                 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY                                   REGION III 	1650 Arch Street 	Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19103

DATE:

SUBJECT:	Technical Support Document for the Virginia State Implementation Plan for Section 110(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards

FROM:	Ellen Schmitt, Environmental Scientist       Office of Air Program Planning

TO:	File

THRU: 	Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director	/s/  5/7/2013             Office of Air Program Planning

A.  INTRODUCTION

	The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking action on a submittal made by the Commonwealth of Virginia to meet the Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110(a)(2) requirements of the 2008 lead national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).

B.  BACKGROUND

      On October 15, 2008, EPA revised the primary and secondary lead NAAQS from 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m[3]) to 0.15 ug/m[3].  Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit state implementation plans (SIPs) that provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of new or revised NAAQS within three years following the promulgation of such NAAQS.  Section 110(a) of the CAA imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to EPA for a new or revised NAAQS.  For the 2008 lead NAAQS, states typically have met many of the basic program elements required in section 110(a)(2) of the CAA through earlier SIP submissions in connection with previous lead standards.  Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA lists specific elements that states must meet or continue to meet in these SIP submissions.  The requirements include SIP infrastructure elements such as requirements for modeling, monitoring, and emissions inventories that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.  Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA infrastructure elements (A) through (M) are listed in EPA's memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards to the Regional Air Division Directors, Regions 1-10, "Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)," October 14, 2011,  (hereafter referred to as "Lead Infrastructure Guidance").               C.  EPA REQUIREMENTS

      As discussed above, for the 2008 lead NAAQS, states must provide SIP submissions, or provide certification that the existing SIP contains provisions addressing relevant infrastructure SIP elements from sections 110(a)(2)(A) through (M) of the CAA.  To help states meet this statutory requirement, EPA issued the Lead Infrastructure Guidance, which listed the basic elements that states should include in their SIPs.

D.  STATE'S SUBMITTAL

      On March 9, 2012, Virginia provided a submittal to satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 2008 lead NAAQS.  This submittal addressed the following infrastructure elements that EPA is proposing to approve:  section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C) (for enforcement and regulation of minor sources), (D)(i)(I), (D)(i)(II) (for visibility protection), (D)(ii), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M) of the CAA, or portions thereof.  EPA is taking separate action on the portions of (C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) as they relate to Virginia's prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) program.  This submittal did not include element (I) which pertains to the nonattainment requirements of part D, Title I of the CAA, since this element is not required to be submitted by the 3-year submission deadline of CAA section 110(a)(1), and will be addressed in a separate process.

      In accordance with the panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit opinion,  the EPA at this time is not treating the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submission from the Commonwealth of Virginia as a required SIP submission. See EME Homer City Generation, LP v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), reh'g denied  2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 1623 (Jan. 24., 2013).  However, even if the submission is not considered to be "required," the EPA must act on the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submission from Virginia because section 110(k)(2) of the CAA requires the EPA to act on all SIP submissions.  Unless the EME Homer City decision is reversed or otherwise modified by the Supreme Court, states are not required to submit 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs until the EPA has quantified their obligations under that section.  In this notice, EPA is proposing to act on the Commonwealth of Virginia's 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) submission.

E.  EVALUATION OF STATE SUBMITTAL

1.  Section 110(a)(2)(A)

	Virginia's enforceable emission limitations and other control measures are included in 9 VAC 5 Chapter 40 (Existing Stationary Sources), 9VAC5 Chapter 50 (New and Modified Stationary Sources), 9VAC5 Chapter 91 (Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance in Northern Virginia), 9VAC5 Chapter 130 (Open Burning), and 9VAC5 Chapter 140 (Emissions Trading). The measures in these regulations include provisions that are adequate to meet the requirements of 110(a)(2)(A).              EPA does not consider SIP requirements triggered by the nonattainment area mandates in part D of Title I of the CAA to be governed by the submission deadline of section 110(a)(1).  Nevertheless, the Commonwealth of Virginia may have included some previous EPA-approved SIP provisions originally submitted in response to part D in its submission documenting its compliance with the requirements of sections 110(a)(l) and (2) of the CAA. For the purposes of this action, EPA has reviewed certain Virginia 110(a)(2) submittals, including any rules originally submitted in response to part D, or references thereto, solely for the purposes of determining whether such submittals support a finding that the state has met the basic infrastructure requirements under section 110(a)(2).              In this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any existing Virginia provisions with regard to excess emissions during Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction (SSM) of operations at a facility. EPA believes that a number of states have SSM provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance (August 11, 1999 Steven Herman and Robert Perciasepe Guidance Memorandum, "State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown"), and the Agency plans to address such state regulations in the future. In the meantime, EPA encourages any state having a deficient SSM provision to take steps to correct it as soon as possible.              Also in this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any existing Virginia rules with regard to director's discretion or variance provisions. EPA believes that a number of states have such provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance (see 52 FR 45109, November 1987), and the Agency plans to take action in the future to address such state regulations. In the meantime, EPA encourages any state having director's discretion or variance provision which is contrary to the CAA and EPA guidance to take steps to correct the deficiency as soon as possible.

2.  Section 110(a)(2)(B)

      Virginia has established and currently operates appropriate devices, methods, systems, and procedures necessary to monitor, compile, and analyze data on ambient air quality. Virginia maintains and operates a multi-station network of ambient monitors throughout the Commonwealth to measure ambient air quality levels for comparison to each NAAQS as required by 40 CFR part 58.  The locations of these monitoring stations can be found in Virginia's Annual Network Review for 2012, the most recent year available at the time of this notice, and has been provided in the docket.              Virginia provides such ambient air quality data to EPA and keeps EPA informed of changes to the sampling network by providing prior notification of any planned changes and seeking approval of the changes. Virginia sends EPA an annual summary of all changes to the network, which includes a description, explaination, and other relevant information regarding each change.

      All data is measured using EPA approved methods as either Reference or Equivalent monitors.  All monitors are subjected to the quality assurance requirements of 40 CFR part 58, Appendix A, and all samplers are located at sites that have met the minimum siting requirements of 40 CFR part 58, Appendix E.  The data is submitted to EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) system, in a timely manner in accordance with the schedule prescribed by EPA in 40 CFR part 58.  EPA finds Virginia's infrastructure SIP meets the necessary requirements for CAA section 110(a)(2)(B).

3.  Section 110(a)(2)(C)

      Virginia has established and currently operates a program to provide for the enforcement of the enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques, as well as schedules and time tables for the compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate, to meet the applicable requirements of the CAA.  Virginia has a minor new source review (NSR) program located in 9VAC5-80-10 (New and Modified Stationary Sources) and 9VAC5-80-11 (Stationary source permit exemption levels) which has been approved into the Virginia SIP.              EPA will take separate action on the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 2008 lead NAAQS as it relates to Virginia's PSD permit program.  Virginia's revised PSD permit program approval has been proposed by EPA in the federal register on August 1, 2012 (77 FR 45523).

4.  Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)

      In accordance with the Homer City opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, the EPA at this time is not treating the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submission from the Commonwealth of Virginia as a required SIP submission.  See EME Homer City Generation, LP v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), reh'g denied  2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 1623 (Jan. 24., 2013).  However, even if the submission is not considered to be "required," the EPA must act on the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submission from Virginia because section 110(k)(2) of the CAA requires the EPA to act on all SIP submissions.  Unless the EME Homer City decision is reversed or otherwise modified by the Supreme Court, states are not required to submit 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs until the EPA has quantified their obligations under that section. In this notice, EPA is proposing to act on the Commonwealth of Virginia's 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) submission.

      The physical properties of lead prevent lead emissions from experiencing a significant degree of travel in the ambient air.  No complex chemistry is needed to form lead or lead compounds in the ambient air; therefore, concentrations of lead are typically highest near lead sources.  More specifically, there is a significant decrease in lead concentrations as the distance from a lead source increases.  According to EPA's report "Latest Findings on National Air Quality: Status and Trends Through 2006," lead monitoring data shows that the typical lead concentration near a source is approximately 10 times the typical lead concentration for sites that are not near a source (EPA-454/R-07-007).  Accordingly, in order for a source to emit lead that may contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other state, the source would need to be a very large source (emitting more than 0.5 tons per year of lead) that is located in close proximity to state boundaries.  See Lead Infrastructure Guidance.              To satisfy the interstate transport requirement of this element, Virginia made an assessment as to whether any lead emitting sources in the Commonwealth would contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other state with respect the 2008 lead NAAQS.  See Virginia's Annual Network Review.  Because of the physical properties of lead, and the fact that there are not any nonattainment areas for the 2008 lead NAAQS within close proximity of the sources, Virginia expects that these lead sources do not contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance in, any other state with regard to the 2008 lead NAAQS.

      With regard to visibility protection, lead-related visibility effects from Virginia are insignificant to other Class I areas.  See memorandum from Mark Schmidt, OAQPS to File, dated November 7, 2011, entitled, "The Estimated Contribution of Ambient Lead to Class I Area Visibility Impairment."  EPA also published a final rulemaking regarding Virginia's regional haze SIP on June 13, 2012 (77 FR 35287).  Therefore, EPA finds Virginia's infrastructure SIP as submitted meets the necessary requirements for CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

      Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires that SIPs include provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures to protect visibility required to be included in another state's SIP.  In describing how its submission meets this requirement, the Commonwealth referred to its October 4, 2012 Regional Haze SIP submittal which included reliance on the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) for electrical generating units (EGUs).  EPA granted limited approval and limited disapproval of Virginia's regional haze SIP.  See 77 FR 35287 (June 13, 2012).  Although Virginia's regional haze SIP has not been fully approved, EPA believes that the infrastructure SIP submission together with previously approved SIP provisions, specifically those provisions that require EGUs to comply with CAIR and the additional measures in the regional haze SIP addressing best available retrofit technology (BART) and reasonable progress requirements for other sources or pollutants, are adequate to demonstrate compliance with prong 4, thus, EPA is proposing to fully approve this aspect of the submission.               Virginia's regional haze SIP relied on Virginia's previous incorporation of the CAIR into the EPA-approved SIP for Virginia as an alternative to the requirement that the regional haze SIPs provide for source-specific BART emission limits for SO2 and NOx emissions from EGUs.  At the time the Virginia regional haze SIP was being developed, the Commonwealth's reliance on CAIR was fully consistent with EPA's regulations.  CAIR, as originally promulgated, requires significant reductions in emissions of SO2 and NOx to limit the interstate transport of these pollutants, and EPA's determination that states could rely on CAIR as an alternative to requiring BART for CAIR-subject EGUs had specifically been upheld in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 471 F.3d 1333 (D.C. Cir. 2006).  Moreover, the states with Class I areas affected by emissions from sources in Virginia had adopted reasonable progress goals for visibility protection that were consistent with the EGU emission limits resulting from CAIR.               In 2008, however, the D.C. Circuit remanded CAIR back to EPA.  See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008).  The court found CAIR to be inconsistent with the requirements of the CAA, see North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), but ultimately remanded the rule to EPA without vacatur because it found that "allowing CAIR to remain in effect until it is replaced by a rule consistent with [the court's] opinion would at least temporarily preserve the environmental values covered by CAIR." North Carolina, 550 F.3d at 1178.               After the remand of CAIR by the D.C. Circuit and the promulgation by EPA of a new rule  -  the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)  -  to replace CAIR, EPA issued a limited disapproval of Virginia's regional haze SIP (and other states' regional haze SIPs that relied similarly on CAIR) because EPA believed that full approval of the SIP was not appropriate in light of the court's remand of CAIR and the uncertain but limited remaining period of operation of CAIR.  EPA finalized a limited approval of the Virginia regional haze SIP, indicating that except for its reliance on CAIR, the SIP met CAA requirements for the first planning period of the regional haze program.  See 77 FR 35287 (June 13, 2012). EPA also finalized a limited FIP for Virginia, which merely substituted reliance on EPA's more recent CSAPR NOx and SO2 trading programs for EGUs for the SIP's reliance on CAIR.  See 77 FR 33642 (June 7, 2012).              Since the above-described developments with regard to Virginia's regional haze SIP, the situation has changed.  In August 2012, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision to vacate CSAPR.  EME Homer City Generation, LP v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), reh'g denied 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 1623 (Jan. 24., 2013).  In this decision, the court ordered EPA to "continue administering CAIR pending the promulgation of a valid replacement."  Thus, EPA has been ordered by the court to develop a new rule, and to continue implementing CAIR in the meantime, and the opinion makes clear that after promulgating that new rule EPA must provide states an opportunity to draft and submit SIPs to implement that rule.  Implementation of CAIR thus cannot be replaced until EPA has promulgated a final rule through a notice-and-comment rulemaking process; states have had an opportunity to draft and submit SIPs; EPA has reviewed the SIPs to determine if they can be approved; and EPA has taken action on the SIPs, including promulgating a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP), if appropriate.               Based on the current direction from the court to continue administering CAIR, EPA believes that it is appropriate to rely on CAIR emission reductions as permanent and enforceable for purposes of assessing the adequacy of Virginia's infrastructure SIP with respect to prong 4 while a valid replacement rule is developed and until implementation plans complying with any new rule are submitted by the states and acted upon by EPA or until any subsequent litigation  provides different direction regarding CAIR and CSAPR.  In addition, EPA believes that based on the court's decision on CSAPR it would be appropriate to propose to rescind its limited disapproval of Virginia's regional haze SIP and propose a full approval, but EPA will proceed to do so in a separate action.              As neither Virginia nor EPA has taken any action to remove CAIR from the Virginia SIP, CAIR remains part of the EPA-approved SIP and can be considered in determining whether the SIP as a whole meets the requirement of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (for visibility protection).  EPA is proposing to approve the infrastructure SIP submission with respect to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) because Virginia's regional haze SIP which EPA has given a limited approval in combination with its SIP provisions to implement CAIR adequately prevent sources in Virginia from interfering with measures adopted by other states to protect visibility during the first planning period.  While EPA is not at this time proposing to change the June 13, 2012, limited approval and limited disapproval of Virginia's regional haze SIP, EPA expects to propose an appropriate action regarding Virginia's regional haze SIP in a separate action.

      EPA is taking separate action on the portion of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2008 lead NAAQS as it relates to Virginia's PSD permit program.  EPA proposed approval of the revisions to Virginia's PSD permit program on August 1, 2012 (77 FR 45523).

	 5.  Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)               Virginia has demonstrated that it has met its obligations pursuant to CAA section 126(a), that it has no currently pending obligations pursuant to CAA Section 126(b), and has made the necessary submittals to demonstrate that the Commonwealth has adequate provisions insuring future compliance with the requirements of sections 126 and 115 of the CAA as may be necessary in accordance with EPA's Lead Infrastructure Guidance.  Therefore, EPA finds Virginia's infrastructure SIP meets the necessary requirements for CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii).               6.  Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i)                     The Code of Virginia Title 10.1 Chapter 13, "Air Pollution Control Board" gives broad authority to develop, implement and enforce the implementation plan. The resources to carry out the implementation plan are provided through General Funds, Title V funds, and the section 103 and 105 grant process. Title V fees are collected under the authority of Code of Virginia Title 10.1-1322. Virginia's submittal provides assurances that that it has adequate personnel to carry out the SIP with respect to the 2008 lead NAAQS.  Therefore, EPA finds Virginia's infrastructure SIP meets the necessary requirements for CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i).

7.  Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)

      EPA will take separate action on this portion of section 110(a)(2)(E) for the 2008 lead NAAQS as it relates to CAA section 128, "State Boards."

8.  Section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii)

	 Virginia does not rely on localities for specific SIP implementation.  Therefore, EPA finds Virginia's infrastructure SIP meets the necessary requirements for CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii).

9.  Section 110(a)(2)(F)                     Specific monitoring requirements are found throughout the Virginia Administrative Code governing the Control of Air Pollution, including 9VAC5 Chapters 20, 40, and 50.  These regulations are included in Virginia's approved SIP and are listed in 40 CFR 52.2420 and also apply to the 2008 lead NAAQS.

      Requirements for periodic reports on the nature, amounts of emissions, and emissions-related data are included in 9VAC5-20-160 (Registration).  This data is also required by Part I of 9VAC5 Chapter 40 (Existing Stationary Sources) as well as Parts I and II of 9VAC5 Chapter 50 (New and Modified Stationary Sources).  9VAC5-170-60 (Availability of information) of Part II of 9VAC5 Chapter 170 (Regulation for General Administration) requires that these reports be publicly available.  Therefore, EPA finds Virginia's infrastructure SIP meets the necessary requirements for CAA section 110(a)(2)(F).

10.  Section 110(a)(2)(G)

      Virginia has authority comparable to that in section 303 of the CAA and adequate contingency plans to implement such authority.

      Section 10.1-1309 B under Code of Virginia, Title 10.1, Chapter 13, Air Pollution Control Board, authorizes the board to declare a state of emergency and issue without hearing an emergency special order directing the owner to cease such pollution immediately upon finding that any owner is unreasonably affecting the public health, safety or welfare; the health of animal or plant life; or property.  Section 10.1-1309.1 authorizes the board to issue special orders requiring plans to abate, control, prevent, remove, or contain any substantial and imminent threat to public health or the environment that is reasonably likely to occur if such source ceases operations.  Therefore, EPA finds Virginia's infrastructure SIP meets the necessary requirements for CAA section 110(a)(2)(G).

11.  Section 110(a)(2)(H)

	Virginia has demonstrated that it has adequate authority to revise the SIP under the Code of Virginia, Title 10.1, Chapter 13, Air Pollution Control Board, specifically section 10.1-1306.  This provision provides authority for the board to act reasonably to achieve and maintain levels of air quality that will protect human health, welfare, and safety.  Also, section 10.1-1307 provides for the development of a comprehensive program for the study, abatement, and control of all sources of air pollution in the Commonwealth.  In addition, section 10.1-1308 provides authority to promulgate regulations to abate, control, and prohibit air pollution throughout the Commonwealth in accordance with the provisions of Virginia's Administrative Process Act.              These submissions also provide EPA with adequate assurances that Virginia will review and revise its SIP from time to time as may be necessary to take account of revisions of such primary or secondary NAAQS or the availability of improved or more expeditious methods of attaining such standards and, whenever the Administrator finds, on the basis of information available to the Administrator, that the plan is substantially inadequate to attain the NAAQS which it implements, or to otherwise comply with any additional requirements established under the CAA.  Therefore, EPA finds Virginia's infrastructure SIP meets the necessary requirements for CAA section 110(a)(2)(H).

12.  Section 110(a)(2)(I)

	This submission did not include section 110(a)(2)(I) of the CAA which pertains to the nonattainment requirements of part D, Title I of the CAA.  EPA does not expect infrastructure SIP submissions to address this element because nonattainment area plans required under part D are required on a different schedule from the CAA section 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements and, thus, will be reviewed and acted upon through a separate process.

13.  Section 110(a)(2)(J)  	 		Section 121 (relating to consultation).  All SIP revisions undergo public notice and hearing upon request, which provides for comment by the public and includes local political subdivisions.  Further, all regulations promulgated in Virginia are subject to the Administrative Process Act (Code of Virginia, Title 2.2, Administration of Government, Chapter 40). Regulations promulgated by the State Air Pollution Control Board are also governed by 9VAC5 Chapter 5, Public Participation Guidelines.

		Section 127 (relating to public notification).  Air quality data from Virginia's monitoring network is published on the Department of Environmental Quality website.  As part of the section 105 grant process, Virginia is required to submit monitoring data to the Air Quality System (AQS) in a timely manner. Virginia publishes an annual summary of all monitoring data on the DEQ website, including monitoring locations, exceedances, and violations of standards.              Part C (relating to visibility protection).  With regard to the visibility protection aspect of 110(a)(2)(J), EPA recognizes that states are subject to visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C of the Act (which includes sections 169A and 169B).  In the event of the establishment of a new NAAQS, however, the visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C do not change.  Thus, EPA finds that there are no applicable visibility obligations under part C "triggered" under section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS becomes effective.  Virginia has submitted SIP revisions to satisfy the requirements of the CAA section 169A and 169B, and the regional haze and BART rules contained in 40 CFR 51.308.                On June 13, 2012, EPA published a final rulemaking regarding Virginia's regional haze program, consisting of a limited approval and a limited disapproval.  See 77 FR 35287.  In EPA's view, the current status of Virginia's regional haze SIP as having not been fully approved is not a bar to full approval of the infrastructure SIP submission with respect to the visibility protection aspect of 110(a)(2)(J), and EPA is proposing to fully approve the infrastructure SIP for this aspect.  While EPA is not at this time proposing to change the June 13, 2012, limited approval and limited disapproval of Virginia's Regional haze SIP itself, EPA expects to address the approval status of the regional haze SIP in a separate action.

      EPA is taking separate action on the portion of section 110(a)(J) for the 2008 lead NAAQS as it relates to Virginia's PSD permit program.  EPA proposed approval of the revisions to Virginia's PSD permit program on August 1, 2012 (77 FR 45523).

14.  Section 110(a)(2)(K)

Virginia has the authority and technical capability to conduct air quality modeling in order to assess the effect on ambient air quality relevant pollutant emissions and will continue to perform modeling.  Article 8, Permits for Major Stationary Sources and Major Modifications Locating in Prevention of Significant Deterioration Areas (9VAC5-80-1605 et seq.) of 9VAC5-80 (Permits for Stationary Sources) contains requirements for pre-construction and post-construction monitoring and modeling.  This regulation is included as part of the Virginia SIP as noted in 40 CFR 52.2420.  Virginia will continue to submit to EPA the air quality modeling data as part of Virginia's relevant SIP submissions, permit actions, and through Federal grant commitments or in other ways that EPA may request.  Therefore, EPA finds Virginia's infrastructure SIP meets the necessary requirements for CAA section 110(a)(2)(K).

15.  Section 110(a)(2)(L)

      Virginia's submission adequately addresses this requirement by explaining that these requirements are located in Article 2, Permit Program Fees for Stationary Sources (9VAC5-80-310 et seq.) of 9VAC5-80 (Permits for Stationary Sources). These regulations are part of Virginia's federally approved Title V program and are codified in Appendix A of 40 CFR Part 70, Approval Status of State and Local Operating Permits Programs.  Therefore, EPA finds Virginia's infrastructure SIP meets the necessary requirements for CAA section 110(a)(2)(L).

16.  Section 110(a)(2)(M)  	       All SIP revisions undergo public notice and hearing, providing for comment by the public that includes local political subdivisions. Additionally, the Code of Virginia under § 10.1-1307A requires advising, consulting, and cooperating with all agencies of the Commonwealth, political subdivisions, private industries, and any other affected groups when developing programs to improve or maintain air quality.  Further, all regulations in Virginia are subject to the Administrative Process Act (Code of Virginia, Title 2.2, Administration of Government, Chapter 40). Regulations promulgated by the State Air Pollution Control Board are also governed by 9VAC5 Chapter 5, Public Participation Guidelines.  Therefore, EPA finds Virginia's infrastructure SIP meets the necessary requirements for CAA section 110(a)(2)(M).

F.  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED AGENCY ACTION

      EPA's analysis of Virginia's infrastructure submittals for the 2008 lead NAAQS concludes that Virginia's submittals meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C) (for enforcement and regulation of minor sources), (D)(i)(I), (D)(i)(II) (for visibility protection), (D)(ii), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M), or portions thereof.  It is recommended that a notice of proposed rulemaking be prepared approving Virginia's infrastructure submittals for the 2008 lead NAAQS.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 136 (Thursday, July 16, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42005-42007]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17202]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-0086; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-191-AD;
Amendment 39-18206; AD 2015-14-08]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus Model A310-203 airplanes. This AD is intended to complete
certain mandated programs intended to support the airplane reaching its
limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that support the
established structural maintenance program. This AD was prompted by
reports that side link clevis bolts of the front engine mount do not
meet the design service goal (DSG) requirements on airplanes equipped
with General Electric Company CF6-80A3 engines. This AD requires
repetitive replacement of all side link clevis engine mount bolts. We
are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the front engine mount, and
consequent possible departure of the engine.

DATES: This AD becomes effective August 20, 2015.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of August 20,
2015.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2015-0086or in person at the
Docket 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.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS,
Airworthiness Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac
Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com.
You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. It is also
available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0086.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Model A310-203
airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on February 18,
2015 (80 FR 8575). The NPRM is intended to complete certain mandated
programs intended to support the airplane reaching its limit of
validity (LOV) of the engineering data that support the established
structural maintenance program. The NPRM was prompted by reports that
side link clevis bolts of the front engine mount do not meet the DSG
requirements on airplanes equipped with General Electric Company CF6-
80A3 engines. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive replacement of
all side link clevis engine mount bolts. We are issuing this AD to
prevent failure of the front engine mount, and consequent possible
departure of the engine.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD
2014-0191, dated August 29, 2014 (referred to after this as the
Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to
correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A310-203 airplanes.
The MCAI states:

    During fatigue analysis performed in the scope of the Extended
Service Goal, taking into account the certification loads and the
new lift-off loads, Airbus determined that side link clevis engine
mount bolts do not meet the Design Service Goal (DSG) requirements
on aeroplanes equipped with CF6-80A3 engines.
    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to failure of the
front engine mount, possibly resulting in-flight separation of the
engine from the aeroplane.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued
Service Bulletin (SB) A310-71-2038 to introduce a life limit on the
side link clevis engine mount bolts.
    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires
implementation of the new life limit and replacement of all side
link clevis engine mount bolts that have exceeded the new limit.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http:/
/www.regulations.gov/

#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-0086-0003.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (80 FR 8575, February 18,
2015) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for
minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (80 FR 8575, February 18, 2015) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 8575, February 18, 2015).

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Airbus Service Bulletin A310-71-2038, including
Appendices 01 and 02, dated April 8, 2014. The service information
describes procedures for replacement of all side link clevis bolts on
the CF6-80A3 front engine mount and subsequent re-identification of the
newly installed bolts with a cross (to differentiate them from the old
ones). This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this
AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 13 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We also estimate that it will take about 142 work-hours per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor
rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $2,900 per
product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on
U.S. operators to be $194,610, or $14,970 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 that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2015-0086; or in person at the
Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information.
The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone: 800-
647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2015-14-08 Airbus: Amendment 39-18206. Docket No. FAA-2015-0086;
Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-191-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective August 20, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A310-203 airplanes, certificated
in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 71, Powerplant.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports that side link clevis bolts of
the front engine mount do not meet the Design Service Goal (DSG)
requirements on airplanes equipped with General Electric Company
CF6-80A3 engines. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the
front engine mount, and consequent possible departure of the engine.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Repetitive Bolt Replacement

    Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, replace
the side link clevis bolts, nuts, and bushings of the front engine
mount on both engines, and re-identify the new installed bolts with
a cross (to differentiate them from the old ones), in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin
A310-71-2038, including Appendices 01 and 02, dated April 8, 2014.
Repeat the replacement thereafter at intervals not to exceed 29
years.

(h) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Dan Rodina,
Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information may be
emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate

principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically
reference this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(i) Related Information

    Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI)
EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0191, dated August 29, 2014, for
related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-
0086-0003.

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-71-2038, including Appendices
01 and 02, dated April 8, 2014.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.airbus.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 2, 2015.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-17202 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 221 (Friday, November 17, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54302-54304]
[FR Doc No: 2017-24809]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 221 / Friday, November 17, 2017 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-1022; Product Identifier 2017-NM-098-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain The Boeing Company Model 787-8 and 787-9 airplanes. This
proposed AD was prompted by reports of failures of the lip heater
assemblies of the inlet ice protection system of the cabin air
compressor (CAC) due to chafing. This proposed AD would require
changing the airplane electrical connectors and the routes of certain
wire bundles, and installing new or modified left and right CAC inlet
duct assemblies. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 2, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS),
2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may
view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on
the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is
also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-1022.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
1022; 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 NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received,
and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone:
800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available
in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe Salemeh, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 425-917-
6590; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2017-1022;
Product Identifier 2017-NM-098-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM because
of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We have received reports of failures of the inlet lip heater
assemblies of the inlet ice protection system of the CAC due to chafing
of the CAC inlet ice protection system (CIPS) inlet lip heater wire
harness against adjacent structures. The damage to the wires caused the
CIPS lip heater to set a fault. This condition, if not corrected, could
result in an electrical short and potential loss of functions essential
for safe flight of the airplane.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB300019-00,
Issue 001, dated March 22, 2017. The service information describes
procedures for changing the airplane electrical connectors and the
routes of certain wire bundles, and installing new or modified left and
right CAC inlet duct assemblies. This service information is reasonably
available because the interested parties have access to it through
their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

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

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishment of the actions
identified as ``RC'' (required for compliance) in the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB300019-00,
Issue 001, dated March 22, 2017, described previously, except for any
differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this
proposed AD.
    For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this
service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2017-1022.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 66 airplanes of U.S.
registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change and installation...............  20 work-hours x $85 per          $32,937         $34,637      $2,286,042
                                         hour = $1,700.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated
by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as
authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order,
issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and
Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the
Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable
to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight
Division.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2017-1022; Product Identifier
2017-NM-098-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by January 2, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 787-8 and 787-9
airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB300019-00, Issue 001, dated
March 22, 2017.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 30, Ice/Rain
protection system wiring.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of failures of the Cabin Air
Compressor (CAC) inlet ice protection system (CIPS) inlet lip heater
assemblies due to chafing of the CIPS inlet lip heater wire harness
against adjacent structures. We are issuing this AD to prevent any
damage to the CIPS inlet lip heater wire bundle, which could cause
an electrical short and potential loss of functions essential for
safe flight of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, do all
applicable actions identified as ``RC'' (required for compliance)
in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB300019-00, Issue 001,
dated March 22, 2017.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request
to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District
Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the
manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD. Information may be
emailed to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the
Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, to make those findings. To be approved,
the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation
must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval
must specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) For service information that contains steps that are labeled
as RC, the provisions of paragraphs (h)(4)(i) and (h)(4)(ii) of this
AD apply.
    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step
and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply
with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled ``RC Exempt,'' then the
RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is
required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and
identified figures.

    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted
methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection
program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC
steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done
as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition.

(i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Joe Salemeh,
Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Section, FAA, Seattle ACO
Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-
6454; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-
5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue
SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 3, 2017.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-24809 Filed 11-16-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P