of any discrepancies found, the airplane fuselage number, and the total number of landings and flight hours on the airplane. Information collection requirements contained in this AD have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ) and have been assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056.
(1)For airplanes on which the inspection is accomplished after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after performing the inspection.
(2)For airplanes on which the inspection was accomplished prior to the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (f)(1) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, is authorized to approve AMOCs for this AD.
(2)Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office.
(3)An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane and 14 CFR 25.571, Amendment 45, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD. Incorporation by Reference
(g)Unless otherwise specified in this AD, the actions must be done in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC8-53A080, dated June 22, 2004; and Boeing DC-8 Service Rework Drawing SR08530032, dated January 13, 2004, including Boeing Parts List PL SR08530032, dated January 7, 2004, Boeing Advance Engineering Order, Advanced Drawing Change A, dated April 1, 2004, and Boeing Engineering Order, dated January 13, 2004; as applicable. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To get copies of this service information, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024). To inspect copies of this service information, go to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; to the FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California; or to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at the NARA, call
(202)741-6030, or go to *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.* Effective Date
(h)This amendment becomes effective on February 28, 2007. Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 5, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-710 Filed 1-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26694; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-91-AD; Amendment 39-14899; AD 2007-02-12] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Reims Aviation S.A. F406 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule; request for comments. 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 the aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: * * * several reports regarding discovery of cracks about the rudder pulley bracket part number 6015511-1. This pulley bracket is installed with the “Camera Hole” option. This AD requires actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: This AD becomes effective February 13, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of REIMS AVIATION INDUSTRIES Service Bulletin No. F406-58, Rev. 1, dated October 27, 2006, listed in this AD as of February 13, 2007. We must receive comments on this AD by February 23, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *DOT Docket Web Site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.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 AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri, 64106; *telephone:*
(816)329-4144; *fax:*
(816)329-4090. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Streamlined Issuance of AD The FAA is implementing a new process for streamlining the issuance of ADs related to MCAI. The streamlined process will allow us to adopt MCAI safety requirements in a more efficient manner and will reduce safety risks to the public. This process continues to follow all FAA AD issuance processes to meet legal, economic, Administrative Procedure Act, and **Federal Register** requirements. We also continue to meet our technical decision-making responsibilities to identify and correct unsafe conditions on U.S.-certificated products. This AD references the MCAI and related service information that we considered in forming the engineering basis to correct the unsafe condition. The AD contains text copied from the MCAI and for this reason might not follow our plain language principles. Discussion The Direction Genorale de L'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the aviation authority for France, has issued AD No. F-2005-080, Issue date: May 25, 2005, (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: * * * several reports regarding discovery of cracks about the rudder pulley bracket part number 6015511-1. This pulley bracket is installed with the “Camera Hole” option. This condition, if left uncorrected, could result in the loss of rudder control on the airplane. The MCAI requires: Prior to the next flight, perform initial inspection as specified in the REIMS AVIATION INDUSTRIES Service Bulletin No. F406-58. If no cracking is found following the initial inspection, repeat the inspection every 50 flight hours or 1 month whichever occurs first and at the latest within the next 100 flight hours or 2 months after the effective date of this AD whichever occurs first, install the modified pulley bracket as specified in the REIMS AVIATION INDUSTRIES Service Bulletin No F406-58. If any cracking is found, prior to next flight, install the modified pulley bracket as specified in the REIMS AVIATION INDUSTRIES Service Bulletin No F406-58. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Reims Aviation S.A. has issued REIMS AVIATION INDUSTRIES Service Bulletin No. F406-58, Rev. 1, dated October 27, 2006. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by the State of Design Authority and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might have also required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are described in a separate paragraph of the AD. These requirements take precedence over those copied from the MCAI. FAA's Determination of the Effective Date An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because undetected cracks in the pulley bracket could result in rudder control failure. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days. Comments Invited This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2006-26694; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-91-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this AD. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2)Is not a “significant rule” under 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. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **2007-02-12 Reims Aviation S.A.:** Amendment 39-14899; Docket No. FAA-2006-26694; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-91-AD. Effective Date
(a)This airworthiness directive
(AD)becomes effective February 13, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to the following model and serial number airplanes, certificated in any category. Model Serial Nos. F406 0002, 0003, 0004, 0006, 0008, 0009, 0010, 0012, 0013, 0017, 0024, 0025, 0039, 0042, 0044, 0045, 0066, 0070, 0073, 0074, 0075, 0077, 0080 through 0090, and 0092. Reason
(d)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: * * * several reports regarding discovery of cracks about the rudder pulley bracket part number 6015511-1. This pulley bracket is installed with the “Camera Hole” option. This condition, if left uncorrected, could result in the loss of rudder control on the airplane. Actions and Compliance
(e)Unless already done, do the following actions.
(1)Within the next 10 hours time-in-service
(TIS)after February 13, 2007. (the effective of this AD), perform the initial inspection as specified in REIMS AVIATION INDUSTRIES Service Bulletin No. F406-58, Rev. 1, dated October 27, 2006.
(2)If no cracking is found following the initial inspection required in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD, repeat the inspection every 50 flight hours or 1 month, whichever occurs first, until the conditions specified in paragraph (e)(3) of this AD are met.
(3)Within the next 100 hours TIS or 2 months after February 13, 2007. (the effective of this AD), whichever occurs first, install the modified pulley bracket as specified in REIMS AVIATION INDUSTRIES Service Bulletin No F406-58, Rev. 1, dated October 27, 2006.
(4)If any cracking is found during the inspection required in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD, prior to next flight, install the modified pulley bracket as specified in REIMS AVIATION INDUSTRIES Service Bulletin No F406-58, Rev. 1, dated October 27, 2006.
(5)The modified pulley bracket specified in REIMS AVIATION INDUSTRIES Service Bulletin No F406-58, Rev. 1, dated October 27, 2006, may be installed at any time after the inspection required in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD, but must be installed prior to further flight if cracking is found. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions
(f)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, Standards Staff, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, ATTN: Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; *telephone:*
(816)329-4144; *fax:*
(816)329-4090, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)*Airworthy Product:* For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et.seq.), the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(g)Refer to Direction Ge ne rale de L'Aviation Civile AD No. F-2005-080, Issue date: May 25, 2005, and REIMS AVIATION INDUSTRIES Service Bulletin No. F406-58, Rev. 1, dated October 27, 2006, for related information. Material Incorporated by Reference
(h)You must use REIMS AVIATION INDUSTRIES Service Bulletin No. F406-58, Rev. 1, dated October 27, 2006, 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 REIMS AVIATION INDUSTRIES, Ae rodrome de Reims Prunay, 51360 Prunay, France, A l'attention du Support Client; telephone 03.26.48.46.53; fax: 03.26.49.18.57.
(3)You may review copies at the FAA, Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.* Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on January 12, 2007. Kim Smith, Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-774 Filed 1-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26134; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-56-AD; Amendment 39-14898; AD 2007-02-11] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; EXTRA Flugzeugproduktions-und Vertriebs-GmbH Models EA-300, EA-300S, EA-300L, and EA-300/200 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)to supersede AD 2002-21-11, which applies to certain EXTRA Flugzeugbau GmbH (EXTRA) Model EA-300S airplanes. AD 2002-21-11 currently requires you to inspect, using a fluorescent dye check penetrant method, the upper longeron at the horizontal stabilizer attachment for cracks, repair any cracks found, and modify the horizontal stabilizer. That AD also requires a limit on operation to the Normal category until the initial inspection and modification on airplanes with less than 200 hours time-in-service is done. Since we issued AD 2002-21-11, cracks have been found on Models EA-300L and EA-300/200 airplanes. Consequently, this AD adds airplanes to the Applicability section and requires you to inspect and modify the upper longeron at the horizontal stabilizer attachment. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)issued by the airworthiness authority for Germany. We are issuing this AD to detect, correct, and prevent cracks in the upper longeron at the horizontal stabilizer attachment, which could result in structural failure of the aft fuselage. This failure could lead to loss of control. DATES: This AD becomes effective on February 28, 2007. As of February 28, 2007, the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulation. ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact EXTRA Flugzeugproduktions-und Vertriebs-GmbH, Schwarze Heide 21, D-46569 Huenxe, Germany; fax: (+49)-2858-9137-42. To view the AD docket, go to the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-001 or on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov.* The docket number is FAA-2006-26134; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-56-AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; *telephone:*
(816)329-4146; *fax:*
(816)329-4090. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion On November 15, 2006, we issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply to certain EXTRA Flugzeugproduktions-und Vertriebs-GmbH (EXTRA) Models EA-300, EA-300S, EA-300L, and EA-300/200 airplanes. This proposal was published in the **Federal Register** as a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)on November 22, 2006 (71 FR 67499). The NPRM proposed to supersede AD 2002-21-11, Amendment 39-12917 (67 FR 65479, October 25, 2002), with a new AD that would require you to do the following: • Inspect the upper longeron at the horizontal stabilizer attachment for cracks; • Reinforce the upper longeron in the area of the horizontal stabilizer attachment; and • Install V-tubes to reinforce fuselage frame underneath the horizontal stabilizer attachment bracket on Models EA-300S and EA-300L airplanes only. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the proposal or on the determination of the cost to the public. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for minor editorial corrections. We have determined that these minor corrections: • Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and • Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM. Differences Between the European Authority AD, the Service Bulletin, and This AD EASA AD No. 2006-0281, dated September 14, 2006, and EXTRA Service Bulletin No. 300-2-95, Issue: F, Dated: July 10, 2006, allow 50-hour repetitive inspections of the horizontal stabilizer attachment with the option of installing the modification kits as a terminating action for the repetitive inspections for certain affected airplanes. This AD does not allow continued repetitive inspections. The FAA has determined that long-term continued operational safety is better assured by design changes that remove the source of the problem rather than by repetitive inspections or other special procedures. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD affects 134 airplanes in the U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to do the inspection: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane Total cost on U.S. operators 24 work-hours × $80 per hour = $1,920 Not applicable $1,920 $1,920 × 134 = $257,280. We estimate the following costs to do the modifications: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane Total cost on U.S. operators 40 work-hours × $80 per hour = $3,200 $200 $3,200 + $200 = $3,400 $3,400 × 134 = $455,600. For airplanes still covered under warranty, the manufacturer will provide warranty credit for up to 35 work-hours for the inspection and modification work, as stated on page 8 of EXTRA Service Bulletin No. 300-2-95, Issue: F, Dated: July 10, 2006. 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 AD. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); 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 summary of the costs to comply with this AD (and other information as included in the Regulatory Evaluation) and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary by sending a request to us at the address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2006-26134; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-56-AD” in your request. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (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. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive
(AD)2002-21-11, Amendment 39-12917 (67 FR 65479, October 25, 2002) and adding the following new AD: **2007-02-11 EXTRA Flugzeugproduktions-und Vertriebs-GmbH:** Amendment 39-14898; Docket No. FAA-2006-26134; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-56-AD. Effective Date
(a)This AD becomes effective on February 28, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)This AD supersedes AD 2002-21-11, Amendment 39-12917. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to the following airplanes that are certificated in any category: Models Serial Nos. EA-300 01 through 62. EA-300L 01 through 71, 73 through 77, 79 through 83, 85 through 89, 91, and 92. EA-300S 01 through 29. EA-300/200 01 through 31 and 1032 through 1039. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD is the result from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)issued by the airworthiness authority for Germany. The actions specified in this AD are intended to detect, correct, and prevent cracks in the upper longeron at the horizontal stabilizer attachment, which could result in structural failure of the aft fuselage. This failure could lead to loss of control. Compliance
(e)To address this problem, you must do the following, unless already done: Actions Compliance Procedures
(1)Inspect, using a fluorescent dye penetrant method, the upper longeron at the horizontal stabilizer attachment for cracks, as applicable. You may take “unless already done” credit for the inspections if you previously used Extra Service Bulletin No. 300-2-95 (pages 2-6 at Issue: C, dated July 15, 1998; and pages 1 and 7 through 11 at Issue: D, dated January 30, 2001)
(i)For Models EA-300S airplanes: Upon accumulating 250 hours time-in-service
(TIS)after December 17, 2002 (the effective date of AD 2002-21-11) or within the next 50 hours TIS after February 28, 2007 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs first.
(ii)For Models EA-300, EA-300L, and EA-300/200 airplanes: Within the next 50 hours TIS after February 28, 2007 (the effective date of this AD).
(iii)For all affected airplanes: If the modifications specified in Part II and Part III of EXTRA Service Bulletin No. 300-2-95, Issue: F, Dated: July 10, 2006, have already been incorporated, no further action is required Follow Part I of EXTRA Service Bulletin No. 300-2-95, Issue: F, *Dated:* July 10, 2006.
(2)If cracks are found during the inspection required in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD in areas A, B, and C (as shown in Figure 1 of EXTRA Service Bulletin No. 300-2-95, Issue: F, Dated: July 10, 2006), weld the crack and modify the upper longeron at the horizontal stabilizer attachment by installing the applicable modification kit (or FAA-approved equivalent parts) For all affected airplanes: Before further flight after the inspection required in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD in which cracks are found, unless already done Follow Part II of EXTRA Service Bulletin No. 300-2-95, Issue: F, *Dated:* July 10, 2006.
(3)If no cracks are found during the inspection required in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD, modify the upper longeron at the horizontal stabilizer attachment by installing the applicable modification kit (or FAA-approved equivalent parts) For all affected airplanes: Within the next 100 hours TIS after February 28, 2007 (the effective date of this AD), unless already done Follow Part II of EXTRA Service Bulletin No. 300-2-95, Issue: F, *Dated:* July 10, 2006.
(4)For Models EA-300S and EA-300L airplanes only: Reinforce the fuselage frame underneath the horizontal stabilizer main spar attachment bracket by installing the applicable modification kit (or FAA-approved equivalent parts)
(i)For Model EA-300S: Within the next 200 hours TIS after December 17, 2002 (the effective date of AD 2002-21-11) or within the next 100 hours TIS after February 28, 2007 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs first, unless already done.
(ii)For Model EA-300L: Within the next 100 hours TIS after February 28, 2007 (the effective date of this AD), unless already done Follow Part III of EXTRA Service Bulletin No. 300-2-95, Issue: F, *Dated:* July 10, 2006. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(f)The Manager, Standards Office, Small Airplane Directorate, FAA, ATTN: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; *telephone:*
(816)329-4146; *fax:*
(816)329-4090, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(g)AMOCs approved for AD 2002-21-11 are approved for this AD. Related Information
(h)The European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA)AD No. 2006-0281, dated September 14, 2006, also addresses the subject of this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference
(i)You must use EXTRA Service Bulletin No. 300-2-95, Issue: F, *Dated:* July 10, 2006 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 EXTRA Flugzeugproduktions- und Vertriebs- GmbH, Schwarze Heide 21, D-46569 Huenxe, Germany; fax: (+49)-2858-9137-42.
(3)You may review copies at the FAA, Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.* Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on January 12, 2007. Kim Smith, Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-775 Filed 1-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-24452; Directorate Identifier 2006-NE-11-AD; Amendment 39-14893; AD 2007-02-06] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney PW2000 Series Turbofan Engines AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for Pratt & Whitney PW2000 series turbofan engines. This AD requires a onetime focused visual and fluorescent penetrant inspection
(FPI)of 21 suspect PW2000 8th stage high pressure compressor
(HPC)drum rotor disk assemblies. This AD results from a PW2037 8th stage HPC drum rotor disk assembly failure event caused by tooling damage that occurred during disk assembly manufacture. We are issuing this AD to prevent 8th stage HPC drum rotor disk assembly failure that could result in an uncontained engine failure and damage to the airplane. DATES: This AD becomes effective February 28, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations as of February 28, 2007. ADDRESSES: You can get the service information identified in this AD from Pratt & Whitney, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06108; telephone
(860)565-8770; fax
(860)565-4503. You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Riley, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; telephone
(781)238-7758; fax
(781)238-7199. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with a proposed AD. The proposed AD applies to Pratt & Whitney PW2000 series turbofan engines. We published the proposed AD in the **Federal Register** on August 3, 2006 (71 FR 43997). That action proposed to require a onetime focused visual and FPI of 21 suspect PW2000 8th stage HPC drum rotor disk assemblies. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the docket that contains the AD, any comments received, and any final disposition in person at the Docket Management Facility Docket Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Department of Transportation Nassif Building at the street address stated in ADDRESSES . Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the DMS receives them. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments received. Claim That AD Action Is Redundant Northwest Airlines and Air Transport Association claim that the proposed AD is redundant to existing requirements in the engine manual, and would only put an additional administrative burden on the operators. They further state that existing AD 2005-18-03 (enhanced inspection of critical rotating parts) already requires a focused FPI of the drum rotor disk and includes the area of question on the 8th stage disk. The commenters point out that the visual inspection referenced in Pratt & Whitney Alert Service Bulletin
(ASB)No. PW2000 A72-706, dated February 17, 2006 requires that any disk damage be within the limits in the engine manual visual inspection. We do not agree. The intent of this AD is to require inspection of the HPC 8th stage disk when the HPC rotor assembly is exposed but with compressor blades installed. The requirements in this AD are more restrictive than the requirements of AD 2005-18-03, which only requires inspection when the HPC rotor is removed from the HPC module and disassembled to the piece-part level with compressor blades removed. For clarification, we revised the AD compliance section to state that the 8th stage HPC drum rotor disk assembly is a rotor with compressor blades installed. Proposed AD Not Clear if the Nondestructive Inspection Procedures (NDIPs) Are Mandatory Northwest Airlines and Air Transport Association state that the proposed AD is not clear if the NDIPs referenced in the Pratt & Whitney ASB No. PW2000 A72-706, dated February 17, 2006, are mandatory. We agree. We clarified the AD by splitting up the information needed in paragraph (f), into subparagraphs. We also clarified the AD by specifying to use paragraphs 3., 3.A., and 3.B., of the Accomplishment Instructions of Pratt & Whitney ASB No. PW2000 A72-706, dated February 17, 2006, to use NDIP 1096, dated January 19, 2006, and to use NDIP 1095, dated January 12, 2006. Claim That AD Is Not Required Northwest Airlines states that the AD is not required, since all affected parts will be scrapped at exposure. The commenter states that since most of the affected parts in the field are likely to have very few cycles remaining, the parts will be retired upon their next disassembly. We do not agree. The estimated number of cycles on the affected 8th stage disks currently in service ranges from about 13,500 cycles to 19,000 cycles. The current life limit of the 8th stage disk is 20,000 cycles. Therefore, some of the affected 8th stage disks probably will be returned to service after a shop visit. Affected parts with very few cycles remaining and voluntarily removed from service, will not require inspection or incur any inspection cost. Recommend Compliance Time Be Reduced The National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB)supports the need for a onetime focused visual and FPI inspection of the HPC 8th stage disk. However, the NTSB recommends that the compliance time be reduced due to unknown factors from the disk failure investigation (failure location striation count) and the disk's demonstrated lack of damage tolerance. We do not agree. The finite element structural analysis performed by Pratt & Whitney for the 8th stage disk failure (PW2037 engine uncontained 8th stage HPC drum rotor disk assembly failure event, March 10, 2005,) correlate well with results from the Materials & Processes Engineering Lab measurements. The Lab measurements were of the fatigue striation counts from the failed disk. Based on the failure analysis and the manufacturing records review of the 8th stage disk, a risk analysis determined that an acceptable level of safety will be maintained for the compliance described in the AD. Service Documents Should Be Incorporated by Reference Modification and Replacement Parts Association (MARPA) states that the Pratt & Whitney service information referenced in the proposed AD should be incorporated by reference for the AD to be considered legal. We agree. Paragraph
(i)of this AD incorporates by reference the necessary service information. The proposed AD did not contain the incorporation by reference paragraph (i), because it is only a notice of proposed rulemaking. Service Documents Should Be Published in the Docket Management System
(DMS)MARPA states that the Pratt & Whitney service information to be incorporated by reference in the AD, should be published in the DMS, as it is part of the AD. We partially agree. We are currently reviewing issues surrounding the posting of service information on the DMS as part of an AD Docket. Once we thoroughly examine all aspects of this issue and make a final determination, we will consider if our current practice needs revising. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD will affect 15 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 70 work-hours per engine to perform the actions, and that the average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. We do not expect that parts will be required. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the AD to U.S. operators to be $84,000 for the inspection. 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 have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2)Is not a “significant rule” under 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 summary of the costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary at the address listed under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 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. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive: **2007-02-06 Pratt & Whitney:** Amendment 39-14893. Docket No. FAA-2006-24452; Directorate Identifier 2006-NE-11-AD. Effective Date
(a)This airworthiness directive
(AD)becomes effective February 28, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Pratt & Whitney PW2037, PW2040, and PW2037M turbofan engines. These engines are installed on, but not limited to Boeing 757 airplanes. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from a Pratt & Whitney PW2037 8th stage high-pressure compressor
(HPC)drum rotor disk assembly failure event caused by tooling damage that occurred during disk assembly manufacture. We are issuing this AD to prevent 8th stage HPC drum rotor disk assembly failure that could result in an uncontained engine failure and damage to the airplane. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed at the next shop visit, not to exceed an additional 6,000 engine cycles, after the effective date of this AD, when the 8th stage HPC drum rotor disk assembly (compressor blades installed) is exposed and removed from the HPC module, unless the actions have already been done. Inspect the 8th Stage Drum Rotor Disk
(f)Inspect the 8th stage drum rotor disks listed by part numbers and serial numbers in Table 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Pratt & Whitney Alert Service Bulletin No. PW2000 A72-706, dated February 17, 2006, as follows:
(1)Do a onetime focused visual and fluorescent penetrant inspection
(FPI)of suspect 8th stage HPC drum rotor disk assemblies that may have been damaged during manufacture.
(2)Use paragraphs 3., 3.A., and 3.B. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Pratt & Whitney Alert Service Bulletin No. PW2000 A72-706, dated February 17, 2006, Nondestructive Inspection Procedure
(NDIP)1096, dated January 19, 2006, and NDIP 1095, dated January 12, 2006, to do the inspections.
(3)Any 8th stage disk damage that exceeds the serviceable limits specified in Pratt & Whitney PW2000 Engine Manual, Part Number 1A6231, Chapter/Section 72-35-03, Inspection/Check-01/-04, can not be returned to service.
(g)After the effective date of this AD, do not install any uninspected 8th stage drum rotor disk assemblies listed in Table 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Pratt & Whitney Alert Service Bulletin No. PW2000 A72-706, dated February 17, 2006, in any engine. Alternative Methods of Compliance
(h)The Manager, Engine Certification Office, has the authority to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Material Incorporated by Reference
(i)You must use the Pratt & Whitney service information specified in Table 1 to perform the actions required by this AD. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the documents listed in Table 1 of this AD in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Pratt & Whitney, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06108; telephone
(860)565-8770; fax
(860)565-4503, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html* . Table 1.—Incorporation by Reference Pratt & Whitney service information Page Revision Date Alert Service Bulletin No. PW2000 A72-706 Total Pages: 11 All Original February 17, 2006. Nondestructive Inspection Procedure 1095 Total Pages: 18 All Original January 12, 2006. Nondestructive Inspection Procedure 1096 Total Pages: 18 All Original January 19, 2006. Relate Information
(j)Contact Mark Riley, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; telephone
(781)238-7758; fax
(781)238-7199, e-mail: *mark.riley@faa.gov* for more information about this AD. Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on January 12, 2007. Francis A. Favara, Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-686 Filed 1-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 97 [Docket No. 30532 Amdt. No. 3202] Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, Weather Takeoff Minimums; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This amendment establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, addition of new obstacles, or changes in air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports. DATES: This rule is effective January 24, 2007. The compliance date for each SIAP and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums is specified in the amendatory provisions. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of January 24, 2007. ADDRESSES: Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows: *For Examination* — 1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located; 3. The National Flight Procedures Office, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or, 4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html* . *For Purchase* —Individual SIAP and Weather Takeoff Minimums copies may be obtained from: 1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; or 2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located. *By Subscription* —Copies of all SIAPs and Weather Takeoff Minimums mailed once every 2 weeks, are for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald P. Pate, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 ( *Mail Address:* P.O. Box 25082 Oklahoma City, OK 73125) telephone:
(405)954-4164. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This amendment to Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums is contained in official FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA Forms are identified as FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5 and 8260-15A. Materials incorporated by reference are available for examination or purchase as stated above. The large number of SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the **Federal Register** expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums but refer to their depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums contained in FAA form documents is unnecessary. The provisions of this amendment state the affected CFR sections, with the types and effective dates of the SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums. This amendment also identifies the airport, its location, the procedure identification and the amendment number. The Rule This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums as contained in the transmittal. Some SIAP and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums amendments may have been previously issued by the FAA in a Flight Data Center
(FDC)Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for some SIAP, and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided. Further, the SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting these SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making some SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums effective in less than 30 days. Conclusion The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2)is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and
(3)does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97 Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, and Navigation (Air). Issued in Washington, DC on January 12, 2007. James J. Ballough, Director, Flight Standards Service. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Weather Takeoff Minimums effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows: PART 97—STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES 1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722. 2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows: * * * Effective 15 March 2007 Emmonak, AK, Emmonak, Takeoff Minimums and Textual DP, Orig Kodiak, AK, Kodiak, ILS OR LOC/DME Y RWY 25, Amdt 1 Kodiak, AK, Kodiak, RNAV
(GPS)RWY 25, Amdt 1 Kodiak, AK, Kodiak, VOR Y RWY 25, Amdt 1 Kodiak, AK, Kodiak, Takeoff Minimums and Textual DP, Amdt 2 San Jose, CA, Norman Y. Mineta/San Jose International, RNAV
(GPS)RWY 12L, Amdt 1 San Jose, CA, Norman Y. Mineta/San Jose International, RNAV
(GPS)RWY 30R, Amdt 1 Meriden, CT, Meriden Markham Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Textual DP, Amdt 3 Monticello, IN, White County, NDB RWY 36, Amdt 4, CANCELLED Standish, MI, Standish Industrial, VOR OR GPS-A, Amdt 3, CANCELLED Standish, MI, Standish Industrial, Takeoff Minimums and Textual DP, Amdt 1, CANCELLED Brainerd, MN, Brainerd Lakes Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Textual DP, Amdt 5 Shelby, MT, Shelby, RNAV
(GPS)RWY 23, Orig Shelby, MT, Shelby, Takeoff Minimums and Textual DP, Orig Shelby, MT, Shelby, NDB RWY 23, Amdt 7 Alliance, NE, Alliance Muni, RNAV
(GPS)RWY 8, Orig Alliance, NE, Alliance Muni, RNAV
(GPS)RWY 26, Orig Alliance, NE, Alliance Muni, VOR RWY 30, Amdt 3 Alliance, NE, Alliance Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Textual DP, Orig New York, NY, John F. Kennedy Intl, RNAV
(GPS)Y RWY 31L, Amdt 1 Dayton, OH, Greene County-Lewis A Jackson Regional, RNAV
(GPS)RWY 7, Orig Dayton, OH, Greene County-Lewis A Jackson Regional, RNAV
(GPS)RWY 25, Orig Dayton, OH, Greene County-Lewis A Jackson Regional, NDB RWY 25, Amdt 1 Dayton, OH, Greene County-Lewis A Jackson Regional, GPS RWY 7, Orig-A, CANCELLED Dayton, OH, Greene County-Lewis A Jackson Regional, Takeoff Minimums and Textual DP, Amdt 1 Allentown, PA, Lehigh Valley Intl, VOR-A, Amdt 9 Bristol/Johnson/Kingsport, TN, Tri-Cities Regional TN/VA, Radar-1, Amdt 16, CANCELLED Jasper, TN, Marion County-Brown Field, RNAV
(GPS)RWY 4, Orig Jasper, TN, Marion County-Brown Field, NDB RWY 4, Amdt 5 Sheridan, WY, Sheridan County, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 32, Amdt 1 Sheridan, WY, Sheridan County, RNAV
(GPS)RWY 14, Orig Sheridan, WY, Sheridan County, RNAV
(GPS)RWY 32, Orig Sheridan, WY, Sheridan County, VOR RWY 14, Amdt 1 Sheridan, WY, Sheridan County, Takeoff Minimums and Textual DP, Amdt 3 [FR Doc. E7-839 Filed 1-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 97 [Docket No. 30533; Amdt. No. 3203] Standard Instrument Approach Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This amendment amends Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, addition of new obstacles, or changes in air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports. DATES: This rule is effective January 24, 2007. The compliance date for each SIAP is specified in the amendatory provisions. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of January 24, 2007. ADDRESSES: Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows: *For Examination* — 1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Ave, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which affected airport is located; 3. The National Flight Procedures Office, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169, or 4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html* . *For Purchase* —Individual SIAP copies may be obtained from: 1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; or 2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located. *By Subscription* —Copies of all SIAPs, mailed once every 2 weeks, are for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald P. Pate, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125), telephone:
(405)954-4164. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) amends Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs). The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is contained in the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the the National Flight Data Center (FDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), which is incorporated by reference in the amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and § 97.20 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Materials incorporated by reference are available for examination or purchase as stated above. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the **Federal Register** expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained in FAA form documents is unnecessary. The provisions of this amendment state the affected CFR sections, with the types and effective dates of the SIAPs. This amendment also identifies the airport, its location, the procedure identification and the amendment number. The Rule This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP as modified by FDC/P-NOTAMs. The SIAPs, as modified by FDC P-NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these chart changes to SIAPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to only these specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in an FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for all these SIAP amendments requires making them effective in less than 30 days. Further, the SIAPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in TERPS. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting these SIAPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days. Conclusion The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2)is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and
(3)does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97 Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, and Navigation (Air). Issued in Washington, DC on January 12, 2007. James J. Ballough, Director, Flight Standards Service. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97, 14 CFR part 97, is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows: PART 97—STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES 1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722. 2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows: By amending: § 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or TACAN; § 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, LDA w/GS, SDF, SDF/DME; § 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; § 97.29 ILS, MLS, TLS, GLS, WAAS PA, MLS/RNAV; § 97.31 RADAR SIAPs; § 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; § 97.35 COPTER SIAPs, § 97.37 Takeoff Minima and Obstacle Departure Procedures. Identified as follows: * * * Effective Upon Publication FDC date State City Airport FDC No. Subject 12/29/06 GA Atlanta Newnan Coweta County 6/9357 Take-Off Minimums and (Obstacle) Departure Procedure, Amdt 3. 01/10/07 AK Pilot Point Pilot Point 7/0592 RNAV
(GPS)Rwy 7, Orig. 01/10/07 AK Pilot Point Pilot Point 7/0593 RNAV
(GPS)Rwy 25, Orig. [FR Doc. E7-838 Filed 1-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [TD 9303] RIN 1545-BF84 Corporate Reorganizations; Distributions Under Sections 368(a)(1)(D) and 354(b)(1)(B) AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Final and temporary regulations; correction notice. SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to temporary regulations that was published in the **Federal Register** on Tuesday, December 19, 2006 (71 FR 75879) regarding the qualification of certain transactions as reorganizations described in section 368(a)(1)(D). DATES: These corrections are effective December 19, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bruce A. Decker at
(202)622-7550 (not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The temporary regulations (TD 9303) that is the subject of these corrections are under sections 368 and 354 of the Internal Revenue Code. Need for Correction As published, the temporary regulations (TD 9303) contains errors that may prove to be misleading and are in need of correction. Correction of Publication Accordingly, the temporary regulations (TD 9303) that was the subject of FR Doc. E6-21565, is corrected as follows: 1. On page 75879, column 1, in the preamble, under the caption “SUMMARY:”, line 9, the language “securities of the acquiring corporation is” is corrected to read “securities of the acquiring corporation are.” 2. On page 75880, column 1, in the preamble, under the paragraph heading “Background”, first full paragraph of the column, line 5, the language “its operating assets to Y for $34x dollars,” is corrected to read “its operating assets to Y for $34x,.” 3. On page 75880, column 1, in the preamble, under the paragraph heading “Background”, second full paragraph of the column, line 7, the language “requirements of section 354 and 356, is corrected to read “requirements of sections 354 and 356,.” 4. On page 75881, column 1, in the preamble, under the paragraph heading “Special Analyses”, line 7 from the bottom of the paragraph, the language “published elsewhere in this **Federal** ” is corrected to read “published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal** .” List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1 Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. PART 1—INCOME TAXES **Paragraph 1.** The authority citation for part 1 continues to read in part as follows: Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * § 1.368-2T [Corrected] **Par. 2.** Section 1.368-2T is amended by revising paragraph (l)(1) to read as follows: § 1.368-2T Definition of terms (temporary).
(l)* * *
(1)*General rule.* In order to qualify as a reorganization under section 368(a)(1)(D), a corporation (transferor corporation) must transfer all or part of its assets to another corporation (transferee corporation) and immediately after the transfer the transferor corporation, or one or more of its shareholders (including persons who were shareholders immediately before the transfer), or any combination thereof, must be in control of the transferee corporation; but only if, in pursuance of the plan, stock or securities of the transferee corporation are distributed in a transaction which qualifies under section 354, 355, or 356. LaNita Van Dyke, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration). [FR Doc. E7-861 Filed 1-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [CGD08-07-001] Drawbridge Operating Regulations; Berwick Bay (Atchafalaya River), Morgan City, LA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations. SUMMARY: The Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District, has issued a temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the BNSF Railway Company Vertical Lift Span Bridge across Berwick Bay, mile 0.4 (Atchafalaya River, mile 17.5), at Morgan City, St. Mary Parish, Louisiana. This deviation provides for the bridge to remain closed to navigation for 12 consecutive hours to conduct scheduled maintenance to the drawbridge. DATES: This deviation is effective from 8 a.m. until 8 p.m. on Wednesday, February 7, 2007. ADDRESSES: Materials referred to in this document are available for inspection or copying at the office of the Eighth Coast Guard District, Bridge Administration Branch, Hale Boggs Federal Building, Room 1313, 500 Poydras Street, New Orleans, Louisiana 70130-3310 between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is
(504)671-2128. The Bridge Administration Branch maintains the public docket for this temporary deviation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Frank, Bridge Administration Branch, telephone
(504)671-2128. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The BNSF Railway Company has requested a temporary deviation in order to replace the railroad signal circuits of the BNSF Railway Railroad Vertical Lift Span Bridge across Berwick Bay, mile 0.4 (Atchafalaya River, mile 17.5) at Morgan City, St. Mary Parish, Louisiana. Replacement of the signal circuits is necessary to turn the lining of signals across the bridge into a fully automatic operation so that the bridge will be in full compliance with requirements of the Federal Railroad Administration. This temporary deviation will allow the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position from 8 a.m. until 8 p.m. on Wednesday, February 7, 2007. The proposed work was previously scheduled for Wednesday, December 13, 2006, but had to be postponed due to parts being unavailable. The required parts have been received and BNSF is now ready to accomplish the repairs. There may be times, during the closure period, when the draw will not be able to open for emergencies. The bridge provides 4 feet of vertical clearance in the closed-to-navigation position. Thus, most vessels will not be able to transit through the bridge site when the bridge is closed. Navigation on the waterway consists of tugs with tows, fishing vessels and recreational craft including sailboats and powerboats. Due to prior experience, as well as coordination with waterway users, it has been determined that this closure will not have a significant effect on these vessels. In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. Dated: January 16, 2007. Marcus Redford, Bridge Administrator. [FR Doc. E7-994 Filed 1-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [CGD01-07-003] Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Reynolds Channel, Lawrence, NY AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations. SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the Atlantic Beach Bridge across Reynolds Channel, mile 0.4, at Lawrence, New York. Under this temporary deviation, an advance notice shall be required for bridge openings from February 26, 2007 through March 2, 2007, from 7 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. This deviation is necessary to facilitate scheduled bridge maintenance. DATES: This deviation is effective from February 26, 2007 through March 2, 2007. ADDRESSES: Materials referred to in this document are available for inspection or copying at the First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch Office, One South Street, New York, New York 10004, between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is
(212)668-7165. The First Coast Guard District Bridge Branch Office maintains the public docket for this temporary deviation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, at
(212)668-7195. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Atlantic Beach Bridge, across Reynolds Channel at mile 0.4, at Lawrence, New York, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 25 feet at mean high water and 30 feet at mean low water. The existing drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.5. The owner of the bridge, Nassau County Bridge Authority, requested a temporary deviation to facilitate scheduled bridge span lock maintenance. The bridge will not be able to open while the bridge maintenance is underway. An advance notice for openings is necessary in order to have the bridge operational for vessel traffic. Under this temporary deviation the bridge shall open on signal after at least a 1-hour advance notice is given between 7 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. from February 26, 2007 through March 2, 2007. The contact information for providing the advance notice for bridge openings shall be via marine radio channel 13 or by calling
(516)239-1821. In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(c), this work will be performed with all due speed in order to return the bridge to normal operation as soon as possible. Should the bridge maintenance authorized by this temporary deviation be completed before the end of the effective period published in this notice, the Coast Guard will rescind the remainder of this temporary deviation, and the bridge shall be returned to its normal operating schedule. Notice of the above action shall be provided to the public in the Local Notice to Mariners and the **Federal Register** , where practicable. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. Dated: January 16, 2007. Gary Kassof, Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E7-993 Filed 1-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [CGD01-07-004] Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Mystic River, Mystic, CT AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations. SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the Amtrak railroad bridge across the Mystic River, mile 2.4, at Mystic, Connecticut. Under this temporary deviation, the bridge may remain in the closed position from February 2, 2007 through February 4, 2007. This deviation is necessary to facilitate scheduled bridge maintenance. DATES: This deviation is effective from February 2, 2007 through February 4, 2007. ADDRESSES: Materials referred to in this document are available for inspection or copying at the First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch Office, One South Street, New York, New York 10004, between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is
(212)668-7165. The First Coast Guard District Bridge Branch Office maintains the public docket for this temporary deviation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, at
(212)668-7195. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Amtrak railroad bridge, across the Mystic River, mile 0.4, at Mystic, Connecticut, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 4 feet at mean high water and 8 feet at mean low water. The existing drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.211. The owner of the bridge, National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), requested a temporary deviation to facilitate scheduled bridge pinion shaft maintenance. The bridge will not be able to open while the bridge maintenance is underway. Under this temporary deviation the Amtrak railroad bridge may remain in the closed position from February 2, 2007 through February 4, 2007. In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(c), this work will be performed with all due speed in order to return the bridge to normal operation as soon as possible. Should the bridge maintenance authorized by this temporary deviation be completed before the end of the effective period published in this notice, the Coast Guard will rescind the remainder of this temporary deviation, and the bridge shall be returned to its normal operating schedule. Notice of the above action shall be provided to the public in the Local Notice to Mariners and the **Federal Register** , where practicable. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. Dated: January 16, 2007. Gary Kassof, Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E7-992 Filed 1-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [CGD01-07-005] Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Connecticut River, East Haddam, CT AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations. SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the Route 82 Bridge across the Connecticut River, mile 16.8, at East Haddam, Connecticut. Under this temporary deviation, the bridge may remain in the closed position for two nights from 8:30 p.m. to 4:30 a.m. in January 2007. The two closure dates will be determined based upon favorable weather for two nights between January 22, 2007 and January 27, 2007. This deviation is necessary to facilitate scheduled bridge maintenance. DATES: This deviation is effective from January 22, 2007 through January 27, 2007. ADDRESSES: Materials referred to in this document are available for inspection or copying at the First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch Office, One South Street, New York, New York, 10004, between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is
(212)668-7165. The First Coast Guard District Bridge Branch Office maintains the public docket for this temporary deviation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, at
(212)668-7195. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Route 82 Bridge, across the Connecticut River, mile 16.8, at East Haddam, Connecticut, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 22 feet at mean high water and 25 feet at mean low water. The existing drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.205(c). The owner of the bridge, Connecticut Department of Transportation, requested a temporary deviation to facilitate scheduled bridge maintenance, drive gear repairs. The bridge will not be able to open while the bridge maintenance is underway. Under this temporary deviation the Route 82 Bridge may remain in the closed position between 8:30 p.m. and 4:30 a.m., for two nights only, between January 22, 2007 and January 27, 2007. The two closure dates will be selected depending upon favorable weather necessary to perform the required repairs. In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(c), this work will be performed with all due speed in order to return the bridge to normal operation as soon as possible. Should the bridge maintenance authorized by this temporary deviation be completed before the end of the effective period published in this notice, the Coast Guard will rescind the remainder of this temporary deviation, and the bridge shall be returned to its normal operating schedule. Notice of the above action shall be provided to the public in the Local Notice to Mariners and the **Federal Register** , where practicable. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. Dated: January 16, 2007. Gary Kassof, Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E7-991 Filed 1-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD09-06-174] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zones; M/V ROY A. JODREY, St. Lawrence River, Wellesley Island, NY AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is removing the established safety zone around the wreck of the M/V ROY A. JODREY, St. Lawrence River, Wellesley Island, NY. The safety zone was necessary for restricting recreational diving while conducting oil removal operations aboard the sunken vessel. The safety zone is no longer needed and the Coast Guard is removing the regulation. DATES: This section becomes effective on February 23, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket CGD9-06-174 and are available for inspection or copying at U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo, 1 Fuhrmann Blvd., Buffalo, NY 14203 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LT Tracy Wirth, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo,
(716)843-9573. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that publishing an NPRM is unnecessary because this rule removes a safety zone that is no longer needed. Background and Purpose The rule established a safety zone around the sunken M/V ROY A. JODREY, St. Lawrence River, Wellesley Island, NY (67 FR 65042 (October 23, 2002).). The safety zone was necessary for restricting recreational diving while conducting oil removal operations aboard the sunken vessel. The zone covered all waters and adjacent shoreline encompassed by the arc of a circle with a 150-yard radius of the wreck M/V ROY A JODREY, with its center in 44°19.55 N, 075°56.00 W (NAD83). The safety zone is no longer needed and the Coast Guard is removing the regulation. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed this rule under that order. It is not significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), because we are disestablishing the safety zone around wreck M/V ROY A JODREY. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because this rule removes an obsolete safety zone. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects and participate in the rulemaking process. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact Sector Buffalo (see ADDRESSES ). Small businesses may send comments on actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). Collection of Information This rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children The Coast Guard has analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( *e.g.* , specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedure; and related management system practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are not required for this rule because we are disestablishing a safety zone. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6 and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation no. 0170.1. § 165.917 [Removed] 2. Section 165.917 is removed. Dated: January 4, 2007. S.J. Ferguson, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo, Sector Buffalo. [FR Doc. E7-1004 Filed 1-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0580; FRL-8270-3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Arizona; Miami Sulfur Dioxide State Implementation Plan and Request for Redesignation to Attainment; Correction of Boundary of Miami Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action under the Clean Air Act to approve the Miami Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area State Implementation and Maintenance Plan as a revision to the Arizona state implementation plan. The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality developed this plan to maintain the sulfur dioxide national ambient air quality standards in the Miami (Gila County) area. The maintenance plan contains various elements, including contingency provisions that will be implemented if measured ambient concentrations of sulfur dioxide are above certain trigger levels. EPA is also approving the State of Arizona's request for redesignation of the Miami area from nonattainment to attainment for the sulfur dioxide standards. Lastly, EPA is correcting the boundary of the Miami sulfur dioxide nonattainment area to exclude a noncontiguous township that was erroneously included in the description of the area and to fix a transcription error in the listing of one of the other townships. EPA is taking these actions consistent with provisions in the Clean Air Act that obligate the Agency to approve or disapprove submittals of revisions to state implementation plans and requests for redesignation. The intended effect is to redesignate the Miami, Arizona sulfur dioxide nonattainment area to attainment, provide for maintenance of the standard for the ten-year period following redesignation, and correct long-standing errors in the codified description of the area. DATES: This rule is effective on March 26, 2007 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by February 23, 2007. 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-2006-0580, by one of the following methods: 1. *Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions. 2. *E-mail: vagenas.ginger@epa.gov.* 3. *Mail or deliver:* Ginger Vagenas (Air-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901. *Instructions:* All comments 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 Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through the *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. *www.regulations.gov* is an “anonymous access” system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. 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. *Docket:* The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at *www.regulations.gov* and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), 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: Ginger Vagenas, Air Planning Office,
(415)972-3964 or by e-mail at *vagenas.ginger@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Elsewhere in this **Federal Register** , we are proposing approval and soliciting written comment on this action. Throughout this document, the words “we,” “us,” or “our” mean U.S. EPA. Table of Contents I. Summary of Today's Direct Final Action II. Introduction A. SO <sup>2</sup> NAAQS B. State Implementation Plan C. History of SO <sup>2</sup> Planning in Arizona 1. Development of the SO <sup>2</sup> SIP 2. Miami SO <sup>2</sup> Nonattainment Area D. Sources of SO <sup>2</sup> Emissions in the Miami Area III. CAA Requirements for Redesignation Requests and Maintenance Plans IV. EPA's Evaluation of Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the Miami, Arizona SO <sup>2</sup> Nonattainment Area A. The Area Must Be Attaining the SO <sup>2</sup> NAAQS B. The Area's Applicable Implementation Plan Must Be Fully Approved Under Section 110(k) C. The Improvement in Air Quality Must Be Due to Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions D. The Area Must Have Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D 1. Section 110 Requirements 2. Part D Requirements a. Section 172 b. Section 176 c. Subpart 5 E. The Area Must Have a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan 1. Attainment Inventory 2. Maintenance Demonstration 3. Monitoring Network 4. Verification of Continued Attainment 5. Contingency Plan 6. Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions 7. Conclusion V. Boundary Correction A. Background B. Authority for Correcting Errors C. Evaluation and Conclusion VI. Public Comment and Final Action VII. Statutory and Executive Order Review I. Summary of Today's Direct Final Action On June 26, 2002, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (``ADEQ'' or ``State'') submitted to EPA Region IX its Miami Sulfur Dioxide State Implementation and Maintenance Plan and its request for redesignation to attainment (``Miami SO <sup>2</sup> Maintenance Plan” or ``submittal”). The submittal summarizes the progress the State has made in attaining the sulfur dioxide (SO <sup>2</sup> ) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) in the Miami nonattainment area (Gila County, Arizona) (“Miami area”) and includes a plan to assure continued attainment of the SO <sup>2</sup> NAAQS for at least the next 10 years. The June 26, 2002 submittal also includes a request for redesignation of the boundary of the area and for redesignation of the status of the area, as amended, to “attainment” under section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act (“Act” or CAA). On June 30, 2004, ADEQ submitted certain replacement pages correcting errors in the June 26, 2002 submittal. On June 20, 2006, ADEQ submitted a letter withdrawing the boundary redesignation request and requesting EPA to address the boundary issue as an error correction under CAA section 110(k)(6) instead. In today's direct final action, because we find that the Miami SO <sup>2</sup> Maintenance Plan meets the requirements for maintenance plans under section 175A of the Act and that the Miami area qualifies for redesignation under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E), we are approving the submittal (as amended by the submittals dated June 30, 2004 and June 20, 2006) as a revision to the Arizona SIP and redesignating the Miami area from nonattainment to attainment for the SO <sup>2</sup> NAAQS. Also, based on a review of the relevant State and EPA materials from the late 1970's, we are correcting errors under CAA section 110(k)(6) in the listing of the townships that comprise the Miami SO <sup>2</sup> nonattainment area to exclude a noncontiguous township and to fix a transcription error in one of the other townships so listed. II. Introduction The following section discusses the NAAQS for SO <sup>2</sup> , CAA requirements for state implementation plans, SO <sup>2</sup> planning in Arizona generally and in the Miami area more specifically, and sources of emissions in the Miami area. A. SO <sup>2</sup> NAAQS The NAAQS for SO <sup>2</sup> consists of three standards: Two primary standards for the protection of public health and a secondary standard for protection of public welfare. The primary SO <sup>2</sup> standards address 24-hour average and annual average ambient SO <sup>2</sup> concentrations. The secondary standard addresses 3-hour average ambient SO <sup>2</sup> concentrations. The level of the annual SO <sup>2</sup> standard is 0.030 parts per million (ppm), which is equivalent to 80 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3 ), not to be exceeded in a calendar year. The level of the 24-hour standard is 0.14 ppm (365 μg/m 3 ), not to be exceeded more than once per calendar year. The level of the secondary SO <sup>2</sup> standard is a 3-hour standard of 0.5 ppm (1,300 μg/m 3 ), not to be exceeded more than once per calendar year. See 40 CFR 50.2-50.5. B. State Implementation Plan The CAA requires states to implement, maintain, and enforce ambient air quality equal to or better than the NAAQS. A state's strategies for implementing, maintaining, and enforcing the NAAQS are submitted to EPA for approval, and, once approved, become part of the State Implementation Plan (or SIP) for that State. SIPs are compilations of regulatory and non-regulatory elements adopted, submitted, and approved at different times to address various types of changes in circumstances, such as new or revised NAAQS or amendments to the CAA. SIPs include, among other things, the following:
(1)An inventory of emission sources;
(2)statutes and regulations adopted by the state legislature and executive agencies;
(3)air quality analyses that include demonstrations that adequate controls are in place to meet the NAAQS; and
(4)contingency measures to be undertaken if an area fails to attain the standard or make reasonable progress toward attainment by the required date. The state must make proposed changes to the SIP available for public review and comment through a public hearing, and must formally adopt the changes before submitting them to EPA for approval. Upon our approval, a SIP revision becomes federally enforceable. C. History of SO <sup>2</sup> Planning in Arizona 1. Development of the SO <sup>2</sup> SIP In the early 1970's, soon after the Clean Air Amendments of 1970 were passed, Arizona began developing air quality regulations that applied to all Arizona primary copper smelters, including the one operating in the Miami area. These regulations focused on establishing an air quality monitoring network in the areas surrounding the smelters and determining the allowable emission rates from the smelters so that the SO <sup>2</sup> NAAQS could be attained and maintained. Arizona submitted various SIP revisions during the 1970s to establish approvable emission limitations for the primary copper smelters operating in the state. On September 20, 1979, the State submitted its SIP revision to EPA which contained its multi-point rollback
(MPR)technique to establish operating limitations on smelters. After EPA's proposed conditional approval on November 30, 1981 (46 FR 58098), Arizona made necessary changes which corrected identified deficiencies. EPA granted full approval of the MPR-based SIP submittal on January 14, 1983 (48 FR 1717), but was not able to grant full approval to the SO <sup>2</sup> SIPs for six smelter areas (including Miami) because they lacked a strategy for addressing fugitive 1 sources of SO <sup>2</sup> . 1 “Fugitive” in this context refers to emissions that could not reasonably pass through a stack, chimney, vent for a functionally equivalent opening. On November 1, 2004, EPA approved several revisions to the SO <sup>2</sup> SIP, including site-specific requirements, compliance and monitoring, and fugitive emissions standards for existing primary copper smelters. See 69 FR 63321. In that same notice, EPA promulgated a limited approval/limited disapproval of R18-2-Appendix 8, which sets out procedures for calculating sulfur emissions using a sulfur balance method. ADEQ subsequently corrected the identified deficiencies and EPA approved the new version of R18-2-Appendix 8 as a SIP revision on April 12, 2006. See 71 FR 18624. The effective date for our April 12, 2006 final approval is June 12, 2006. 2. Miami SO <sup>2</sup> Nonattainment Area Originally, the air quality planning area we refer to as the Miami SO <sup>2</sup> nonattainment area was not separately defined but rather was included in a county-wide SO <sup>2</sup> nonattainment area (see 43 FR 8969, March 3, 1978). At the request of the state of Arizona, the boundaries were reduced to nine townships in and around the city of Miami (44 FR 21261, April 10, 1979). See also, 40 CFR 81.303. 2 In addition, six adjacent townships were designated as “cannot be classified”. Section 107(d)(1)(C) of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments
(CAAA)brought forward, by operation of law, the nonattainment designations for areas, such as the Miami SO <sup>2</sup> area, that continued to be designated as nonattainment at the time of enactment of the CAAA, i.e., areas that had not been redesignated to “attainment” prior to November 1990. 2 The nine townships that comprise the Miami SO <sup>2</sup> nonattainment area are: T2N, R14E; T2N, R15E; T1N, R13E (only that portion in Gila County); T1N, R14E; T1N, R15E; T1N, R16E; T1S, R14E (only that portion in Gila County); T1S, R14 1/4 E; and T1S, R15E. Code of Federal Regulations, title 40, part 81, section 303 (40 CFR 81.303) also identifies six other townships as areas that “cannot be classified.” These six townships are: T2N, R13E (only that portion in Gila County); T2N, R16E; T1S, R13E (only that portion in Gila County); T1S, R16E; T2S, R14E (only that portion in Gila County); and T2S, R15E. All of the townships discussed in this notice relate to the Gila and Salt River Base Line. In section V of this notice, we discuss our decision to amend 40 CFR 81.303 to correct the boundary of the Miami area to exclude a noncontiguous township and to fix a typographical error. D. Sources of SO <sup>2</sup> Emissions in the Miami Area The dominant source of SO <sup>2</sup> emissions in the Miami area is the Phelps-Dodge Miami primary copper smelter (“Miami smelter”). Combined stack and fugitive SO <sup>2</sup> emissions from the smelter are limited under the source-specific EPA-approved rule (i.e., R18-2-7-715) to 2,420 pounds per hour annual average, which amounts to approximately 10,368 tons per year based on 357 days of operation (set forth for the permit for this facility) or approximately 10,600 tons per year assuming 365 days per year of smelter operation. Between 1996 and 2000, the smelter's actual SO <sup>2</sup> emissions ranged from 5,737 tons per year to 7,819 tons per year and represented 97 to 99% of the total stationary source SO <sup>2</sup> emissions in the Miami nonattainment area. See tables 4.1, 4.3, and 5.2 of the Miami SO <sup>2</sup> Maintenance Plan. There are several other point sources of SO <sup>2</sup> in the Miami area, all of which are relatively minor: BHP Copper, Pinto Valley; BHP Copper, Miami East Unit; Carlota Copper Company Mine; and the Phelps-Dodge Miami Mine. Viewed collectively, these sources are permitted to emit a total of approximately 100 tons per year. Actual emissions, however, are generally less than 10 tons per year. SO <sup>2</sup> emissions from area and mobile sources are about 150 tons per year. See sections 4.1 and 4.3 of the Miami SO <sup>2</sup> Maintenance Plan and table 1, below. Table 1.—Point, Area, and Mobile Sources of SO <sup>2</sup> Emissions in the Miami SO <sup>2</sup> Nonattainment Area (Tons per year, TPY) Source name or type Allowable emissions Actual emissions
(1999)Stationary Sources (not including Phelps-Dodge primary copper smelter): BHP Copper, Pinto Valley Unit 6 a <1 BHP Copper, Miami East Unit <1 <1 Carlotta Copper Company Mine 1 0 Phelps-Dodge Miami Mine 92 7 Area and Mobile NA 149 Phelps-Dodge Miami Smelting Operations 10,368 7,819 Total From All Sources NA 7,975 a When burning diesel; lower limits exist for other fuels. NA = not applicable. Source: Sections 4.1 and 4.3 from the Miami SO <sup>2</sup> Maintenance Plan. III. CAA Requirements for Redesignation Requests and Maintenance Plans As stated in the summary section of this rule, Arizona has requested that we redesignate the Miami SO <sup>2</sup> nonattainment area to attainment. Any redesignation from nonattainment to attainment requires EPA to determine whether the requirements of Clean Air Act section 107(d)(3)(E), have been met. These criteria are:
(1)At the time of the redesignation, we must find that the area has attained the relevant NAAQS;
(2)the State must have a fully approved SIP for the area;
(3)we must determine that the improvements in air quality are due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP and applicable federal regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions;
(4)the state must have met all the nonattainment area requirements applicable to the area; and
(5)we must have fully approved a maintenance plan for the area under CAA section 175A. To evaluate the State's redesignation request for the Miami area, we relied upon the Clean Air Act itself, particularly section 110 and part D (of title I), EPA's NAAQS and SIP regulations in 40 CFR parts 50 and 51, and guidance set forth in “General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990” (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992), and in the following EPA guidance documents: “Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” dated September 4, 1992, from John Calcagni, (“Calcagni Memo”), “Attainment Determination Policy for Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Areas,” dated January 26, 1995, from Sally L. Shaver, (“Shaver Memo”), and “Part D New Source Review (part D NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,” dated October 14, 1994, from Mary D. Nichols (“Nichols Memo”). IV. EPA's Evaluation of Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the Miami, Arizona SO <sup>2</sup> Nonattainment Area A. The Area Must Be Attaining the SO <sup>2</sup> NAAQS Under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i), in order for an area to be redesignated, we must determine that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS. The air quality data should be representative of the area of highest concentration and should be measured by monitors that remain at the same location for the duration of the monitoring period required for demonstrating attainment. The data should be collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and recorded in EPA's Air Quality System database
(AQS)to be available for public review. Under 40 CFR part 58, States certify data that is entered into AQS on an annual basis. For the purposes of determining whether an area has attained the SO <sup>2</sup> NAAQS, we require no fewer than two consecutive years of “clean” data (i.e., no violations) as recorded in AQS. In addition, to qualify for attainment determination purposes, the annual average and second-highest 24-hour average concentrations must be based upon hourly data that are at least 75 percent complete in each calendar quarter. See 40 CFR 50.4. The State of Arizona initiated ambient monitoring of SO <sup>2</sup> in the Miami area in 1970. In order to establish coverage sufficient to evaluate the ambient impact of smelter emissions, this initial effort was expanded. Eventually more than sixteen stationary monitoring sites were established, with as many as seven monitors operating concurrently. Historic ambient SO <sup>2</sup> monitoring site locations and periods of operation are provided in Table 3.1, and Figures 3.1 and 3.2 of the State's submittal. Following the Miami smelter's compliance with stack emissions limits (using continuous control technology) as required under Arizona Administrative Code
(AAC)R9-3-515, which was submitted and approved by EPA as a revision to the Arizona SIP in the 1980's (but since amended and re-codified as R18-2-7-715), the number of SO <sup>2</sup> monitors has decreased. Between 1990 and 1996, the number of monitors varied from three to four and several monitoring locations changed, but since 1997, the three presently-operating monitors have remained at their current locations: the Jones Ranch monitor along Cherry Flats Road, the Ridgeline monitor along Linden Street, and the Townsite monitor along Sullivan Street. All three presently-operating monitors are located south of the smelter, but vary in distance and elevation relative to smelter sources. The Townsite monitor lies closest to the smelter and at the lowest elevation among the three sites while the Jones Ranch monitor lies furthest from the smelter but at the highest elevation. The Jones Ranch and Townsite monitors are operated by Phelps Dodge using Thermal Electron pulsed fluorescent
(TECO)samplers, and the Ridgeline monitor is operated by ADEQ using a Thermo pulse fluorescence analyzer. Table 2 below summarizes the SO <sup>2</sup> monitoring data collected at the various monitors operated by ADEQ (or, in the case of Jones Ranch, ADEQ or the smelter operator) from 1988 through 2005. ADEQ ended its monitoring at Jones Ranch in 1994, but the smelter operator continues to monitor SO <sup>2</sup> at that location. Table 3 below presents estimated annual SO <sup>2</sup> emissions from the smelter over the same time period. Table 2.—Summary of Sulfur Dioxide Ambient Air Quality Data—Miami, Arizona: 1988-2005 Year Averaging period Concentrations (μg/m 3 ) at individual sites Jones ranch Cities services bldg. Little acres Ridgeline 1988 Max 3-hour *655* *413* *153* Max 24-hour *180* *73* *29* — Annual *21* *13* *6* — 1989 Max 3-hour *814* *169* *86* — Max 24-hour *133* *29* *18* — Annual *17* *4* *3* — 1990 Max 3-hour *715* — — — Max 24-hour *136* — — — Annual **16* — — — 1991 Max 3-hour *767* — — — Max 24-hour *143* — — — Annual **18* — — — 1992 Max 3-hour 875 — — — Max 24-hour 128 — — — Annual *8 — — — 1993 Max 3-hour 721 — — — Max 24-hour 123 — — — Annual 10 — — — 1994 Max 3-hour 566 — — — Max 24-hour 121 — — — Annual 16 — — — 1995 Max 3-hour 433 — — 244 Max 24-hour 122 — — 89 Annual 8 — — 10 1996 Max 3-hour 593 — — 338 Max 24-hour 146 — — 110 Annual 11 — — 8 1997 Max 3-hour 820 — — 524 Max 24-hour 138 — — 92 Annual 10 — — 5 1998 Max 3-hour 840 — — 175 Max 24-hour 123 — — 40 Annual 10 — — 8 1999 Max 3-hour 897 — — *198* Max 24-hour 152 — — *65* Annual 8 — — *14* 2000 Max 3-hour 895 — — *307* Max 24-hour 133 — — *70* Annual 11 — — *17* 2001 Max 3-hour 577 — — *338* Max 24-hour 145 — — *110* Annual 19 — — *19* 2002 Max 3-hour 628 — — *174* Max 24-hour 184 — — *78* Annual 16 — — *18* 2003 Max 3-hour 578 — — *250* Max 24-hour 152 — — *70* Annual 21 — — *13* 2004 Max 3-hour 326 — — *291* Max 24-hour 99 — — *78* Annual 13 — — *11* 2005 Max 3-hour — — — *250* Max 24-hour — — — *78* Annual — — — *12* Notes: The primary NAAQS for SO <sup>2</sup> are 365 μg/m 3 , 24-hour average, not to be exceeded more than once per calendar year, and 80 μg/m 3 , annual average. The secondary NAAQS for SO <sup>2</sup> is 1,300 μg/m 3 , 3-hour average, not to be exceeded more than once per calendar year. The * indicates that the annual average does not satisfy summary criteria. The — indicates little or no data in a given year from a given monitor. EPA's AQS database is the source of data shown in *italics* . ADEQ's Air Quality Annual Reports are the sources of the non-italicized data shown in this table. Monitoring Sites: • The Jones Ranch monitoring site is located along Cherry Flats Road, approximately 1.8 miles south-southeast of the smelter stack at an elevation of 4,100 feet above sea level. ADEQ operated a monitor at this site through 1994. From 1991 through 1994, the State-operated monitor at Jones Ranch was referred to as “Nolan Ranch”. More recent data shown in this table for Jones Ranch was collected and compiled by the smelter operator. • The Cities Services Building monitoring site was located approximately 2.2 miles east-northeast of the smelter stack. ADEQ operated a monitor at this site through 1989. • The Little Acres monitoring site was located approximately 2 miles southeast of the smelter. ADEQ operated a monitor at this site through 1989. • The Ridgeline monitoring site, which is the current ADEQ monitoring site for SO <sup>2</sup> in the Miami area, is located along Linden Street at an elevation of 3,600 feet. Table 3.—Miami Smelter Sulfur Dioxide Emissions: 1988-2005 Year Sulfur dioxide emissions tons per year 1988 3,988 1989 6,398 1990 4,141 1991 11,145 1992 4,813 1993 7,678 1994 9,260 1995 5,108 1996 5,737 1997 6,368 1998 6,097 1999 7,819 2000 6,810 2001 9,062 2002 5,667 2003 8,005 2004 8,754 2005 7,366 Sources: Miami SO <sup>2</sup> Maintenance Plan, page 35; e-mail correspondence from Bruce Friedl, ADEQ, dated September 29, 2006. Review of historic data supports identification of the Jones Ranch monitor as the monitoring location where the highest concentrations are recorded among the network of monitoring locations selected to measure the impact of smelter-related emissions on ambient air quality. We note that the Jones Ranch monitoring site was determined to be the “limiting site” for the purposes of establishing emissions limits for the smelter. ADEQ closed its monitoring site at Jones Ranch in 1994, and while Phelps-Dodge continues to operate an SO <sup>2</sup> monitor at that site, the data is not recorded in AQS. 3 In 1995, ADEQ began monitoring at the Ridgeline site, and no exceedances have ever been recorded there. 3 ADEQ has committed to working with Phelps-Dodge to begin entering SO <sup>2</sup> monitoring data collected at the Jones Ranch site to AQS beginning with the first quarter of 2008. See letter from Nancy C. Wrona, Director, Air Quality Division, ADEQ, to Deborah Jordan, Air Division Director, EPA—Region IX, dated October 18, 2006. Based on a review of the data from the Miami SO <sup>2</sup> Maintenance Plan as well as tables 2 and 3 presented above, we find that the Miami nonattainment area has attained the SO <sup>2</sup> NAAQS and thereby meets the first criterion for redesignation. Our conclusion is based on six basic interrelated facts: • Ambient SO <sup>2</sup> concentrations in the Miami air quality planning area are determined by emissions from the Phelps-Dodge primary copper smelter 4 and local meteorological and topographic characteristics, and all other SO <sup>2</sup> sources have essentially no effect on ambient levels in the planning area; 4 There is one significant point source located outside the Miami nonattainment area but within 50 kilometers of the Miami nonattainment area. The ASARCO Hayden Smelter is located approximately 46 kilometers south of the Miami smelter. However, because the ASARCO Hayden smelter is geographically separated from the Miami area by the 7,000 foot Pinal Mountains, its emissions do not have an impact on air quality in the Miami area. • The monitor at the Jones Ranch site records SO <sup>2</sup> concentrations that are representative of the highest ambient levels in the nonattainment area; • There are two consecutive and complete years of “clean” data from the Jones Ranch monitor, i.e., the limiting site, as recorded in AQS (1988 and 1989); • During the 1988-1989 period, maximum concentrations were approximately 60% of the 3-hour-average secondary NAAQS and approximately 50% of the 24-hour-average primary NAAQS, and the highest of the annual-average concentrations measured in the area during this period was approximately 30% of the corresponding primary NAAQS; • While annual emissions from the smelter have varied from year to year, they have generally been no higher than 50% above those that occurred during the 1988-1989 period; and • No SO <sup>2</sup> exceedances have been measured at any of the monitoring sites over the 1988 to 2005 period. B. The Area's Applicable Implementation Plan Must Be Fully Approved Under CAA Section 110(k) Under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii), the SIP for the Miami area must be fully approved under CAA section 110(k) of the Act. We examined the applicable SIP for Arizona and also looked at the disapprovals listed in 40 CFR 52.125 and have determined that no disapprovals listed remain relevant to the applicable SIP. Arizona has a fully approved SIP with respect to SO <sup>2</sup> in the Miami area. C. The Improvement in Air Quality Must Be Due to Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) requires that EPA determine that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP and/or applicable federal measures. Figure 6.1 of the Miami SO <sup>2</sup> Maintenance Plan (as amended in ADEQ's submittal dated June 30, 2004) illustrates the significant decline in emissions from the Miami smelter since the 1970's in inverse proportion to the level of control over smelter emissions sources. Control over the smelter's SO <sup>2</sup> emissions has been made permanent and enforceable through EPA approval of State rules limiting such emissions as a revision to the Arizona SIP (specifically, R18-2-715, R18-2-715.01, R18-2-715.02, and R18-2-Appendix 8) and through ADEQ's issuance of a title V permit for the Miami smelter. Arizona's primary copper smelter rules and ADEQ's title V permit contain enforceable emission limitations that cap emissions at a level that has been shown to be protective of the NAAQS. Any relaxation to the SIP-approved limits must be approved by EPA as a revision to the Arizona SIP, and EPA may not approve any such SIP revision without a demonstration that the relaxation in the limits would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. See CAA section 110(l). Therefore, we find that the improvement in ambient SO <sup>2</sup> concentrations in the Miami, AZ area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP. D. The Area Must Have Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D Under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(v), we must determine whether the State of Arizona has met all requirements under section 110 and under part D (of title I) of the CAA applicable to the Miami SO <sup>2</sup> nonattainment area. 1. Section 110 Requirements CAA section 110 contains the general requirements for SIPs (enforceable emissions limits, ambient monitoring, permitting of new sources, adequate funding, etc.). EPA's guidance for implementing section 110 of the Act is discussed in the General Preamble to Title I (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992). Over the years, we have approved Arizona's SIP as meeting these basic requirements. The SIP includes enforceable emission limitations; requires monitoring, compiling, and analyzing of ambient air quality data; requires preconstruction review of new major stationary sources and major modifications to existing ones; provides for adequate funding, staff, and associated resources necessary to implement its requirements; and requires stationary source emission monitoring and reporting. 2. Part D Requirements Before an area can be redesignated to attainment, it must have fulfilled the applicable requirements under part D (of title I). For this area, the relevant requirements are found in subparts 1 and 5 of part D. Subpart 1 of part D specifies the basic requirements applicable to all nonattainment areas. Subpart 5 sets out additional provisions for areas designated nonattainment for SO <sup>2</sup> . As discussed below, EPA finds that Arizona has met the requirements of subpart 1 of part D, specifically sections 172(c) and 176, and subpart 5 as applicable for the Miami SO <sup>2</sup> nonattainment area. a. Section 172 CAA section 172 contains the general requirements for nonattainment SIPs. A thorough discussion of the requirements of 172(c) can be found in the General Preamble for the implementation of title I (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992). Additional guidance can be found in the Calcagni memo. EPA has interpreted the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(2) (reasonable further progress—RFP), 172(c)(6) (other measures), and 172(c)(9) (contingency measures) as not relevant to a redesignation request because they only have meaning for an area that is not attaining the standard (see the General Preamble and the Calcagni Memo), and as discussed above in section IV.A. of this notice, we find that the Miami area is attaining the SO <sup>2</sup> standard. Furthermore, the State has not sought to exercise options that would trigger section 172(c)(4) (identification of certain emissions increases). Thus, this provision is also not relevant to this redesignation request. The other provisions under 172(c) are discussed below. *Reasonably available control measures.* Under CAA section 172(c)(1), reasonably available control measures (RACM), which include requirements for reasonably available control technology (RACT), are required for existing sources in nonattainment areas. In 1983, we approved the State's submittal of Rule R9-3-315, a predecessor to the State's current smelter rules codified at Arizona Administrative Code
(AAC)R18-2-715. See 48 FR 1717 (January 14, 1983). This rule limited stack emissions from primary copper smelters, including the smelter in the Miami area. We concluded, however, that the control strategy for SO <sup>2</sup> in Arizona's six SO <sup>2</sup> nonattainment areas was incomplete due to the failure to address fugitive emissions problems. See 48 FR 1717 (January 14, 1983) and 40 CFR 52.125(a)(1). In 1998, 2003, and 2006, the State submitted amended rules (AAC R18-2-715 (sections F, G, and H), R18-2-715.01, R18-2-715.02, and R18-2-Appendix 8). 5 These rules address both fugitive and stack emissions from smelters and, in approving the rules, we found that the amended rules met the RACT requirement under CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 191(b). See 69 FR 26789 at 26788 (May 14, 2004), 69 FR 63321 (November 2, 2004), and 71 FR 18624 at 18625 (April 12, 2006). Furthermore, because the area has attained the standard, no further demonstration that RACM has been implemented need be submitted by the State. 5 A more extensive summary of the regulatory history of copper smelters in Arizona is included in EPA's proposed action on these rules. See 69 FR 26786 (May 14, 2004). *Emissions inventory.* The emissions inventory requirement of section 172(c)(3) is satisfied by the maintenance plan inventory requirements. The maintenance plan inventory is evaluated below, in section IV.E.1. *NSR permit program.* Section 172(c)(5) requires new source review
(NSR)permits for the construction and operation of new and modified major stationary sources located in nonattainment areas. ADEQ is the agency responsible for implementing the nonattainment area NSR permit program in the Miami area. Under ADEQ's rules, all new major sources and modifications to existing major sources are subject to the NSR requirements of these rules. We have not yet fully approved the ADEQ NSR rules. 6 We have, however, determined that an area being redesignated from nonattainment to attainment does not need to have an approved NSR program prior to redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the standard without nonattainment NSR in effect. See memorandum from Mary Nichols dated October 14, 1994 (“Part D New Source Review (part D NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.”) We have determined that the maintenance demonstration for Miami does not rely on nonattainment NSR. 6 ADEQ's NSR rules are included in the preconstruction review and permitting provisions of Arizona Administrative Code (AAC), Title 18, Chapter 2, Articles 3 and 4. EPA approved an earlier version of ADEQ's NSR requirements (AAC R9-3-302) on May 5, 1982 (47 FR 19328) and August 10, 1988 (53 FR 30220). Prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD)is the permitting program that applies in attainment areas. PSD was established to preserve air quality in areas that are meeting the NAAQS. The PSD program requires new, modified, or reconstructed stationary sources to undergo preconstruction review and to apply best available control technology. In addition, sources are required to review PSD increment consumption and undertake preconstruction modeling. ADEQ has an EPA-approved PSD permitting program (Arizona Air Pollution Rule R9-3-304) for all criteria pollutants except respirable particulate matter (PM 10 ). See 48 FR 19878 (May 3, 1983). The federal PSD program for PM 10 was delegated to the State on March 12, 1999. ADEQ's partially approved, partially delegated PSD program will apply automatically to new major sources or major modifications to existing sources of SO <sup>2</sup> in the Miami area once the area is redesignated to attainment. *Compliance with section 110(a)(2).* Under section 172(c)(7), plan provisions submitted to satisfy part D must meet the applicable provisions of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. As noted in section IV.B. above, the Miami portion of the Arizona SIP meets these requirements. *Equivalent techniques.* Under section 172(c)(8), EPA may allow the use of equivalent modeling, emission inventory, and planning procedures, unless EPA determines that the proposed techniques are, in the aggregate, less effective than the methods specified by EPA. The Miami SO <sup>2</sup> Maintenance Plan relies on an equivalent modeling technique referred to as Multipoint Rollback (MPR). MPR was used to derive emissions limits for the Miami smelter that provide for attainment and maintenance of the SO <sup>2</sup> NAAQS. The State's rules containing MPR-derived emission limits for the Miami smelter were approved by EPA on January 14, 1983 (48 FR 1717) and amended versions of the rules were approved by EPA on November 1, 2004 (69 FR 63321). b. Section 176 Section 176(c) of the CAA requires states to establish criteria and procedures to ensure that federally supported or funded projects conform to the air quality planning goals in the applicable SIP. The requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation plans, programs, and projects developed, funded or approved under title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Laws (“transportation conformity”) as well as to all other federally supported or funded projects (“general conformity”). Because EPA does not consider SO <sup>2</sup> a transportation-related pollutant, only the requirements related to general conformity apply to the Miami SO <sup>2</sup> area. The State of Arizona adopted general conformity criteria and procedures as a revision to the Arizona SIP. EPA approved Arizona's general conformity SIP on April 23, 1999 (64 FR 19916). Thus, the requirements of CAA section 176 have been satisfied. c. Subpart 5 Subpart 5 of part D contains additional provisions for areas designated nonattainment for SO <sup>2</sup> . Under CAA section 191(b), States with existing nonattainment areas for the primary SO <sup>2</sup> NAAQS where those areas lack fully approved SIPs, including part D plans, must submit implementation plans meeting the requirements of subpart 1 of part D. As discussed in section IV.D.2.a of this notice, the State of Arizona has met the requirements of subpart 1 of part D for the Miami area. Under CAA section 192(b), such areas were required to meet the primary SO <sup>2</sup> NAAQS as expeditiously as possibly but no later than November 15, 1995. As discussed in section IV.A of this notice, the Miami SO <sup>2</sup> nonattainment area met the primary SO <sup>2</sup> standards well before the applicable attainment date of November 15, 1995 and has continued to attain since then. E. The Area Must Have a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) of the Act makes EPA approval of a maintenance plan meeting the requirements of section 175A another prerequisite to redesignation. Under section 175A, a maintenance plan must provide for maintenance of the NAAQS for at least 10 years after redesignation, and include any additional control measures as may be necessary to ensure such maintenance. In addition, maintenance plans are to contain such contingency provisions as EPA deems necessary to assure the prompt correction of a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The contingency measures must include, at a minimum, a requirement that the state will implement all control measures contained in the nonattainment SIP prior to redesignation. The Calcagni Memo contains EPA guidance on the contents of maintenance plans submitted for the purposes of meeting section 175A. Generally, such plans should address the following five topics: the attainment emissions inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring network, verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan. Lastly, under CAA section 175A(b), states are required to submit a subsequent maintenance plan eight years after redesignation providing for maintenance of the NAAQS for an additional 10-year period beyond the initial 10-year maintenance period. 1. Attainment Inventory The Miami SO <sup>2</sup> Maintenance Plan includes an emissions inventory for point sources, area sources, and mobile sources for 1999 and 2000 as well as a projection of emissions to 2015. See table 4 below. As discussed in section IV.A of this notice, the Miami area has continued to attain the SO <sup>2</sup> NAAQS since at least 1990 and thus 1999 and 2000 are acceptable as the basis upon which to develop an “attainment emissions inventory” for the purposes of a maintenance plan. ADEQ developed the area and mobile source estimates shown in table 4 based on EPA's AIRData for Gila County. Point source estimates are based on ADEQ annual emissions inventory data. See section 4.0 and appendix B of the Miami SO <sup>2</sup> Maintenance Plan. Sulfur dioxide emissions from the Phelps-Dodge smelter copper smelter itself are based on continuous emission monitoring systems and the assumption that stack emissions represent 25 percent of the facility's total annual (i.e., stack plus fugitive) SO <sup>2</sup> emissions. The actual percentage of total facility emissions emanating from the stacks varies from year to year (e.g., from 19 percent to 33 percent over the 1996 to 2000 period) but the 25 percent assumption is a reasonable average annual value based on material balance calculation methods. Table 4.—SO <sup>2</sup> Emissions Inventories for 1999, 2000, and Projected Inventory for 2015 for the Miami Area (in TPY) Source type 1999 2000 2015 Area and Mobile 149 150 162 Point (excluding Miami smelter) 7 4 9 Miami Smelter 7,819 6,810 8,000 Total 7,975 6,964 8,171 Source: Miami SO <sup>2</sup> Maintenance Plan, tables 4.4 and 4.6. Based on our review of the submitted plan, we conclude that the emissions inventory is based on reasonable methods and assumptions and is comprehensive and accurate. 2. Maintenance Demonstration EPA allows states to demonstrate maintenance of the NAAQS by either showing that future emissions of a pollutant or its precursors will not exceed the level of the attainment inventory, or by modeling to show that the future mix of sources and emission rates will not cause a violation of the NAAQS. 7 In the case of the Miami nonattainment area, the demonstration of maintenance relies on both a projected emissions inventory for future years of 2005, 2010, and 2015 for sources in the Miami nonattainment area as well as SO <sup>2</sup> emission limits for the Miami smelter that were developed using a variant of Multipoint Rollback
(MPR)modeling and intended to minimize the probability of an exceedance of the SO <sup>2</sup> NAAQS due to smelter emissions. 7 See Calcagni Memo, at p. 9. The inventory from the Miami SO <sup>2</sup> Maintenance Plan shows that about 98% of the total SO <sup>2</sup> emissions in the Miami nonattainment area are generated by the smelter. 8 Projections for the Miami smelter itself anticipate a minor increase from those in 1999 [7,819 tons per year (tpy)] to 2005 and beyond (8,000 tpy). The remaining point sources in the nonattainment area have existing permits that limit their allowable emissions to less than 100 tpy. Projections for area and mobile sources (increasing from 149 tpy 9 to 162 tpy) are based on anticipated moderate increases in population and the assumption that SO <sup>2</sup> emissions from such sources are proportionate to the population. Total projected actual emissions of point, area, and mobile sources are expected to remain relatively constant, with total SO <sup>2</sup> emissions projected to be less than 24 tons on a daily basis and approximately 8,200 tons on annual basis by 2015. 10 This represents an increase of only about 2 percent from 1999 levels. Thus, throughout the maintenance period, the Miami smelter is expected to continue to be the overwhelming source of SO <sup>2</sup> emissions in the area. 8 See appendix B of submitted plan. 9 The most recent quality assured inventory is from 1996. The 1999 SO <sup>2</sup> inventory for area and mobile sources is based on economic growth activity. 10 See table 4.6 of submitted plan. The emissions projections for the smelter (from 7,819 tpy) in 1999 to 8,000 tpy in 2005 and beyond are based on the expectation that, through 2015, the copper industry will not expand. While the expectation of continued low price pressures on copper may well have been reasonable in 2002 when the maintenance plan was adopted, changes in the copper market in fact have occurred over the past several years raising the price for copper thereby leading to a reasonable expectation of higher production levels at the Miami smelter than anticipated in the Miami SO <sup>2</sup> Maintenance Plan. Nonetheless, the demonstration of maintenance of the SO <sup>2</sup> NAAQS in the Miami area does not rely solely on the emissions projections, but also on the SO <sup>2</sup> emission limits established under SIP rule AAC R18-2-715 (approved by EPA in 2004 and, as amended, in 2006) and incorporated into the title V operating permit for the Phelps-Dodge Miami smelter. These limits cap stack emissions at 604 pounds per hour (lbs/hr) on an annual average basis and total facility (i.e., stacks plus fugitives) emissions at 2,420 lbs/hr on an annual basis. SIP rule AAC R18-2-715 also establishes a cumulative occurrence table that caps the number of occurrences of 3-hour average emissions above various levels with, for example, only two occurrences allowed per year of stack SO <sup>2</sup> emissions greater than 5,900 lbs/hr, 3-hour average. The total facility emissions cap (2,420 lbs/hr) corresponds to approximately 10,600 tpy assuming round-the-clock, year-round operation (the permit however cites 10,400 tpy based on 357 work days in a given year). As explained below, ADEQ has demonstrated that the new limits are protective of the SO <sup>2</sup> NAAQS. In order to increase the smelter's emissions limits the State would have to submit a SIP revision that demonstrates that, consistent with CAA section 110(l), the revision does not interfere with maintenance of the SO <sup>2</sup> NAAQS. Therefore, the emission limits for the smelter, supported by the emissions inventory projections that show that the smelter will remain the overwhelming source of SO <sup>2</sup> emissions in the area for the foreseeable future, in essence provide the demonstration necessary to show that the Miami area will continue to attain the SO <sup>2</sup> standard indefinitely, and thereby comply with CAA section 175A(a), which requires maintenance plans to provide for maintenance of the NAAQS for at least 10 years after redesignation. Given the link then between the SO <sup>2</sup> emission limits on the Phelps-Dodge Miami smelter and the demonstration of maintenance, the Miami SO <sup>2</sup> Maintenance Plan provides a detailed explanation of how the limits were derived and how they minimize the probability of exceedance of the SO <sup>2</sup> NAAQS due to smelter operations. See chapter 5 of the submitted plan. First, it is important to note that ADEQ used a variant of the Multipoint Rollback
(MPR)method to derive these emissions limits. In brief, MPR uses the ratio of monitored concentrations to the NAAQS to determine how much to scale the smelter's existing hourly distribution of emission rates so that they meet the NAAQS. Unlike simple rollback, which yields a single maximum emission rate never to be exceeded, MPR yields limitations on the number of times per year that the facility may exceed each of a series of emission rates. In the resulting cumulative occurrence table, the larger the emissions rate, the fewer number of occurrences are allowed per year. The emission rates are chosen so that the full hourly distribution results in attainment of the NAAQS on a probabilistic basis. This approach has been approved by EPA for use with smelters because of their highly variable emission rates. 11 ADEQ used a variant of MPR, as explained further below, to show that the new limits are protective of the NAAQS. 11 See EPA Final Rule, “Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arizona Plan Revision: Sulfur Oxides Control Strategy and Regulations for Existing Nonferrous Smelters,” 48 FR 1717 (January 14, 1983); and the SO <sup>2</sup> Guideline Document, EPA-452/R-94-008, February 1994, section 6.4.4. ADEQ derived the original emissions limits for the smelter in the late 1970's using MPR, and adopted the original smelter SO2 emissions rule in 1979. To derive new, enforceable limits on the smelter stacks, it was necessary to distinguish stack emissions from total emissions, which include fugitives (those emissions not vented through the stack). The new emissions limits were derived by apportioning the old facility-wide emission limits between the stack emissions and fugitive emissions. Using mass balance, the total amount of emissions can be calculated from the total mass of sulfur entering the plant in raw materials. Stack emissions are monitored, and account for about 25% of the total sulfur. The fugitive emissions were then determined by subtracting the monitored stack emissions from the calculated total emissions. Because the release height of the stack and fugitive emissions is similar, and their emissions are fairly well-mixed by the time they reach the monitor, the stack also accounts for 25% of the observed concentration at the monitor, on average. Thus, 25% of the existing facility-wide limits (2,420 lb/hr) are what the stack must be limited to (605 lb/hr; the SIP rule caps the emissions at 604 lb/hr, which is slightly more conservative) in order to meet the NAAQS. This provides only an annual average emission rate. To derive MPR-style limits on allowed occurrences of various emission rates (i.e., a cumulative occurrence table), ADEQ used the shape of the current hourly emission distribution 12 and scaled it to match the required annual average emission rate. Since the new average limit is 1.75 times the current average actual emissions (604 lb/hr limit vs. 345 lb/hr current average), the current distribution and occurrence emission levels were scaled up by this factor. The result is new occurrence limits consistent with the new average limit of 604 lb/hr, the level needed to meet the NAAQS based upon the 1979 MPR analysis and the 25% stack fraction. 12 Emissions from each hour of 1999 were averaged with the corresponding hour in 2000, which represents a minor departure from how original MPR was carried out; i.e., using all data in a single distribution. EPA believes any resulting changes to the calculations are insignificant in the context of the Miami MPR analysis and finds this to be an acceptable approach. However, scaling according to the 1979 limits assumes that the 1979 relationship between emissions and ambient concentrations has not changed. There have been substantial operational and emissions changes at the smelter since the 1979 average emission limit and occurrence table were derived, which could have altered the shape of the emissions curve. If the current distribution shape has a broader peak than the 1979 one, then there will be relatively more instances of high ambient impacts, and so scaling of the average will not guarantee NAAQS-protective limits on short-term emissions. In order to address this, ADEQ carried out a second step in the submittal that is more consistent with the MPR procedure, in that it incorporated the ambient effect of the current emissions distribution, rather than relying on the 1979 relationship. ADEQ used monitoring data from 1996-2000, and emissions during that same period. The new emission limits, though a decrease from the old limits, represent an increase over the current actual emissions, and so should be shown to be consistent with the NAAQS. ADEQ assumed the smelter operated at the higher emissions rate allowed in the new limits, and applied the fractional emissions increase to ambient 3-hour, 24-hour, and annual SO <sup>2</sup> concentrations. This uses the current relationship between emissions and ambient concentration to show that the scaled-up emissions allowed in the new limits are consistent with the NAAQS. The result of this “rollback” scaling is shown in figure 5.4 of the Miami SO <sup>2</sup> Maintenance Plan, and also in table 5 below. Table 5.—Predicted Ambient SO <sup>2</sup> Concentrations Based on Emissions Limits Averaging time Predicted level μg/m 3 NAAQS μg/m 3 Percent of NAAQS 3-hour 1,180 1,300 91 24-hour 230 365 63 Annual 25 80 31 Note: The predicted 3-hour and 24-hour average concentrations represent second-high values in a given year. Predicted levels listed in this table are derived from figure 5.4 of the Miami SO <sup>2</sup> Maintenance Plan. With this second verification step, ADEQ used a procedure consistent with MPR, an EPA-approved method for smelter attainment demonstrations, to show that the new limits are protective of the NAAQS. We find that the protection of the NAAQS provided by the smelter's SO <sup>2</sup> emissions limits, considered in the context of emissions projections that show that the smelter will remain the overwhelming source of SO <sup>2</sup> emissions in the area for the foreseeable future, sufficient to demonstrate maintenance through the maintenance period and beyond. 3. Monitoring Network Currently, there are three monitoring sites in the Miami nonattainment area: the Ridgeline monitor operated by ADEQ, and the Jones Ranch and Townsite monitors operated by Phelps-Dodge. ADEQ and Phelps-Dodge Miami commit to continue monitoring ambient SO <sup>2</sup> concentrations at their respective sites for at least 10 years following the approval of the Miami SO <sup>2</sup> Maintenance Plan. Phelps-Dodge has the option of shutting down the monitors if the smelter has not operated for more than 2 years but commits to resume monitoring at the two sites three months prior to restarting of smelting operations. In addition, ADEQ commits to discussing changes to monitor locations with EPA and indicates that all ambient monitoring data will continue to be quality-assured in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR part 58, Ambient Air Quality Surveillance. See section 7.2 of the submitted plan. We find that the Miami SO <sup>2</sup> Maintenance Plan adequately provides for continued monitoring of SO <sup>2</sup> concentrations in the Miami area. At the present time, only the SO <sup>2</sup> monitoring data collected at ADEQ's Ridgeline site is certified and entered into AQS. However, because the Jones Ranch site has historically measured the highest SO <sup>2</sup> concentrations in the area and because the data from Jones Ranch is used in connection with the contingency plan, EPA has requested that ADEQ commit to working with Phelps-Dodge to ensure that SO <sup>2</sup> monitoring data from the Jones Ranch site is entered into AQS. By letter to EPA dated October 18, 2006, ADEQ has agreed that entering SO <sup>2</sup> monitoring data from the Jones Ranch site into AQS is appropriate and has committed to working with Phelps-Dodge to accomplish this task no later than the first quarter of 2008. This commitment provides additional assurance that a suitable monitoring network will be maintained within the Miami area through the maintenance period and provides additional support for the contingency plan discussed below in section IV.E.5 of this action. 4. Verification of Continued Attainment ADEQ intends to track the progress of the Miami SO <sup>2</sup> Maintenance Plan through implementation and enforcement of the monitoring, reporting, and certification procedures to which permitted sources are subject under AAC R18-2-306 and R18-2-309. As a permitted source, the Phelps-Dodge Miami smelter is subject to these State requirements. ADEQ also notes that it has authority pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes section 49-101 to monitor and ensure source compliance with all applicable rules and permit conditions. See section 7.3 of the submitted plan. Lastly, we note that ADEQ is required under 40 CFR part 51, subpart A, to report emissions data for large stationary sources, such as the Phelps-Dodge Miami smelter, on an annual basis. Considered together, the submitted plan and relevant EPA regulations adequately provide for verification of continued attainment of the SO <sup>2</sup> NAAQS in the Miami area. 5. Contingency Plan Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that maintenance plans include contingency provisions to promptly correct any violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation of the area. The Calcagni memo provides additional guidance, noting that, although a state is not required to have fully adopted contingency measures that will take effect without further action by the state in order for the maintenance plan to be approved, the maintenance plan should ensure that the contingency measures are adopted expediently once they are triggered. Specifically, the maintenance plan should clearly identify the measures to be adopted, include a schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation of the measures, and contain a specific time limit for action by the state. In addition, the state should identify specific indicators, or triggers, that will be used to determine when the contingency measures need to be implemented. Because the Phelps-Dodge smelter is the overwhelming source of SO <sup>2</sup> emissions in the Miami area, the contingency plan contained in section 7.4 of the Miami SO <sup>2</sup> Maintenance Plan focuses on ambient impacts and emissions attributable to it. The contingency plan uses monitored ambient concentrations of SO <sup>2</sup> to trigger actions designed to ensure continued attainment of the SO <sup>2</sup> NAAQS. The trigger levels and associated notification procedures and associated actions are described below. *Notification Procedure:* If either of the Phelps-Dodge monitors or the ADEQ-operated monitor record ambient 3-hour average SO <sup>2</sup> levels between 0.425 ppm and 0.5 ppm (i.e., levels greater than 85%, but less than 100%, of the secondary SO <sup>2</sup> NAAQS), 13 the entity that operates the monitor is required to notify the other party. A second occurrence in a calendar year of ambient concentrations between 0.425 ppm and 0.5 ppm, or an exceedance of the secondary NAAQS is defined as the protective trigger level (PTL). The response required by a triggering of the PTL is divided into two action levels. 13 See Table 5, above, which shows that the three-hour SO <sup>2</sup> NAAQS is “limiting” in the sense of being the most constraining on emissions, since this averaging time has the least room for additional emission increases. This is consistent with past findings that the three-hour average requires the most stringent reduction in emissions. See 46 FR 58098 (November 30, 1981) at page 58102. *First Action Level:* If the PTL is tripped, Phelps-Dodge must undertake a series of inspections and a full calibration check of the ambient SO <sup>2</sup> analyzers and recording systems in order to validate the data. If the data are determined to be valid, Phelps-Dodge must perform any needed repairs or corrective actions and implement specified preventive measures. The source must also submit a report to ADEQ by the close of the second business day following an exceedance in which it describes the nature of the event, any corrective actions taken to resolve the event, and recommendations for future corrective actions to avoid recurrence of such an event. *Second Action Level:* If the source is unable to correct the triggering of the PTL by implementing the actions required under the first action level, Phelps-Dodge must undertake an analysis to identify additional control measures needed to ensure maintenance of the NAAQS. Phelps-Dodge is required to submit recommendations to ADEQ within 30 business days following the triggering of the PTL. Using all available data, ADEQ will determine the cause and appropriate resolution of the event, and will require the adoption and implementation of additional control measures, as needed. ADEQ commits to initiating changes to the rules or to the permit as soon as possible. *Special Measure:* A violation of the secondary NAAQS (i.e., a second exceedance in a calendar year) triggers the implementation of a special measure within 24 hours of the monitored violation that requires the source to reduce its operating rate by the same percentage as that by which the 3-hour standard was exceeded. These circumstances also require that the source comply with first action level requirements and, if necessary, second action level requirements. A second and higher concentration violation of the secondary NAAQS within the same calendar year requires that the operating rate be recalculated accordingly. Upon review of the contingency plan in the Miami SO2 Maintenance Plan summarized above, we find that ADEQ has established a workable contingency plan, including trigger levels, notification procedures, and appropriate actions, for promptly correcting any violations of the SO2 NAAQS that occur after the redesignation of the Miami area to attainment and thereby satisfies the requirements of CAA section 175A(d). 6. Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions As noted previously, CAA section 175A(b) requires states to submit a subsequent maintenance plan revision eight years after the redesignation request is approved by EPA. The subsequent maintenance plan is to provide for maintenance of the NAAQS for an additional 10 years following the first 10-year maintenance period. ADEQ has made a commitment to submit a subsequent maintenance plan to EPA eight years into the initial 10-year maintenance period (see page 53 of the submitted plan) and thereby satisfies CAA section 175A(b). 7. Conclusion ADEQ's Miami SO <sup>2</sup> Maintenance Plan adequately addresses the five basic topics that such plans should address, including attainment inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring network, verification of continued attainment, and contingency plan, and also provides for submittal of a subsequent maintenance plan. Therefore, we approve the Miami SO <sup>2</sup> Maintenance Plan as a revision to the Arizona SIP and thereby satisfy the related redesignation criterion of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv). V. Boundary Correction A. Background Under section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, each State was directed to submit to EPA a list identifying the NAAQS attainment status for all areas within the State. EPA was required under section 107(d)(2) of the 1977 Amended Act to promulgate the State lists, with any necessary modifications, within 60 days of their submittal. In 1978, in the absence of recommendations from the State of Arizona, EPA promulgated the original area designations for Arizona for each of the NAAQS. See 43 FR 8962 (March 3, 1978). 14 EPA selected counties as the geographic basis for the original nonattainment area designations for SO <sup>2</sup> in Arizona and designated all of Gila County as a nonattainment area for the SO <sup>2</sup> NAAQS. See 43 FR 8962, at 8968. 14 EPA has codified the designations for air quality planning areas at 40 CFR part 81. The Arizona area designations are codified at 40 CFR 81.303. On August 15, 1978, the State of Arizona submitted its area designations to EPA with the intent that EPA redesignate the original EPA-promulgated nonattainment areas to reflect the State's recommendations. The State's August 15, 1978 submittal included a background document prepared by the Arizona Department of Health Services and entitled, “Identification of Areas within Arizona that do or do not meet National Ambient Air Quality Standards (August 1, 1978)” (referred to herein as the “State's designations background report”). The State's designations background report identifies townships, or identifiable portions thereof, as the smallest geographic unit defining air quality planning areas in Arizona. With respect to SO <sup>2</sup> in the Miami area, the State's designations background report includes a map showing a nonattainment area comprised by a total of nine townships: two townships in which the major source of SO <sup>2</sup> emissions in the area (i.e., the primary copper smelter) is located (T1N, R14E and T1N, R15E) and seven adjacent townships (or portions thereof) to the east, west, north and south. The State's map also shows six additional adjacent townships with the designation of “cannot be classified.” In the State's designations background report, the State provided a specific list of townships defining the nonattainment and “cannot be classified” areas. However, the list of townships and the map illustrating the areas are not entirely consistent with one another. The State's list of townships for the Miami SO <sup>2</sup> nonattainment area includes, among others, the following townships moving west to east: T1N, R13E; T1N, R14E; T1N, R15E; and T1N, R16E. The township immediately east of T1N, R15E, however, is T1N, R15 1/2 E not T1N, R16E, and thus the list inadvertently created a noncontiguous nonattainment area with a single township (T1N, R16E) isolated from the rest of the larger designated area. 15 In contrast, the map submitted as part of the designations background report shows the nonattainment area boundary as a single contiguous area including both T1N, R15 1/2 E and the western half of T1N, R16E. On April 10, 1979 (44 FR 21261), we approved the redesignation request by Arizona for the Miami SO <sup>2</sup> nonattainment area without modification and thereby codified the State's submitted list of townships (not the map) as the geographic definition for the Miami SO <sup>2</sup> nonattainment area thereby creating a noncontiguous nonattainment area (i.e., one township isolated from the rest of the townships comprising the nonattainment area). In its June 26, 2002 submittal of the Miami SO <sup>2</sup> Maintenance Plan and supplemental June 30, 2004 submittal, ADEQ requested that we redesignate the boundaries under CAA section 107(d)(3)(D) to create a single, contiguous planning area and to exclude tribal lands from the planning area. By letter dated June 26, 2006, however, ADEQ withdrew the boundary redesignation request as previously formulated but requested that EPA act to correct the boundary under section 110(k)(6) of the Act instead. As explained further below, we agree with ADEQ that a boundary correction is warranted, and we make the related corrections to the boundary in today's notice. 15 Township T1N, R16E straddles the boundary of the San Carlos Indian Reservation. Most of the township (roughly 31 or 32 of the 36 square miles) lies within the reservation and is characterized by rugged mountainous terrain traversed in places by jeep trails. The 4 to 5 square miles of land that lie within State jurisdiction have similar characterisics as the portion within the reservation. No population centers are found within this township. ADEQ indicates that no permits have been issued to any stationary source within the portion of the township that lies within State jurisdiction. Also, while our April 10, 1979 final rule redesignating nonattainment areas in Arizona correctly listed T1S, R14 1/2 E as one of the townships comprising the Miami SO <sup>2</sup> nonattainment area, the 1979 version of 40 CFR part 81 included a transcription error and listed this particular township as “T1S, R14 1/4 E” instead of “T1S, R14 1/2 E.” We are correcting the transcription error in this notice as well. B. Authority for Correcting Errors Section 110(k)(6) of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990, provides, “Whenever the Administrator determines that the Administrator's action approving, disapproving, or promulgating any plan or plan revision (or part thereof), area designation, redesignation, classification or reclassification was in error, the Administrator may in the same manner as the approval, disapproval, or promulgation revise such action as appropriate without requiring any further submission from the State. Such determination and the basis thereof shall be provided to the State and the public.” We interpret this provision to authorize the Agency to make corrections to a promulgated regulation when it is shown to our satisfaction that
(1)we clearly erred in failing to consider or in inappropriately considering information made available to EPA at the time of the promulgation, or the information made available at the time of promulgation is subsequently demonstrated to have been clearly inadequate, and
(2)other information persuasively supports a change in the regulation. See 57 FR 56762, at 56763 (November 30, 1992). In this instance, we have found clear error in our 1979 consideration of the State of Arizona's submitted recommendations for area redesignations and believe that correction of the error to be appropriate at this time in support of the State's submittal of a redesignation request and maintenance plan for the SO <sup>2</sup> NAAQS within the Miami air quality planning area. C. Evaluation and Conclusion Based on a comparison of the map submitted by the State in its 1978 designations background report that illustrates the nonattainment area with the accompanying list of townships defining the area, we find that the State erred by assuming that the township immediately east of T1N, R15E is T1N, R16E when it is actually T1N, R15 1/2 E and by then including the former instead of the latter in the list of townships defining the nonattainment area. Whereas T1N, R15 1/2 E lies immediately adjacent to one of the townships in which the major source of SO <sup>2</sup> emissions is located, T1N, R16E lies mostly within the San Carlos Indian Reservation, is more distant from the major source in the area, and has no known source of SO <sup>2</sup> emissions. EPA then erred in failing to discover this error in our 1979 consideration and approval of the State's recommended redesignation for the Miami SO <sup>2</sup> nonattainment area. By virtue of the State's designations background report submitted in August 15, 1978, EPA had the relevant information necessary to discover this error at the time of our April 10, 1979 final rule but failed to do so. The State has now requested redesignation of the Miami SO <sup>2</sup> nonattainment area to “attainment” and submitted a maintenance plan, which if approved as proposed herein, will begin the next phase (“maintenance”) of air quality planning in the Miami area. We believe that correction of the error that resulted in the creation of a noncontiguous area would help provide a solid regulatory foundation for the maintenance phase of CAA planning in the Miami area by eliminating the noncontiguous portion of the otherwise contiguous Miami air quality planning area and by removing any uncertainties as to the area designation status and applicable requirements for township T1N, R16E. Furthermore, ADEQ's redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Miami area do not rely on any control measure within T1N, R16E to demonstrate attainment and maintenance of the SO <sup>2</sup> standard in the Miami area. We are therefore taking direct final action under CAA section 110(k)(6) to correct the designation for T1N, R16E and thereby remove it from the list of townships comprising the Miami SO <sup>2</sup> nonattainment area (which we are herein taking direct final action to redesignate to attainment). Specifically, we are correcting the error by revising the designation of T1N, R16E from “does not meet primary standards” to “cannot be classified” in the listing for Miami in the Arizona SO <sup>2</sup> table in 40 CFR 81.303. We are changing the designation of the township to “cannot be classified” for the SO <sup>2</sup> standard consistent with the State's 1978 approach for areas that, while in the general proximity of a recommended SO <sup>2</sup> nonattainment area, would be unlikely to experience violations of the standard because of the distance from the source and the terrain. For example, using this rationale, the State recommended, and we approved, “cannot be classified” designations for townships T2N, R16E and T1S, R16E. Rather than reclassifying township T1N, R15 1/2 E as part of this redesignation action, we have decided to retain its current air quality planning status of “cannot be classified.” First, establishing township T1N, R15 1/2 E as part of a future Miami maintenance area (and no longer as part of the “rest of state” area) could have unintended effects on SO <sup>2</sup> increment tracking under the State's prevention of significant deterioration permitting program. Second, no control measures in T1N, R15 1/2 E have been relied upon for attainment or maintenance of the SO <sup>2</sup> standard in the Miami area. Third, including township T1N, R15 1/2 E in the maintenance area would inappropriately subject projects in that township to certain CAA requirements, such as general conformity, that are intended only to apply within nonattainment areas and former nonattainment areas that have been redesignated to attainment. See CAA section 176(c)(5). In addition to the correction described above, we are taking direct final action to correct the transcription error introduced first in the 1979 version of 40 CFR part 81 by replacing T1S, R14 1/4 E with T1S, R14 1/2 E in the list of townships comprising the Miami SO <sup>2</sup> air quality planning area. VI. Public Comment and Final Action As authorized under section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is approving the Miami Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area State Implementation and Maintenance Plan, as submitted by ADEQ on June 26, 2002, corrected by the submittal dated June 30, 2004, and amended by the submittal dated June 20, 2006, as a revision to the Arizona state implementation plan. In so doing, we find that the maintenance plan meets the requirements for such plans under CAA section 175A. EPA is also approving the State of Arizona's request for redesignation of the Miami area from nonattainment to attainment for the SO <sup>2</sup> NAAQS based on our conclusion that all of the redesignation criteria in CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) have been satisfied. Specifically, we find that
(1)the Miami area has attained the SO <sup>2</sup> NAAQS;
(2)Arizona has a fully approved SIP for the Miami area;
(3)the improvements in air quality in the Miami area are due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of EPA-approved smelter rules and title V permit conditions;
(4)Arizona has met all of the nonattainment area requirements applicable to the Miami area; and
(5)the State's submitted maintenance plan meets all relevant CAA requirements and is being approved in this notice. Lastly, under CAA section 110(k)(6) and for the reasons stated above in section V of this notice, EPA is correcting the boundary of the Miami SO <sup>2</sup> nonattainment area to exclude a noncontiguous township that was erroneously included in the original description of the nonattainment area. Specifically, we are correcting the error by revising the designation of township T1N, R16E as listed in the Arizona SO <sup>2</sup> table in 40 CFR 81.303 from “does not meet primary standards” to “cannot be classified.” We are also correcting the erroneous transcription of one of the townships in the Miami SO <sup>2</sup> planning area in 40 CFR 81.303 by replacing “T1S, R14 1/4 E” with “T1S, R14 1/2 E.” EPA is finalizing this action without proposing it in advance because the Agency views this action as noncontroversial and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this **Federal Register** , we are simultaneously proposing approval of the same maintenance plan and request for redesignation and proposing the same corrections to the list of townships comprising the Miami, AZ SO <sup>2</sup> area. If we receive adverse comments by February 23, 2007, 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 March 26, 2007. This will approve the redesignation request and maintenance plan submitted by Arizona on June 26, 2002, as amended by submittals dated June 30, 2004 and June 20, 2006, and to revise the designation of township T1N, R16E as listed in the Arizona SO <sup>2</sup> table in 40 CFR 81.303 from “does not meet primary standards” to “cannot be classified” and replace the township incorrectly listed as “T1S, R14 1/4 E” with “T1S, R14 1/2 E”. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. VII. Statutory and Executive Order Review Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves a state plan and redesignation request as meeting Federal requirements and corrects a long-standing error in the boundary of an air quality planning area. It imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Nonetheless, EPA has contacted the San Carlos Apache tribe to provide an opportunity to discuss the implications of exclusion of that portion of township T1N, R16E that lies within the reservation from the Miami SO <sup>2</sup> nonattainment area. In letters dated November 20, 2006 and December 12, 2006, EPA transmitted a fact sheet with background information on this issue and a map illustrating the air quality planning area boundary change. This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state plan and redesignation request implementing a Federal standard and corrects a long-standing error in the boundary of an air quality planning area. It does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule 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 March 26, 2007. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides. 40 CFR Part 81 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: December 22, 2006. Sally Seymour, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Subpart D—Arizona 2. Section 52.120 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(132) to read as follows: § 52.120 Identification of plan.
(c)* * *
(132)The following plan revision was submitted on June 26, 2002, by the Governor's designee.
(i)Incorporation by reference.
(A)Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.
(1)Final Miami Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area State Implementation and Maintenance Plan (June 2002), chapter 7 (“Maintenance Plan”), adopted on June 26, 2002 by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.
(ii)Additional materials.
(A)Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. ( *1* ) Final Miami Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area State Implementation and Maintenance Plan (June 2002), excluding the cover page, and pages iii, 2, 3, 4, and 49; chapter 7 (“Maintenance Plan”); appendix A (“SIP Support Information”), sections A.1 (“Pertinent Sections of the Arizona Administrative Code”) and A.2 (“Information Regarding Revisions to AAC R18-2-715 and R18-2-715.01, ‘Standards of Performance for Primary Copper Smelters: Site Specific Requirements; Compliance and Monitoring’ ”); and appendix D (“SIP Public Hearing Documentation”), adopted on June 26, 2002 by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. ( *2* ) Submittal of Corrections to the Final Miami Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area State Implementation and Maintenance Plan (June 2002), letter and enclosures (replacement pages for the cover page and pages iii, 2, 3, 4 and 49), dated June 30, 2004. ( *3* ) Letter from Stephen A. Owens, Director, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, dated June 20, 2006, withdrawing a section 107(d)(3)(D) boundary redesignation request included in the Miami Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area State Implementation and Maintenance Plan and requesting a section 110(k)(6) error correction. Part 81, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 81—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart C—[Amended] 2. In § 81.303, the table entitled “Arizona—SO <sup>2</sup> ” is amended by revising the entry for Miami to read as follows: § 81.303 Arizona. Arizona—SO <sup>2</sup> Designated area Does not meet primary standards Does not meet secondary standards Cannot be classified Better than national standards * * * * * * * Miami: T2N, R14E X T2N, R15E X T1N, R13E 1 X T1N, R14E X T1N, R15E X T1S, R14E 1 X T1S, R14 1/2 E X T1S, R15E X T2N, R13E 1 X T2N, R16E X T1N, R16E X T1S, R13E 1 X T1S, R16E X T2S, R14E 1 X T2S, R15E X * * * * * * * 1 Only that portion in Gila County. [FR Doc. E7-996 Filed 1-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0667; FRL-8110-3] Spiromesifen; Pesticide Tolerance AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This regulation revises a tolerance for combined residues of spiromesifen in or on vegetables, fruiting, group 8 and establishes tolerances for inadvertent or indirect combined residues in or on oat (grain, forage, hay, straw). Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4) and Bayer CropScience (respectively) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA). DATES: This regulation is effective January 24, 2007. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before March 26, 2007, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ). ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification
(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0667. All documents in the docket are listed in the index for the docket. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is
(703)305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas C. Harris, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703)308-9423; e-mail address: *harris.thomas@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does This Action Apply to Me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to: • Crop production (NAICS 111), e.g., agricultural workers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; farmers. • Animal production (NAICS 112), e.g., cattle ranchers and farmers, dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers. • Food manufacturing (NAICS 311), e.g., agricultural workers; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; ranchers; pesticide applicators. • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 32532), e.g., agricultural workers; commercial applicators; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; residential users. This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document? In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this **Federal Register** document through the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , you may access this **Federal Register** document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ **Federal Register** ” listings at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr* . You may also access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR site at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr* . C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request? Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0667 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before March 26, 2007. In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public docket that is described in ADDRESSES . Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit your copies, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0667, by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP)Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. • *Delivery* : OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Docket telephone number is
(703)305-5805. II. Background and Statutory Findings In the **Federal Register** of September 13, 2006 (71 FR 54057) (FRL-8091-7), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 5E6901) by Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4), Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.607 be amended by revising a tolerance for combined residues of the insecticide/miticide spiromesifen (2-oxo-3-(2,4,6-trimethylphenyl)-1-oxaspiro[4.4]non-3-en-4-yl 3,3-dimethylbutanoate) and its enol metabolite (4-hydroxy-3-(2,4,6-trimethylphenyl)-1-oxaspiro[4.4]non-3-en-2-one), calculated as the parent compound equivalents, in or on vegetable, fruiting, crop group 8 from 0.30 to 0.45 parts per million (ppm). The same notice also announced the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 6F7039) by Bayer CropScience, 2 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. That petition requested that 40 CFR 180.607 be amended by establishing a tolerance for inadvertent or indirect combined residues of the insecticide/miticide spiromesifen (2-oxo-3-(2,4,6-trimethylphenyl)-1-oxaspiro[4.4]non-3-en-4-yl 3,3-dimethylbutanoate), its enol metabolite (4-hydroxy-3-(2,4,6-trimethylphenyl)-1-oxaspiro[4.4]non-3-en-2-one), and its metabolites containing the 4-hydroxymethyl moiety (4-hydroxy-3-[4-(hydroxymethyl)-2,6-dimethylphenyl]-1-oxaspiro[4.4]non-3-en-2-one), calculated as the parent compound equivalents, in or on oat, forage; oat, fodder; and oat, straw at 0.25 ppm and in or on the food commodity oat, grain at 0.03 ppm. The notice included summaries of the petitions prepared by Bayer CropScience, the registrant. Comments were received on the notice of filing from one private citizen. EPA's response to these comments is discussed in Unit IV.C. Based on the EPA analysis of the residue chemistry and toxicological databases, petition PP 6F7039 was subsequently revised to express the oat tolerances as inadvertent or indirect combined residues of the insecticide/miticide spiromesifen (2-oxo-3-(2,4,6-trimethylphenyl)-1-oxaspiro[4.4]non-3-en-4-yl 3,3-dimethylbutanoate), its enol metabolite (4-hydroxy-3-(2,4,6-trimethylphenyl)-1-oxaspiro[4.4]non-3-en-2-one), and its metabolites containing the 4-hydroxymethyl moiety (4-hydroxy-3-[4-(hydroxymethyl)-2,6-dimethylphenyl]-1-oxaspiro[4.4]non-3-en-2-one), calculated as the parent compound equivalents, in or on oat, forage at 0.20 ppm; oat, grain at 0.03 ppm; oat, hay at 0.25 ppm; and oat, straw at 0.25 ppm. Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue * * *.” EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. For further discussion of the regulatory requirements of section 408 of the FFDCA and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/1997/November/Day-26/p30948.htm and http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2003/July/Day-30/p19357.htm* . III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure, consistent with section 408(b)(2) of FFDCA, for a tolerance for combined residues of the insecticide/miticide spiromesifen and its enol metabolite, in or on vegetable, fruiting, crop group 8 at 0.45 ppm and the inadvertent or indirect combined residues of the insecticide/miticide spiromesifen and its enol metabolite, in or on oat, forage at 0.20 ppm; oat, grain at 0.03 ppm; oat, hay at 0.25 ppm; and oat, straw at 0.25 ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with establishing the tolerance follows. A. Toxicological Profile EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the toxic effects caused by spiromesifen as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found in Unit III.A. of the final rule published in the **Federal Register** of April 27, 2005 (70 FR 21631) (FRL-7705-1) at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPAFR-CONTENTS/2005/April/Day-27/contents.htm* . B. Toxicological Endpoints For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) from the toxicology study identified as appropriate for use in risk assessment is used to estimate the toxicological level of concern (LOC). However, the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL) is sometimes used for risk assessment if no NOAEL was achieved in the toxicology study selected. An uncertainty factor
(UF)is applied to reflect uncertainties inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and in the variations in sensitivity among members of the human population as well as other unknowns. The linear default risk methodology (Q*) is the primary method currently used by the Agency to quantify non-threshold hazards such as cancer. The Q* approach assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of cancer risk and estimates risk in terms of the probability of occurrence of additional cancer cases. More information can be found on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization at *http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/health/human.htm* . A summary of the toxicological endpoints for spiromesifen used for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule published in the **Federal Register** of April 27, 2005 (70 FR 21631) (FRL-7705-1) at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPAFR-CONTENTS/2005/April/Day-27/contents.htm* . C. Exposure Assessment 1. *Dietary exposure from food and feed uses* . Tolerances have been established (40 CFR 180.607) for the combined residues of spiromesifen, in or on a variety of raw agricultural commodities. In addition, tolerances have been established for combined residues on several livestock (cattle, goat, horse, sheep) commodities which feed on these raw agricultural commodities and for inadvertent or indirect combined residues on some rotational crop (alfalfa, barley, sugar beet, wheat) commodities. Risk assessments were conducted by EPA to assess dietary exposures from spiromesifen in food as follows: i. *Acute exposure* . Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for spiromesifen. Therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary. ii. *Chronic exposure* . In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID TM ), which incorporates food consumption data as reported by respondents in the USDA 1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII), and accumulated exposure to the chemical for each commodity. The following assumptions were made for the chronic exposure assessments:
(1)Established/recommended tolerances for all plant and livestock except the leafy-green and leafy-Brassica vegetable subgroups;
(2)EPA calculated residues of concern (parent and metabolites) for the leafy-green and leafy-Brassica vegetable subgroup;
(3)100% crop treated
(CT)information for all proposed and existing uses; and
(4)DEEM TM Version 7.81 default processing factors for all commodities. The metabolism studies show that the hydroxymethyl metabolite is formed along with the enol metabolite only in the leafy-green and leafy-Brassica vegetable subgroups. EPA determined that these two metabolites along with the spiromesifen should be included in the chronic dietary risk assessment for these crops. Residue data are unavailable for the 4-hydroxymethyl metabolite; to account for this metabolite in the risk assessment, the recommended tolerance levels for these crops was multiplied by a correction factor of 1.3X, where 1.3 = metabolites in risk assessment
(ppm)/ metabolites in tolerance expression (ppm). iii. *Cancer* . A cancer exposure assessment was not performed because spiromesifen is classified as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” 2. *Dietary exposure from drinking water* . The Agency lacks sufficient monitoring exposure data to complete a comprehensive dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for spiromesifen in drinking water. Because the Agency does not have comprehensive monitoring data, drinking water concentration estimates are made by reliance on simulation or modeling taking into account data on the physical characteristics of spiromesifen. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at *http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm* . Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Screening Concentrations in Groundwater (SCI-GROW) models, the estimated environmental concentrations
(EECs)of spiromesifen for chronic exposures are estimated to be 11 ppb for surface water and 28 ppb for ground water. Drinking water estimates were incorporated directly into the DEEM-FCID TM using the estimated drinking water concentration generated by the SCI-GROW (version 2.3) model of 28 ppb. 3. *From non-dietary exposure* . The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Spiromesifen is not registered for use on any sites that would result in residential exposure. 4. *Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity* . Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of the FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency considers “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.” Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to spiromesifen and any other substances and spiromesifen does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that spiromesifen has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see the policy statements released by EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs concerning common mechanism determinations and procedures for cumulating effects from substances found to have a common mechanism on EPA's website at *http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative* . D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children 1. *In general* . Section 408 of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. Margins of safety are incorporated into EPA risk assessments either directly through use of a Margin of Exposure
(MOE)analysis or through using uncertainty (safety) factors in calculating a dose level that poses no appreciable risk to humans. In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X when reliable data do not support the choice of a different factor, or, if reliable data are available, EPA uses a different additional safety factor value based on the use of traditional uncertainty factors and/or special FQPA safety factors, as appropriate. 2. *Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity* . There was no evidence of increased susceptibility of rats or rabbits to *in utero* prenatal or postpostnatal exposure to spiromesifen. In a rat developmental toxicity study, no developmental toxicity was observed at doses up to 500 milligrams/kilograms/day (mg/kg/day) (the highest dose tested) in the presence of maternal toxicity. The rat maternal LOAEL was determined to be 70 mg/kg/day based on decreased body-weight gain and reduced food consumption. In the rabbit developmental toxicity study, there was no developmental toxicity observed at doses up to 250 mg/kg/day (the highest dose tested), but the maternal LOAEL was determined to be 35 mg/kg/day based on body weight loss and reduced food consumption. There is no qualitative and/or quantitative evidence of increased susceptibility to spiromesifen following pre/postnatal exposure in a 2-generation reproduction study in rats. There is no concern for developmental neurotoxicity resulting from exposure to spiromesifen. Neurotoxic effects such as reduced motility, spastic gait, increased reactivity, tremors, clonic-tonic convulsions, reduced activity, labored breathing, vocalization, avoidance reaction, piloerection, limp, cyanosis, squatted posture, and salivation were observed in two studies (5-day inhalation and subchronic oral rat). However, these effects were considered as secondary, not neurotoxic, effects due to the high dosage. There was no evidence of neurotoxicity in the acute or subchronic neurotoxicity or any other studies. 3. *Conclusion* . For spiromesifen, EPA determined that the 10X safety factor to protect infants and children should be removed. A 1X safety factor is appropriate because: • There is a complete toxicity database for spiromesifen. • There was no evidence of increased susceptibility of rat or rabbit fetuses to *in utero* exposure in developmental studies, nor following prenatal or postnatal exposure by rats in the 2-generation reproduction study. • There are no neurotoxicity concerns based on acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies. • The dietary food exposure assessment uses proposed tolerance levels or higher residues for most commodities and assumed 100% crop-treated information for all commodities. By using these screening-level assessments, chronic exposures and risks will not be underestimated. The “higher residues” are those that were calculated using a modifying factor to account for the lack of spiromesifen-4-hydroxymethyl residue data. • The dietary drinking water assessment (Tier 2 estimates) uses values generated by model and associated modeling parameters which are designed to provide conservative, health protective, and high-end estimates of water concentrations. • Residential exposure is not expected, spiromesifen will be registered for agricultural and greenhouse/ornamental uses only. E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety 1. *Acute risk* . As there were no toxic effects attributable to a single dose, an endpoint of concern was not identified to quantitate acute dietary risk to the general population or any subpopulation. No acute risk is expected from exposure to spiromesifen. 2. *Chronic risk* . Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that exposure to spiromesifen from food and water will utilize 31% of the chronic population adjusted dose
(cPAD)for the U.S. population, 23% of the cPAD for all infants less than 1 year old, and 38% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old, the most highly exposed population subgroups. There are no residential uses for spiromesifen that result in chronic residential exposure to spiromesifen. Therefore, EPA does not expect the aggregate exposure to exceed 100% of the cPAD. 3. *Short- and Intermediate-term risk* . Short- and intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Spiromesifen is not registered for use on any sites that would result in residential exposure. Therefore, the aggregate risk is the sum of the risk from food and water, which do not exceed the Agency's level of concern. 4. *Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population* . Spiromesifen is not expected to pose a cancer risk. 5. *Determination of safety* . Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, and to infants and children from aggregate exposure to spiromesifen residues. IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology Adequate analytical enforcement methodologies, high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC)/mass spectrometry (MS)/MS, exist and have been successfully validated by independent laboratories. B. International Residue Limits There are no international residue limits for spiromesifen listed in CODEX. C. Response to Comments Several comments were received from one private citizen objecting to pesticide body load, registrant profiteering, establishing tolerances, pollution by pesticides, and lack of notification when pesticides are applied to neighboring areas. The Agency has received similar comments from this commenter on numerous previous occasions. Refer to **Federal Register** 70 FR 37686 (June 30, 2005), 70 FR 1354 (January 7, 2005), and 69 FR 63096-63098 (October 29, 2004) for the Agency's response to these objections. V. Conclusion Therefore, the tolerance is revised for combined residues of the insecticide/miticide spiromesifen (2-oxo-3-(2,4,6-trimethylphenyl)-1-oxaspiro[4.4]non-3-en-4-yl 3,3-dimethylbutanoate) and its enol metabolite (4-hydroxy-3-(2,4,6-trimethylphenyl)-1-oxaspiro[4.4]non-3-en-2-one), calculated as the parent compound equivalents, in or on vegetable, fruiting, crop group 8 to 0.45 ppm. Also, the tolerance is established for inadvertent or indirect combined residues of the insecticide/miticide spiromesifen (2-oxo-3-(2,4,6-trimethylphenyl)-1-oxaspiro[4.4]non-3-en-4-yl 3,3-dimethylbutanoate), its enol metabolite (4-hydroxy-3-(2,4,6-trimethylphenyl)-1-oxaspiro[4.4]non-3-en-2-one), and its metabolites containing the 4-hydroxymethyl moiety (4-hydroxy-3-[4-(hydroxymethyl)-2,6-dimethylphenyl]-1-oxaspiro[4.4]non-3-en-2-one), calculated as the parent compound equivalents, in or on oat, forage at 0.20 ppm; oat, grain at 0.03 ppm; oat, hay at 0.25 ppm; and oat, straw at 0.25 ppm. VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled *Regulatory Planning and Review* (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, this rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, *Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use* (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* , or impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA)(Public Law 104-4). Nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled *Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations* (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994); or OMB review or any Agency action under Executive Order 13045, entitled *Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks* (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)(5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) do not apply. In addition, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on 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, entitled *Federalism* (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 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 final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States. This action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency has determined that this rule does not have any “tribal implications” as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled *Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments* (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have tribal implications” is defined in the Executive order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.” This rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. VII. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule 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 this final rule in the **Federal Register** . This final rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: January 17, 2007. Lois Rossi, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows: PART 180—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 2. Section 180.607 is amended in the table to paragraph (a)(1) by revising the entry for “Vegetable, fruiting group 8” and in the table to paragraph
(d)by adding alphabetically commodities to read as follows: §180.607 Spiromesifen; tolerances for residues.
(a)*General* .
(1)* * * Commodity Parts per million * * * * * Vegetable, fruiting, group 8 0.45 * * * * *
(d)* * * Commodity Parts per million * * * * * Oat, forage 0.20 Oat, grain 0.03 Oat, hay 0.25 Oat, straw 0.25 * * * * * [FR Doc. E7-990 Filed 1-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration 42 CFR Part 51a RIN # 0906-AA70 Healthy Tomorrows Partnership for Children Program
(HTPC)AGENCY: Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), HHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This Final Rule sets forth the Secretary's proposal to require HTPC grant recipients to contribute non-Federal matching funds in years 2 through 5 of the project period equal to two times the amount of the Federal Grant Award or such lesser amount determined by the Secretary for good cause shown. DATES: This Final Rule is effective January 24, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jose Belardo, J.D., 301-443-0757. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Authorized by 42 U.S.C. 701(a)(3), the HTPC is a grant program funded and administered by the Health Resources and Services Administration's
(HRSA)Maternal and Child Health Bureau (MCHB). Its purpose is to stimulate innovative community-based programs that employ prevention strategies to promote access to health care for children and their families nationwide by providing grant funds to implement a new or enhance an existing child health initiative. Currently, there are 58 HTPC funded projects. In fiscal year
(FY)2006, 49 projects are continuing grantees and 9 are newly funded. Since the inception of this grant program in 1989, the HTPC has issued a programmatic requirement in its guidance that grant applicants must demonstrate the capability to meet cost participation goals by securing non-Federal matching funds and/or in-kind resources for the second through fifth years of the project. One of the key goals of this initiative is that funded programs are to be sustainable beyond the 5-year Federal funding period. In 1999, a formal evaluation of the HTPC *The Health Tomorrows Partnership for Children Program in Review: Analysis and Findings of a Descriptive Survey* was completed, and the authors concluded that the required match fosters long-term sustainability and leveraging of community resources. There was a 70 percent sustainability rate for those projects with activities that were sustained after the Federal funding period. This Final Rule will formally introduce a cost participation component to the HTPC grant program, thus requiring its grantees to contribute non-Federal matching funds and/or in-kind resources in years 2 through 5 of the 5-year project period equal to two times the amount of the Federal Grant Award or such lesser amount determined by the Secretary for good cause shown. The non-Federal matching funds and/or in-kind resources must come from non-Federal funds, including, but not limited to, individuals, corporations, foundations in-kind resources, or State and local agencies. Documentation of matching funds would be required (i.e., specific sources, funding level, in-kind contributions). Reimbursement for services provided to an individual under a State plan under Title XIX will not be deemed “non-Federal matching funds” for the purposes of this provision. Public Participation The public was invited to respond to Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), which was published in the **Federal Register** on December 27, 2005 (70 FR 76435-76436). The NPRM provided for a 60-day comment period. We received no comments from the public. Economic and Regulatory Impact Executive Order 12866—Regulatory Planning and Review HRSA has examined the economic implications of this Final Rule as required by Executive Order 12866. Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 12866 classifies a rule as significant if it meets any one of a number of specified conditions, including: having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million, adversely affecting a sector of the economy in a material way, adversely affecting competition, or adversely affecting jobs. A regulation is also considered a significant regulatory action if it raises novel legal or policy issues. HRSA concludes that this Final Rule is a significant regulatory action under the Executive Order since it raises novel legal and policy issues under Section 3(f)(4). HRSA concludes, however, that this Final Rule does not meet the significance threshold of $100 million effect on the economy in any one year under Section 3(f)(1). Impact of the New Rule Inclusion of this rule will greatly enhance grant recipients' ability to achieve the HTPC goal/performance measure of program sustainability beyond the 5-year Federal funding period. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 The Final Rule does not impose any new data collection requirements. List of Subjects in 42 CFR Part 51a Grant programs—Handicapped, Health, Health care, Health professions, Maternal and Child Health. Dated: July 5, 2006. Elizabeth M. Duke, Administrator, HRSA. Approved: October 23, 2006. Michael O. Leavitt, Secretary. Editor's Note: This document was received at the Office of the Federal Register on January 19, 2007. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, HRSA amends 42 CFR part 51a as follows: PART 51a—PROJECT GRANTS FOR MATERNAL AND CHILD HEALTH 1. The authority citation for part 51a continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1302; 42 U.S.C. 702(a), 702(b)(1)(A) and 706(a)(3). 2. Amend § 51a.8 to add paragraph
(c)to read as follows: § 51a.8 What other conditions apply to these grants?
(c)Grant recipients of Healthy Tomorrows Partnership for Children Program, a Community Integrated Service System-funded initiative, must contribute non-Federal matching funds in years 2 through 5 of the project period equal to two times the amount of the Federal Grant Award or such lesser amount determined by the Secretary for good cause shown. Reimbursement for services provided to an individual under a State plan under Title XIX will not be deemed “non-Federal matching funds” for the purposes of this provision. [FR Doc. 07-287 Filed 1-23-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 35
Traces to 35 documents
register
U.S. Code
- Federal Aviation Administration§ 106
- Purposes§ 3501
- Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings§ 552
- Rules and regulations§ 7805
- Rule making§ 553
- Avoidance of duplicative or unnecessary analyses§ 605
- Establishment, functions, and activities§ 272
- Transferred§ 1226
- Transferred§ 191
- Definitions§ 601
- SHORT TITLE.§ 801
- EXPEDITED PROCESSING OF REQUESTS FOR JAPANESE IMPERIAL GOVERNMENT RECORDS.§ 804
- Congressional findings and declaration of purpose§ 7401
- Tolerances and exemptions for pesticide chemical residues§ 346a
- Definitions; generally§ 321
- Authorization of appropriations; purposes; definitions§ 701
- Rules and regulations; impact analyses of Medicare and Medicaid rules and regulations on small rural hospitals§ 1302
- Allotment to States and Federal set-aside§ 702
CFR
- May I address the unsafe condition in a way other than that set out in the airworthiness directive?§ 39.19
- Damage-tolerance and fatigue evaluation of structure.§ 25.571
- General.§ 97.20
- Temporary change to a drawbridge operating schedule.§ 117.35
- When the drawbridge must open.§ 117.5
- Mystic River.§ 117.211
- Connecticut River.§ 117.205
- Delegation of rulemaking authority.§ 1.05-1
- National primary ambient air quality standards for sulfur oxides (sulfur dioxide).§ 50.4
- Control strategy and regulations: Sulfur oxides.§ 52.125
27 references not yet in our index
- 14 CFR 39
- 14 CFR 21
- 1 CFR 51
- 14 CFR 97
- 26 CFR 1
- T.D. 9303
- 33 CFR 117
- 33 CFR 165
- 5 USC 601-612
- Pub. L. 104-121
- 44 USC 3501-3520
- 2 USC 1531-1538
- 42 USC 4321-4370f
- Pub. L. 107-295
- 40 CFR 50.2-50
- 40 CFR 81.303
- 40 CFR 58
- 40 CFR 51
- 40 CFR 81
- Pub. L. 104-4
- 40 CFR 52
- 40 CFR 180
- 40 CFR 178
- 40 CFR 2
- 40 CFR 180.607
- Pub. L. 104-113
- 42 CFR 51
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Final rule
Cite14 CFR 39
Cite14 CFR 21
Cite1 CFR 51
Cites 62 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources