Work Order No. 1004, Task 2, Subtask a
Quick Turnaround Request (QTR) No. 1

State Walkthrough Underground Storage Tank (UST) Inspections

Using contact information found at http://epa.gov/oust/wheruliv.htm, Skeo Solutions contacted nine states: New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Delaware, South Carolina, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, and California, to confirm that the state requires periodic walkthrough inspections. In addition, Skeo Solutions asked the following questions:

   1. What are the areas at the facility the operators must inspect during the walkthrough inspection?
   2. How long would the state estimate it takes operators to conduct a single facility walkthrough inspection?
   3. Are walkthrough inspections typically performed by the facility operator or by a third-party contractor?
   4. Does the state require owners/operators to keep records of the walkthrough?
   5. If yes to question 4, how long does the state require owners/operators to keep a record of the walkthrough inspection?
   6. If yes to question 4, how much detail is in the walkthrough inspection record? [For example: Is it a checklist?  Or just a piece of paper saying that the walkthrough was conducted?]
   7. If yes to question 4, is the state seeing significant compliance issues with owners/operators having the required walkthrough inspection records during their inspections?
   8. Does the state believe their walkthrough inspection program is effective?  Why or why not? [Seek examples of how or why the state believes their program is or is not effective (for example, compliance rates increased or the state is seeing fewer releases).]

Table 1 provides the detailed responses from each state. All states contacted require periodic walkthrough inspections. In general, the states require similar areas to be checked during walkthrough inspections and estimated that the amount of time to conduct a single facility inspection would depend on the size of the facility. Walkthrough inspections in these states are performed by both facility operators and third-party contractors. Smaller operators tend to do the inspection themselves. All states contacted require walkthrough inspection records to be kept. Most of the states contacted require records to be kept for 12 months, while others require records to be kept for 3 years. The walkthrough inspection records are mostly checklists, with varying levels of detail across the states. The states experience different levels of compliance with inspection record requirements, and states with more recent implementation of the requirements seem to experience lower compliance. Most states believe their walkthrough inspection programs are effective, but some states with newer programs believe it is too soon to assess effectiveness.

Table 1. State Responses Regarding Walkthrough Inspections
State
Responses
New Hampshire
Matthew Jones
Oil Compliance and Enforcement Subsection Chief
Contacted on January 10, 2013
   1. The inspection checklist requires operators to look at the vents, vent caps, spill buckets, fill adaptors, fill adaptor caps, dry break adaptor, dry break adaptor caps, dry break poppet valve, dispenser hoses, dispenser nozzles, dispenser cabinets, oil transfer and dispensing areas, and the release detection/leak monitoring consoles.
   2. The length of time it takes for a walkthrough inspection depends on the size of the facility, but the average time should be 10 to 15 minutes.
   3. Walkthrough inspections are typically performed by the facility operator.
   4. Yes, the state requires owners/operators to keep records of the walkthrough inspections.
   5. The inspection records are required to be kept on file for a minimum of 3 years.
   6. The walkthrough inspection record is a checklist that can be used for multiple tanks. On the checklist, operators can also indicate whether repair is necessary and whether corrective action was completed.
   7. Most facilities are conducting these inspections and they have the records readily available when requested.
   8. Yes, the walkthrough inspection program is effective. If owners/operators are able to conduct these inspections, then they decrease the chance of a potential spill or release. The inspections help examine easily accessible areas where releases can occur as well as the monitoring system for the tanks.  Unfortunately, the state does not have any real data specific to these particular inspections, but the overall sentiment is that these can only help.
Rhode Island
Jillian Thompson
Sanitary Engineer
Contacted on January 22, 2013
   1. During a walkthrough inspection, owners and operators must check the leak detection system; spill containment basins; dispenser hoses, nozzles and breakaways; dispenser and dispenser sumps; overfill alarm; cathodic protection system; alarm conditions; groundwater monitoring wells and tank pad observation wells; and spill and overflow response supplies.
   2. A single facility walkthrough inspection would take about 20 minutes.
   3. Walkthrough inspections must be done by the Class A/B certified operator designated for the facility. This may be the owner, the operator, or a third-party contractor.
   4. Yes, the inspection checklists must be kept as routine records at the facility.
   5. The state requires the inspection records to be kept for 3 years.
   6. The walkthrough inspection record is a detailed 11-item checklist, with space to make comments and list any corrections made.
   7. The state estimates that it has had a 40 percent compliance rate with its monthly inspection record requirement. This number has been generated from inspections done since September 2012.
   8. The requirement was initiated on August 1, 2012, so it is too soon for the state to assess the program's effectiveness. The state hopes to have a better sense of the effectiveness by August 1, 2013.
Delaware
Suzanne Halter
Environmental Scientist
Contacted on January 14, 2013
   1. During a walkthrough inspection, owners and operators must monitor the condition of all dispensers, dispenser sumps, access ports, and sumps. Inspections must include the removal of dispenser covers; checking of all fittings, couplings, and filters; and checking for the release of regulated substances. Sump covers must also be removed to check for an indication of release of regulated substances, and all access ports need to be inspected to make sure that covers, caps, and adaptors are tightly sealed. Finally, all spill bucket covers must be removed to ensure that all of them are empty and free of debris, water, and regulated substances.
   2. The length of time it takes for a single facility walkthrough inspection depends on the facility.
   3. Walkthrough inspections are typically performed by the facility operator.
   4. Yes, the state requires walkthrough inspection records to be kept.
   5. The state requires the walkthrough inspection records to be kept for 3 years.
   6. The inspection record consists of a table, with columns for dispenser buckets, sumps, access ports, and spill buckets.
   7. No, the state is not seeing significant compliance issues with owners/operators having the required walkthrough inspection records during their inspections.
   8. It is too soon to tell if the walkthrough inspection program is effective.
South Carolina
Trey Morgan
Technical Advisor
Contacted on January 10, 2013
   1. Operators must check their leak detection methods, whether through statistical inventory reconciliation (SIR) or with an automatic tank gauge (ATG). They also need to test the product pipe through product testing. Operators must also inspect their cathodic protection techniques every 3 years for galvanic reactions and every month for impressed current systems. Operators must also open and/or check all dispensers, the tank top, vapor recovery units, spill buckets, and vent lines.
   2. For the average 3-tank, 3 to 4 dispenser facility, the state estimates that it would take 1 hour for the inspection. For larger facilities with around 25 dispensers, the state estimates the inspection process would be 3 to 4 hours.
   3. Approximately 85 percent of the inspections are performed by the owner's representative, and 15 percent of them are performed by a third-party contractor.
   4. Yes, the state requires owners/operators to keep records of the walkthrough inspections.
   5. The owners/operators are required to keep inspection records for the previous 12 months.
   6. The walkthrough inspection record is a state-provided checklist and log.
   7. Yes, the state is seeing significant compliance issues with owners/operators having the required walkthrough inspection records during their inspections because they are still in the first year of this requirement. Many people still have not opened the packet of materials regarding these required inspections, and the familiarity with the requirement is still fairly low. Mr. Morgan expects compliance to take 2 to 3 years.
   8. Yes, the walkthrough inspection program is effective for those who participate. The state has not seen a significant increase in compliance rates, but it had a fairly high compliance rate to begin with, due to its strong rapport with owners and operators. Rather than performing inspections every 3 years, the state conducted annual inspections and the inspectors know the owners by name.
Wisconsin
Sheldon Schall
Chief of Storage Regulatory Services
Contacted on January 10, 2013
   1. For walkthrough inspections, the operators follow the Petroleum Equipment Institute (PEI)'s RP500 "Recommended Practices for Inspection and Maintenance of Motor Fuel Dispensing Equipment" and RP900 "UST Inspection and Maintenance" documents.
   2. The length of time required for a walkthrough inspection varies with the size of the facility, and may range from an hour at a small site with a couple tanks to a whole day for a truck stop.
   3. Large, multi-station operators tend to hire third-party contractors, and some of them are contracting with third parties to serve as their A/B operator.
   4. Yes, the state requires walkthrough inspection records to be kept.
   5. The state requires inspection records to be kept for a minimum of 12 months.
   6. The walkthrough inspection record is a checklist, and is complemented by the annual 10778 inspection form. The 10778 inspection is a test done by a contractor to test the functionality of the overfill prevention, drop tube, ATG, emergency valve, and sump sensors.
   7. Wisconsin has had the walkthrough inspection requirement in place for several years, and compliance is much better than it was 2 years ago. Now, owners/operators expect inspectors to ask for records. Further, the state made 3-ring binders available to any facility that wanted them for record keeping.
   8. Yes, the walkthrough inspection program is very effective. In particular, the 10778 functionality assessment gets the contractor on site to examine and document everything to eliminate non-compliance issues. Compliance has always been pretty high in Wisconsin, with 88.4 percent of facilities in compliance with all release prevention requirements, 84 percent in compliance with all release detection requirements, and 77 percent in compliance with both sets of requirements. For these statistics, compliance applies to items beyond what is required at the federal level, and also includes tanks that are temporarily out of service.
New Mexico
Kalvin Martin
Program Manager
Contacted on January 11, 2013
   1. During the walkthrough inspection, operators must inspect the ATG and cathodic protection rectifier, which are usually located indoors. They must also look inside dispenser doors, inspect tank top appurtenances by looking in all manholes, look in tank risers that are accessible, and check for water in tanks.
   2. A single facility walkthrough inspection would take around an hour. An inspection could take twice that long at a larger facility, such as one with large manhole lids, or one with 4 or 5 tanks.
   3. Walkthrough inspections are typically performed by the owner, who is usually the operator.
   4. Yes, the state requires walkthrough inspection records to be kept.
   5. The state requires walkthrough inspection records to be kept for 12 months.
   6. The walkthrough inspection record is a checklist with specific items such as piping and tank release detection, tank water levels, overfill alarms, and water in sumps to be checked.
   7. Of the facilities that have been inspected recently, over 50 percent have had the previous 12 months of records on file.
   8. If the owner/operator actually conducts the walkthrough monthly, it seems to be moderately effective, as the state staff has heard stories about owners/operators finding seeping flexible piping and sumps full of water by conducting the walkthroughs. However, it is hard to correlate compliance with the number of releases.
Utah
David Wilson
Environmental Scientist
Contacted on January 10, 2013
   1. The physical inspection includes visual inspection of spill containment, overfill, vapor recovery ports, containment sumps (i.e., dispenser, submersible, and transition), submersible pumps, and all dispensers. The facility's current leak detection and corrosion protection records are also verified.
   2. Inspection of an average-size facility should take 30 to 45 minutes.
   3. It is the B operator's responsibility that the inspection is accurate and done correctly, whether it is completed by themselves, another employee, or a third-party contractor.
   4. Yes, the state requires owners/operators to keep records of the walkthrough inspections.
   5. The length of time these records need to be kept is not addressed in the rule. This is probably an oversight that will be addressed in a future rule change. These records needed to be kept beginning January 2012.
   6. A specific checklist created by the State of Utah must be used for all monthly inspections.
   7. It has taken a while to get the majority of facilities to start doing the monthly inspections and doing them correctly. Those doing the inspections are generally in significant operational compliance (SOC).
   8. Yes, the walkthrough inspection program is effective. Those who do the monthly walkthroughs seem to be able to identify problems and have them resolved more quickly than those who do not. Containment sumps and spill buckets that Mr. Wilson personally inspected have had fewer problems with debris and water when the operator has completed monthly inspections.  Overall compliance rates have increased overall from about 10 percent to about 85 percent in the last year.
Colorado
Zach Hope
Petroleum Compliance Supervisor
Contacted on January 18, 2013
   1. During a walkthrough inspection, the tank area must be visited in order to check spill buckets, measure for water in the tank, and check vapor recovery equipment (if applicable). The dispenser area must be visited to check hanging hardware. The ATG must also be checked for functionality and alarm status.
   2. The length of time it takes to conduct a single facility walkthrough is 30 minutes.
   3. Small owners/operators tend to do their own inspections, while larger facilities hire third-party contractors.
   4. Yes, the state requires walkthrough inspection records to be kept.
   5. The state requires walkthrough inspection records to be kept for 12 months.
   6. The walkthrough inspection record is a 2-page checklist.
   7. No, the state is not seeing significant compliance issues with owners/operators having the required walkthrough inspection records during their inspections.
   8. Yes, the walkthrough inspection program is effective because compliance rates are increasing and releases are being discovered more quickly.
California
Sean Farrow
Leak Prevention Regulatory Unit
Contacted on January 10, 2013
   1. The operators must inspect the monitoring system and alarm history, tank-top containment sumps, spill containment structures, and under-dispenser containment areas. As part of the walkthrough inspection, the operator also needs to verify that all facility employees have been properly trained.
   2. The amount of time it takes for a walkthrough inspection is dependent on the number of tanks, alarms, and spill buckets at the site and the number of dispensers that the designated operator must open.
   3. Most facilities hire a third-party contractor for these inspections.
   4. Yes, the state requires inspection records to be kept.
   5. Inspection records must be kept on-site for the previous 12 months. If an enforcement case is brought up, the state or county can use up to 3 years of retained records.
   6. The walkthrough inspection record is a detailed checklist.
   7. In California, local agencies perform the inspections, so the state is unclear about overall compliance issues with record maintenance.
   8. The walkthrough inspection program seems to be working, as it allows owners/operators to understand what is happening on site, and actually do something about it.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 147 (Monday, August 1, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50342-50348]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18158]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2014-0617; A-1-FRL-9950-03-Region 1]

Air Plan Approval; VT; Prevention of Significant Deterioration,
Nonattainment and Minor New Source Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving three
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of
Vermont. These revisions primarily amend several aspects of Vermont's
new source review permitting regulations. The permitting revisions are
part of Vermont's major and minor stationary source preconstruction
permitting programs, and are intended to align Vermont's regulations
with the federal new source review regulations. The revisions also
contain amendments to other Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements, including
updating the State's ambient air quality standards and certain
emissions limits for sources of nitrogen oxides and sulfur

dioxide. This action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air
Act.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective September 30, 2016,
unless EPA receives adverse comments by August 31, 2016. If adverse
comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the
rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2014-0617 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the ``For Further Information Contact'' section. For the
full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ida E. McDonnell, Manager, Air
Permits, Toxics, and Indoor Programs Unit, Office of Ecosystem
Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, (OEP05-2), Boston, MA
02109-3912, phone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. Organization of this document.
The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in
this preamble.

I. Background and Purpose
    A. Clean Air Act Permitting
    B. State Ambient Air Quality Standards
II. Summary of State Submittals
    A. 1993 SIP Revision
    B. 2011 SIP Revision
    C. 2014 SIP Revision
III. Final Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

A. Clean Air Act Permitting

    In the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, nonattainment new source
review (NNSR) requirements were expanded to include ozone attainment
areas within the Ozone Transport Region (OTR). The federal regulations
at 40 CFR 51.165 contain the minimum elements that a State's
preconstruction permitting program for major stationary sources in
nonattainment areas (and in the OTR) must contain in order for EPA to
approve the State's program into the SIP.
    On November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612), EPA promulgated the ``Final
Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard--Phase 2; Final Rule to Implement Certain Aspects of the 1990
Amendments Relating to New Source Review and Prevention of Significant
Deterioration as They Apply in Carbon Monoxide, Particulate Matter, and
Ozone NAAQS; Final Rule for Reformulated Gasoline'' (Phase 2 Rule).
Among other requirements, the Phase 2 Rule obligated states to revise
their Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) programs to
explicitly identify nitrogen oxides (NOX) as a precursor to
ozone. This requirement was codified in 40 CFR 51.166, and requires
that states submit SIP revisions incorporating the requirements of the
rule, including specific provisions treating NOX as a
precursor to ozone, by June 15, 2007. See 70 FR 71612 at 71683,
November 29, 2005.
    On May 16, 2008 (73 FR 28321), EPA issued the Final Rule on the
``Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate
Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)'' (2008 NSR Rule).
The 2008 NSR Rule finalized several new requirements for SIPs to
address sources that emit direct PM2.5, and other pollutants
that contribute to secondary PM2.5 formation. One of these
requirements is for NSR permits to address pollutants responsible for
the secondary formation of PM2.5, otherwise known as
precursor pollutants. In the 2008 rule, EPA identified precursors to
PM2.5 for the PSD program to be sulfur dioxide
(SO2) and NOX (unless the state demonstrates to
the Administrator's satisfaction, or EPA demonstrates, that
NOX emissions in an area are not a significant contributor
to that area's ambient PM2.5 concentrations). The 2008 NSR
Rule also specifies that volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are not
considered to be precursors to PM2.5 in the PSD program,
unless the state demonstrates to the Administrator's satisfaction, or
EPA demonstrates, that emissions of VOCs in an area are significant
contributors to that area's ambient PM2.5 concentrations.
The explicit references to SO2, NOX and VOCs as
they pertain to secondary PM2.5 formation are codified at 40
CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i)(b) and 52.21(b)(50)(i)(b). As part of identifying
pollutants that are precursors to PM2.5, the 2008 NSR Rule
also required states to revise the definition of ``significant'' as it
relates to a net emissions increase or the potential of a source to
emit pollutants. Specifically, 40 CFR 51.166(b)(23)(i) and
52.21(b)(23)(i) define ``significant'' for PM2.5 to mean the
following emissions rates: 10 tons per year (tpy) of direct
PM2.5; 40 tpy of SO2; and 40 tpy of
NOX (unless the state demonstrates to the Administrator's
satisfaction, or EPA demonstrates, that NOX emissions in an
area are not a significant contributor to that area's ambient
PM2.5 concentrations). The deadline for states to submit SIP
revisions to their PSD programs incorporating these changes was May 16,
2011. See 73 FR 28321 at 28341, May 16, 2008.
    The 2008 NSR Rule did not require states to immediately account for
gases that could condense to form particulate matter, known as
condensables, in PM2.5 and PM10 emission limits
in NSR permits. Instead, EPA determined that states had to account for
PM2.5 and PM10 condensables for applicability
determinations and in establishing emissions limitations for
PM2.5 and PM10 in PSD permits beginning on or
after January 1, 2011. See 73 FR 28321 at 28334. This requirement is
codified in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i)(a) and 52.21(b)(50)(i)(a).
Revisions to states' PSD programs incorporating the inclusion of
condensables were required to be submitted to EPA by May 16, 2011. See
73 FR 28321 at 28341.
    On October 20, 2010, EPA issued the final rule on the ``Prevention
of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5
Micrometers (PM2.5)--Increments, Significant Impact Levels
(SILs) and Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC)'' (2010 PSD
Rule). See 75 FR 64864. This rule established several components for
making PSD permitting determinations for PM2.5, including a
system of ``increments,'' which is the mechanism used to estimate
significant deterioration of ambient air quality for a pollutant. These
increments are codified in 40 CFR 51.166(c) and 40 CFR 52.21(c). The
2010 PSD Rule also

established a new ``major source baseline date'' for PM2.5
as October 20, 2010, and a new trigger date for PM2.5 as
October 20, 2011. These revisions are codified in 40 CFR
51.166(b)(14)(i)(c) and (b)(14)(ii)(c), and 52.21(b)(14)(i)(c) and
(b)(14)(ii)(c). Lastly, the 2010 PSD Rule revised the definition of
``baseline area'' to include a level of significance of 0.3 micrograms
per cubic meter, annual average, for PM2.5. This change is
codified in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(15)(i) and 52.21(b)(15)(i).

B. State Ambient Air Quality Standards

    Section 109 of the CAA directs EPA to establish NAAQS requisite to
protect public health with an adequate margin of safety (primary
standard) and for the protection of public welfare (secondary
standard). Section 109(d)(1) of the CAA requires EPA to complete a
thorough review of the NAAQS at 5-year intervals and promulgate new
standards when appropriate. Additionally, Section 107 of the CAA
requires the establishment of air quality control regions for the
purpose of implementing the NAAQS.
    On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA revised the primary and
secondary 24-hour NAAQS for fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
to 35 micrograms per cubic meter and retained the primary and secondary
24-hour NAAQS for coarse particulate matter (PM10) of 150
micrograms per cubic meter. EPA revoked the annual standard for
PM10. This final rule became effective on December 18, 2006.
    On March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436), EPA revised the NAAQS for ozone,
setting the level of the primary and secondary 8-hour standard to 0.075
parts per million. This final ozone standard rule became effective on
May 27, 2008. On October 26, 2015 (80 FR 65292), EPA revised the NAAQS
for ozone, setting the level of the primary and secondary 8-hour
standard to 0.070 parts per million. This final ozone standard rule
became effective on December 28, 2015.
    On November 12, 2008 (73 FR 66964), EPA revised the NAAQS for lead,
setting the level of the primary and secondary standard to 0.15
micrograms per cubic meter and revised the averaging time to a rolling
3-month period with a maximum (not-to-be-exceeded) form, evaluated over
a 3-year period. The final lead standard rule became effective on
January 12, 2009.
    On February 9, 2010 (75 FR 6474), EPA revised the NAAQS for oxides
of nitrogen as measured by nitrogen dioxide (NO2). EPA
established a 1-hour primary standard for NO2 at a level of
100 parts per billion, based on the 3-year average of the 98th
percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum
concentrations, to supplement the existing primary and secondary annual
standard of 53 parts per billion (See 61 FR 52852, October 8, 1996).
The final NO2 rule became effective on April 12, 2010.
    On June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35520), EPA revised the NAAQS for oxides of
sulfur as measured by sulfur dioxide (SO2). EPA established
a new 1-hour SO2 primary standard at a level of 75 parts per
billion, based on the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of
1-hour daily maximum concentrations. EPA also revoked both the previous
24-hour and annual primary SO2 standards. EPA did not revise
the existing secondary standard of 0.5 part per million averaged over 3
hours and not to be exceeded more than once per year. This final rule
became effective on August 23, 2010.
    On January 15, 2013 (78 FR 3086), EPA revised the primary
PM2.5 annual NAAQS, lowering the standard to 12.0 micrograms
per cubic meter. The final rule became effective on March 18, 2013.

II. Summary of State Submittals

A. 1993 SIP Revision

    On August 9, 1993, the Vermont Department of Environmental
conservation (VT DEC) submitted a revision to its State Implementation
Plan (SIP) addressing the nonattainment new source review (NNSR) and
reasonable available control technology (RACT) requirements of the 1990
Clean Air Act Amendments (1993 SIP submittal). The submittal consisted
of several changes to the State's regulations as well as a SIP
narrative. In 1998, EPA approved the revisions dealing with the RACT
requirements. See 63 FR 19825, April 22, 1998.
    In a letter dated July 13, 2016, Vermont withdrew the SIP narrative
and a number of definitions that were either already approved into the
SIP or were determined not to be required to be in the SIP. The State
also withdrew certain provisions of APCR, Subchapter V, Sections 5-
502(3), (6), and (7) because revised versions of those provisions were
resubmitted by the State on February 14, 2011. We are therefore not
acting on those provisions withdrawn by the State from the 1993 SIP
submittal.
    EPA is approving the definition of ``Federally Enforceable'' in
Section 5-101 from the 1993 SIP submittal.

B. 2011 SIP Revision

    On February 14, 2011, the VT DEC submitted a revision to its SIP
addressing EPA's Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule, certain other aspects
of the State's preconstruction permitting requirements, and certain
emissions limits for sources of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide
(2011 SIP submittal). In 2012, EPA approved the portions of the 2011
SIP submittal that related to EPA's Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule. See
77 FR 60907, October 5, 2012.
    In a letter dated July 13, 2016, VT DEC withdrew some, but not all,
of the revisions included in the 2011 SIP submittal. The State withdrew
these provisions for various reasons; either because additional
information needs to be submitted before EPA could approve certain
provisions into the SIP, Vermont intends in the near future to revise
certain provisions and resubmit them to EPA, certain provisions were
already in the SIP, or certain provisions were determined not to be
required to be in the SIP.
    We are approving the following provisions contained in the 2011 SIP
submittal: \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For a more detailed listing of these provisions and the
specific language in question, please see EPA's Technical Support
Document (TSD) included in the administrative record and docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    a. A clarification to the definition of the term ``Federal Land
Manger.''
    b. Provisions containing emissions limits for certain categories of
sources that emit NOX and SO2. (In a letter dated
July 13, 2016, Vermont submitted a technical demonstration consistent
with section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act, showing that the changes to
the applicability of these emissions limits will not interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further
progress or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. See EPA's TSD
for a more detailed analysis.)
    c. A provision clarifying what type of operations would be
considered asphalt batch plants and would be required to obtain a minor
new source review permit for any new or modified source.
    d. Provisions clarifying Vermont's authority to request sources to
submit written reports.
    e. Provisions (further revised in a 2014 SIP submission) providing
the State with the authority to require air dispersion modeling on a
case-by-case basis for minor sources, and containing the procedures a
source must follow when providing an impact analysis on ambient air
quality in order for the source to obtain a PSD permit.
    f. Provisions requiring sources to obtain a permit prior to
construction, and providing the State with the authority to deny a
permit for a project that would not be in compliance with

the state permitting regulations. (We note that these provisions are
codified in the State's submittal as APCR Section 5-501(4). However,
the existing approved SIP already contains an APCR Section 5-501(4)
that relates to a different topic. Thus, our approval of this new APCR
Section 5-501(4) will appear in the SIP after existing Section APCR 5-
501(4). This codification issue arose because the State has amended its
regulations over time at the state level and did not submit the entire
revised regulation to EPA for approval into the SIP. EPA believes that
implementation of the State's permitting program and the enforceability
of these provisions as part of that program will not be compromised
because the provisions will have been approved by EPA on separate
dates. Thus, in future legal proceedings, a complete and accurate
citation to one of these two provisions should also include the date
upon which EPA approved the provision in question into Vermont's SIP in
order to distinguish clearly one from the other.)
    g. Provisions (further revised in a 2014 SIP revision) specifying
which entities, including affected states and federal land managers,
are to receive notification when a source is subject to major new
source review. (We note that one of these provisions is codified in the
State's submittal as APCR Section 5-501(6). However, the existing
approved SIP already contains an APCR Section 5-501(6) that relates to
a different topic. Thus, our approval of this new APCR Section 5-501(6)
will appear in the SIP after existing APCR Section 5-501(6). This
codification issue arose because the State has amended its regulations
over time at the state level and did not submit the entire revised
regulation to EPA for approval into the SIP. EPA believes that
implementation of the State's permitting program and the enforceability
of these provisions as part of that program will not be compromised
because the provisions will have been approved by EPA on separate
dates. Thus, in future legal proceedings, a complete and accurate
citation to one of these two provisions should also include the date
upon which EPA approved the provision in question into Vermont's SIP in
order to distinguish clearly one from the other.)
    h. A provision prohibiting a major new source or major modification
from initiating construction prior to obtaining a construction permit.
    i. Provisions (further revised in a 2014 SIP submittal) requiring
new major sources and major modifications to conduct an air quality
impact analysis.
    j. Provisions containing requirements for major new sources and
major modifications that are subject to nonattainment new source review
under Part D of the CAA because Vermont is located within the ozone
transport region.
    EPA is approving the provisions identified above in subparagraphs
a. through j. See EPA's TSD for more detailed information.

C. 2014 SIP Revision

    On July 25, 2014, the VT DEC submitted a revision to its SIP
primarily addressing permitting requirements for PM2.5
emissions (2014 SIP submittal). In a letter dated July 13, 2016, VT DEC
withdrew some, but not all, of the revisions the State requested in its
2014 SIP submittal. The State withdrew these provisions for various
reasons; either because more information would be needed before certain
provisions could be approved by EPA into the SIP, one provision was
erroneously submitted, or Vermont intends in the near future to revise
certain provisions and resubmit them to EPA.
    We are approving the following contained in the State's 2014 SIP
submittal:
    a. Nine new and two revised definitions in APC Section 5-101 that
were contained in the 2014 SIP submittal. The new definitions are of
the terms: (1) ``Municipal Waste Combustor Acid Gases (measured as
sulfur dioxide and hydrogen chloride)''; (2) ``Municipal Waste
Combustor Metals (measured as particulate matter)''; (3) ``Municipal
Waste Combustor Organics (measured as total tetra- through octa-
chlorinated debenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans)''; (4) ``Municipal
Solid Waste Landfill Emissions (measured as nonmethane organic
compounds)''; (5) ``Particulate Matter Emissions''; (6)
``PM10,''; (7) ``PM10 emissions''; (8)
``PM2.5''; and (9) ``PM2.5 direct emissions.''
The two revised definitions are of the terms: (1) ``Significant''; and
(2) ``Particulate Matter.''
    b. A provision which removes an exemption for wood coating
operations from the SIP rule for ``Other Sources That Emit Volatile
Organic Compounds.''
    c. Provisions that revise the State's Ambient Air Quality Standards
for the criteria air pollutants.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Because the state adopted these state ambient air quality
standards in 2014, Vermont's regulations do not contain an ambient
air quality standard for ozone that is equivalent to the federal
2015 ozone standard. However, the ozone standard we are approving is
consistent with the 2008 federal ozone standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    d. Provisions that (as stated earlier) contain requirements for
sources to follow when submitting an ambient air impact analysis in
relation to a PSD permit. The revision was made to clarify that a
source's analysis must follow EPA's procedures at 40 CFR part 51,
Appendix W.
    e. Provisions that slightly revise the requirements that apply to a
new or modified source that otherwise would have been subject to minor
new source review to be classified as major based on the impact on
ambient air from the source's allowable emissions.
    f. Provisions (as stated earlier) require the State to notify
certain entities of a proposed PSD permit, including affected states
and federal land managers.
    g. Provisions (as stated earlier) that require sources subject to
PSD to conduct and submit an ambient air quality impact analysis.
    h. A provision that requires a source subject to PSD to demonstrate
that it will not cause an adverse impact on visibility or any air
quality related value in any Class I area.
    (i) A provision requiring a source subject to PSD to gather ambient
monitoring data representative of the area in which the source is
located. (We note that this provision is codified at APCR Section 5-
502(8)(b) of the State's regulation and will be approved into the SIP
with that same codification. Because the codification of, and
provisions contained in, the State's regulations have changed over the
years, and the State's 2014 SIP submittal did not include all of the
State's current ambient air quality monitoring provisions, APCR Section
5-502(8)(b) will appear after and separately from the already approved
SIP revisions in APCR Section 5-502(7), which also relate to ambient
air quality monitoring; the one exception is that the current SIP
provision at APCR Section 5-502(7)(b) will no longer be in the SIP
because it is being replaced by APCR 5-502(8)(b). EPA believes that
implementation of the State's permitting program and the enforceability
of these provisions as part of that program will not be compromised
because the provisions will have been approved by EPA on separate
dates. Thus, in future legal proceedings, a complete and accurate
citation to these provisions should also include the date upon which
EPA approved the provision in question into Vermont's SIP in order to
distinguish clearly one from the other.)

III. Final Action

    Based on the analysis contained in the Technical Support Document,
EPA is approving the following sections of Vermont's APCR:

    Within APCR Subchapter I: Definitions:
    1. ``Federal Land Manager''
    2. ``Federally Enforceable''
    3. ``Municipal Waste Combustor Acid Gases (measured as sulfur
dioxide and hydrogen chloride)''
    4. ``Municipal Waste Combustor Metals (measured as particulate
matter)''
    5. ``Municipal Waste Combustor Organics (measured as total tetra-
through octa-chlorinated debenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans)''
    6. ``Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Emissions (measured as
nonmethane organic compounds)''
    7. ``Particulate Matter''
    8. ``Particulate Matter Emissions''
    9. ``PM10''
    10. ``PM10 emissions''
    11. ``PM2.5''
    12. ``PM2.5 direct emissions''
    13. ``Significant''
    Within APCR Subchapter II: Prohibitions:
    1. Section 5-5-251: Control of Nitrogen Oxide Emissions.
    2. Section 5-252: Control of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions.
    3. Section 5-253.20(a)(3): Applicability for Other Sources That
Emit Volatile Organic Compounds.
    Within APCR Subchapter III: Ambient Air Quality Standards:
    1. Section 5-301: Scope.
    2. Section 5-302: Sulfur oxides (sulfur dioxide).
    3. Section 5-303: Reserved.
    4. Section 5-304: Particulate Matter PM2.5.
    5. Section 5-306: Particulate Matter PM10.
    6. Section 5-307: Carbon Monoxide.
    7. Section 5-308: Ozone.
    8. Section 5-309: Nitrogen Dioxide.
    9. Section 5-310: Lead.
    Within APCR Subchapter IV: Operations and Procedures:
    1. Section 4-401(2): Hot Mix Asphalt Batch Plants.
    2. Section 4-402: Written Reports When Requested.
    3. Section 5-406: Required Air Modeling.
    Within APCR Subchapter V: Review of New Air Contaminant Sources:
    1. Section 5-501: Review of Construction or Modification of Air
Contaminant Sources. EPA is approving subsections (1), (4), (5), (6),
and (7)(c) of this section.
    2. Section 5-502: Major Stationary Sources and Major Modifications:
EPA is approving subsections (2), (4)(a), (4)(b), (4)(e), (6)(b), and
(8)(b).
    The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because
the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates
no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should
relevant adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective
September 30, 2016 without further notice unless the Agency receives
relevant adverse comments by August 31, 2016.
    If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a notice
withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will
not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not
institute a second comment period on the proposed rule. All parties
interested in commenting on the proposed rule should do so at this
time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this
rule will be effective on September 30, 2016 and no further action will
be taken on the proposed rule. Please note that if EPA receives adverse
comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that
provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt
as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an
adverse comment.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Vermont's
Air Pollution Control Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR
part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make,
these documents generally available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and

the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until
60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is
not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 30, 2016. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final
rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel
notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed
rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an
immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so
that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in
the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: July 20, 2016.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.

    Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart UU--Vermont

0
2. In Sec.  52.2370(c) the Table ``EPA Approved Vermont Regulations''
is amended by:
0
a. Revising state citation entries for Sections 5-101, 5-251, 5-252, 5-
253.20, 5-301, 5-302, 5-303, 5-306, 5-307, 5-308, 5-309, 5-310, 5-401,
5-402, 5-406, 5-501, and 5-502; and
0
b. Adding state citation entries Sections 5-304 and 5-305.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  52.2370  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) EPA approved regulations.

                                        EPA-Approved Vermont Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          State
         State citation             Title/subject    effective date   EPA approval date        Explanations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 5-101..................  Definitions.......        7/5/2014  8/1/2016 [Insert    Revised three
                                                                      Federal Register    definitions and added
                                                                      citation].          10 new definitions.

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 5-251..................  Control of                2/8/2011  8/1/2016 [Insert    Revised the
                                  nitrogen oxides                     Federal Register    applicability section.
                                  emissions.                          citation].
Section 5-252..................  Control of sulfur         2/8/2011  8/1/2016 [Insert    Revised the
                                  dioxide emissions.                  Federal Register    applicability section.
                                                                      citation].

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 5-253.20...............  Other sources that        7/5/2014  8/1/2016 [Insert    Removed the exemption
                                  emit volatile                       Federal Register    for surface coating of
                                  organic compounds.                  citation].          wood.

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 5-301..................  Scope.............        7/5/2014  8/1/2016 [Insert    The air quality
                                                                      Federal Register    standard for sulfates
                                                                      citation].          is not part of the
                                                                                SIP.
Section 5-302..................  Sulfur oxides             7/5/2014  8/1/2016 [Insert    Revision addresses the
                                  (sulfur dioxide).                   Federal Register    SO2 NAAQS adopted in
                                                                      citation].          2010.
Section 5-303..................  Reserved..........        7/5/2014  8/1/2016 [Insert    The secondary standard
                                                                      Federal Register    for SO2 is now
                                                                      citation].          contained in Section 5-
                                                                                302.
Section 5-304..................  Particulate matter        7/5/2014  8/1/2016 [Insert    New section addresses
                                  PM2.5.                              Federal Register    the 2006 primary and
                                                                      citation].          secondary 24-hr
                                                                                standard and the 2013
                                                                                primary annual
                                                                                standard for the PM2.5
                                                                                NAAQS.
Section 5-306..................  Particulate matter        7/5/2014  8/1/2016 [Insert    Removed the annual
                                  PM10.                               Federal Register    standard to be
                                                                      citation].          consistent with the
                                                                                2006 PM10 NAAQS.
Section 5-307..................  Carbon monoxide...        7/5/2014  8/1/2016 [Insert    Clarified language to
                                                                      Federal Register    be consistent with
                                                                      citation].          EPA.
Section 5-308..................  Ozone.............        7/5/2014  8/1/2016 [Insert    Revision addresses the
                                                                      Federal Register    Ozone NAAQS adopted in
                                                                      citation].          2008.

Section 5-309..................  Nitrogen dioxide..        7/5/2014  8/1/2016 [Insert    Revision addresses the
                                                                      Federal Register    NO2 NAAQS adopted in
                                                                      citation].          2010.
Section 5-310..................  Lead..............        7/5/2014  8/1/2016 [Insert    Revision addresses the
                                                                      Federal Register    Lead NAAQS adopted in
                                                                      citation].          2008.

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 5-401..................  Classification of         2/8/2011  8/1/2016 [Insert    Amended the source
                                  air contaminant                     Federal Register    category for asphalt
                                  sources.                            citation].          batch plants.
Section 5-402..................  Written reports           2/8/2011  8/1/2016 [Insert
                                  when requested.                     Federal Register
                                                                      citation].

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 5-406..................  Required air              7/5/2014  8/1/2016 [Insert    Clarified air
                                  modeling.                           Federal Register    dispersion modeling
                                                                      citation].          must be done in
                                                                                accordance with 40 CFR
                                                                                part 51, Appendix W.
Section 5-501..................  Review of                 7/5/2014  8/1/2016 [Insert    Only approving:
                                  construction or                     Federal Register    revisions made to
                                  modification of                     citation].          subsections (1) and
                                  air contaminant                                         (5); new provisions
                                  sources.                                                (4), and (6) even
                                                                                though existing
                                                                                subsection 4 and 6
                                                                                will remain in the
                                                                                SIP; and new
                                                                                introductory text in
                                                                                subsection (7), and
                                                                                new text in subsection
                                                                                (7)(c).
Section 5-502..................  Major stationary          7/5/2014  8/1/2016 [Insert    Approving only
                                  sources and major                   Federal Register    revisions made to
                                  modifications.                      citation].          subsections (2),
                                                                                (4)(a), (4)(b),
                                                                                (4)(e), and (6)(b) and
                                                                                adding a new
                                                                                subsection (8)(b).
                                                                                Also removing
                                                                                subsection (7)(b).
                                                                                Subsections (7) and
                                                                                (8) both relate to
                                                                                ambient air quality
                                                                                monitoring.

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

[FR Doc. 2016-18158 Filed 7-29-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: August 13, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 156)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 49377-49379]
[DOCID:fr13au10-8]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0222; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-012-AD;
Amendment 39-16387; AD 2010-16-10]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model
Avro 146-RJ and BAe 146 Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    A potential fleet wide problem has been identified regarding the
interchanging of wing links on all BAe 146 & AVRO 146-RJ aircraft
during scheduled maintenance. Some operators erroneously believed
that these parts were interchangeable. The effects of changing
winglinks has resulted in either a shorter or longer wing link being
fitted, which introduces local stresses in the wing top and bottom
surfaces local to rib 2, wing links and wing link fitting attachment
and the fuselage local to Frames 26 and 29. This condition, if not
corrected, could result in a reduction of structural integrity of
the fuselage/wing attachment with possible catastrophic
consequences.
* * * * *
The unsafe condition could result in loss of a wing or controllability
of the airplane. We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct
the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective September 17, 2010.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of September
17, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov or in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1175; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on March 15, 2010 (75
FR 12158). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

A potential fleet wide problem has been identified regarding the
interchanging of wing links on all BAe 146 & AVRO 146-RJ aircraft
during scheduled maintenance. Some operators erroneously believed
that these parts were interchangeable. The effects of changing
winglinks has resulted in either a shorter or longer wing link being
fitted, which introduces local stresses in the wing top and bottom
surfaces local to rib 2, wing links and wing link fitting attachment
and the fuselage local to Frames 26 and 29. This condition, if not
corrected, could result in a reduction of structural integrity of
the fuselage/wing attachment with possible catastrophic
consequences.

    For the reasons described above, the present Airworthiness
Directive (AD) requires the accomplishment of inspections and
rectification actions, as necessary.

The unsafe condition could result in loss of a wing or controllability
of the airplane. The inspections include inspecting wing links for
incorrect part numbers (i.e., parts that are not original), inspecting
to determine wing geometry measurements, and inspecting the wing link,
bores, bolts, and nuts for corrosion. Corrective actions include
installing wing-to-fuselage fairings and repairing. You may obtain
further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Explanation of Change to Applicability

    We have revised the applicability in paragraph (c) of this final
rule to identify model designations as published in the most recent
type certificate data sheet for the affected models.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD with the change described
previously. We determined that this change will not

increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of
the AD.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have required different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences
are highlighted in a Note within the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 1 product of U.S. registry. We
also estimate that it will take about 180 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 $0 per product.
Where the service information lists required parts costs that are
covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge
for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected
parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based
on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators
to be $15,300.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Examining the AD Docket

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
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 AD:

2010-16-10 BAE Systems (Operations) Limited: Amendment 39-16387.
Docket No. FAA-2010-0222; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-012-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective
September 17, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model
BAe 146-100A, -200A, and -300A airplanes, and Avro 146-RJ70A, 146-
RJ85A, and 146-RJ100A airplanes; all serial numbers; certificated in
any category; as identified in paragraph 1.A.(1) of BAE Systems
(Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.53-175,
Revision 1, dated April 2, 2007.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57: Wings.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    A potential fleet wide problem has been identified regarding the
interchanging of wing links on all BAe 146 & AVRO 146-RJ aircraft
during scheduled maintenance. Some operators erroneously believed
that these parts were interchangeable. The effects of changing wing
links has resulted in either a shorter or longer wing link being
fitted, which introduces local stresses in the wing top and bottom
surfaces local to rib 2, wing links and wing link fitting attachment
and the fuselage local to Frames 26 and 29. This condition, if not
corrected, could result in a reduction of structural integrity of
the fuselage/wing attachment with possible catastrophic
consequences.
    For the reasons described above, the present Airworthiness
Directive (AD) requires the accomplishment of inspections and
rectification actions, as necessary.

The unsafe condition could result in loss of a wing or
controllability of the airplane. The inspections include inspecting
wing links for incorrect part numbers (i.e., parts that are not
original), inspecting to determine wing geometry measurements, and
inspecting the wing link, bores, bolts, and nuts for corrosion.
Corrective actions include installing wing-to-fuselage fairings and
repairing.

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Actions

    (g) Do the following actions.
    (1) For airplanes subject to maintenance review board report
(MRBR) requirements: Within 30 days after the effective date of this
AD, revise the supplemental structural inspection (SSI) portion of
the airplane inspection schedule, in accordance with paragraph
1.D.(2) of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service
Bulletin ISB.53-175, Revision 1, dated April 2, 2007. Do the initial
inspection at the applicable time, and repeat at the applicable
intervals, as specified in Appendix 3 of BAE Systems (Operations)
Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.53-175, Revision 1, dated
April 2, 2007. Where Appendix 3 of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.53-175, Revision 1, dated April 2,
2007, does not

specify a compliance time in either flight cycles or in flight
hours, use flight cycles.
    (2) For airplanes subject to MRBR requirements: Accomplishing
the inspections and all applicable corrective actions specified in
paragraph 1.D.(3) of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection
Service Bulletin ISB.53-175, Revision 1, dated April 2, 2007,
terminates the revisions to the SSI portion of the airplane
inspection schedule incorporated in accordance with paragraph (g)(1)
of this AD, provided that if any corrosion is found during any
inspection specified in ``Part C'' or ``Part D'' of paragraph 2.C.
of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin
ISB.53-175, Revision 1, dated April 2, 2007, repair is accomplished
before further flight using a method approved by the Manager,
International Branch, ANM 116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
or EASA (or its delegated agent).
    (3) For operational airplanes subject to MRBR-to-supplemental-
structural-inspection-document (SSID) transition requirements or to
SSID requirements: Within 5,000 flight cycles after the effective
date of this AD, do the inspections and all applicable corrective
actions, in accordance with paragraph 2.C. of the Accomplishment
Instructions of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service
Bulletin ISB.53-175, Revision 1, dated April 2, 2007, except if any
corrosion is found during any inspection specified in ``Part C'' or
``Part D'' of paragraph 2.C. of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.53-175, Revision 1, dated April 2,
2007, repair must be accomplished using a method approved by the
Manager, International Branch, ANM 116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA, or EASA (or its delegated agent). Do all
applicable corrective actions before further flight, except that
replacements of all the wing links that are not within the specified
tolerance must be done before the airplane reaches its MRBR airframe
life limit.

    Note 1:  For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is:
``An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or
assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available
lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good
lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as
mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning
and elaborate procedures may be required.''

    (4) For any inspection done in accordance with paragraph (g)(2)
or (g)(3) of this AD: Send reports to BAE Systems, Customer Liaison,
Customer Support (Building 37), BAE Systems (Operations) Limited,
Prestwick International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland; fax
+44 (0) 1292 675432; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>at the
applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(4)(i) or (g)(4)(ii) of
this AD. The report must include the inspection results, a
description of any discrepancies found, the airplane serial number,
and the number of landings and flight hours on the airplane.
    (i) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.
    (ii) If the inspection was done before the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date
of this AD.
    (5) For airplanes that are non-operational as of the effective
date of this AD and that are subject to MRBR-to-SSID transition
requirements or to SSID requirements: Before returning any airplane
to service, do the inspections and all applicable corrective
actions, in accordance with paragraph 2.C. of the Accomplishment
Instructions of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service
Bulletin ISB.53-175, Revision 1, dated April 2, 2007, except if any
corrosion is found during any inspection specified in ``Part C'' or
``Part D'' of paragraph 2.C. of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.53-175, Revision 1, dated April 2,
2007, repair must be accomplished using a method approved by the
Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA, or EASA (or its delegated agent).
    (6) Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service
Bulletin ISB.53-175, dated December 21, 2006, are considered
acceptable for compliance with the corresponding action specified in
this AD.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 2:  This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service
information as follows: The MCAI does not specify a corrective
action if corrosion is found during accomplishment of the actions
specified in ``Part C'' and ``Part D'' of paragraph 2.C. of BAE
Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.53-175,
Revision 1, dated April 2, 2007. This AD requires that if any
corrosion is found, a repair must be done in accordance with a
method approved by the FAA or EASA (or its delegated agent).

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (h) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. Send information to ATTN: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 227-1175; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using any approved AMOC
on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your principal
maintenance inspector (PMI) or principal avionics inspector (PAI),
as appropriate, or lacking a principal inspector, your local Flight
Standards District Office. The AMOC approval letter must
specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (i) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2008-0003, dated
January 8, 2008; and BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection
Service Bulletin ISB.53-175, Revision 1, dated April 2, 2007; for
related information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (j) You must use BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection
Service Bulletin ISB.53-175, Revision 1, dated April 2, 2007, as
applicable, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD
specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact BAE
Systems (Operations) Limited, Customer Information Department,
Prestwick International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland, United
Kingdom; telephone +44 1292 675207; fax +44 1292 675704; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.baesystems.com/
Businesses/RegionalAircraft/index.htm.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the 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/code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 28, 2010.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-19340 Filed 8-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 30, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 145)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 41450]
[DOCID:fr30jy07-10]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2007-0236; FRL-8444-3]

Partial Withdrawal of Direct Final Rule Revising the California
State Implementation Plan, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control
District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; partial withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: On May 30, 2007 (72 FR 29886), EPA published a direct final
approval of revisions to the California State Implementation Plan
(SIP). These revisions concerned San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution
Control District (SJVAPCD) Rule 4307, Boilers, Steam Generators and
Process Heaters--2.0 MMBtu/hr to 5.0 MMBtu/hr; Rule 4308, Boilers,
Steam Generators and Process Heaters--0.075 MMBtu/hr to 2.0 MMBtu/hr;
Rule 4309, Dryers, Dehydrators, and Ovens; Rule 4352, Solid Fuel Fired
Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters; and Rule 4905, Natural
Gas-Fired, Fan-Type Residential Central Furnaces. The direct final
action was published without prior proposal because EPA anticipated no
adverse comment. The direct final rule stated that if adverse comments
were received by June 29, 2007, EPA would publish a timely withdrawal
in the Federal Register. EPA received timely adverse comments.
Consequently, with this revision we are withdrawing the direct final
approval of SJVAPCD Rule 4352. EPA will either address the comments in
a subsequent final action based on the parallel proposal also published
on May 30, 2007 (72 FR 29901), or repropose an alternative action. As
stated in the parallel proposal, EPA will not institute a second
comment period on a subsequent final action. The other rules approved
in the May 30, 2007 direct final action, SJVAPCD Rules 4307, 4308,
4309, and 4905, are not affected by this partial withdrawal and are
incorporated into the SIP as of the effective date of the May 30, 2007
direct final action.

DATES: This rule and withdrawal are effective July 30, 2007.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2007-0236 for
this action. The index to the docket 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., CBI).
To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment
during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francisco D[oacute][ntilde]ez, EPA
Region IX,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: July 10, 2007.
Keith Takata,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

0
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(347)(i)(A)(1) to
read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (347) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (1) Rule 4307, adopted on April 20, 2006.
* * * * *
 [FR Doc. E7-14679 Filed 7-27-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


J-22-0017-0018 Sanitized Support Documents Index:
 J-22-0017 Sanitized Biotech Form (linked)
 J-22-0018 Sanitized Biotech Form (linked)
 J-22-0017-0018 Sanitized Determination Document (linked)
 J-22-0017-0018 Sanitized Risk Assessment Report (attached)


[Federal Register: September 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 175)]
[Notices]
[Page 53429-53430]
[DOCID:fr11se06-52]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP03-433-005]

Energy West Development, Inc.; Notice of Compliance Filing

September 5, 2006.
    Take notice that on August 23, 2006, Energy West Development, Inc.
(Energy West) tendered for filing an Addendum to its cost and revenue
study filed July 13, 2006 to comply with the requirements of section
157.20(c)(3) and section 157.20(d) of the Commission's regulations.
Energy West states that copies of the filing were served on parties on
the official service list.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing a
protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call

(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on September 11, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-14971 Filed 9-8-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P