Unknown. Final rule
29,782 words·~135 min read·
/register/2007/11/06/07-5513·A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
--- schema: federal-register doc_type: fedreg source_file: FR-2007-11-06.xml --- 72 214 Tuesday, November 6, 2007 Contents Agricultural Agricultural Marketing Service PROPOSED RULES Egg, poultry, and rabbit products; inspection and grading: Fees and charges increase, 62591-62593 07-5571 Agricultural Agricultural Research Service NOTICES Patent licenses; non-exclusive, exclusive, or partially exclusive: ISTO Technologies, Inc., 62623 07-5505 Peterson Seed Associates, 62623 07-5504 Agriculture Agriculture Department See Agricultural Marketing Service See Agricultural Research Service See Food Safety and Inspection Service See Foreign Agricultural Service See Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration See Rural Utilities Service Alcohol Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 62677 E7-21812 Army Army Department See Engineers Corps NOTICES Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board; membership, 62634 07-5522 Arts Arts and Humanities, National Foundation See National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Centers Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services RULES Medicare:
Hospital inpatient prospective payment systems and 2008 FY rates Correction, 62585-62587 07-5513 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 62650-62657 07-5487 07-5488 07-5489 07-5490 07-5491 07-5492 07-5493 07-5498 Coast Guard Coast Guard PROPOSED RULES Ports and waterways safety; regulated navigation areas, safety zones, security zones, etc.: Manbirtee Key, Manatee, FL, 62613-62615 E7-21761 St.
Petersburg Captain of Port Zone, FL, 62609-62613 E7-21760 Commerce Commerce Department See International Trade Administration See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Defense Defense Department See Army Department See Engineers Corps Education Education Department NOTICES Meetings: Historically Black Colleges and Universities Capital Financing Advisory Board, 62635 E7-21803 Postsecondary education: Federal Family Education Loan Program— Interest rates, 62635-62637 E7-21806 William D.
Ford Federal Direct Loan Program— Interest rates, 62637-62639 E7-21807 Election Election Assistance Commission NOTICES Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Voluntary voting system guidelines, 62639-62640 07-5526 Employment Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Adjustment assistance; applications, determinations, etc.: Hartmann et al., 62678-62679 E7-21742 Marathon USA, LLC, 62679 E7-21741 Renfro Corp., 62680 E7-21746 RF Monolithics, Inc., 62680 E7-21745 Storeroom Solutions et al., 62680-62682 E7-21743 Track Corp., 62682-62683 E7-21744 Energy Energy Department See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Engineers Engineers Corps NOTICES Environmental statements; notice of intent:
Beaufort County, NC; Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan phosphate mine continuation, 62634-62635 07-5523 EPA Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air quality implementation plans; approval and promulgation; various States: Colorado, 62571-62579 E7-21611 Louisiana, 62579-62585 E7-21687 PROPOSED RULES Air quality implementation plans; approval and promulgation; various States: Colorado, 62615-62616 E7-21613 Louisiana, 62616 E7-21688 NOTICES Meetings: Scientific Counselors Board, 62645-62646 E7-21795 E7-21797 Farm Farm Credit Administration NOTICES Meetings;
Sunshine Act, 62647 07-5584 FAA Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness directives: Airbus, 62566-62568 E7-21686 Bombardier, 62559-62560 E7-21672 CTRM Aviation Sdn. Bhd., 62560-62562 E7-21667 Fokker, 62562-62564 E7-21673 Goodrich, 62568-62570 E7-21685 Saab, 62564-62566 E7-21674 FCC Federal Communications Commission PROPOSED RULES Radio broadcasting: FM translators; use by AM stations as fill-in service, 62616-62622 E7-21271 NOTICES Debarment proceedings: Scott, Arthur R., 62647-62648 E7-21750 Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board; membership, 62648 E7-21794 Federal Election Federal Election Commission PROPOSED RULES Reports by political committees:
Bundled contributions; information disclosure by lobbyists and registrants, 62600-62607 E7-21711 NOTICES Special elections; filing dates: Virginia, 62648-62649 E7-21819 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Guardian Pipeline, L.L.C., 62641-62642 E7-21730 Santee Cooper Hydroelectric Project, 62642-62643 E7-21733 Environmental statements; notice of intent: El Paso Natural Gas Co., 62643-62644 E7-21735 Off-the record communications, 62644-62645 E7-21729 *Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:* Benton County Wind Farm et al., 62640 E7-21732 Quicksilver Resources, Inc., et al., 62640-62641 E7-21731 Xcel Energy Services Inc. et al., 62641 E7-21734 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Environmental statements; notice of intent:
Clark County, NV, 62723 07-5518 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Banks and bank holding companies: Change in bank control, 62649 E7-21752 Formations, acquisitions, and mergers, 62649-62650 E7-21753 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service RULES Endangered and threatened species: Critical habitat designations— Cape Sable seaside sparrow, 62736-62766 07-5460 NOTICES Endangered and threatened species permit applications, determinations, etc., 62669-62670 E7-21768 Food Food and Drug Administration RULES Animal drugs, feeds, and related products:
Ractopamine, 62570-62571 E7-21816 NOTICES Meetings: Medical Devices Advisory Committee, 62658 E7-21779 Food Food Safety and Inspection Service NOTICES Committees; establishment, renewal, termination, etc.: Meat and Poultry Inspection National Advisory Committee, 62623-62624 E7-21748 MISSING FOR: Foreign Agricultural Service Foreign Agricultural Service NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 62624 E7-21785 GIPSA Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration NOTICES Meetings:
Grain Inspection Advisory Committee, 62624-62625 E7-21747 Health Health and Human Services Department See Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services See Children and Families Administration See Food and Drug Administration See Indian Health Service See National Institutes of Health NOTICES Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Genetic testing oversight, 62650 E7-21755 Homeland Homeland Security Department See Coast Guard See Transportation Security Administration See U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services See U.S. Customs and Border Protection Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 62668-62669 07-5499 Indian Indian Health Service NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 62658-62659 07-5520 Interior Interior Department See Fish and Wildlife Service See Land Management Bureau See Minerals Management Service NOTICES Oil and gas leases:
Montana, 62669 E7-21769 IRS Internal Revenue Service PROPOSED RULES Income taxes: Partner's distributive share Correction, 62608-62609 E7-21820 NOTICES Committees; establishment, renewal, termination, etc.: Commissioner of Internal Revenue Advisory Group, 62731 E7-21703 Information Reporting Program Advisory Committee, 62731 E7-21764 International International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping: Circular welded carbon quality steel pipe from— China, 62626 E7-21800 Folding metal tables and chairs from— China, 62626-62628 E7-21798 E7-21809 Steel concrete reinforcing bars from— Turkey, 62628-62633 E7-21805 E7-21808 Antidumping and countervailing duties:
Cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate products from— Korea, 62625-62626 E7-21802 International International Trade Commission NOTICES Import investigations: Unified communications systems, products used with such systems, and components, 62675-62676 E7-21757 Meetings: Sunshine Act, 62676 E7-21736 Justice Justice Department See Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau See Justice Programs Office NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 62676 E7-21813 Justice Justice Programs Office NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 62677-62678 E7-21776 Labor Labor Department See Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.:
College Park, GA; Job Corps Center construction, 62678 E7-21709 Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Environmental statements; notice of intent: California Desert Conservation Area, CA, 62671-62672 E7-21762 Minerals Minerals Management Service NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Alternative Energy and Alternate Use Program, 62672-62673 E7-21792 Outer Continental Shelf operations: Alternative energy resource assessment and technology testing activities; information request and nominations for areas leases, 62673-62675 E7-21793 National Foundation National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 62683-62684 E7-21706 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 62723-62727 E7-21758 Motor vehicle theft prevention standards; exemption petitions, etc.:
Chrysler LLC, 62728-62729 E7-21756 NIH National Institutes of Health NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 62659-62662 E7-21705 E7-21759 E7-21799 Meetings: Advisory Committee to Director, 62662 07-5534 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 62662-62663 07-5516 07-5530 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 62663 07-5517 National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 62663-62665 07-5532 07-5533 07-5535 07-5536 07-5537 National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 62663 07-5514 National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 62665 07-5538 National Institute on Drug Abuse, 62665 07-5539 Scientific Review Center, 62665-62666 07-5515 07-5529 07-5531 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fishery conservation and management:
Alaska; fisheries of Exclusive Economic Zone— Pacific ocean perch, 62590 07-5525 Marine mammals: Commercial fishing authorizations— Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan, 62587-62589 07-5524 NOTICES Environmental statements; notice of intent: Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, HI; natural resources science plan, 62633-62634 07-5502 Nuclear Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Duke Power Co. LLC, 62684 E7-21777 Meetings;
Sunshine Act, 62684-62685 07-5570 Operating licenses, amendments; no significant hazards considerations; biweekly notices, 62685-62696 E7-21435 Personnel Personnel Management Office NOTICES Excepted service; positions placed or revoked, 62696-62698 E7-21767 RUS Rural Utilities Service NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Dry Fork Station and Hughes Transmission Project, WY, 62625 E7-21749 SEC Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 62698-62701 E7-21737 E7-21738 E7-21763 Investment Company Act of 1940:
MyShares Trust et al., 62701-62705 E7-21739 Rafferty Asset Management et al., 62705-62709 E7-21694 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 62709 E7-21772 Self-regulatory organizations; proposed rule changes: NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, 62709-62719 E7-21740 New York Stock Exchange LLC, 62719-62721 E7-21773 SBA Small Business Administration NOTICES Disaster loan areas: Connecticut, 62721-62722 E7-21818 Social Social Security Administration PROPOSED RULES Social security benefits and supplemental security income:
Federal old age, survivors, and disability insurance, and aged, blind, and disabled— Compassionate allowances for rare diseases; hearing, 62607-62608 E7-21828 NOTICES Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Social security benefits service providers; web service beta test, 62722-62723 E7-21844 Surface Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Railroad services abandonment: Cape Fear Railways, Inc., 62729-62730 E7-21708 Transportation Transportation Department See Federal Aviation Administration See Federal Highway Administration See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration See Surface Transportation Board Transportation Transportation Security Administration NOTICES Maritime and land transportation security:
Transportation Worker Identification Credential; enrollment— Honolulu, HI, et al., 62667 E7-21801 Treasury Treasury Department See Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Taxable imported substances; determinations: Synthetic linear fatty alcohols, 62730 E7-21754 MISSING FOR: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 62667-62668 E7-21704 Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection PROPOSED RULES Immigration regulations:
Nonimmigrant aliens infected with HIV; visa and authorization for temporary admission into U.S., 62593-62600 E7-21841 Veterans Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 62731-62734 E7-21770 E7-21771 E7-21780 E7-21781 E7-21783 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Interior Department, Fish and Wildlife Service, 62736-62766 07-5460 Reader Aids Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions. 72 214 Tuesday, November 6, 2007 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-29066; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-147-AD; Amendment 39-15250; AD 2007-23-04] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives;
Bombardier Model DHC-8-102, -103, -106, -201, -202, -301, -311, and -315 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: It has been discovered in several cases that clamp bolts of the elevator spring tab mechanism were not installed in the correct orientation. Bolts have been found installed with bolt heads on the lower position and in two cases, some bolts, nuts and washers [hardware] were found to be loose or missing. Detachment of an elevator spring tab mechanism clamp bolt could lead to jamming of the elevator control system and reduced controllability of the aircraft. We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products. DATES: This AD becomes effective December 11, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 11, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* or in person at the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Parrillo, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Flight Test Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone
(516)228-7305; fax
(516)794-5531. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on August 31, 2007 (72 FR 50288). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: It has been discovered in several cases that clamp bolts of the elevator spring tab mechanism were not installed in the correct orientation. Bolts have been found installed with bolt heads on the lower position and in two cases, some bolts, nuts and washers [hardware] were found to be loose or missing. Detachment of an elevator spring tab mechanism clamp bolt could lead to jamming of the elevator control system and reduced controllability of the aircraft. The corrective action is a one-time inspection of the left- and right-hand elevator spring tab mechanism hardware for correct installation, and prior to further flight, installing new hardware for any hardware that is incorrectly installed. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public. Conclusion We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed. 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 also have required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a Note within the AD. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD will affect about 150 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $0 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $36,000, or $240 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 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: **2007-23-04 Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly de Havilland, Inc.):** Amendment 39-15250. Docket No. FAA-2007-29066; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-147-AD. Effective Date
(a)This airworthiness directive
(AD)becomes effective December 11, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Bombardier Model DHC-8-102, -103, -106, -201, -202, -301, -311, and -315 airplanes; certificated in any category; serial numbers 003 through 611 inclusive. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association
(ATA)of America Code 27: Flight controls. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: It has been discovered in several cases that clamp bolts of the elevator spring tab mechanism were not installed in the correct orientation. Bolts have been found installed with bolt heads on the lower position and in two cases, some bolts, nuts and washers [hardware] were found to be loose or missing. Detachment of an elevator spring tab mechanism clamp bolt could lead to jamming of the elevator control system and reduced controllability of the aircraft. The corrective action is a one-time inspection of the left- and right-hand elevator spring tab mechanism hardware for correct installation, and prior to further flight, installing new hardware for any hardware that is incorrectly installed. Actions and Compliance
(f)Unless already done, do the following actions.
(1)Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD: Carry out a one-time inspection of the left- and right-hand elevator spring tab mechanism hardware for correct installation according to the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-27-106, dated February 7, 2006.
(2)If any hardware is found incorrectly installed during the inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, prior to further flight, install new hardware according to the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-27-106, dated February 7, 2006. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Dan Parrillo, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Flight Test Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone
(516)228-7305; fax
(516)794-5531. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(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, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(h)Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2007-08, dated June 4, 2007, and Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-27-106, dated February 7, 2006, for related information. Material Incorporated by Reference
(i)You must use Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-27-106, dated February 7, 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 Bombardier, Inc., Bombardier Regional Aircraft Division, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Downsview, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada.
(3)You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; 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/cfr/ibr-locations.html* . Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 27, 2007. Stephen P. Boyd, Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-21672 Filed 11-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28957 Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-069-AD; Amendment 39-15252; AD 2007-23-06] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; CTRM Aviation Sdn. Bhd. (Formerly Eagle Aircraft (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd.) Model Eagle 150B Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: An operator has reported severe exfoliation corrosion on Wing/Canard Flap Hinges, P/N 5731D01-16 (middle and outboard hinges) on his Eagle 150B. The corrosion has been detected during 100-hour inspection. The aircraft has accumulated more than 1000 flight hours. The corrosion is so severe that one of the Flap Hinges thickness has been reduced by 50%. The corrosion is not easily detected because the Flap Hinge is sandwiched between the Flap Hinge Support Bracket P/N 5731D01-01. The failure of the hinge bracket may result in disintegration of flap/canard wing thus leading to loss of control, with catastrophic consequences. We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products. DATES: This AD becomes effective December 11, 2007. On December 11, 2007, the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* or in person at Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 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 We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on September 14, 2007 (72 FR 52519). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: An operator has reported severe exfoliation corrosion on Wing/Canard Flap Hinges, P/N 5731D01-16 (middle and outboard hinges) on his Eagle 150B. The corrosion has been detected during 100-hour inspection. The aircraft has accumulated more than 1000 flight hours. The corrosion is so severe that one of the Flap Hinges thickness has been reduced by 50%. The corrosion is not easily detected because the Flap Hinge is sandwiched between the Flap Hinge Support Bracket P/N 5731D01-01. The failure of the hinge bracket may result in disintegration of flap/canard wing thus leading to loss of control, with catastrophic consequences. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public. Conclusion We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed. 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 also have required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this AD will affect about 6 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD to U.S. operators to be $1,440, or $240 per product. In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will take about 4 work-hours and require parts costing $226, for a cost of $546 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify 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. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov;* or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 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: **2007-23-06 CTRM Aviation Sdn. Bhd. (Formerly Eagle Aircraft (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd.):** Amendment 39-15252; Docket No. FAA-2007-28957; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-069-AD. Effective Date
(a)This airworthiness directive
(AD)becomes effective December 11, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD affects Model Eagle 150B airplanes, all serial numbers, that are certificated in any category. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association of America
(ATA)Code 57: Wings. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: An operator has reported severe exfoliation corrosion on Wing/Canard Flap Hinges, P/N 5731D01-16 (middle and outboard hinges) on his Eagle 150B. The corrosion has been detected during 100-hour inspection. The aircraft has accumulated more than 1000 flight hours. The corrosion is so severe that one of the Flap Hinges thickness has been reduced by 50%. The corrosion is not easily detected because the Flap Hinge is sandwiched between the Flap Hinge Support Bracket P/N 5731D01-01. The failure of the hinge bracket may result in disintegration of flap/canard wing thus leading to loss of control, with catastrophic consequences. The MCAI requires you to visually inspect the flap hinges and flap hinge support brackets for any corrosion. You are to take corrective action if you find any corrosion. Actions and Compliance
(f)Unless already done, do the following actions:
(1)Within the next 25 hours time-in-service
(TIS)after December 11, 2007 (the effective date of this AD), inspect the flap hinges and flap hinge support brackets for any corrosion, following CTRM Aviation Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 1126, dated July 19, 2007.
(2)Before further flight, if you find any corrosion as a result of any inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, take corrective action following CTRM Aviation Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 1126, dated July 19, 2007. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No Differences. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:
(816)329-4146; fax:
(816)329-4090. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(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
(h)Refer to MCAI Department of Civil Aviation Malaysia AD No. CAM AD 001-07-2007, dated July 20, 2007; and CTRM Aviation Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 1126, dated July 19, 2007, for related information. Material Incorporated by Reference
(i)You must use CTRM Aviation Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 1126, dated July 19, 2007, 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 CTRM Aviation Sdn. Bhd. (formerly known as Eagle Aircraft Sdn. Bhd.), Locked Bag 1028, Pejabat Pos Besar Melaka, 75150 Melaka, Malaysia; telephone: 06 317 1007; fax: 06 317 7023.
(3)You may review copies at the FAA, Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Room 506, 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/cfr/ibr-locations.html.* Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on October 29, 2007. Kim Smith, Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-21667 Filed 11-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-29064; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-128-AD; Amendment 39-15249; AD 2007-23-03] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: One Fokker 100 (F28 Mark 0100) operator reported that during maintenance in the APU (auxiliary power unit) compartment, a disconnected nut was discovered on one of the shuttle valves in the deployment lines of the engine fire-extinguishing system. An additional check by the operator revealed that on more aircraft in its fleet, the nuts of the shuttle valves were incorrectly tightened. This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure or deteriorated functioning of the engine fire-extinguishing system in case of an engine fire. We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products. DATES: This AD becomes effective December 11, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 11, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* or in person at the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1137; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on August 31, 2007 (72 FR 50274). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: One Fokker 100 (F28 Mark 0100) operator reported that during maintenance in the APU (auxiliary power unit) compartment, a disconnected nut was discovered on one of the shuttle valves in the deployment lines of the engine fire-extinguishing system. An additional check by the operator revealed that on more aircraft in its fleet, the nuts of the shuttle valves were incorrectly tightened. This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure or deteriorated functioning of the engine fire-extinguishing system in case of an engine fire. Since a potentially unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other aircraft of this type design, this Airworthiness Directive requires a one-time inspection of the nuts and shuttle valves in the deployment lines of the engine fire-extinguishing system in the APU compartment and corrective actions, as necessary. The one-time inspection is intended to find discrepancies, including incorrectly installed or tightened nuts, and signs of leakage, damage, or corrosion. Corrective actions include tightening or replacing discrepant nuts or shuttle valves, as applicable. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public. Conclusion We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed. 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 also have required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD will affect about 13 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $1,040, or $80 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov;* or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 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: **2007-23-03 Fokker Services B.V.:** Amendment 39-15249. Docket No. FAA-2007-29064; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-128-AD. Effective Date
(a)This airworthiness directive
(AD)becomes effective December 11, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes, all serial numbers; certificated in any category. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association
(ATA)of America Code 26: Fire protection. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: One Fokker 100 (F28 Mark 0100) operator reported that during maintenance in the APU (auxiliary power unit) compartment, a disconnected nut was discovered on one of the shuttle valves in the deployment lines of the engine fire-extinguishing system. An additional check by the operator revealed that on more aircraft in its fleet, the nuts of the shuttle valves were incorrectly tightened. This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure or deteriorated functioning of the engine fire-extinguishing system in case of an engine fire. Since a potentially unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other aircraft of this type design, this Airworthiness Directive requires a one-time inspection of the nuts and shuttle valves in the deployment lines of the engine fire-extinguishing system in the APU compartment and corrective actions, as necessary. The one-time inspection is intended to find discrepancies, including incorrectly installed or tightened nuts, and signs of leakage, damage or corrosion. Corrective actions include tightening or replacing discrepant nuts or shuttle valves, as applicable. Actions and Compliance
(f)Unless already done, do the following actions.
(1)Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, inspect the nuts on the affected shuttle valves in accordance with Section 3., “Accomplishment Instructions,” of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-26-019, dated January 6, 2006.
(2)When discrepancies are found during the inspection as required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before next flight, tighten or replace the affected nuts, or replace the shuttle valves; as applicable; in accordance with Section 3., “Accomplishment Instructions,” of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-26-019, dated January 6, 2006. Note 1: Fokker 70/100 Aircraft Maintenance Manual Task 26-21-03-400-814-A also pertains to this subject. FAA AD Differences Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No difference. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1137; fax
(425)227-1149. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(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, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(h)Refer to MCAI Dutch Airworthiness Directive NL-2006-002, dated January 24, 2006, and Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-26-019, dated January 6, 2006, for related information. Material Incorporated by Reference
(i)You must use Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-26-019, dated January 6, 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 Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 231, 2150 AE Nieuw-Vennep, the Netherlands.
(3)You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington; 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/cfr/ibr-locations.html.* Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 27, 2007. Stephen P. Boyd, Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-21673 Filed 11-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-29171; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-154-AD; Amendment 39-15251; AD 2007-23-05] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Saab Model SAAB 2000 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: Subsequent to accidents involving Fuel Tank System explosions in flight * * * and on ground, * * * Special Federal Aviation Regulation 88 (SFAR88) * * * required a safety review of the aircraft Fuel Tank System * * *. Fuel Airworthiness Limitations are items arising from a systems safety analysis that have been shown to have failure mode(s) associated with an ‘unsafe condition’ * * *. These are identified in Failure Conditions for which an unacceptable probability of ignition risk could exist if specific tasks and/or practices are not performed in accordance with the manufacturers' requirements. We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products. DATES: This AD becomes effective December 11, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 11, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* or in person at the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Borfitz, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-2677; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on September 11, 2007 (72 FR 51722). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: Subsequent to accidents involving Fuel Tank System explosions in flight * * * and on ground, the FAA published Special Federal Aviation Regulation 88 (SFAR 88) in June 2001. SFAR 88 required a safety review of the aircraft Fuel Tank System to determine that the design meets the requirements of FAR (Federal Aviation Regulation) § 25.901 and § 25.981(a) and (b). A similar regulation has been recommended by the JAA (Joint Aviation Authorities) to the European National Aviation Authorities in JAA letter 04/00/02/07/03-L024 of 3 February 2003. The review was requested to be mandated by NAA's (National Aviation Authorities) using JAR (Joint Aviation Regulation) § 25.901(c), § 25.1309. In August 2005 EASA published a policy statement on the process for developing instructions for maintenance and inspection of Fuel Tank System ignition source prevention (EASA D 2005/CPRO, *www.easa.eu.int/home/cert_policy_statements_en.html* ) that also included the EASA expectations with regard to compliance times of the corrective actions on the unsafe and the not unsafe part of the harmonised design review results. On a global scale the TC (type certificate) holders committed themselves to the EASA published compliance dates (see EASA policy statement). The EASA policy statement has been revised in March 2006: the date of 31-12-2005 for the unsafe related actions has now been set at 01-07-2006. Fuel Airworthiness Limitations are items arising from a systems safety analysis that have been shown to have failure mode(s) associated with an ‘unsafe condition’ as defined in FAA's memo 2003-112-15 ‘SFAR 88—Mandatory Action Decision Criteria'. These are identified in Failure Conditions for which an unacceptable probability of ignition risk could exist if specific tasks and/or practices are not performed in accordance with the manufacturers' requirements. This EASA Airworthiness Directive mandates the Fuel System Airworthiness Limitations (comprising maintenance/inspection tasks and Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL)) for the type of aircraft, that resulted from the design reviews and the JAA recommendation and EASA policy statement mentioned above. The corrective action is revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate new limitations for fuel tank systems. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public. Conclusion We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed. 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 also have required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD will affect about 7 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $560, or $80 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov;* or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 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: **2007-23-05 Saab Aircraft AB:** Amendment 39-15251. Docket No. FAA-2007-29171; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-154-AD. Effective Date
(a)This airworthiness directive
(AD)becomes effective December 11, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to all Saab Model SAAB 2000 airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers. Note 1: This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new inspections. Compliance with these inspections is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by these inspections, the operator may not be able to accomplish the inspections described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph
(g)of this AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure the continued operational safety of the airplane. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association
(ATA)of America Code 28: Fuel. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: Subsequent to accidents involving Fuel Tank System explosions in flight * * * and on ground, the FAA published Special Federal Aviation Regulation 88 (SFAR 88) in June 2001. SFAR 88 required a safety review of the aircraft Fuel Tank System to determine that the design meets the requirements of FAR (Federal Aviation Regulation) § 25.901 and § 25.981(a) and (b). A similar regulation has been recommended by the JAA (Joint Aviation Authorities) to the European National Aviation Authorities in JAA letter 04/00/02/07/03-L024 of 3 February 2003. The review was requested to be mandated by NAA's (National Aviation Authorities) using JAR (Joint Aviation Regulation) § 25.901(c), § 25.1309. In August 2005 EASA (European Aviation Safety Agency) published a policy statement on the process for developing instructions for maintenance and inspection of Fuel Tank System ignition source prevention (EASA D 2005/CPRO, *www.easa.eu.int/home/cert_policy_statements_en.html* ) that also included the EASA expectations with regard to compliance times of the corrective actions on the ‘unsafe and the not unsafe part of the harmonised design review results. On a global scale the TC (type certificate) holders committed themselves to the EASA published compliance dates (see EASA policy statement). The EASA policy statement has been revised in March 2006: The date of 31-12-2005 for the unsafe related actions has now been set at 01-07-2006. Fuel Airworthiness Limitations are items arising from a systems safety analysis that have been shown to have failure mode(s) associated with an ‘unsafe condition’ as defined in FAA's memo 2003-112-15 ‘SFAR 88—Mandatory Action Decision Criteria’. These are identified in Failure Conditions for which an unacceptable probability of ignition risk could exist if specific tasks and/or practices are not performed in accordance with the manufacturers' requirements. This EASA Airworthiness Directive mandates the Fuel System Airworthiness Limitations (comprising maintenance/inspection tasks and Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL)) for the type of aircraft, that resulted from the design reviews and the JAA recommendation and EASA policy statement mentioned above. The corrective action is revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate new limitations for fuel tank systems. Actions and Compliance
(f)Unless already done, do the following actions.
(1)Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, revise the Airworthiness Limitations Section
(ALS)of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate the maintenance and inspection instructions in Part 1 of Saab Fuel Airworthiness Limitations 2000 LKS 009032, dated February 14, 2006. For all tasks identified in Part 1 of Saab Fuel Airworthiness Limitations 2000 LKS 009032, dated February 14, 2006, the initial compliance times start from the effective date of this AD, and the repetitive inspections must be accomplished thereafter at the interval specified in Part 1 of Saab Fuel Airworthiness Limitations 2000 LKS 009032, dated February 14, 2006.
(2)Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, revise the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate the CDCCLs as defined in Part 2 of Saab Fuel Airworthiness Limitations 2000 LKS 009032, dated February 14, 2006.
(3)Except as provided by paragraph
(g)of this AD: After accomplishing the actions specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD, no alternative inspection, inspection intervals, or CDCCLs may be used.
(4)Where Saab Fuel Airworthiness Limitations 2000 LKS 009032, dated February 14, 2006, allows for exceptional short-term extensions, an exception is acceptable to the FAA if it is approved by the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. FAA AD Differences Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Mike Borfitz, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-2677; fax
(425)227-1149. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(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, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(h)Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA)Airworthiness Directive 2006-0199, dated July 11, 2006, and Saab Fuel Airworthiness Limitations 2000 LKS 009032, dated February 14, 2006, for related information. Material Incorporated by Reference
(i)You must use Saab Fuel Airworthiness Limitations 2000 LKS 009032, dated February 14, 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 Saab Aircraft AB, SAAB Aircraft Product Support, S-581.88, Linko ping, Sweden.
(3)You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington; 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/cfr/ibr-locations.html* . Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 27, 2007. Stephen P. Boyd, Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-21674 Filed 11-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28925; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-123-AD; Amendment 39-15248; AD 2007-23-02] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 Series Airplanes, and Model A340-200 and -300 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: During ground inspection of an A340-311 aircraft, it has been discovered that 5 fasteners were missing between Frame
(FR)18 and FR19 on longitudinal joint at stringer 28RH (right hand). Further investigations have revealed that the missing fasteners have not been installed in production due to incorrect production instructions. If not corrected, this situation could affect the structural integrity of the aircraft in the area of stringer 28 between FR18 and FR19 at longitudinal joint. We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products. DATES: This AD becomes effective December 11, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of December 11, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* or in person at the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Backman, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-2797; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on August 16, 2007 (72 FR 45970). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: During ground inspection of an A340-311 aircraft, it has been discovered that 5 fasteners were missing between Frame
(FR)18 and FR19 on longitudinal joint at stringer 28RH (right hand). Further investigations have revealed that the missing fasteners have not been installed in production due to incorrect production instructions. If not corrected, this situation could affect the structural integrity of the aircraft in the area of stringer 28 between FR18 and FR19 at longitudinal joint. In order to re-establish the structural strength of the aircraft, this Airworthiness Directive
(AD)renders mandatory the inspection of the longitudinal joint at stringer 28 RH between FR18 and FR19 [for missing fasteners]. For airplanes on which any fastener is missing, the corrective actions include doing a detailed visual inspection for cracking of the adjacent fastener area from the outside, without removing the fasteners; and if no crack is found, doing a rotating probe inspection for cracks of the adjacent fastener holes after removing the fasteners, and replacing any missing fastener. The corrective actions also include contacting Airbus for repair instructions and repair if fasteners are not at nominal diameter or if any crack is found. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public. Conclusion We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed. 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 also have required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD will affect about 9 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 4 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $2,880, or $320 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov;* or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 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: **2007-23-02 Airbus:** Amendment 39-15248. Docket No. FAA-2007-28925; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-123-AD. Effective Date
(a)This airworthiness directive
(AD)becomes effective December 11, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes and Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes; certificated in any category; all manufacturer's serial numbers
(MSN)up to MSN 0402 included, except MSN 051. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association
(ATA)of America Code 53: Fuselage. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: During ground inspection of an A340-311 aircraft, it has been discovered that 5 fasteners were missing between Frame
(FR)18 and FR19 on longitudinal joint at stringer 28RH (right hand). Further investigations have revealed that the missing fasteners have not been installed in production due to incorrect production instructions. If not corrected, this situation could affect the structural integrity of the aircraft in the area of stringer 28 between FR18 and FR19 at longitudinal joint. In order to re-establish the structural strength of the aircraft, this Airworthiness Directive
(AD)renders mandatory the inspection of the longitudinal joint at stringer 28 RH between FR18 and FR19 [for missing fasteners]. For airplanes on which any fastener is missing, the corrective actions include doing a detailed visual inspection for cracking of the adjacent fastener area from the outside, without removing the fasteners; and if no crack is found, doing a rotating probe inspection for cracks of the adjacent fastener holes after removing the fasteners, and replacing any missing fastener. The corrective actions also include contacting Airbus for repair instructions and repair if fasteners are not at nominal diameter or if any crack is found. Actions and Compliance
(f)Before the accumulation of 14,000 flight cycles from the first flight of the aircraft, or within 1,500 flight cycles following the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, unless already done, do the following actions: Perform a detailed visual inspection of the longitudinal joint at stringer 28 RH between FR18 and FR19 for missing fasteners, and do all applicable corrective actions before further flight, in accordance with the instructions defined in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3170 or A340-53-4175, both dated March 27, 2007. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)* : The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Tim Backman, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-2797; fax
(425)227-1149. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(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, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(h)Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2007-0125, dated May 4, 2007, and Airbus Service Bulletins A330-53-3170 and A340-53-4175, both dated March 27, 2007, for related information. Material Incorporated by Reference
(i)You must use the service information specified in Table 1 of this AD 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 Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France.
(3)You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; 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/cfr/ibr-locations.html* . Table 1.—Material Incorporated by Reference Airbus Service Bulletin Date A330-53-3170, excluding Appendix 01 March 27, 2007. A340-53-4175, excluding Appendix 01 March 27, 2007. Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 27, 2007. Stephen P. Boyd, Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-21686 Filed 11-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28882; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-035-AD; Amendment 39-15247; AD 2007-23-01] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Goodrich Evacuation Systems Approved Under Technical Standard Order
(TSO)TSO-C69b and Installed on Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 Series Airplanes, Model A340-200 and -300 Series Airplanes, and Model A340-541 and -642 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD), which applies to Goodrich evacuation systems approved under TSO-C69b and installed on certain Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes, Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes, and Model A340-541 and -642 airplanes. That AD currently requires inspecting to determine the part number of the pressure relief valves on the affected Goodrich evacuation systems, and corrective action if necessary. For certain airplanes, this new AD requires an additional inspection to determine the part number of the pressure relief valves, and corrective action if necessary. This AD results from a report indicating that, during maintenance testing, the pressure relief valves on the affected Goodrich evacuation systems did not seal when activated, which caused the pressure in the escape slide/raft to drop below the minimum allowable raft mode pressure. We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of pressure in the escape slides/rafts after an emergency evacuation, which could result in inadequate buoyancy to support the raft's passenger capacity during ditching, and increase the chance for injury to raft passengers. DATES: This AD becomes effective December 11, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of December 11, 2007. On July 17, 2006 (71 FR 33606, June 12, 2006), the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Goodrich Service Bulletin 25-355, dated July 25, 2005. ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact Goodrich, Aircraft Interior Products, ATTN: Technical Publications, 3414 South Fifth Street, Phoenix, AZ 85040. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov;* or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is the Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tracy Ton, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety/Mechanical and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone
(562)627-5352; fax
(562)627-5210. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that supersedes AD 2006-12-08, amendment 39-14633 (71 FR 33606, June 12, 2006). The existing AD applies to Goodrich evacuation systems approved under Technical Standard Order
(TSO)TSO-C69b and installed on certain Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes, Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes, and Model A340-541 and -642 airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on August 6, 2007 (72 FR 43576). That NPRM proposed to continue to require inspecting to determine the part number of the pressure relief valves on the affected Goodrich evacuation systems, and corrective action if necessary. For certain airplanes, that NPRM also proposed to require an additional inspection to determine the part number of the pressure relief valves, and corrective action if necessary. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. No comments have been received on the NPRM 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. Costs of Compliance There are about 689 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This AD affects about 27 airplanes of U.S. registry. The actions that are required by AD 2006-12-08 and retained in this AD take about 1 work hour per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the currently required actions is $2,160, or $80 per airplane. All airplanes affected by the new required action are currently operated by non-U.S. operators under foreign registry. If an affected airplane is imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future, the new actions will take about 1 work hour per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the new actions specified in this AD for U.S. operators is $80 per airplane. 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 regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. 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 Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by removing amendment 39-14633 (71 FR 33606, June 12, 2006) and by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **2007-23-01 Goodrich (Formerly BF Goodrich):** Amendment 39-15247. Docket No. FAA-2007-28882; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-035-AD. Effective Date
(a)This AD becomes effective December 11, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)This AD supersedes AD 2006-12-08. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Goodrich evacuation systems approved under Technical Standard Order
(TSO)TSO-C69b, as installed on Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -243, -301, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes; Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, and -313 airplanes; and Model A340-541 and -642 airplanes; certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from a report indicating that, during maintenance testing, the pressure relief valves on the affected Goodrich evacuation systems did not seal when activated, which caused the pressure in the escape slide/raft to drop below the minimum allowable raft mode pressure. We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of pressure in the escape slides/rafts after an emergency evacuation, which could result in inadequate buoyancy to support the raft's passenger capacity during ditching, and increase the chance for injury to raft passengers. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Restatement of Requirements of AD 2006-12-08 Inspection for Certain Part Number (P/N)
(f)For all airplanes: Within 36 months after July 17, 2006 (the effective date of AD 2006-12-08): Perform an inspection to determine the part number of the pressure relief valve on the Goodrich evacuation systems in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Goodrich Service Bulletin 25-355, dated July 25, 2005; or Goodrich Service Bulletin 25-355, Revision 1, dated July 24, 2006. After the effective date of this AD, only Goodrich Service Bulletin 25-355, Revision 1, dated July 24, 2006, may be used.
(1)If any pressure relief valve having P/N 4A3791-3 is installed, before further flight, replace the valve with a new or serviceable valve having P/N 4A3641-1 and mark the girt adjacent to the placard, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin.
(2)If any pressure release valve having P/N 4A3641-1 is installed, before further flight, mark the girt adjacent to the placard in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin. Part Installation for Airplanes Identified in Original Issue of the Service Bulletin
(g)As of July 17, 2006, no person may install a pressure relief valve having P/N 4A3791-3, on any airplane equipped with Goodrich evacuation systems identified in Goodrich Service Bulletin 25-355, dated July 25, 2005. New Requirements of This AD Inspection for Certain Other P/N
(h)For Model A340-541 airplanes: Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, perform an inspection to determine the part number of the pressure relief valve on the Goodrich evacuation systems in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Goodrich Service Bulletin 25-355, Revision 1, dated July 24, 2006.
(1)If any pressure relief valve having P/N 4A3791-6 is installed, before further flight, replace the valve with a new or serviceable valve having P/N 4A3641-26 and mark the girt adjacent to the placard, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin.
(2)If any pressure release valve having P/N 4A3641-26 is installed, before further flight, mark the girt adjacent to the placard in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin. Parts Installation for All Airplanes
(i)As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a pressure relief valve having P/N 4A3791-3, on any airplane equipped with Goodrich evacuation systems identified in Goodrich Service Bulletin 25-355, Revision 1, dated July 24, 2006.
(j)As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a pressure relief valve having P/N 4A3791-6, on any airplane equipped with Goodrich evacuation systems identified in Goodrich Service Bulletin 25-355, Revision 1, dated July 24, 2006. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (k)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(3)AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 2006-12-08 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference
(l)You must use Goodrich Service Bulletin 25-355, dated July 25, 2005; or Goodrich Service Bulletin 25-355, Revision 1, dated July 24, 2006; as applicable, to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Goodrich Service Bulletin 25-355, Revision 1, dated July 24, 2006, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2)On July 17, 2006 (71 FR 33606, June 12, 2006), the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Goodrich Service Bulletin 25-355, dated July 25, 2005.
(3)Contact Goodrich, Aircraft Interior Products, ATTN: Technical Publications, 3414 South Fifth Street, Phoenix, AZ 85040, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; 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/cfr/ibr-locations.html.* Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 27, 2007. Stephen P. Boyd, Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-21685 Filed 11-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 558 New Animal Drugs; Ractopamine AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect approval of a supplemental new animal drug application
(NADA)filed by Elanco Animal Health. The supplemental NADA provides for an increased level of monensin in three-way combination Type C medicated feeds containing ractopamine, monensin, and tylosin for cattle fed in confinement for slaughter and a revision to bacterial pathogen nomenclature. DATES: This rule is effective November 6, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel A. Benz, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-126), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 301-827-0223, e-mail: *daniel.benz@fda.hhs.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Elanco Animal Health, A Division of Eli Lilly & Co., Lilly Corporate Center, Indianapolis, IN 46285, filed a supplement to NADA 141-224 that provides for use of OPTAFLEXX (ractopamine hydrochloride), RUMENSIN (monensin USP), and TYLAN (tylosin phosphate) Type A medicated articles to make dry and liquid three-way combination medicated feeds for cattle fed in confinement for slaughter. The supplemental NADA provides for an increased level of monensin in combination Type C medicated feeds and a revision to bacterial pathogen nomenclature. The supplemental NADA is approved as of October 12, 2007, and the regulations in 21 CFR 558.500 are amended to reflect the approval. In accordance with the freedom of information provisions of 21 CFR part 20 and 21 CFR 514.11(e)(2)(ii), a summary of safety and effectiveness data and information submitted to support approval of this application may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.33(a)(2) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808. List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 558 Animal drugs, Animal feeds. Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under the authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 558 is amended as follows: PART 558—NEW ANIMAL DRUGS FOR USE IN ANIMAL FEEDS 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 558 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b, 371. 2. In § 558.500, in the table in paragraph (e)(2), revise paragraphs (e)(2)(iv) and (e)(2)(ix) to read as follows: § 558.500 Ractopamine.
(e)* * *
(2)* * * Ractopamine in grams/ton Combination in grams/ton Indications for use Limitations Sponsor * * * * * * *
(iv)8.2 to 24.6 Monensin 10 to 40 to provide 0.14 to 0.42 mg monensin/lb of body weight, depending on severity of coccidiosis challenge, up to 480 mg/head/day, plus tylosin 8 to 10 Cattle fed in confinement for slaughter: As in paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this section; for prevention and control of coccidiosis due to *Eimeria bovis* and *E. zuernii* ; and for reduction of incidence of liver abscesses caused by *Fusobacterium necrophorum* and *Arcanobacterium (Actinomyces) pyogenes* . As in paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this section; see §§ 558.355(d) and 558.625(c) of this chapter. 000986 * * * * * * *
(ix)9.8 to 24.6 Monensin 10 to 40 to provide 0.14 to 0.42 mg monensin/lb of body weight, depending on severity of coccidiosis challenge, up to 480 mg/head/day, plus tylosin 8 to 10 Cattle fed in confinement for slaughter: As in paragraph (e)(2)(vi) of this section; for prevention and control of coccidiosis due to *Eimeria bovis* and *E. zuernii* ; and for reduction of incidence of liver abscesses caused by *Fusobacterium necrophorum* and *Arcanobacterium (Actinomyces) pyogenes* . As in paragraph (e)(2)(vi) of this section; see §§ 558.355(d) and 558.625(c) of this chapter. 000986 * * * * * * * Dated: October 26, 2007. Bernadette Dunham, Deputy Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine. [FR Doc. E7-21816 Filed 11-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R08-OAR-2007-0622; FRL-8490-6] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Colorado; Revised Denver PM <sup>10</sup> Maintenance Plan AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action approving a State Implementation Plan
(SIP)revision submitted by the State of Colorado. On September 25, 2006, the Governor's designee submitted a revised plan for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter, less than or equal to 10 microns
(PM10)for the Denver metropolitan area for the PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). This revised maintenance plan addresses maintenance of the PM10 standard for a second ten-year period beyond redesignation, extends the horizon years, and contains revised transportation conformity budgets. EPA is approving the removal of Regulation No. 11, “Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program” from Denver's revised PM10 maintenance plan. In addition, EPA is approving a transportation budget trading protocol for estimating the PM10 and nitrogen oxides
(NOx)for each conformity determination. This action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act. DATES: This direct final rule is effective on January 7, 2008 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by December 6, 2007. If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the **Federal Register** informing the public that the rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket Number EPA-R08- OAR-2007-0622, by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • E-mail: *videtich.callie@epa.gov* and *fiedler.kerri@epa.gov.* • Fax:
(303)312-6064 (please alert the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , if you are faxing comments). • Mail: Callie A. Videtich, Director, Air and Radiation Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. • Hand Delivery: Callie A. Videtich, Director, Air and Radiation Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are accepted Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:55 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2007-XXXX. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available at *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA, without going through *http://www.regulations.gov,* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.* For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I, General Information of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests, if at all possible, that you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kerri Fiedler, Air and Radiation Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, phone
(303)312-6493, and e-mail at: *fiedler.kerri@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. General Information II. What is the purpose of this action? III. What is the State's process to submit these materials to EPA? IV. EPA's Evaluation of Denver's PM10 Maintenance Plan V. EPA's Evaluation of the Transportation Conformity Requirements VI. EPA's Approval of the Transportation Budget Trading Protocol VII. EPA's Evaluation of the Regulation No. 11 Revisions VIII. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act IX. Final Action X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Definitions For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain words or initials as follows:
(i)The words or initials *Act* or *CAA* mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
(ii)The words *EPA,* *we,* *us* or *our* mean or refer to the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
(iii)The initials *NAAQS* mean National Ambient Air Quality Standard.
(iv)The initials *SIP* mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
(v)The word *State* means the State of Colorado, unless the context indicates otherwise.
(vi)PM10 means particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than 10 microns. I. General Information A. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. *Submitting Confidential Business Information.* Do not submit this information to EPA through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM mailed to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically, within the disk or CD-ROM, the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed, except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. *Tips for Preparing Your Comments.* When submitting comments, remember to: a. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). b. Follow directions—The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)part or section number. c. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. d. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. e. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow it to be reproduced. f. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives. g. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. h. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. What is the purpose of this action? In this action, we are approving the revised maintenance plan for the Denver PM10 attainment/maintenance area that is designed to keep the area in attainment for PM10 for a second ten-year period beyond the original redesignation. EPA is approving the removal of Regulation No. 11, “Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program” from Denver's revised PM10 maintenance plan. In addition, we are approving revised transportation conformity motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) and MVEB trading protocol. We approved the original PM10 redesignation to attainment and maintenance plan for the Denver area on September 16, 2002, (67 FR 58335). In this revised maintenance plan, the State has updated the mobile source PM10 emissions with MOBILE6.2; updated the transportation projections and stationary source inventories; revised the MVEBs; applied a selected amount of the available safety margin to the transportation conformity MVEBs; established an MVEB trading protocol; and extended the horizon year to 2022. Colorado is also removing Regulation No. 11, “Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program” from Denver's revised PM10 maintenance plan. We have determined that these changes are approvable as described below. III. What is the State's process to submit these materials to EPA? Section 110(k) of the CAA addresses our actions on submissions of revisions to a State Implementation Plan (SIP). The CAA requires States to observe certain procedural requirements in developing SIP revisions for submittal to us. Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA requires that each SIP revision be adopted after reasonable notice and public hearing. This must occur prior to the revision being submitted by a state to us. The Colorado Air Quality Control Commission
(AQCC)held a public hearing for the revised Denver PM10 maintenance plan and Regulation No. 11 on December 15, 2005. The AQCC adopted the revised PM10 maintenance plan and removal of Regulation No. 11 from Denver's revised PM10 maintenance plan directly after the hearing. This SIP revision became State effective on March 2, 2006, and was submitted by the Governor's designee to us on September 25, 2006. We have evaluated the revised maintenance plan and have determined that the State met the requirements for reasonable notice and public hearing under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. As required by section 110(k)(1)(B) of the CAA, we reviewed these SIP materials for conformance with the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V, and determined that the submittal was administratively and technically complete. Our completeness determination was sent on February 21, 2007, through a letter from Robert E. Roberts, Regional Administrator, to Governor Bill Ritter. IV. EPA's Evaluation of Denver's Revised PM10 Maintenance Plan EPA has reviewed the State's revised PM10 maintenance plan for the Denver attainment/maintenance area and finds approval is warranted. The following are the key aspects of these revisions along with our evaluation of each: A. The State has revised the Denver PM10 maintenance plan to include air quality data that show continuous attainment of the PM10 NAAQS. As described in 40 CFR 50.6, the level of the national primary and secondary 24-hour ambient air quality standards for particulate matter is 150 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3 ), 24-hour average concentration. The standards are attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 μg/m 3 , as determined in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, Appendix K, is equal to or less than one (1). The regulations in 40 CFR 50.6 continue by stating that the levels of PM10 in the ambient air shall be measured by a reference method, based on appendix J, and designated in accordance with part 53 of this chapter, or an equivalent method. The original Denver PM10 maintenance plan, approved by EPA on September 16, 2002, relied on ambient air quality data from 1999 through 2001. This revised Denver PM10 maintenance plan submitted September 25, 2006, relies on ambient air quality data from 2000 through 2004. Further, we have reviewed ambient air quality data from 2005 to 2006 and the Denver area shows continuous attainment of the PM10 NAAQS based on the most recent data archived in our Aerometric Information and Retrieval System (AIRS). B. Using the MOBILE6.2 emission factor model, the State updated the attainment year, projected years and the maintenance year emission inventories. The State updated the attainment year (2001), projected years (2009, 2010, 2015, 2020) and the maintenance year
(2022)emission inventories for Denver's revised PM10 maintenance plan. Denver's revised PM10 maintenance plan submitted on September 25, 2006, included comprehensive inventories of PM10 emissions for the Denver area. These inventories include emissions from stationary point sources, area sources, non-road mobile sources, and on-road mobile sources. More detailed descriptions of the 2001 attainment year inventory; a new estimated 2009 inventory; updated 2010, 2015, and 2020 projected inventories; and the 2022 maintenance year projected inventory are documented in the revised maintenance plan in section B, “Emission Inventories” and in the State's Technical Support Document (TSD). The State's submittal contains emission inventory information that was prepared in accordance with EPA guidance. Summary emission figures for primary and secondary (NOx and SO2) mobile sources and totals emissions from the 2001 attainment year and the projected years are provided in Table IV-1 below. Table IV-1.—Summary of PM10 Emissions in Tons per Day for Denver 2001 2009 2010 2015 2020 2022 Primary PM10 Mobile Sources 33.1 41.7 42.4 46.6 50.7 52.1 Total Primary PM10 62.3 92 93.3 99.4 105.3 107.5 NOx Mobile Sources 131.9 77.9 73.4 50.0 38.9 37.6 Total NOx 255.1 280.6 276.4 252.8 244.1 244.4 Mobile Source SO2 4.9 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 Total SO2 101.3 181.8 181.7 182.4 183.5 184.9 The State's approach follows EPA guidance on projected emissions and it is acceptable. 1 Further information on these projected emissions may also be found in the State's TSD. The State estimated the emissions from vehicles using EPA's MOBILE6.2 model and the road dust emission factors derived from a Denver area road dust study conducted in 1989. These road dust factors were used to estimate emissions in the previous maintenance plan and original redesignation request. The MOBILE6.2 modeling information is contained in the State's TSD. Much of the modeling data, input-output files, fleet makeup, MOBILE6.2 input parameters, etc. is on a compact disc (CD), included with the docket for this action, and available from either EPA or the State. Other revisions to the mobile sources categories were due to revised vehicle miles traveled
(VMT)estimates that were provided to the State from the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG), which is the metropolitan planning organization
(MPO)for the Denver area. The revised VMT estimates were extracted from DRCOG's 2030 Regional Transportation Plan of January, 2005. In summary, the revised maintenance plan and State TSD contains detailed emission inventory information, that were prepared in accordance with EPA guidance, and are acceptable to EPA. 1 “Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” Policy Memo: J. Calcagni to Div. Air Directors, September 4, 1992. C. The State revised the maintenance demonstration used in the original maintenance plan. The original Denver PM10 redesignation maintenance plan was approved by EPA on September 16, 2002. The State has revised and updated the maintenance plan for a second ten-year period beyond redesignation. The September 25, 2006 revised maintenance plan updated mobile source PM10 emissions with MOBILE6.2, assuming removal of Regulation No. 11, the vehicle I/M program, and used the most recent planning assumptions for the Denver metropolitan area from DRCOG's 2030 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The modeled domain-wide VMT estimate is presented in Chapter 4, Section B.1 of Denver's revised PM10 maintenance plan and Table IV-2 below. Table IV-2.—Estimated Daily VMT Year 2001 2005 2015 2020 2030 49,783,121 53,208,574 65,722,110 71,484,844 82,081,684 Chapter 2, Section D, of Denver's revised PM10 maintenance plan contains a discussion of the State's assessment of stationary source emissions. Stationary source inventories were updated including new sources permitted since the previously approved maintenance plan. The State estimates emissions for both major sources of primary PM10 and source of secondary NOx and SO2 emissions. We find the State's overall analysis of stationary sources of emissions acceptable. For the non-road and area source emissions, the State relied upon updated demographic information from DRCOG. Several of the non-road and area source emissions are dependent on demographic data as a surrogate emission factor. DRCOG demographics are presented below from section Chapter 4, Section 1, Table 4-1 of Denver's revised PM10 maintenance plan, and a further discussion is presented in the State's TSD. Table IV-3.—Demographics Year 2001 2005 2015 2020 2030 Population 2,034,861 2,146,319 2,432,326 2,612,345 2,972,384 Households 812,273 868,183 994,133 1,074,706 1,235,853 Employment 1,171,970 1,122,934 1,434,530 1,533,233 1,730,639 Based on the data provided in the submitted material, we have concluded that the revised maintenance demonstration is approvable. D. Monitoring Network and Verification of Continued Attainment Continued attainment of the PM10 NAAQS in the Denver area depends, in part, on the State's efforts to track indicators throughout the maintenance period. This requirement is met in Section E, “Monitoring Network/Verification of Continued Attainment” of the revised Denver PM10 maintenance plan. In this section, the State commits to continue operating the PM10 monitors in the Denver area, and to annually review the monitoring networks and make changes as appropriate. Also, in Section E, the State commits to track PM10 mobile source parameters and new and modified stationary source permits. Since regular revisions to the transportation improvement programs are prepared every two years, and must go through a transportation conformity finding, the State will use this process to periodically review the VMT estimate and mobile source emissions projections used in the revised maintenance plan. This regional transportation process is conducted by DRCOG in coordination with the Regional Air Quality Council (RAQC), the State's Air Pollution Control Division (APCD), the AQCC, the Federal Highway Administration and EPA. Based on the above, we are approving these commitments as satisfying the relevant requirements. We note that our final rulemaking approval renders the State's commitments federally enforceable. These commitments are also the same as those we approved in the original and the previously revised maintenance plan. E. Contingency Plan Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include contingency provisions. To meet this requirement, the State has identified appropriate contingency measures along with a schedule for the development and implementation of such measures. As stated in Section F of the revised Denver PM10 maintenance plan, the contingency measures will be triggered by a violation of the PM10 NAAQS. (However, the maintenance plan notes that an exceedance of the PM10 NAAQS may initiate a voluntary, local process by the RAQC and APCD to identify and evaluate potential contingency measures.) The RAQC, in coordination with the APCD and AQCC, will initiate a subcommittee process to begin evaluating potential contingency measures no more than 60 days after notification by the APCD that a violation of the PM10 NAAQS has occurred. The subcommittee will present recommendations within 120 days of notification and recommended contingency measures will be presented to the AQCC within 180 days of notification. The AQCC will then hold a public hearing to consider the recommended contingency measures, along with any other contingency measures that the AQCC believes may be appropriate to effectively address the violation of the PM10 NAAQS. The necessary contingency measures will be adopted and implemented within one
(1)year after the violation occurs. The potential contingency measures that are identified in section F.1 of Denver's revised PM10 maintenance plan include:
(1)Reinstatement of the enhanced I/M program in effect before January 10, 2000;
(2)required compliance with Regulation 12 concerning the diesel inspection/maintenance program;
(3)compliance with Regulation 13 concerning the oxygenated gasoline program;
(4)permitting terms and limits that were included in stationary permits previously incorporated into the state implementation plan at 40 CFR 52.320(82); 62 FR 18716 (April 17, 1997). In addition, the State lists potential contingency measures that would be evaluated for efficacy and suitability. These measures include, among others, increased street sweeping requirements, road paving requirements, wood burning restrictions, and retrofit programs for diesel engines. Based on the above, we find that the contingency measures provided in Denver's revised PM10 maintenance plan are sufficient and meet the requirements of section 175A(d) of the CAA. We note the contingency measures and methodology to implement them are the same as those we approved in the original and previously revised maintenance plan. F. Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions The previously approved maintenance plan addressed the period 1995 through 2015 and demonstrated, in accordance with section 175A(a) of the CAA, that the PM10 standard will be maintained for the initial ten-year period (through 2012). In accordance with section 175A(b), Colorado has submitted a revised maintenance plan within eight years after our approval of the original redesignation. The purpose of this revised maintenance plan is to provide for maintenance of the PM10 standard for the additional ten years (through 2022) following the first ten-year period. Based on our review of the components of the revised Denver PM10 maintenance plan, as discussed in items IV(A) through IV(F) above, we have concluded that the State has met the necessary requirements for us to fully approve the revised Denver PM10 maintenance plan. It is important to note that neither the maintenance plan nor the control measures relied upon in this maintenance plan will cease after the final maintenance year 2022. The maintenance plan and control measures relied upon in the maintenance plan will continue to be a part of Colorado's SIP, unless we approve their removal. The maintenance plan will remain in effect until it is revised and we approve the revision. V. EPA's Evaluation of the Transportation Conformity Requirements One key provision of our conformity regulation requires a demonstration that emissions from the Long Range Transportation Plan and the Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP)are consistent with the emissions budgets in the SIP (40 CFR 93.118 and 93.124). The emissions budgets are defined as the level of mobile source emissions relied upon in the attainment or maintenance demonstration to maintain compliance with the NAAQS in the non-attainment or maintenance area. The rule's requirements and EPA's policy on emissions budgets are found in the preamble to the November 24, 1993, transportation conformity rule (58 FR 62193-96) and in the sections of the rule referenced above. With respect to maintenance plans, our conformity regulation requires that motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) must be established for the last year of the maintenance plan and may be established for any other years deemed appropriate (40 CFR 93.118). For transportation plan analysis years, after the last year of the maintenance plan, a conformity determination must show that emissions are less than or equal to the maintenance plan's MVEBs for the last year of the implementation plan. EPA's conformity regulation (40 CFR 93.124) also allows the implementation plan to quantify explicitly the amount by which motor vehicle emissions could be higher while still demonstrating compliance with the maintenance requirement. The implementation plan can then allocate some or all of this additional safety margin to the emissions budgets for transportation conformity purposes. A. Denver MVEBs Section D of the revised Denver PM10 maintenance plan describes the applicable transportation conformity requirements and updated MVEBs for the revised maintenance plan. In addition to establishing MVEBs, the State establishes an emission budget trading protocol for trading between emissions budgets for primary PM10 and the PM10 precursor, NOx. Through this revised maintenance plan, the State has established a MVEB for 2015 through 2021 and 2022 and beyond. Specifically, the PM10 MVEBs are defined as 54 tons per day
(TPD)of PM10 and 70 TPD of NOx for 2015, and 55 TPD of PM10 and 56 TPD of NOx for 2022. The trading protocol will be explained more fully at a later point in this notice. Under our conformity rules, an MVEB is established for a given year, not for a range of years. This is because the MVEB reflects the inventory value for motor vehicle emissions in a given year, plus, potentially, any safety margin in that year. (We explain the concept of safety margin more fully below.) It is not possible to specify the same MVEB for a range of years absent specific analysis supporting the derivation of that budget for each year in the range. As a practical matter, this is not usually important because our conformity rules also say that an MVEB for a particular year applies for conformity analyses of emissions in that year and all subsequent years before the next budget year. See 40 CFR 93.118(b)(1)(ii), “Emissions in years for which no motor vehicle emissions budget(s) are specifically established must be less than or equal to the motor vehicle emissions budget(s) established for the most recent prior year.” Therefore, the “2015 through 2021” and the “2022 and beyond” budgets were derived from the 2015 and 2022 inventory values, respectively, for on-road vehicle emissions and available safety margin. Thus, we will refer to these as the 2015 and 2022 budgets in the remainder of this action. In addition, it is noted that the State had previously established MVEBs for 2006 for PM10 of 60 TPD, and 119.4 TPD for NOx for year 1998. These budgets will continue to be effective if the State should perform a conformity analysis for years prior to 2015, based on 40 CFR 93.118(b)(1)(ii). The maintenance plan indicates that SO emissions from mobile sources are an insignificant contributor to secondary particulate formation in the Denver area (much less than 1 μg/m 3 ). This is evident by Table 4.3-2 Secondary Particulate Concentration Worksheet, found in the Colorado State Implementation Plan for PM10, Revised TSD. Therefore, an emission budget for SO2 is not established. The maintenance plan establishes regional budgets for the PM10 modeling domain, which for technical modeling reasons, is less than the entire non-attainment area (as seen in the revised Denver PM10 maintenance plan). All of the emission estimates and air quality modeling in the maintenance plan are based on this domain. Future conformity determinations shall also project future mobile source emission for this same domain, unless the geographic coverage of the budget is changed through a future SIP revision. As shown in the maintenance demonstration earlier in this plan, the 2010, 2015, 2020, and 2022 regional emissions inventories for primary PM10 and PM10 precursors are below the level necessary to demonstrate continued maintenance of the PM10 standard (150 μg/m 3 ). As a result, EPA's conformity regulation (40 CFR 93.124) allows the implementation plan to quantify explicitly the amount by which motor vehicle emissions could be higher, while still demonstrating compliance with the maintenance requirement. The implementation plan can then allocate some or all of this additional “safety margin” to the emissions budget(s) for conformity purposes. The available safety margin in 2022 as shown in Table V-1 below is 4.7 μg/m 3 . Expressed in tons per day, this is equivalent to 57.8 TPD of NOx emissions or 4.2 TPD of PM10, based on results and relationships established in the modeling analysis for 2001 as follows: • Actual PM10 RAM inventory/averaged key receptor RAM PM10 concentration 60.1 TPD PM10/68.0 μg/m 3 PM10 = 0.9 TPD PM10/μg/m 3 PM10 • Actual NOx total inventory/NOx fraction of max. winter PM10 concentration (2001-2005) 255.1 TPD NOx/20.8 μg/m 3 PM10 = 12.3 TPD NOx/μg/m 3 PM10 The actual PM10 RAM inventory is derived by subtracting the Potential to Emit Point Sources from the Total Primary PM10 as seen in Table 4.2 (Primary and Secondary Emissions Inventory) found in the revised Denver PM10 maintenance plan. The averaged key receptor RAM PM10 concentration is estimated by using the RAM modeled concentrations from the 6th highest total concentrations above100 μg/m 3 . The actual NOx inventory is found at Table 3.1-2 of the TSD, and the NOx fraction of maximum winter PM10 concentration (2001-2005) is found in Table 4.3-2 of the TSD. Allocation of all of the available safety margin to NOx results in mobile source emissions budgets of 95.4 TPD NOx and 52.1 TPD PM10. Conversely, allocation of the entire available safety margin to PM10 results in mobile source emissions budgets of 37.6 TPD NOx and 56.3 TPD PM10, as illustrated in the following table: Table V-1.—2022 Available NOx or PM10 Safety Margin NOx PM10 Maximum Allowable Concentration 149.9 μg/m 3 149.9 μg/m 3 Maintenance Demonstration 145.2 μg/m 3 145.2 μg/m 3 Available “safety margin” ((micrograms/meter 3 ) 4.7 μg/m 3 4.7 μg/m 3 Available “safety margin” (tons per day) 57.8 TPD * 4.2 TPD ** 2022 Mobile Sources 37.6 TPD 52.1 TPD 2022 Mobile Source Budget with all Safety Margin Applied to NOx or PM10 95.4 TPD 56.3 TPD * 1 μg/m 3 = 12.3 TPD NOx. ** 1 μg/m 3 = 0.9 TPD PM10. This maintenance plan allocates the entire safety margin to the motor vehicle emissions budget and allocates a portion of the available safety margin to PM10 and a portion to NOx as shown in Table V-2: Table V-2.—2022 Allocation of Available Safety Margin and Development of Mobile Source Emissions Budgets NOx PM10 Available “safety margin” 4.7 μg/m 3 4.7 μg/m 3 Allocate a portion of PM10 “safety margin” −3.2 μg/m 3 Remaining Safety Margin available to NOx 1.5 μg/m 3 Available “safety margin” (tons per day) 18.5 TPD * 2.9 TPD ** Allocated Safety Margin (tons per day) 18.4 TPD 2.9 TPD 2022 Mobile Sources 37.6 TPD 52.1 TPD 2022 Mobile Sources Emissions Budgets 56 TPD 55 TPD * 1 μg/m 3 = 12.3 TPD NOx. ** 1 μg/m 3 = 0.9 TPD PM10. Therefore, the revised Denver PM10 maintenance plan establishes MVEBs for 2022, the final year of the maintenance plan as seen in Table V-3 below: Table V-3.—2022 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Year NOx
(TPD)PM10
(TPD)2022 56 55 The current 2015 motor vehicle emissions budgets were established in the previously approved maintenance plan using MOBILE5 and DRCOG transportation networks and data available at that time. As discussed previously, 2015 is an EPA approved budget year in the previously approved maintenance plan (September 16, 2002). The 2015 budgets will be revised in this maintenance plan, allocating a portion of available safety margin to both PM10 and NOx, and using the same methodology as the 2022 budgets. The analysis for allocating the safety margin is seen in Table V-4. Table V-4.—2015 Allocation of Available Safety Margin and Development of Mobile Source Emissions Budgets NOx PM10 Maximum Allowable Concentration 149.9 μg/m 3 149.9 μg/m 3 Maintenance Demonstration 137.5 μg/m 3 137.5 μg/m 3 Available “safety margin” 12.4 μg/m 3 12.4 μg/m 3 Allocate a portion of PM10 “Safety Margin” −8.2 μg/m 3 Remaining Safety Margin available to NOx 4.2 μg/m 3 Available “safety margin” 51.7 TPD 7.4 TPD ** Allocated “safety margin” 20.0 TPD 7.4 TPD 2015 Mobile Sources 50.0 TPD * 46.6 TPD 2015 MS Emissions Budget 70.0 TPD 54 TPD * 1 μg/m 3 = 12.3 TPD NOx. ** 1 μg/m 3 = 0.9 TPD PM10. Based on this analysis the revised Denver PM10 maintenance plan establishes MVEBs as seen in Table V-5 below for 2015. Upon the effective date of this approved maintenance plan, the previously approved budgets for 2015 will no longer apply. Table V-5.—2015 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Year NOx
(TPD)PM10
(TPD)2015 70 54 VI. EPA's Approval of the Transportation Budget Trading Protocol This revised maintenance plan establishes these specific MVEBs. However, this plan is establishing a protocol for trading emissions, as allowed under 40 CFR 93.124(b), between the primary PM10 budget and the PM10 precursor NOx. Trading will allow for different pairs of PM10 and NOx budgets to demonstrate conformity while still resulting in the same PM10 concentrations and ensuring continued air quality with respect to PM10. The technical analysis presented above has shown a relationship between the concentration of PM10 and the emissions of NOx and primary PM10 as follows: 1 μg/m 3 PM10 = 12.3 TPD NOx = 0.9 TPD PM10 This relationship can also be expressed as: 1.0 TPD PM10 = 13.6 TPD NOx In terms of trading emissions the State is indicating that if the PM10 budget is increased by 1 TPD the NOx budget should be reduced 13.6 TPD in order to have no impact on the ambient PM10 concentration. Conversely, if the NOx budget is increased by 13.6 TPD the primary PM10 budget will be reduced by 1 TPD. The State, as requested by EPA, in order to account for uncertainties in modeling and to provide additional assurance of continued maintenance of the PM10 NAAQS has incorporated a 10% safety factor to the PM10 and NOx trading ratio described above. The resulting ratios for use in trading of emissions are detailed in the trading protocol described below. The MPO is the entity responsible for demonstrating transportation conformity. This revised PM10 maintenance plan authorizes the MPO to follow the steps below in determining the conformity of the long range transportation plan. The trading protocol is as follows: • Initially, a demonstration of conformity shall be made using the approved PM10 and NOx MVEBs. • Prior to any emissions trading, the MPO shall consider implementing all reasonably available local control measures to reduce the PM10 or NOx emissions to meet the established budgets. If conformity cannot be demonstrated, the MPO shall express the need for trading through the normal interagency consultation and review process described in Colorado's Air Quality Regulation No. 10: Criteria for Analysis of Conformity, which includes regional, state, and federal air quality and transportation agencies. • If trading of NOx for PM10 or PM10 for NOx is determined through consultation to be necessary to adjust emission budgets for purposes of demonstrating transportation conformity, it shall be allowed using the emission trading formulas as follows: ○ For any trades necessary to increase a primary PM10 budget, 15.0 TPD of NOx will be taken from the NOx budget to increase the primary PM10 budget by 1.0 TPD, a ratio of 15 to 1. ○ For trades necessary to increase a NOx budget, 1.0 TPD of primary PM10 will be taken from the primary PM10 budget to increase the NOx budget by 12.0 TPD, a ratio of 1 to 12. • The MPO shall include the following information in the transportation conformity determination: ○ The budget for primary PM10 and NOx for each required year of the conformity demonstration, before trading allowed by this maintenance plan has been employed. ○ The portion of the primary PM10 budget that will be used to supplement the NOx budget, or, in the alternative, the portion of the NOx budget that will be used to supplement the primary PM10 budget, in tons per day, for each required year of the conformity demonstration. ○ The increase in the NOx budget or primary PM10 budget that results from use of the applicable formula specified above, along with relevant calculations. ○ The resulting primary PM10 and NOx budgets, in tons per year, for each required year of the conformity demonstration, after the trading allowed by this maintenance plan has been employed. • To demonstrate conformity, the MPO shall then compare projected emissions to the adjusted PM10 and NOx motor vehicle emissions budgets. Trades in either direction would be made on a case-by-case basis, decided for each plan/TIP conformity determination. Pursuant to section 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) of EPA's transportation conformity rule, as amended, EPA must determine the adequacy of submitted MVEBs. EPA reviewed the Denver PM10 2022 budget for adequacy using the criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4), and determined that the 2022 budget was adequate for conformity purposes. EPA's adequacy determination was made in a letter to the State on May 3, 2007, and was announced in the **Federal Register** on June 13, 2007 (72 FR 32646). As a result of this adequacy finding, the 2022 MVEB took effect for conformity determinations in the Denver area on June 28, 2007. However, we are not bound by that adequacy determination in acting on the maintenance plan. The 2022 and revised 2015 MVEBs are considered approved upon the effective date of this maintenance plan approval. VII. EPA's Evaluation of the Regulation No. 11 Revisions Colorado's Regulation No. 11 is entitled, “Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program.” In developing the revised Denver PM10 maintenance plan, the State conducted a comprehensive reevaluation of mobile source control programs with MOBILE6.2 and the latest transportation sets from DRCOG's 2030 Regional Transportation Plan. Based on these results, Colorado's Regulation No. 11 can be removed from the revised Denver PM10 maintenance plan effective December 31, 2007. This revised maintenance plan reflects the removal of Regulation No. 11 in that the mobile source PM10 emissions were calculated without the PM10 emissions reduction benefit of an inspection and maintenance (I/M) program starting January 1, 2008, and continuing through 2022. Even with the elimination of the I/M program from the revised Denver PM10 maintenance plan, beginning on January 1, 2008, the Denver area still meets EPA requirements to demonstrate maintenance of the PM10 standard through 2022. We note that the removal of the I/M program from Denver's revised PM10 maintenance plan does not mean the I/M program is eliminated. The State relies on the I/M program in Denver's 1-hour ozone maintenance plan and Denver's 8-hour ozone Early Action Compact (EAC). Therefore, the motor vehicle I/M program will remain intact in the Denver-metro area. We have reviewed and are approving the removal of Regulation No. 11 from the revised Denver PM10 maintenance plan. VIII. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act Section 110(l) of the CAA states that a SIP revision cannot be approved if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress towards attainment of a NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. As stated above, the revised PM10 maintenance plan shows continuous attainment of the PM10 NAAQS since 2001 for Denver. The revised maintenance plan along with the removal of Regulation No. 11 will not interfere with attainment, reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. IX. Final Action In this action, EPA is approving the revised Denver PM10 maintenance plan, that was submitted on September 25, 2006; the revised transportation conformity MVEBs for PM10 and PM10 precursor NOx for the years 2015 and 2022 for Denver; and the PM10 and PM10 precursor NOx, MVEB trading protocol and trading ratios. Furthermore, we are approving the removal of Regulation No. 11 (I/M) from the revised Denver PM10 maintenance plan. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's **Federal Register** publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective January 7, 2008 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by December 6, 2007. If the EPA receives adverse comments, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the **Federal Register** informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. 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. X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and, therefore, is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and 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
(1)or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications, because it does not have 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and 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. section 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. section 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 January 7, 2008. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, PM10, particulate matter, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: October 22, 2007. Robert E. Roberts, Regional Administrator, Region VIII. 40 CFR part 52 is amended to read 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 G—Colorado 2. Section 52.332 is amended by adding paragraph
(p)to read as follows: § 52.332 Control strategy: Particulate matter.
(p)Revisions to the Colorado State Implementation Plan, PM10 Revised Maintenance Plan for Denver, as adopted by the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission on December 15, 2005, State effective on March 2, 2006, and submitted by the Governor's designee on September 25, 2006. The revised maintenance plan satisfies all applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act. [FR Doc. E7-21611 Filed 11-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-OAR-2006-0271; FRL-8491-4] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Louisiana; Approval of 8-Hour Ozone Section 110(a)(1) Maintenance Plans for the Parishes of Beauregard, Grant, and St. Mary AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is approving revisions to the Louisiana State Implementation Plan
(SIP)concerning the 8-hour ozone maintenance plans for the parishes of Beauregard, Grant, and St. Mary. On August 23, 2006, the State of Louisiana submitted separate SIP revisions containing 8-hour ozone maintenance plans for Beauregard and Grant Parishes, and on October 10, 2006, Louisiana submitted an 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for St. Mary Parish. These plans ensure the continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) through the year 2014. These maintenance plans meet the statutory and regulatory requirements, and are consistent with EPA's guidance. EPA is approving the revisions pursuant to section 110 of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA). DATES: This rule is effective on January 7, 2008 without further notice, unless EPA receives relevant adverse comment by December 6, 2007. If EPA receives such comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the **Federal Register** informing the public that this rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2006-0271, by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *EPA Region 6 “Contact Us” Web site:* *http://epa.gov/region6/r6coment.htm* . Please click on “6PD” (Multimedia) and select “Air” before submitting comments. • *E-mail:* Mr. Guy Donaldson at *donaldson.guy@epa.gov* . Please also send a copy by email to the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below. • *Fax:* Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), at fax number 214-665-7263. • *Mail:* Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. • *Hand or Courier Delivery:* Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Such deliveries are accepted only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays except for legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2006-0271. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *www.regulations.gov* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the *index,* some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made available by appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review Room between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal holidays. Contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-665-7253 to make an appointment. If possible, please make the appointment at least two working days in advance of your visit. There will be a 15 cent per page fee for making photocopies of documents. On the day of the visit, please check in at the EPA Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. The State submittal is also available for public inspection at the State Air Agency listed below during official business hours by appointment: Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Public Records Center, Room 127, 602 N. Fifth Street, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70821. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Belk, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone
(214)665-2164; fax number 214-665-7263; e-mail address *belk.ellen@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever “we” “us” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA. Outline I. Background II. Analysis of the State's Submittals III. The State of Louisiana's Request To Relax the Federal Reid Vapor Pressure Standard in Grant Parish IV. Final Action V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background Under section 107 of the 1977 CAA, Louisiana's Beauregard, Grant, and St. Mary Parishes were designated as nonattainment areas because they did not meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for 1-hour ozone (40 CFR 81.319). As required by section 110 of the CAA, the state of Louisiana submitted a SIP to EPA on December 10, 1979. This SIP was approved by EPA on October 29, 1981 (46 FR 53412). Under the 1990 CAA Amendments, the Beauregard, Grant, and St. Mary Parish nonattainment areas continued to be designated nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by operation of law since Louisiana had not yet collected the required three years of data necessary to petition for redesignation to attainment. On December 12, 1994, Louisiana submitted a request to redesignate Beauregard, Grant, and St. Mary Parishes to attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard. At the same time, the State submitted the required ozone monitoring data and maintenance plan for each parish (each area includes only the one Parish) to ensure the areas would remain in attainment for 1-hour ozone for a period of 10 years. The maintenance plans submitted by Louisiana followed EPA guidance for limited maintenance areas, which provides for 1-hour ozone areas that have design values less than 85% of the applicable standard. In this case, the applicable standard was the 1-hour ozone standard of 0.12 parts per million (ppm). At the time of the redesignation request, the design values for Beauregard, Grant, and St. Mary Parishes were 0.106, 0.071, and 0.092 ppm, respectively. Since each of these values was at or below the 85% threshold of 0.106 ppm, EPA approved Louisiana's requests to redesignate Beauregard, Grant, and St. Mary Parishes to attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard and approved the Parishes' maintenance plans, on August 18, 1995 (60 FR 43020), with an effective date of October 17, 1995. On April 30, 2004, EPA designated and classified areas for the new 8-hour ozone NAAQS (69 FR 23858), and published the final phase 1 rule for implementation of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS (69 FR 23951). Beauregard, Grant, and St. Mary Parishes were designated as unclassifiable/attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard, effective June 15, 2004. The three attainment areas consequently are required to submit a 10-year maintenance plan under section 110(a)(1) of the CAA and the Phase I rule. On May 20, 2005, EPA issued guidance providing information regarding how a state might fulfill the maintenance plan obligation established by the Act and the Phase I rule (Memorandum from Lydia N. Wegman to Air Division Directors, *Maintenance Plan Guidance Document for Certain 8-hour Ozone Areas Under Section 110(a)(1) of Clean Air Act,* May 20, 2005). This SIP revision satisfies the section 110(a)(1) CAA requirements for a plan that provides for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Beauregard, Grant, and St. Mary Parish 8-hour ozone unclassifiable/attainment areas. On December 22, 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an opinion that vacated EPA's Phase 1 Implementation Rule for the 8-hour Ozone Standard. ( *South Coast Air Quality Management District.* v. *EPA,* 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). Petitions for rehearing were filed with the Court, and on June 8, 2007, the Court modified the scope of the vacatur of the Phase I rule. The Court vacated those portions of the Rule that provide for regulation of 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas under Subpart 1 in lieu of Subpart 2 and that allow backsliding with respect to new source review, penalties, milestones, contingency plans, and motor vehicle emission budgets. Consequently, the Court's modified ruling does not alter any requirements under the Phase 1 8-hour ozone implementation rule for maintenance plans. II. Analysis of the State's Submittals On August 23, 2006, the State of Louisiana submitted separate SIP revisions containing 8-hour ozone maintenance plans for Beauregard and Grant Parishes, and on October 10, 2006, Louisiana submitted an 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for St. Mary Parish. (The August 23, 2006 submittal for Grant Parish superseded a previous one dated March 2006, and included substantive changes to the contingency plan section. The August 23, 2006 submittal for Grant Parish was preceded by a proposal in June 2006, and a public hearing July 25, 2006.) These August and October revisions provide 8-hour ozone maintenance plans for the three parishes named above, as required by section 110(a)(1) of the CAA and the provisions of EPA's Phase 1 Implementation Rule ( *see* 40 CFR 51.905(a)(4)). The purpose of these plans is to ensure continued attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS for 8-hour ozone in Beauregard, Grant, and St. Mary Parishes. In this action, EPA is approving the State's 8-hour ozone maintenance plans for the areas of Beauregard, Grant, and St. Mary Parishes because EPA finds that the LDEQ submittal meets the requirements of section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, EPA's rule, and is consistent with EPA's guidance. As required, these plans provide for continued attainment and maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the area for 10 years from the effective date of the area's designation as unclassifiable/attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and include components illustrating how each Parish will continue in attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and contingency measures. Each of the section 110(a)
(1)plan components is discussed below.
(a)Attainment Inventory. The LDEQ developed comprehensive inventories of VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> emissions from area, stationary, and mobile sources using 2002 as the base year to demonstrate maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for Beauregard, Grant, and St. Mary Parishes. The year 2002 is an appropriate year for the LDEQ to base attainment level emissions because States may select any one of the three years on which the 8-hour attainment designation was based (2001, 2002, and 2003). The State's submittals contain the detailed inventory data and summaries by source category. The 2002 base year inventory is a good choice. Using the 2002 inventory as a base year reflects one of the years used for calculating the air quality design values on which the 8-hour ozone designation decisions were based. It also is one of the years in the 2002-2004 period used to establish baseline visibility levels for the regional haze program. A practical reason for selecting 2002 as the base year emission inventory is that Section 110(a)(2)(B) of the CAA and the Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule (67 FR 39602, June 10, 2002) require States to submit emissions inventories for all criteria pollutants and their precursors every three years, on a schedule that includes the emissions year 2002. The due date for the 2002 emissions inventory is established in the rule as June 2004. In accordance with these requirements, the State of Louisiana compiles a statewide EI for point sources on an annual basis. For stationary point sources, for Beauregard, Grant, and St. Mary Parishes, the LDEQ provided estimates for each commercial or industrial operation that emits 100 tons or more per year of VOC or NO <sup>X</sup> in Appendix A of each maintenance plan. Stationary non-point source data was provided by E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc., through the Central Regional Air Planning Association (CENRAP) using the methodology in “Consolidation of Emissions Inventories”, section C, page 26. On-road mobile emissions of VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> were estimated using EPA's MOBILE6.2 motor vehicle emissions factor computer model. Non-road mobile emissions data were derived from the “Emission Inventory Development For Mobile Sources and Agricultural Dust Sources for the Central States” produced by Sonoma Technology, Inc. for CENRAP in October 2004 using EPA's NONROAD 2004 non-road mobile emissions computer model. EPA finds that the LDEQ prepared the 2002 base year emissions inventories for the three Parishes consistent with EPA's long-established guidance memoranda. In projecting data for the attainment year 2014 inventory, LDEQ used several methods to project data from the base year 2002 to the years 2008, 2011, and 2014. These projected inventories were developed using EPA-approved technologies and methodologies. Point source and non-point source projections were derived from the Emissions Growth Analysis System version 4.0 (EGAS 4.0). Non-road mobile projections were derived from EGAS 4.0, as well as from the National Mobile Inventory Model. The following tables provide VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> emissions data for the 2002 base attainment year inventory, as well as projected VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> emission inventory data for the years 2008, 2011, and 2014. Please see the Technical Support Document
(TSD)for additional emissions inventory data including projections by source category for each parish. Beauregard Parish VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> Emissions Inventory Baseline
(2002)and Projections (2008, 2011, and 2014) Emissions 2002 tons per day 2008 tons per day 2011 tons per day 2014 tons per day Total VOC 13.91 13.96 13.96 14.02 Total NO X 20.88 20.79 20.78 20.84 As shown in the table above, total VOC and total NO <sup>X</sup> emissions for Beauregard Parish are projected to remain nearly the same over the 10-year period of the maintenance plan. Grant Parish VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> Emissions Inventory Baseline
(2002)and Projections (2008, 2011, and 2014) Emissions 2002 tons per day 2008 tons per day 2011 tons per day 2014 tons per day Total VOC 8.99 8.23 7.57 7.09 Total NO X 5.73 5.13 4.82 4.58 As shown in the table above, total VOC and total NO <sup>X</sup> emissions for Grant Parish are projected to decrease somewhat over the 10-year period of the maintenance plan. St. Mary Parish VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> Emissions Inventory Baseline
(2002)and Projections (2008, 2011, and 2014) Emissions 2002 tons per day 2008 tons per day 2011 tons per day 2014 tons per day Total VOC 18.74 16.29 15.50 15.01 Total NO X 37.10 37.79 38.43 39.15 Emission projections for future years in St. Mary Parish indicate a downward trend in VOC emissions through 2014. NO <sup>X</sup> emission projections through 2014 reflect an increase of 2.05 tons per day by the year 2014, or approximately 5%, from 37.10 to 39.15 tpd. This small projected increase which occurs over a 12-year period is a result of calculations for the point and non-point source emissions categories. Emissions from non-road mobile and on-road mobile sources are projected to decrease. In contrast, VOC emissions are projected to decrease by 3.73 tons per day, or approximately 20%, from 18.74 to 15.01 tpd. The projected 20% reduction in VOC emissions is expected to sufficiently offset the projected 5% increase in NO <sup>X</sup> emissions, enabling the area to continue to maintain the 8-hour ozone standard. Please see the TSD for more information on EPA's analysis and review of the State's methodologies, modeling data and performance, etc. for developing the base and attainment year inventories. As shown in the tables above, the State has demonstrated that the future year 8-hour ozone emissions will be less than the 2002 base attainment year's emissions. The attainment inventories submitted by the LDEQ for these areas are consistent with the criteria as discussed in the EPA Maintenance Plan Guidance memo dated May 20, 2005. EPA finds that the future emissions levels in 2008, 2011 and 2014 are expected to be similar to or less than the emissions levels in 2002.
(b)Maintenance Demonstration. The primary purpose of a maintenance plan is to demonstrate how an area will continue to remain in compliance with the 8-hour ozone standard for the 10 year period following the effective date of designation as unclassifiable/attainment. The end projection year is 10 years from the effective date of the attainment designation, which for Beauregard, Grant, and St. Mary Parishes was June 15, 2004. Therefore, these plans must demonstrate attainment through 2014. As discussed in section
(a)Attainment Inventory above, Louisiana has identified the level of ozone-forming emissions in Beauregard, Grant, and St. Mary Parishes that were consistent with attainment of the NAAQS for ozone in 2002. Louisiana has projected VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> emissions for the years 2008, 2011, and 2014 in Beauregard, Grant, and St. Mary Parishes and EPA finds that the future emissions levels in those years are expected to be similar or below the emissions levels in 2002. Please see the TSD for more information on EPA's review and evaluation of the State's 2008, 2011, and 2014 projected emissions inventories. Louisiana relies on several air quality measures that will provide for additional 8-hour ozone emissions reductions in Beauregard, Grant, and St. Mary Parishes. These measures include the following, among others:
(1)Implementation of EPA's National Rule for VOC Emission Standards for Automobile Refinish Coatings, Consumer Products, and Architectural Coatings,
(2)enacting of specific requirements from EPA's Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emission Standards, EPA's Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards, as well as EPA's gasoline and highway diesel fuel sulfur control requirements,
(3)EPA's required control of emissions from non-road diesel engines and fuels, and
(4)implementation of the Federal Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR)(70 FR 25162). The purpose of these control measures is to reduce levels of 8-hour ozone, including the areas of Beauregard, Grant, and St. Mary Parishes. As an additional demonstration of maintenance, Louisiana references the EPA modeling conducted for CAIR in the maintenance plan submittals. Louisiana is a state that must implement CAIR, and the EPA CAIR modeling indicates that all Louisiana parishes will be in attainment with the 8-hour ozone standard by 2010, with continued attainment projected through 2015. This analysis is consistent with the projections discussed above in
(a)Attainment Inventory.
(c)Ambient Air Quality Monitoring. In May 2003, after a technical and statistical analysis, the Regional Office agreed with the State of Louisiana that the Ragley monitoring site in Beauregard Parish and the Bentley monitoring site in Grant Parish could be discontinued upon submittal of a revised maintenance plan, which turned out to be November 28, 2005 for Grant Parish and May 19, 2006 for Beauregard Parish. The Bentley site in Grant Parish, however, was destroyed by fire on August 13, 2005, before the end of the 2005 ozone season. Since there was not adequate time to establish a new monitor for the remainder of the 2005 ozone season, EPA calculated its 2005 design value with the available information as 73 ppb. (The ozone season in the State of Louisiana is from January to December for the Parishes discussed in this notice.) In the same May 2003 letter, after the completion of the technical and statistical analysis, the Regional Office agreed with the State that the Morgan City monitoring site in St. Mary Parish could be discontinued at the end of the 2003 ozone season. Nevertheless, the State of Louisiana has committed in its maintenance plans for Beauregard, Grant, and St. Mary Parishes to provide operation of an appropriate ozone monitoring network and to work with EPA in compliance with 40 CFR part 58 with regard to the continued adequacy of such a network, if EPA determines monitoring is needed. The Ragley monitoring site in Beauregard Parish has monitored attainment with the 8-hour ozone standard since 1998 through 2005. The 8-hour ozone NAAQS is 0.08 parts per million based on the three-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration measured at each monitor within an area. The standard is considered to be attained at 84 parts per billion (ppb). The three most recent 8-hour ozone design values for the Ragley site in Beauregard Parish are 73 ppb for 2003, 73 ppb for 2004, and 75 ppb for 2005. The Bentley monitoring site in Grant Parish has monitored attainment with the 8-hour ozone standard since 1998 through 2004. The most recent 8-hour ozone design values for the Bentley site in Grant Parish are 78 ppb for 2002, 74 ppb for 2003, 73 ppb for 2004, and 73 ppb for 2005. The design value for 2005 is calculated to be 73 ppb, based upon the 8 months and 12 days of available data. In St. Mary Parish, the Morgan City monitoring site has monitored attainment with the 8-hour ozone standard since 2001 through 2005. The State did not discontinue the monitor after the end of the 2003 ozone season as allowed but continued to operate it through the 2005 ozone season. The three most recent 8-hour ozone design values for St. Mary Parish are 74 ppb for 2003, 73 ppb for 2004, and 76 ppb for 2005.
(d)Contingency Plan. The section 110(a)
(1)maintenance plans include contingency provisions to correct promptly any violation of the NAAQS that occurs. The contingency indicator for the Beauregard, Grant, and St. Mary Parish maintenance plans is based on updates to the emission inventories. The triggering mechanism for activation of contingency measures is a ten percent or greater increase in emissions of either VOC or NO <sup>X</sup> based on the 2002 emissions inventory. In these maintenance plans, if contingency measures are triggered, LDEQ is committing to implement the measures as expeditiously as practicable, but no longer than 24 months following the trigger. The following contingency measures are identified for implementation:
(1)Lowering VOC RACT applicability thresholds for Stage 1 gasoline controls,
(2)NO <sup>X</sup> controls on major sources (100 tpy and greater),
(3)Emission offsets for permits (1.10 ratio for VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> ), and
(4)Other measures deemed appropriate at the time as a result of advances in control technologies. These contingency measures and schedules for implementation satisfy EPA's long-standing guidance on the requirements of section 110(a)
(1)of Continued Attainment. Continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the areas of Beauregard, Grant, and St. Mary Parishes will depend, in part, on the air quality measures discussed previously (see II. b) above). In addition, Louisiana commits to verify the 8-hour ozone status in each maintenance plan through annual and periodic evaluations of the emissions inventories. In the annual evaluations, Louisiana will review VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> emission data from stationary point sources. During the periodic evaluations (every three years), Louisiana will update the emissions inventory for all emissions source categories, and compare the updated emissions inventory data to the projected 2008, 2011 and 2014 attainment emissions inventories to verify continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard. III. The State of Louisiana's Request To Relax the Federal Reid Vapor Pressure Standard in Grant Parish The State of Louisiana has submitted a request to EPA to relax the federal Reid Vapor Pressure
(RVP)standard from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi in Grant Parish during the ozone control season (June 1 to September 15). The Grant Parish section 110(a)
(1)maintenance plan provides a modeled analysis of emissions from on-road mobile sources, including a comparison of VOC emissions using both the 7.8 and 9.0 psi RVP gasoline, for the three projection years: 2008, 2011, and 2014. The following Table provides the data resulting from the State's analysis comparing projected VOC emissions in Grant Parish for an RVP of 7.8 psi and 9.0 psi. Grant Parish: RVP Comparison Effect on VOC Emissions Year 7.8 psi RVP VOC
(tpd)9.0 psi RVP VOC
(tpd)2002 1.27 N/A 2008 0.80 0.90 2011 0.63 0.70 2014 0.52 0.57 The Table above shows that Grant Parish is projected to continue to attain the 8-hour ozone standard with either a 7.8 or 9.0 psi RVP gasoline. The overall effect on VOC emissions from the difference between 7.8 and 9.0 psi RVP gasoline is 0.1 tpd or less for each of the three projection years. Further, each of the projected VOC emission inventories using 9.0 psi RVP gasoline is less than the baseline VOC emission inventory for the 2002 attainment year. Based upon this data, the Grant Parish 8-hour maintenance plan demonstrates that the use of either 7.8 or 9.0 psi RVP gasoline in the parish will allow the area to continue to meet the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA has promulgated regulations establishing the volatility standards. In a separate rulemaking, EPA will address the State's request. IV. Final Action Pursuant to section 110 of the Act, EPA is approving the 8-hour ozone maintenance plans for Beauregard, Grant, and St. Mary Parishes, which were submitted by LDEQ on August 23, 2006, August 23, 2006, and October 10, 2006, respectively, which ensure continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS through the year 2014. We have evaluated the State's submittals and have determined that they meet the applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act and EPA regulations, and are consistent with EPA policy. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because we view this as a non-controversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this **Federal Register** publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if relevant adverse comments are received. This rule will be effective on January 7, 2008 without further notice unless we receive adverse comment by December 6, 2007. If we receive adverse comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the **Federal Register** informing the public that the rule will not take effect. We will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so now. Please note that if we receive adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and 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). 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 rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. 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 CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This 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 CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 7, 2008. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Nitrogen dioxide, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: October 26, 2007. Lawrence E. Starfield, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. 40 CFR part 52 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 T—Louisiana 2. In § 52.970, the table in paragraph
(e)entitled, “EPA APPROVED LOUISIANA NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES”, is amended by adding three new entries to the end of the table as follows: § 52.970 Identification of plan.
(e)* * * Epa-Approved Louisiana Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic or nonattainment area State submittal date/effective date EPA approval date Explanation * * * * * * * 8-Hour Ozone Section 110 Maintenance Plan Beauregard Parish, LA 8/23/06 11/06/07 [Insert FR page number where document begins] 8-Hour Ozone Section 110 Maintenance Plan Grant Parish, LA 8/23/06 11/06/07 [Insert FR page number where document begins] 8-Hour Ozone Section 110 Maintenance Plan St. Mary Parish, LA 9/27/06 11/06/07 [Insert FR page number where document begins] 3. Section 52.975, entitled, “Redesignations and maintenance plans; ozone”, is amended by adding a new paragraph
(h)as follows: § 52.975 Redesignations and maintenance plans; ozone.
(h)Approval. The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
(LDEQ)submitted 8-hour ozone maintenance plans for the areas of Beauregard, Grant, and St. Mary Parishes on August 23, 2006, August 23, 2006, and October 10, 2006, respectively. The three areas are designated unclassifiable/attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA determined these requests for Beauregard, Grant, and St. Mary Parishes were complete on October 9, 2006, October 9, 2006, and November 30, 2006, respectively. The maintenance plans meet the requirements of section 110(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act, and are consistent with EPA's maintenance plan guidance document dated May 20, 2005. The EPA therefore approved the 8-hour ozone maintenance plans for the areas of Beauregard, Grant, and St. Mary parishes on November 6, 2007. [FR Doc. E7-21687 Filed 11-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 42 CFR Parts 411, 412, 413, and 489 [CMS-1533-CN3] RIN 0938-A070 Medicare Program; Changes to the Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems and Fiscal Year 2008 Rates; Correction AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. ACTION: Correction of final rule with comment period. SUMMARY: This document corrects wage index, case-mix index, and geographic adjustment factor errors in the final rule with comment period that appeared in the August 22, 2007 **Federal Register** entitled “Medicare Program; Changes to the Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems and Fiscal Year 2008 Rates Final Rule”; and the correction notice that appeared in the October 10, 2007 **Federal Register** entitled “Medicare Program; Changes to the Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems and Fiscal Year 2008 Rates; Correction”. DATES: *Effective Date:* October 1, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Miechal Lefkowitz,
(410)786-5316. Valerie Miller,
(410)786-4535. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background In FR Doc 07-3820 of August 22, 2007 (72 FR 47130) and in FR Doc. 07-4875 of October 10, 2007 (72 FR 57634), there were a number of technical and typographical errors that are identified and corrected in the Correction of Errors section of this notice. We issued the fiscal year
(FY)2008 hospital inpatient prospective payment systems
(IPPS)final rule with comment period on August 1, 2007. The FY 2008 IPPS final rule with comment period appeared in the August 22, 2007 **Federal Register** , hereinafter referred to as the FY 2008 IPPS final rule with comment period. We issued a correction notice for the FY 2008 IPPS final rule with comment period on September 28, 2007. The correction notice appeared in the October 10, 2007 **Federal Register** hereinafter referred to as the second FY 2008 IPPS correction notice. The provisions in this correction notice are effective as if they had been included in the FY 2008 IPPS final rule with comment period. Accordingly, the corrections are effective October 1, 2007. II. Summary of Errors We recently discovered a small number of inadvertent technical or typographical errors. Therefore, this notice corrects the errors that appeared in the FY 2008 IPPS final rule with comment period and the second FY 2008 IPPS correction notice. In the second FY 2008 IPPS correction notice (72 FR 57637), there were typographical errors in some of the case mix indices listed in Table 2. The case mix index
(CMI)values for some of the providers listed in Table 2 of that correction notice were intended to be the same as the CMI values in Table 2 of the FY 2008 IPPS final rule with comment period. However, there was an inadvertent typographical error that resulted in the CMI values for certain providers being displayed on the wrong line. Therefore, in this notice, we are correcting some of the entries in Table 2 to reflect the proper CMI values for these providers. Table 2 also contained errors in wage indices for providers 140B10 and 220074. Each hospital is a part of a multicampus hospital, and each hospital is reclassified to the labor market area where other hospitals associated with its provider number are located. We note that these hospitals were properly assigned the reclassified wage index in the FY 2008 IPPS final rule with comment period. However, in the second FY 2008 IPPS correction notice, Table 2 inadvertently listed each hospital's geographic area wage index rather than the hospital's reclassified wage index. Provider 140B10 was mistakenly assigned 1.0583, the area wage index for Lake County-Kenosha County, IL-WA (CBSA 29404). Therefore, in section III. item 1 of this notice (correction of Table 2), the wage index for provider 140B10 is corrected to 1.0472, the reclassified wage index for Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL (CBSA 16974). In addition, provider 220074 was mistakenly assigned 1.0533, the area wage index value for Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA (CBSA 39300). Therefore, in section III. item 1 of this notice (correction of Table 2), the wage index for provider 220074 is corrected to 1.1304, the reclassified wage index for Boston-Quincy, MA (CBSA 14484). In Tables 2, 4A, and 4C of the FY 2008 IPPS final rule with comment period and the second FY 2008 IPPS correction notice, there was also an inadvertent error in the wage index calculation for two core-based statistical areas (CBSAs). In calculating the wage indices in the FY 2008 IPPS final rule with comment period, a provider was inadvertently included in CBSA 16180 Carson City, NV, when it is actually geographically located in CBSA 39900 Reno-Sparks, NV. The effect of this change is that the wage indices for the eight providers in these two CBSAs will change. Therefore, in section III. of this notice, we are correcting the wage indices for these providers in these two CBSAs in Tables 2, 4A, and 4C. We note that wage index corrections may be retroactive to the beginning of the Federal fiscal year if the requirements specified in § 412.64(k)(2)(ii) are met. The requirements in § 412.64(k)(2)(ii) are as follows:
(1)The fiscal intermediary or Medicare Administrative Contractor (FI/MAC) or CMS made an error in tabulating data used for the wage index calculation;
(2)the hospital knew about the error in its wage data and requested the FI/MAC and CMS to correct the error both within the established schedule for making corrections to the wage data (which is at least before the beginning of the fiscal year for the applicable update to the hospital inpatient prospective payment system) and using the established process; and
(3)CMS agreed before October 1 that the FI/MAC or CMS made an error in tabulating the hospital's wage data and the wage index should be corrected. Since the wage indices errors that are corrected in this notice meet the requirements specified in § 412.64 of our regulations, these corrections are effective October 1, 2007. Table 4C of the second FY 2008 IPPS correction notice also contained typographical errors in the geographic adjustment factor
(GAF)for two CBSAs, CBSA 13820 (Birmingham-Hoover, AL) and CBSA 26620 (Huntsville, AL). Therefore, in this notice, we are correcting the GAFs for these CBSAs. We note that the wage indices for these CBSAs were correct in the second FY 2008 IPPS correction notice and are included in this notice to provide the reader with the wage indices and along with the corrected GAFs. III. Correction of Errors In FR Doc. 07-4875 of October 10, 2007 (72 FR 57634), make the following corrections: 1. On pages 57637 through 57698, in Table 2— Hospital Case-Mix Indexes for Discharges Occurring in Federal Fiscal Year 2006; Hospital Wage Indexes for Federal Fiscal Year 2008; Hospital Average Hourly Wages for Federal Fiscal Years 2006 (2002 Wage Data), 2007 (2003 Wage Data), and 2008 (2004 Wage Data); and 3-Year Average of Hospital Average Hourly Wages, the listed entries are corrected to read as follows: Table 2.—Hospital Case-Mix Indexes for Discharges Occuring in Federal Fiscal Year 2006; Hospital Wage Indexes for Federal Fiscal Year 2008; Hospital Average Hourly Wages for Federal Fiscal Years 2006 (2002 Wage Data), 2007 (2003 Wage Data), and 2008 (2004 Wage Data); and 3-Year Average of Hospital Average Hourly Wages Provider No. Case-mix index FY 2008 wage index Average hourly wage FY 2006 Average hourly wage FY 2007 Average hourly wage FY 2008 Average hourly wage (3 years) 140001 1.1034 0.8715 22.3170 22.3001 22.2003 22.2726 140002 1.3394 0.8983 24.6954 27.0165 27.4779 26.4101 140007 1.3523 1.0588 28.3482 30.7378 31.4024 30.1866 140008 1.4485 1.0588 28.5297 29.1767 31.8008 29.7872 140B10 3 1.0472 35.1024 31.8806 40.1360 35.1264 220001 1.1993 1.1355 29.0014 30.6070 31.2316 30.2898 220002 1.3836 1.1488 30.3598 32.4356 33.6649 32.2137 220003 1.1827 22.0549 22.0549 220006 30.8599 30.7673 33.6438 31.7232 220008 1.2814 1.1304 30.1043 31.3385 34.7924 32.1143 220010 1.2471 1.1304 29.7998 30.7804 32.0925 30.8934 220011 1.1289 1.1488 34.4064 34.7655 36.5640 35.2410 220012 1.5403 1.2612 35.7872 37.8763 39.7564 37.8806 220015 1.1909 1.0451 28.3397 29.6315 32.4903 30.2089 220016 1.1221 1.0451 28.0608 30.4813 32.5863 30.3587 220017 1.2751 1.1844 29.7108 31.6170 33.3020 31.5466 220019 1.0840 1.1355 23.2544 24.4009 25.7855 24.4947 220020 1.2035 1.1304 26.5305 28.5288 30.8458 28.6772 220024 1.2983 1.0451 27.3488 28.7342 31.9491 29.2912 220025 1.0403 1.1355 23.0637 25.6478 30.4369 26.1069 220028 32.0980 31.7122 39.3089 34.1922 220029 1.1319 1.1304 28.6970 30.6935 31.6363 30.3492 220030 1.1315 1.0451 24.4289 26.8849 28.1347 26.5400 220031 1.6670 1.1844 34.8183 36.8477 38.9433 36.9174 220033 1.2129 1.1304 28.2539 31.8249 32.3495 30.8022 220035 1.4179 1.1304 28.6238 31.4470 34.8739 32.8577 220036 1.5119 1.1844 31.5184 33.1436 35.9124 33.5798 220046 1.4766 1.0053 28.1396 30.4460 31.4510 30.0573 220049 1.2148 1.1488 27.7518 30.4740 32.4652 30.2584 220050 1.0817 1.0451 26.3768 28.3434 29.5194 28.1065 220051 1.3058 0.9706 29.8380 30.2552 30.1022 30.0683 220052 1.1342 1.1844 29.8577 32.4130 32.3532 31.5202 220058 0.9584 1.1355 24.9642 25.7247 27.8893 26.1881 220060 1.1735 1.1844 32.3362 32.5477 34.7336 33.2260 220062 0.5718 1.1355 24.2779 25.0766 25.4224 24.9426 220063 1.2551 1.1488 27.3968 30.2866 32.9283 30.2274 220065 1.2422 1.0451 26.5513 27.6009 30.1103 28.0583 220066 1.3440 1.0451 27.1317 27.8073 29.9736 28.3106 220067 1.1846 1.1844 29.8911 30.2222 32.4019 30.8648 220070 1.1331 1.1488 31.9283 33.1299 34.2598 33.1439 220071 1.8639 1.1844 32.2936 36.5065 37.4087 35.4748 220073 1.1778 1.1304 31.3566 34.2989 36.0289 33.8953 220074 1.1304 28.4930 30.5607 31.4730 30.1564 290001 1.8514 1.0836 31.1981 36.3129 35.5113 34.2992 290002 0.9058 0.9704 18.3469 17.3876 23.9348 19.4284 290006 1.1835 1.0680 27.9501 31.7301 31.9838 30.5940 290009 1.7155 1.0836 29.8019 36.2724 32.3348 32.7010 290019 1.4106 1.0680 28.6158 29.3650 30.5964 29.5670 290032 1.4261 1.0836 31.7105 31.6711 34.6589 32.6749 290049 1.3649 1.0836 26.0725 26.0725 290051 1.6073 0.9865 3 This provider, 140B10, is part of a multi-campus provider, 140010, that is comprised of campuses that are located in two different CBSAs. For the FY 2008 wage index, a new provider record was created, designated with a “B” in the 4th position of the provider number, to distinguish between the portion of the wages and hours of the multi-campus facility that is being allocated between the two different CBSAs. Please refer to the FY 2008 final rule, section III.H.I.7 “Geographic Reclassification for Multi-campus Hospitals,” for more details on this provision. 2. On pages 57698 through 57721, in Table 4A—Wage Index and Capital Geographic Adjustment Factor
(GAF)for Urban Areas by CBSA—FY 2008, the listed entries are corrected to read as follows: Table 4A.—Wage Index and Capital Geographic Adjustment Factor
(GAF)for Urban Areas by CBSA—FY 2008 CBSA code Urban area (constituent counties) Wage index GAF 16180 Carson City, NV 2 Carson City, NV. 0.9865 0.9907 39900 Reno-Sparks, NV Storey County, NV. Washoe County, NV. 1.0836 1.0565 2 Hospitals geographically located in the area are assigned the statewide rural wage index for FY 2008. New Jersey floor is imputed as discussed in the FY 2005 IPPS final rule (69 FR 49109) and in section III.G.2 of the preamble in this final rule. 3. On pages 57722 through 57726, in Table 4C—Wage Index and Capital Geographic Adjustment
(GAF)for Hospitals that are Reclassified by CBSA, the listed entries are corrected to read as follows: Table 4C.—Wage Index and Capital Geographic Adjustment Factor
(GAF)for Hospitals That Are Reclassified by CBSA—FY 2008 CBSA code Area Wage index GAF 13820 Birmingham-Hoover, AL 0.8690 0.9083 16180 Carson City, NV 0.9704 0.9796 26620 Huntsville, AL 0.8725 0.9108 39900 Reno-Sparks, NV 1.0680 1.0461 IV. Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking and the 30-Day Delay in the Effective Date We ordinarily publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the **Federal Register** to provide a period for public comment before the provisions of a rule take effect in accordance with section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA)(5 U.S.C. 553(b)). However, we can waive this notice and comment procedure if the Secretary finds, for good cause, that the notice and comment process is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, and incorporates a statement of the finding and the reasons therefore in the notice. Section 553(d) of the APA ordinarily requires a 30-day delay in effective date of final rules after the date of their publication in the **Federal Register** . This 30-day delay in effective date can be waived, however, if an agency finds for good cause that the delay is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, and the agency incorporates a statement of the findings and its reasons in the rule issued. For reasons noted below, we find good cause to waive proposed rulemaking and the 30-day delayed effective date for the technical corrections in this notice. This notice merely corrects typographical and technical errors in the addendum of the FY 2008 IPPS final rule with comment period and the second FY 2008 IPPS correction notice and does not make substantive changes to the policies or payment methodologies that were adopted in the final rule with comment period. As a result, this notice is intended to ensure that the FY 2008 IPPS final rule with comment period accurately reflects the policies adopted in the FY 2008 IPPS final rule with comment period. Therefore, we find that undertaking further notice and comment procedures to incorporate these corrections into the final rule or delaying the effective date of these changes is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.773, Medicare—Hospital Insurance; and Program No. 93.774, Medicare—Supplementary Medical Insurance Program) Dated: October 31, 2007. Ann C. Agnew, Executive Secretary to the Department. [FR Doc. 07-5513 Filed 11-1-07; 10:12 am]
Connectionstraces to 23
Traces to 23 documents
register
U.S. Code
- Federal Aviation Administration§ 106
- Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings§ 552
- Purposes§ 3501
- EXPEDITED PROCESSING OF REQUESTS FOR JAPANESE IMPERIAL GOVERNMENT RECORDS.§ 804
- New animal drugs§ 360b
- Definitions§ 601
- Establishment, functions, and activities§ 272
- SHORT TITLE.§ 801
- Congressional findings and declaration of purpose§ 7401
- Rule making§ 553
CFR
- May I address the unsafe condition in a way other than that set out in the airworthiness directive?§ 39.19
- General.§ 91.403
- Ractopamine.§ 558.500
- Confidentiality of data and information in a new animal drug application file.§ 514.11
- Animal drugs.§ 25.33
- National primary and secondary ambient air quality standards for PM10.§ 50.6
- Identification of plan.§ 52.320
- How do areas transition from the 1-hour NAAQS to the 1997 8-hour NAAQS and what are the anti-backsliding provisions?§ 51.905
18 references not yet in our index
- 14 CFR 39
- 1 CFR 51
- 21 CFR 558
- 21 CFR 20
- 5 USC 801-808
- 40 CFR 52
- 40 CFR 2
- 40 CFR 51
- 40 CFR 50
- 40 CFR 93.118
- 40 CFR 93.124
- 40 CFR 93.118(b)(1)(ii)
- 40 CFR 93.124(b)
- 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)
- Pub. L. 104-4
- 40 CFR 81.319
- 472 F.3d 882
- 40 CFR 58
Citation graph
cites case law
Unknown
Final rule
Cite14 CFR 39
Cite1 CFR 51
Cites 41 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources