[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 55 (Friday, March 21, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15697-15702]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06053]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0663; FRL-9908-09-Region9]

Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality State
Implementation Plans; Nevada; Infrastructure Requirements for Lead (Pb)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving in part
and disapproving in part State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions
submitted by the State of Nevada pursuant to the requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2008 lead (Pb) national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS). The CAA requires that each state adopt and submit a
SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each NAAQS
promulgated by the EPA, and that EPA act on such SIPs. Nevada has met
most of the applicable requirements. Where EPA is disapproving, in
part, Nevada's SIP revisions, most of the deficiencies have already
been addressed by a federal implementation plan (FIP). For one
remaining deficiency, this final rule sets a two-year deadline for EPA
to promulgate a FIP, unless EPA approves an adequate SIP revision prior
to that time. EPA remains committed to working with Nevada's
environmental agencies to develop such a SIP revision.

DATES: This final rule is effective on April 21, 2014.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action, identified by
Docket ID Number EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0663. The index to the docket for
this action is available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov
and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco,
California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index,
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly
available in either location (e.g., confidential business information
(CBI)). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed
directly below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rory Mays, Air Planning Office (AIR-
2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms ``we,''
``us,'' and ``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. EPA's Response to Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires each state to submit to EPA,
within three years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may
prescribe) after the promulgation of a primary or secondary NAAQS or
any revision thereof, a SIP that provides for the ``implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. EPA refers to these
specific submissions as ``infrastructure'' SIPs because they are
intended to address basic structural SIP requirements for new or
revised NAAQS.
    On October 15, 2008, EPA issued a revised NAAQS for Pb.\1\ This
NAAQS

revision triggered a requirement for states to submit an infrastructure
SIP to address the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) within
three years. The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP)
submitted infrastructure SIP revisions for Pb to EPA on October 12,
2011, for the NDEP and Washoe County portions of the SIP; July 23,
2012, for the Clark County portion of the SIP; and August 30, 2012,
which amended several of the state's infrastructure SIP submittals,
including the October 12, 2011 submittal for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. We
refer to them collectively herein as ``Nevada's Pb Infrastructure
Submittal.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 73 FR 66964. The final rule was signed on October 15, 2008
and published in the Federal Register on November 12, 2008. The 1978
Pb standard (1.5 [mu]g/m3 as a quarterly average) was modified to a
rolling 3-month average not to exceed 0.15 [mu]g/m3. EPA also
revised the secondary NAAQS to 0.15 [mu]g/m3 and made it identical
to the revised primary standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 29, 2013 (78 FR 64430), EPA proposed to approve in part,
and disapprove in part, these SIP revisions addressing the
infrastructure requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the
2008 Pb NAAQS. We are taking final action on all three submittals since
they collectively address the applicable infrastructure SIP
requirements for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    The rationale supporting EPA's action is explained in our October
29, 2013 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (proposed rule) \2\ and the two
associated technical support documents (TSDs) \3\ and will not be
restated here. The proposed rule and TSDs are available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID number EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0663.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 78 FR 64430, October 29, 2013.
    \3\ The two TSDs are as follows: (1) ``Pb Infrastructure SIP
Technical Support Document: EPA Evaluation of Nevada Infrastructure
SIP for 2008 Pb NAAQS,'' September 2013 (``Pb TSD''); and (2)
``Technical Support Document: EPA Evaluation of Nevada Provisions
for Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)/Section 128 Conflict of Interest
Requirements,'' July 2012 (``Section 128 TSD''), which was prepared
for our 2012 rulemaking on Nevada's infrastructure SIPs for the 1997
ozone, 1997 fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS (77 FR 64737, October 23, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. EPA's Response to Comments

    The public comment period on EPA's proposed rule opened on October
29, 2013, the date of its publication in the Federal Register, and
closed on November 29, 2013. During this period, EPA received one
comment letter from NDEP on November 27, 2013 (herein ``NDEP's comment
letter''). This letter is available in the docket to today's final
rule.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See document number EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0663-0010 at http://www.regulations.gov under docket ID number EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0663.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment:
    NDEP notes that EPA proposed to disapprove the portion of Nevada's
Pb Infrastructure Submittal related to prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) permit programs for NDEP and Washoe County because
the programs do not completely satisfy the statutory and regulatory
requirements for PSD permit programs. NDEP also notes, however, that
EPA recognizes that the deficiencies related to the PSD programs are
adequately addressed by the existing federal implementation plan (FIP),
for which EPA has delegated enforcement authority to NDEP and Washoe
County District Health Department (WCDHD). Moreover, NDEP argues that
``its PSD program is ultimately SIP-based'' \5\ and refers to page 4 of
its October 12, 2011 submittal wherein NDEP states that it has full
delegation of the federal PSD program at 40 CFR 52.21, including
provisions that tailored the PSD permitting thresholds for greenhouse
gases. NDEP's comment letter then asserts that the portion of Nevada's
SIP found at 40 CFR 52.1485(b), which incorporates EPA's PSD FIP
provisions in the Nevada SIP, make EPA's PSD FIP a part of the SIP,
with the exception of the portion applicable to Clark County. As such,
NDEP believes that the elements of Nevada's Pb Infrastructure Submittal
related to PSD programs under the jurisdiction of NDEP and WCDHD should
be approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ NDEP's comment letter, p 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response:
    We disagree with NDEP's argument that Nevada's Pb Infrastructure
Submittal should be approved for PSD-related infrastructure SIP
requirements for the NDEP and WCDHD jurisdictions. We note that NDEP
and WCDHD submitted similar comments in 2012 with respect to EPA's
proposed rulemaking on infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 ozone, 1997
fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. Our response to NDEP's comment largely reiterates our response
to NDEP and WCDHD's comments on delegated PSD FIP programs during our
2012 rulemaking on Nevada's infrastructure SIPs.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 77 FR 64737, October 23, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CAA requires each state to adopt and submit a plan which
provides for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS.
See CAA section 110(a)(1). Section 110(a)(2) sets forth the content
requirements for such plans, including the requirement for a permit
program as required in part C (``Prevention of Significant
Deterioration of Air Quality,'' or ``PSD'') of title I of the CAA. Such
plans are referred to as state implementation plans or SIPs.
    EPA's authority to promulgate a FIP derives from EPA's
determination that a state has failed to submit a complete, required
SIP submission or from EPA's disapproval of a state submission of a SIP
or SIP revision. See CAA section 110(c)(1). The SIP, viewed broadly,
thus includes both portions of the plan submitted by the state and
approved by EPA as well as any FIP promulgated by EPA to substitute for
a state plan disapproved by EPA or not submitted by a state.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 40 CFR 52.02(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1974, EPA disapproved each state's SIP with respect to PSD and
promulgated a FIP as a substitute for the SIP deficiency (``PSD
FIP'').\8\ In 1975, EPA codified the PSD FIP in each state's subpart in
40 CFR part 52.\9\ In 1978 and 1980, EPA amended the PSD regulations
following the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 and related court
decisions and amended the codification of the PSD FIP in each state's
subpart, including 40 CFR 52.1485, accordingly.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 39 FR 42510, December 5, 1974.
    \9\ 40 FR 25004, June 12, 1975, adding 40 CFR 52.1485 to Subpart
DD--Nevada.
    \10\ 43 FR 26380, June 19, 1978 and 45 FR 52676, August 7, 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since then, EPA has approved the PSD SIP for the sources and
geographic area that lie within the jurisdiction of Clark County
Department of Air Quality (DAQ), and has delegated responsibility for
conducting PSD review, as per the PSD FIP, to NDEP and WCDHD.
Notwithstanding the delegation, however, the Nevada SIP remains
deficient with respect to PSD for the geographic areas and stationary
sources that lie within NDEP and WCDHD's jurisdictions. As such, EPA's
disapproval of the infrastructure SIP submittals for those elements
that require states to have a SIP that includes a PSD permit program,
including CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), and (J), is
appropriate because EPA disapproved the state's submitted plan as not
adequately addressing PSD program requirements. To conclude otherwise
would be inconsistent with the long-standing and current disapproval of
the SIP for PSD for the applicable areas, with the statutory foundation
upon which the PSD FIP is authorized, and with the obligation under
section 110(a) for each state to adopt and submit a plan for
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS that includes
a PSD program. EPA's delegation of the PSD FIP is not the same as state
adoption and submittal of state or district rules meeting PSD
requirements and EPA's approval thereof.

III. Final Action

    Under CAA section 110(k)(3), and based on the evaluation and
rationale presented in the proposed rule, the related TSDs, and this
final rule, EPA is approving in part and disapproving in part Nevada's
Pb Infrastructure Submittal for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. In the following
subsections, we list the elements for which we are finalizing approval
or disapproval and provide a summary of the basis for those elements
that are partially disapproved. We also describe the consequences of
our disapprovals.

A. Summary of Approvals

    EPA is approving Nevada's Pb Infrastructure Submittal with respect
to the following requirements:
     Section 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control
measures.
     Section 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data
system.
     Section 110(a)(2)(C) (in part): Program for enforcement of
control measures and regulation of new and modified stationary sources.
     Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (in part): Interstate pollution
transport.
     Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (in part): Interstate pollution
abatement and international air pollution.
     Section 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources and authority,
conflict of interest, and oversight of local and regional government
agencies.
     Section 110(a)(2)(F) (in part): Stationary source
monitoring and reporting.
     Section 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency episodes.
     Section 110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions.
     Section 110(a)(2)(J) (in part): Consultation with
government officials, public notification, and prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) and visibility protection.
     Section 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling and submission
of modeling data.
     Section 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
     Section 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by
affected local entities.

B. Summary of Disapprovals

    EPA is disapproving Nevada's Pb Infrastructure Submittal with
respect to the following infrastructure SIP requirements:
     Section 110(a)(2)(C) (in part): Program for enforcement of
control measures and regulation of new and modified stationary sources.
     Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (in part): Interstate pollution
transport.
     Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (in part): Interstate pollution
abatement and international air pollution.
     Section 110(a)(2)(F) (in part): Stationary source
monitoring and reporting.
     Section 110(a)(2)(J) (in part): Consultation with
government officials, public notification, and prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) and visibility protection.
    As explained in our proposed rule, Pb TSD, and section II of this
final rule, we are disapproving Nevada's Pb Infrastructure Submittal
for the NDEP and Washoe County portions of the SIP with respect to the
PSD-related requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C),
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), and 110(a)(2)(J) because the
Nevada SIP does not fully satisfy the statutory and regulatory
requirements for PSD permit programs under part C, title I of the Act.
Both NDEP and WCDHD implement the Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21
for all regulated new source review (NSR) pollutants, pursuant to
delegation agreements with EPA.\11\ Accordingly, although the Nevada
SIP remains deficient with respect to PSD requirements in both the NDEP
and Washoe County portions of the SIP, these deficiencies are
adequately addressed in both areas by the federal PSD program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 40 CFR 52.1485.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are disapproving the Clark County portion of Nevada's Pb
Infrastructure Submittal with respect to the PSD-related requirements
of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and 110(a)(2)(J)
because Clark County's SIP-approved PSD permit program does not contain
provisions that satisfy the statutory and regulatory requirements
concerning condensable PM and PM2.5 increments under part C,
title I of the Act and in 40 CFR 51.166.\12\ As discussed in our
proposed rule, we address these PSD requirements for PM2.5
as part of this final rule on Nevada's Pb Infrastructure Submittal for
the 2008 Pb NAAQS because section 110(a)(2) of the Act requires that
each SIP contain a comprehensive PSD permitting program that addresses
all regulated NSR pollutants, including greenhouse gases (GHGs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Requirements for condensable PM were promulgated in EPA's
NSR/PSD implementation rule for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. See
73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008; codified at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49).
Requirements for PSD increments for PM2.5 were
promulgated in EPA's PSD implementation rule for the 1997
PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. See 75 FR 64864,
October 20, 2010; codified at 40 CFR 51.166(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are also disapproving the NDEP and Clark County portions of
Nevada's Pb Infrastructure Submittal with respect to section
110(a)(2)(C) because of unique circumstances regarding NDEP and Clark
County's minor NSR permit programs. Specifically, the NDEP and Clark
County minor NSR programs, as approved into the Nevada SIP, lack
provisions to address the 2008 Pb NAAQS, and thus we cannot rely on
these programs to ensure that new and modified sources regulated under
minor NSR do not interfere with attainment and maintenance of the 2008
Pb NAAQS.\13\ Note, however, that within this final rule, we are not
approving or disapproving any existing or new minor NSR regulation.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Regarding NDEP's minor NSR permit program, see our proposal
(77 FR 38557 at 38564, June 28, 2012) and final rule (77 FR 59321 at
59325-59326, September 27, 2012). Regarding Clark County's NSR
permit programs, see our proposal (77 FR 43206, July 24, 2012) and
final rule (77 FR 64309, October 18, 2012). These final rules and
their context specific to the 2008 Pb NAAQS are discussed further in
our Pb TSD.
    \14\ The Nevada State Environmental Commission revised Nevada
Administrative Code 445B.22097 (``Standards of quality for ambient
air''), effective December 23, 2013, such that the state ambient air
quality standards for Pb and ozone would reflect the 2008 Pb and
2008 ozone NAAQS. NDEP submitted the revised rule to EPA as a
revision to the Nevada SIP on January 3, 2014. It was submitted, in
part, to address the minor NSR requirement of CAA section
110(a)(2)(C) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS for the NDEP portion of the
Nevada SIP. While EPA may determine this SIP revision to be adequate
for purposes of minor NSR for the 2008 Pb NAAQS for the NDEP portion
of the SIP, EPA is still required to partially disapprove Nevada's
Pb Infrastructure Submittal for section 110(a)(2)(C) due to other
permit program deficiencies discussed in this section (section
III.B) of this final rule for each of the three jurisdictions in
Nevada.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are disapproving the Clark County portion of the SIP for section
110(a)(2)(F)(iii) because Clark County has repealed its regulation,
Section 24, that formerly addressed the correlation requirement of this
subsection, without submitting a SIP revision to replace it.

C. Consequences of Disapprovals

    EPA takes very seriously a disapproval of a state plan, as we
believe that it is preferable, and preferred in the provisions of the
Clean Air Act, that these requirements be implemented through state
plans. A state plan need not contain exactly the same provisions that
EPA might require, but EPA must be able to find that the state plan is
consistent with the requirements of the Act in accordance with its
obligations under section 110(k). Further, EPA's oversight role
requires that it assure consistent implementation of Clean Air Act
requirements by states across the country, even while acknowledging
that individual decisions from source to source or state to state may
not have identical outcomes. EPA believes these

disapprovals are the only path that is consistent with the Act at this
time.
    Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final disapproval of a submittal
that addresses a requirement of part D of title I of the CAA (CAA
sections 171-193) or is required in response to a finding of
substantial inadequacy as described in CAA section 110(k)(5) (SIP Call)
starts a sanctions clock. Nevada's Pb Infrastructure Submittal was not
submitted to meet either of these requirements. Therefore, our partial
disapproval of Nevada's Pb Infrastructure Submittal does not trigger
mandatory sanctions under CAA section 179.
    In addition, CAA section 110(c)(1) provides that EPA must
promulgate a FIP within two years after finding that a state has failed
to make a required submission or disapproving a SIP submission in whole
or in part, unless EPA approves a SIP revision correcting the
deficiencies within that two-year period. As discussed in section III.B
of this final rule and in our Pb TSD, we are finalizing several partial
disapprovals. With one exception, however, these disapprovals do not
result in new FIP obligations, either because EPA has already
promulgated a FIP to address the identified deficiency or because a FIP
clock has been triggered by EPA's disapproval of a prior SIP submission
based on the same identified deficiency. The provisions for which our
final partial disapproval do not result in a new FIP obligation
include:
     PSD-related requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C),
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), and 110(a)(2)(J): For NDEP and
Washoe County, EPA has already promulgated the federal PSD program (see
40 CFR 52.1485);
     PSD-related requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C),
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and 110(a)(2)(J): For Clark County, EPA's October
18, 2012 final action on Clark County's PSD regulations triggered a
November 19, 2014 deadline for EPA to promulgate a FIP addressing this
requirement (77 FR 64039);
     Minor NSR requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C): EPA's
September 27, 2012 final action on NDEP's minor NSR regulations (77 FR
59321) and October 18, 2012 final action on Clark County's minor NSR
regulations (77 FR 64039) triggered deadlines of October 29, 2014 and
November 19, 2014, respectively, for EPA to promulgate FIPs addressing
the identified deficiencies;
     Section 110(a)(2)(F)(iii): For Clark County, EPA's October
23, 2012 final action on Nevada's Infrastructure SIP submittals for the
1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (77
FR 64737) triggered a November 23, 2014 deadline for EPA to promulgate
a FIP addressing the requirement for correlation of stationary source
emissions with emission limits.
    The one disapproval that triggers a new FIP clock concerns the
requirement under sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and
110(a)(2)(J) regarding PSD increments for PM2.5 in Clark
County. EPA has not previously promulgated a FIP or triggered a FIP
clock through disapproval of a prior SIP submission based on this
deficiency. Thus, under CAA section 110(c)(1), our partial disapproval
of the Clark County portion of Nevada's Pb Infrastructure Submittal
based on this deficiency requires EPA to promulgate a FIP establishing
PM2.5 increments for Clark County within two years after the
effective date of this final rule, unless the state submits and EPA
approves a SIP revision that corrects this deficiency prior to the
expiration of this two-year period.
    We anticipate that NDEP will submit SIP revisions to address the
deficiencies identified in EPA's 2012 actions on NDEP's minor NSR
program,\15\ Clark County's NSR permit programs (i.e., both PSD and
minor NSR),\16\ Nevada's infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 ozone, 1997
PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and today's final
action on Nevada's Pb Infrastructure Submittal prior to expiration of
the two-year FIP deadline triggered by each of these actions. EPA
approval of such revisions would serve to address the partial
disapprovals of the Nevada Pb Infrastructure Submittal where no FIP is
currently in place (i.e., the disapprovals finalized herein, except for
those tied to the federal PSD programs for sources under NDEP and
WCDHD's jurisdiction).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ NDEP submitted a SIP revision on January 3, 2014 to address
some of the deficiencies identified in EPA's 2012 action on NDEP's
minor NSR program, as noted in section III.B of this final rule. If
EPA determines that this SIP revision is adequate for purposes of
minor NSR for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, EPA approval would remove the
obligation for EPA to promulgate a FIP by October 29, 2014 for minor
NSR for the 2008 Pb NAAQS for the NDEP portion of the Nevada SIP
only.
    \16\ On February 2, 2014, Clark County DAQ issued a 30-day
public notice of proposed amendments to air quality regulations
related primarily to permitting of new stationary sources. These
proposed rule amendments are intended to address the deficiencies
identified in EPA's 2012 rulemaking on Nevada's permit program and
infrastructure SIP submittals for Clark County and other new source
review requirements that have come due since those rulemakings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

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

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

requirements or timetables or exemptions from all or part of the rule.
Therefore, this action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

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

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

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

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    EPA believes that this action is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of NTTAA because application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.

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

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

K. Congressional Review Act

    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). This rule will be effective on April 21, 2014.

L. Petitions for Judicial Review

    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 May 20, 2014. 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, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Lead, Pb, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: February 28, 2014.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region 9.
    Therefore, 40 CFR Chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart DD--Nevada

0
2. In Sec.  52.1470, in paragraph (e), the table is amended by adding
entries for:
0
a. ``Nevada's Clean Air Act Sec.  110(a)(1) and (2) State
Implementation Plan for the 2008 Lead NAAQS, excluding appendices A-G
for NDEP; and excluding the Washoe County District Board of Health
Agenda, Minutes, Certificate of Adoption, Cover Letter to NDEP, and
Proof of Publication''; and
0
b. ``Clark County Portion of Nevada's Clean Air Act Sec.  110(a)(1) and
(2) State Implementation Plan for the 2008 Lead NAAQS, excluding Cover
Letter to NDEP and Clark County Air Quality Regulations'' after the
entry for ``Section 12--Resources''.
    The additions as follows:

Sec.  52.1470  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                   EPA-Approved Nevada Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Applicable
      Name of SIP provision           geographic or          State       EPA approval date       Explanation
                                    nonattainment area  submittal date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Air Quality Implementation Plan for the State of Nevada
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Nevada's Clean Air Act Sec.        State-wide, within       10/12/2011  [Insert Federal      ``Infrastructure''
 110(a)(1) and (2) State            NDEP jurisdiction                    Register page        SIP for NDEP and
 Implementation Plan for the 2008   and Washoe County.                   number where the     Washoe County for
 Lead NAAQS, excluding appendices                                        document begins]     the 2008 Pb
 A-G for NDEP; and excluding the                                         03/21/2014.          standard.
 Washoe County District Board of
 Health Agenda, Minutes,
 Certificate of Adoption, Cover
 Letter to NDEP, and Proof of
 Publication.
Clark County Portion of Nevada's   Clark County.......       7/23/2012  [Insert Federal      ``Infrastructure''
 Clean Air Act Sec.   110(a)(1)                                          Register page        SIP for Clark
 and (2) State Implementation                                            number where the     County for the
 Plan for the 2008 Lead NAAQS,                                           document begins]     2008 Pb standard.
 excluding Cover Letter to NDEP                                          03/21/2014.
 and Clark County Air Quality
 Regulations.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. Section 52.1472 is amended by adding paragraph (g) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1472  Approval status.

* * * * *
    (g) 2008 Pb NAAQS: The SIPs submitted on October 12, 2011, July 23,
2012, and August 30, 2012 are partially disapproved for Clean Air Act
(CAA) elements 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) for the Nevada
Division of Environmental Quality (NDEP), Clark County, and Washoe
County portions of the Nevada SIP; for CAA element (D)(ii) for the NDEP
and Washoe County portions of the Nevada SIP; and for CAA element
110(a)(2)(F)(iii) for the Clark County portion of the Nevada SIP.
[FR Doc. 2014-06053 Filed 3-20-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 90 (Thursday, May 11, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21913-21916]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09376]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 90 / Thursday, May 11, 2017 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-6651; Directorate Identifier 2016-SW-015-AD;
Amendment 39-18867; AD 2017-09-05]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters

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

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Airbus
Helicopters Model AS332C, AS332C1, AS332L, AS332L1, AS332L2, and
EC225LP helicopters. This AD requires repetitively checking screws in
the emergency flotation gear. This AD is prompted by a report that a
screw ruptured on a Model AS332 helicopter's emergency flotation gear.
These actions are intended to correct an unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective May 26, 2017.
    We must receive comments on this AD by July 10, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

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-2016-
6651; or in person at the Docket Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, the
economic 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.
    For service information identified in this final rule, contact
Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at
http://www.airbushelicopters.com/techpub. You may review the referenced
service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX
76177.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety
Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 10101
Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to
provide your comments prior to it becoming effective. However, we
invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written
comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the
economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that resulted
from adopting this AD. The most helpful comments reference a specific
portion of the AD, explain the reason for any recommended change, and
include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain
duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written
comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should
submit them only one time. We will file in the docket all comments that
we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public
contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking during the
comment period. We will consider all the comments we receive and may
conduct additional rulemaking based on those comments.

Discussion

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA Emergency AD No. 2015-0239-E, dated
December 18, 2015, to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus
Helicopters Model AS 332 C, AS 332 C1, AS 332 L, AS 332 L1, AS 332 L2,
and EC 225 LP helicopters with emergency flotation gear. EASA advises
that a screw ruptured on the rear upper fitting on the left-hand (LH)
emergency flotation gear of an AS332 helicopter. EASA states that this
condition, if not detected and corrected, could result in the failure
of an emergency flotation system when ditching and unstable floating of
the helicopter, possibly resulting in injury to the occupants. EASA
consequently requires repetitive inspections of the lower attachment
screws of rear upper fitting on the rear LH and right-hand (RH)
emergency flotation gears. According to EASA, the root cause of the
failure has not yet been identified.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
France and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
our bilateral agreement with France, EASA, its technical
representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in
the EASA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all
information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same
type designs.

Related Service Information

    We have reviewed Airbus Helicopters Emergency Alert Service
Bulletin (EASB) No. 05.01.06, Revision 0, dated December 18, 2015, for
Model AS332C, AS332C1, AS332L, AS332L1, and AS332L2 helicopters and for
military Model AS332B, AS332B1, AS332F1, AS332M, and AS332M1
helicopters, and EASB No. 05A047, Revision 0, dated December 18, 2015,
for Model EC225LP helicopters. This service information specifies
repetitively

inspecting the lower screws of the rear upper fitting on the rear LH
and RH emergency floating gears for the presence of the heads and
stressing the screw heads using a tool to make sure that the screw head
does not move. If all screw heads are present, the service information
requires no further action. If at least one screw head is missing or
moves, the service information specifies replacing the two lower screws
and the upper screw and informing Airbus Helicopters.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires, within 15 hours time-in-service (TIS) and
thereafter before each flight over water, visually checking the rear
upper fittings of the LH and RH emergency flotation gears for the
presence of screw heads and looseness. An owner/operator (pilot) may
perform the required visual check and must enter compliance with the
applicable paragraph of the AD into the helicopter maintenance records
in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9(a)(1) through (4) and 91.417(a)(2)(v). A
pilot may perform this check because it involves visually checking the
rear upper fittings of the LH and RH emergency flotation gears for the
presence of screw heads and twisting the screws by hand, which can be
performed equally well by a pilot or a mechanic. This check is an
exception to our standard maintenance regulations. If any screw heads
are missing, loose, or twist off with hand pressure, this AD requires
replacing all screws in the fitting before the next flight over water.

Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD allows using tools for the inspection, while this AD
requires checking by hand. The EASA AD requires that repetitive
inspections occur at intervals not to exceed 15 hours TIS, while this
AD requires the repetitive checks before each flight over water. The
EASA AD requires contacting Airbus Helicopters if a screw is missing or
loose, while this AD does not.

Interim Action

    We consider this AD interim action. The design approval holder is
currently investigating the root cause for this unsafe condition and
may develop a modification that will address this unsafe condition. If
this modification is developed, approved and available, we might
consider additional rulemaking.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 24 helicopters of U.S. Registry
and that labor costs average $85 per work-hour. Based on these
estimates, we expect the following costs:
     Checking the screws requires about 1/10 of a work-hour and
no parts are needed, for a cost of $9 per helicopter and $216 for the
U.S. fleet.
     Replacing the screws requires 8 work-hours for a labor
cost of $680. Parts cost $150 for a total cost of $830 per helicopter.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    Providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adopting
these AD requirements would delay implementing the safety actions
needed to correct this known unsafe condition. Therefore, we find that
the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment
prior to the adoption of this rule because the required corrective
actions must be accomplished within 15 hours TIS.
    Since an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate
adoption of this AD, we determined that notice and opportunity for
public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good
cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

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, 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);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; 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.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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):

2017-09-05 Airbus Helicopters: Amendment 39-18867; Docket No. FAA-
2016-6651; Directorate Identifier 2016-SW-015-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Model AS332C, AS332C1,
AS332L, AS332L1, AS332L2, and EC225LP helicopters with emergency
flotation gear installed, certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as failure of a rear upper
screw fitting on the emergency flotation gear. This condition, if
not detected and corrected, could result in failure of the emergency
flotation system and subsequent capsizing of the helicopter.

(c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective May 26, 2017.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

    Within 15 hours time-in-service, and before each flight over
water thereafter:

    (1) Visually check each emergency flotation gear left hand and
right hand rear upper fitting to determine whether the heads of the
lower screws are present. Figure 1 to paragraph (e)(1) of this AD
depicts where the lower three screws (noted as B and E) are located.
Check each screw for looseness by determining whether it can be
rotated by hand. The actions required by paragraph (e)(1) of this AD
may be performed by the owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a
private pilot certificate and must be entered into the aircraft
records showing compliance with this AD in accordance with Title 14
Code of Federal Regulations (14CFR) Sec. Sec.  43.9(a)(1)-(4) and 14
CFR 91.417(a)(2)(v). The record must be maintained as required by 14
CFR 91.417, 121.380, or 135.439.
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11MY17.000

BILLING CODE 4910-13-C

    (2) If a screw head is missing or if a screw is loose, before
further flight over water, replace all screws in the fitting.
Replacing the screws is not a terminating action for the repetitive
checks required by this AD.

(f) Special Flight Permits

    Special flight permits are prohibited for flight over water.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Send your proposal to: Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation
Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate,
FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817)
222-5110; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(h) Additional Information

    (1) Airbus Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No.
05.01.06, and Airbus Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin
No. 05A047, both Revision 0, and both dated December 18, 2015, which
are not incorporated by reference, contain additional information
about the subject of this AD. For service information identified in
this AD, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand
Prairie, TX 75052; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
(972) 641-3775; or at http://www.airbushelicopters.com/techpub. You
may review a copy of the service information at the FAA, Office of
the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room
6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.
    (2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) Emergency AD No. 2015-0239-E, dated December
18, 2015. You may view the EASA AD on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No.
FAA-2016-6651.

(i) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 3212, Emergency
Flotation Section.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on April 24, 2017.
Scott A. Horn,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-09376 Filed 5-10-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P