[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 109 (Monday, June 8, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32324-32333]
[FR Doc No: 2015-13947]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0852; FRL-9928-85-Region 4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; South
Carolina; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead National
Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve the September 20, 2011, State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submission, provided by the South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control (SC DHEC) for inclusion into the South Carolina
SIP. This proposal pertains to the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act)
infrastructure requirements for the 2008 Lead 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 EPA, which is commonly referred to as an
``infrastructure'' SIP. SC DHEC certified that the South Carolina SIP
contains provisions that ensure the 2008 Lead NAAQS is implemented,
enforced, and maintained in South Carolina. With the exception of
provisions pertaining to prevention of significant deterioration (PSD)
permitting for which EPA is proposing no action through this notice,
EPA is proposing to approve that South Carolina's infrastructure SIP
submission, provided to EPA on September 20, 2011, satisfies the
required infrastructure elements for the 2008 Lead NAAQS.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 8, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2012-0852, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0852,'' Air Regulatory Management
Section (formerly Regulatory Development Section), Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Air
Regulatory Management Section (formerly Regulatory Development
Section), Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours
of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2012-0852. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or
email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your
email

address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section (formerly
Regulatory Development Section), Air Planning and Implementation
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zuri Farngalo, Air Regulatory
Management Section (formerly Regulatory Development Section), Air
Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number
is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Mr. Farngalo can be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. What elements are required under sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?
III. What is EPA's approach to the review of infrastructure SIP
submissions?
IV. What is EPA's analysis of how South Carolina addressed the
elements of Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) ``infrastructure''
provisions?
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On October 5, 1978, EPA promulgated primary and secondary NAAQS for
Lead under section 109 of the Act. See 43 FR 46246. Both primary and
secondary standards were set at a level of 1.5 micrograms per cubic
meter ([mu]g/m\3\), measured as Lead in total suspended particulate
matter (Pb-TSP), not to be exceeded by the maximum arithmetic mean
concentration averaged over a calendar quarter. This standard was based
on the 1977 Air Quality Criteria for Lead (USEPA, August 7, 1977). On
November 12, 2008 (75 FR 81126), EPA issued a final rule to revise the
primary and secondary Lead NAAQS. The revised primary and secondary
Lead NAAQS were revised to 0.15 [mu]g/m\3\. By statute, SIPs meeting
the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) are to be submitted by
states within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS.
Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require states to address basic SIP
requirements, including emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling
to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. States were required
to submit such SIPs to EPA no later than October 15, 2011, for the 2008
Lead NAAQS.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In these infrastructure SIP submissions States generally
certify evidence of compliance with sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of
the CAA through a combination of state regulations and statutes,
some of which have been incorporated into the federally-approved
SIP. In addition, certain federally-approved, non-SIP regulations
may also be appropriate for demonstrating compliance with sections
110(a)(1) and (2). Throughout this rulemaking, unless otherwise
indicated, state regulations referenced herein as ``Regulation(s)''
have been approved into South Carolina's federally-approved SIP.
South Carolina statutes, referenced as the ``S.C. Code Ann.'' are
not a part of the SIP unless otherwise indicated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today's action is proposing to approve South Carolina's
infrastructure submission for the applicable requirements of the 2008
Lead NAAQS, with the exception of the PSD permitting requirements for
major sources contained in sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i) and
(J). With respect to South Carolina's infrastructure SIP submission
related to the provisions pertaining to the PSD permitting requirements
for major sources of sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i) and (J),
EPA approved these elements on March 18, 2015 (80 FR 14019). This
action is not approving any specific rule, but rather proposing that
South Carolina's already approved SIP meets certain CAA requirements.

II. What elements are required under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?

    Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs to provide
for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a new or
revised NAAQS within three years following the promulgation of such
NAAQS, or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section
110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to
EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may
vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In particular, the
data and analytical tools available at the time the state develops and
submits the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affects the content of the
submission. The contents of such SIP submissions may also vary
depending upon what provisions the state's existing SIP already
contains. In the case of the 2008 Lead NAAQS, states typically have met
the basic program elements required in section 110(a)(2) through
earlier SIP submissions in connection with the 1978 Lead NAAQS.
    Section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements
for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must
meet for ``infrastructure'' SIP requirements related to a newly
established or revised NAAQS. As mentioned above, these requirements
include SIP infrastructure elements such as modeling, monitoring, and
emissions inventories that are designed to assure attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS. The requirements that are the subject of this
proposed rulemaking are listed below \2\ and in EPA's October 14, 2011,
memorandum entitled ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for
the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air

Quality Standards (NAAQS)'' (2011 Lead Infrastructure SIP Guidance).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not
governed by the three year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1)
because SIPs incorporating necessary local nonattainment area
controls are not due within three years after promulgation of a new
or revised NAAQS, but rather due at the time the nonattainment area
plan requirements are due pursuant to section 172. These
requirements are: (1) Submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(C)
to the extent that subsection refers to a permit program as required
in part D Title I of the CAA, and (2) submissions required by
section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertain to the nonattainment planning
requirements of part D, Title I of the CAA. Today's proposed
rulemaking does not address infrastructure elements related to
section 110(a)(2)(I) or the nonattainment planning requirements of
110(a)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.
     110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.
     110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement, Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) and new source review (NSR).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This rulemaking only addresses requirements for this element
as they relate to attainment areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(D): Interstate and international transport
provisions.
     110(a)(2)(E): Adequate personnel, funding, and authority.
     110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring and reporting.
     110(a)(2)(G): Emergency episodes.
     110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions.
     110(a)(2)(I): Nonattainment area plan or plan revision
under part D. \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As mentioned above, this element is not relevant to today's
proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials,
public notification, and PSD and visibility protection.
     110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/data.
     110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
     110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local
entities.

III. What is EPA's approach to the review of infrastructure SIP
submissions?

    EPA is acting upon the SIP submission from South Carolina that
addresses the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) for the Lead NAAQS. The requirement for states to make a SIP
submission of this type arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant
to section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP submissions ``within 3 years
(or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the
promulgation of a national primary ambient air quality standard (or any
revision thereof),'' and these SIP submissions are to provide for the
``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The
statute directly imposes on states the duty to make these SIP
submissions, and the requirement to make the submissions is not
conditioned upon EPA's taking any action other than promulgating a new
or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific
elements that ``[e]ach such plan'' submission must address.
    EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the
purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Although the term
``infrastructure SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to
distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions
that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such
as ``nonattainment SIP'' or ``attainment plan SIP'' submissions to
address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of
the CAA, ``regional haze SIP'' submissions required by EPA rule to
address the visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A, and
nonattainment new source review permit program submissions to address
the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.
    Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for
infrastructure SIP submissions, and section 110(a)(2) provides more
details concerning the required contents of these submissions. The list
of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide
variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required
legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program
provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both
authority and substantive program provisions.\5\ EPA therefore believes
that while the timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) is unambiguous,
some of the other statutory provisions are ambiguous. In particular,
EPA believes that the list of required elements for infrastructure SIP
submissions provided in section 110(a)(2) contains ambiguities
concerning what is required for inclusion in an infrastructure SIP
submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides that states
must provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority
under state and local law to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C)
provides that states must have a SIP-approved program to address
certain sources as required by part C of title I of the CAA; and
section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have legal authority
to address emergencies as well as contingency plans that are
triggered in the event of such emergencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following examples of ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA
to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) requirements
with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions for a given new or
revised NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is that section 110(a)(2)
requires that ``each'' SIP submission must meet the list of
requirements therein, while EPA has long noted that this literal
reading of the statute is internally inconsistent and would create a
conflict with the nonattainment provisions in part D of title I of the
Act, which specifically address nonattainment SIP requirements.\6\
Section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment SIP requirements and
part D addresses when attainment plan SIP submissions to address
nonattainment area requirements are due. For example, section 172(b)
requires EPA to establish a schedule for submission of such plans for
certain pollutants when the Administrator promulgates the designation
of an area as nonattainment, and section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to two
years, or in some cases three years, for such designations to be
promulgated.\7\ This ambiguity illustrates that rather than apply all
the stated requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a strict literal sense,
EPA must determine which provisions of section 110(a)(2) are applicable
for a particular infrastructure SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See, e.g., ``Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine
Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions
to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOx SIP Call; Final Rule,''
70 FR 25162, at 25163--65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining relationship
between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D) versus section
110(a)(2)(I)).
    \7\ EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 110(a)(2) is
heightened by the fact that various subparts of part D set specific
dates for submission of certain types of SIP submissions in
designated nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, e.g.,
that section 182(a)(1) provides specific dates for submission of
emissions inventories for the ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific
dates are necessarily later than three years after promulgation of
the new or revised NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another example of ambiguity within sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) with respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to whether
states must meet all of the infrastructure SIP requirements in a single
SIP submission, and whether EPA must act upon such SIP submission in a
single action. Although section 110(a)(1) directs states to submit ``a
plan'' to meet these requirements, EPA interprets the CAA to allow
states to make multiple SIP submissions separately addressing
infrastructure SIP elements for the same NAAQS. If states elect to make
such multiple SIP submissions to meet the infrastructure SIP
requirements, EPA can elect to act on such submissions either
individually or in a larger combined action.\8\ Similarly, EPA
interprets the CAA to

allow it to take action on the individual parts of one larger,
comprehensive infrastructure SIP submission for a given NAAQS without
concurrent action on the entire submission. For example, EPA has
sometimes elected to act at different times on various elements and
sub-elements of the same infrastructure SIP submission.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See, e.g., ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation
Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) State
Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,'' 78 FR
4339 (January 22, 2013) (EPA's final action approving the structural
PSD elements of the New Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately
to meet the requirements of EPA's 2008 PM2.5 NSR rule),
and ``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
New Mexico; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport Requirements for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,'' (78 FR 4337) (January 22, 2013)
(EPA's final action on the infrastructure SIP for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS).
    \9\ On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, through the
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, made a SIP
revision to EPA demonstrating that the State meets the requirements
of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). EPA proposed action for
infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on January 23, 2012 (77 FR
3213) and took final action on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On
April 16, 2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 42997), EPA
took separate proposed and final actions on all other section
110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP elements of Tennessee's December 14,
2007 submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) may also arise
with respect to infrastructure SIP submission requirements for
different NAAQS. Thus, EPA notes that not every element of section
110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same
way, for each new or revised NAAQS. The states' attendant
infrastructure SIP submissions for each NAAQS therefore could be
different. For example, the monitoring requirements that a state might
need to meet in its infrastructure SIP submission for purposes of
section 110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for different pollutants
because the content and scope of a state's infrastructure SIP
submission to meet this element might be very different for an entirely
new NAAQS than for a minor revision to an existing NAAQS.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS required the deployment of a system of new monitors to measure
ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also
necessary when EPA reviews other types of SIP submissions required
under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submissions, EPA
also has to identify and interpret the relevant elements of section
110(a)(2) that logically apply to these other types of SIP submissions
For example, section 172(c)(7) requires that attainment plan SIP
submissions required by part D have to meet the ``applicable
requirements'' of section 110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment plan
SIP submissions must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A)
regarding enforceable emission limits and control measures and section
110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency resources and authority. By
contrast, it is clear that attainment plan SIP submissions required by
part D would not need to meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that
pertains to the PSD program required in part C of title I of the CAA,
because PSD does not apply to a pollutant for which an area is
designated nonattainment and thus subject to part D planning
requirements. As this example illustrates, each type of SIP submission
may implicate some elements of section 110(a)(2) but not others.
    Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory language
of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is
appropriate to interpret the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1)
and section 110(a)(2) in the context of acting on a particular SIP
submission. In other words, EPA assumes that Congress could not have
intended that each and every SIP submission, regardless of the NAAQS in
question or the history of SIP development for the relevant pollutant,
would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in the same
way. Therefore, EPA has adopted an approach under which it reviews
infrastructure SIP submissions against the list of elements in section
110(a)(2), but only to the extent each element applies for that
particular NAAQS.
    Historically, EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make
recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases
conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some
cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and
applied to individual SIP submissions for particular elements.\11\ EPA
issued the 2011 Lead Infrastructure SIP Guidance \12\ to provide states
with up-to-date guidance for Lead infrastructure SIPs. Within this
guidance, EPA describes the duty of states to make infrastructure SIP
submissions to meet basic structural SIP requirements within three
years of promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. EPA also made
recommendations about many specific subsections of section 110(a)(2)
that are relevant in the context of infrastructure SIP submissions. The
guidance also discusses the substantively important issues that are
germane to certain subsections of section 110(a)(2). Significantly, EPA
interprets sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) such that infrastructure
SIP submissions need to address certain issues and need not address
others. Accordingly, EPA reviews each infrastructure SIP submission for
compliance with the applicable statutory provisions of section
110(a)(2), as appropriate.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA requires EPA to
provide guidance or to promulgate regulations for infrastructure SIP
submissions. The CAA directly applies to states and requires the
submission of infrastructure SIP submissions, regardless of whether
or not EPA provides guidance or regulations pertaining to such
submissions. EPA elects to issue such guidance in order to assist
states, as appropriate.
    \12\ ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan
(SIP) Elements Required under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS),'' Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, October 14,
2011.
    \13\ Although not intended to provide guidance for purposes of
infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2008 Lead NAAQS, EPA notes,
that following the 2011 Lead Infrastructure SIP Guidance, EPA issued
the ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2).''
Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013. This 2013
guidance provides recommendations for air agencies' development and
the EPA's review of infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 ozone primary
and secondary NAAQS, the 2010 primary nitrogen dioxide
(NO2) NAAQS, the 2010 primary sulfur dioxide
(SO2) NAAQS, and the 2012 primary fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) NAAQS, as well as infrastructure SIPs for new or
revised NAAQS promulgated in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's approach to review of infrastructure SIP submissions is to
identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that
submission. EPA believes that this approach to the review of a
particular infrastructure SIP submission is appropriate, because it
would not be reasonable to read the general requirements of section
110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 110(a)(2) as requiring review of
each and every provision of a state's existing SIP against all
requirements in the CAA and EPA regulations merely for purposes of
assuring that the state in question has the basic structural elements
for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have
grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and regulatory
requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include some outmoded
provisions and historical artifacts. These provisions, while not fully
up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the
purposes of ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of a new
or revised NAAQS when EPA evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure SIP
submission. EPA believes that a better approach is for states and EPA
to focus attention on those elements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA
most likely to warrant a specific SIP revision due to the promulgation
of a new or revised NAAQS or other factors.
    Finally, EPA believes that its approach with respect to
infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides other avenues
and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing
SIPs. These other statutory

tools allow EPA to take appropriately tailored action, depending upon
the nature and severity of the alleged SIP deficiency. Section
110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a ``SIP call'' whenever the Agency
determines that a state's SIP is substantially inadequate to attain or
maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate interstate transport, or to otherwise
comply with the CAA.\14\ Section 110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct
errors in past actions, such as past approvals of SIP submissions.\15\
Significantly, EPA's determination that an action on a state's
infrastructure SIP submission is not the appropriate time and place to
address all potential existing SIP deficiencies does not preclude EPA's
subsequent reliance on provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the
basis for action to correct those deficiencies at a later time. For
example, although it may not be appropriate to require a state to
eliminate all existing inappropriate director's discretion provisions
in the course of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, EPA
believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases
that EPA relies upon in the course of addressing such deficiency in a
subsequent action.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to address
specific existing SIP deficiencies related to the treatment of
excess emissions during SSM events. See ``Finding of Substantial
Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State
Implementation Plan Revisions,'' 74 FR 21639 (April 18, 2011).
    \15\ EPA has used this authority to correct errors in past
actions on SIP submissions related to PSD programs. See ``Limitation
of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions
Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation
Plans; Final Rule,'' 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has
previously used its authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) to remove
numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it had
approved in error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR
34641 (June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona,
California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062 (November 16,
2004) (corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3,
2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).
    \16\ See, e.g., EPA's disapproval of a SIP submission from
Colorado on the grounds that it would have included a director's
discretion provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including
section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 (July 21,
2010) (proposed disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76
FR 4540 (Jan. 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. What is EPA's analysis of how South Carolina addressed the elements
of Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) ``infrastructure'' provisions?

    The South Carolina infrastructure submission addresses the
provisions of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as described below.
    1. 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures:
Several provisions within South Carolina Regulations and the 1976 South
Carolina Code of Laws, as amended, (``S.C. Code Ann.'') are relevant to
air quality control measures. Section 48-1-50(23) of the 1976 South
Carolina Code of Laws, as amended, (``S.C. Code Ann.'') provides the SC
DHEC with the authority to ``[a]dopt emission and effluent control
regulations standards and limitations that are applicable to the entire
State, that are applicable only within specified areas or zones of the
State, or that are applicable only when a specified class of pollutant
is present. EPA has made the preliminary determination that the South
Carolina's SIP and practices are adequate to protect the 2008 Lead
NAAQS in the State.
    In this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any
existing State provisions with regard to excess emissions during
startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM) of operations at a facility.
EPA believes that a number of states have SSM provisions which are
contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance, ``State Implementation
Plans: Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup,
and Shutdown'' (September 20, 1999), and the Agency is addressing such
state regulations in a separate action.\17\ In the meantime, EPA
encourages any state having a deficient SSM provision to take steps to
correct it as soon as possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ On May 22, 2015, the EPA Administrator signed a final
action entitled, ``State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition
for Rulemaking; Restatement and Update of EPA's SSM Policy
Applicable to SIPs; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP
Calls to Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During
Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction.'' The prepublication
version of this rule is available at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/urbanair/sipstatus/emissions.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, in this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or
disapprove any existing State rules with regard to director's
discretion or variance provisions. EPA believes that a number of states
have such provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA
guidance (52 FR 45109 (November 24, 1987)), and the Agency plans to
take action in the future to address such state regulations. In the
meantime, EPA encourages any state having a director's discretion or
variance provision which is contrary to the CAA and EPA guidance to
take steps to correct the deficiency as soon as possible.
    2. 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system: SIPs
are required to provide for the establishment and operation of ambient
air quality monitors, the compilation and analysis of ambient air
quality data, and the submission of these data to EPA upon request.
South Carolina's Air Pollution Control Regulations, Regulation 61-62.5,
Standard No. 7, Prevention of Significant Deterioration, along with the
South Carolina Network Description and Ambient Air Network Monitoring
Plan, provide for an ambient air quality monitoring system in the
State. S.C. Code Ann. Sec.  48-1-50(14) provides the Department with
the necessary authority to ``[c]ollect and disseminate information on
air and water control.'' Annually, States develop and submit to EPA for
approval statewide ambient monitoring network plans consistent with the
requirements of 40 CFR parts 50, 53, and 58. The annual network plan
involves an evaluation of any proposed changes to the monitoring
network, includes the annual ambient monitoring network design plan and
a certified evaluation of the agency's ambient monitors and auxiliary
support equipment.\18\ On July 3, 2014, South Carolina submitted its
plan to EPA. On October 8, 2014, EPA approved South Carolina's
monitoring network plan. South Carolina's approved monitoring network
plan can be accessed at www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-
R04-OAR-2012-0852. EPA has made the preliminary determination that
South Carolina's SIP and practices are adequate for the ambient air
quality monitoring and data system related to the 2008 Lead NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ On occasion, proposed changes to the monitoring network are
evaluated outside of the network plan approval process in accordance
with 40 CFR part 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. 110(a)(2)(C) Program for enforcement, Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) and new source review (NSR): This element consists
of three sub-elements; enforcement, state-wide regulation of new and
modified minor sources and minor modifications of major sources; and
preconstruction permitting of major sources and major modifications in
areas designated attainment or unclassifiable for the subject NAAQS as
required by CAA title I part C (i.e., the major source PSD program). In
this action, EPA is proposing to approve South Carolina's
infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 Lead NAAQS with respect to
the general requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a program in
the SIP that provides for enforcement of emission limits and control
measures, the regulation of minor sources and modifications, and the
enforcement emission limits to assist in the protection of air quality
in nonattainment, attainment or unclassifiable areas. To meet these

obligations, South Carolina cites to Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No.
7, Prevention of Significant Deterioration, and Regulation 61-62.5,
Standard No. 7.1, Nonattainment New Source Review, and Regulation 61-
62.1, Section II, Permit Requirements, which pertain to the
construction of any new major stationary source or any project at an
existing major stationary source in an area designated as attainment or
unclassifiable.
    Enforcement: SC DHEC's above-described, SIP-approved regulations
provide for enforcement of lead limits and control measures and
construction permitting for new or modified stationary sources. Also
S.C. Code Ann. Sec.  48-1-50(11) provides the Department with the
authority to ``Administer penalties as otherwise provided herein for
violations of this chapter, including any order, permit, regulation or
standards.''
    Preconstruction PSD Permitting for Major Sources: With respect to
South Carolina's infrastructure SIP submission related to the
preconstruction PSD permitting requirements for major sources of
section 110(a)(2)(C), EPA approved this element on March 18, 2015 (80
FR 14019), and thus is not proposing any action today regarding these
requirements.
    Regulation of minor sources and modifications: Section 110(a)(2)(C)
also requires the SIP to include provisions that govern the minor
source pre-construction program that regulates emissions of lead.
Regulation 61-62.1, Section II, Permit Requirements governs the
preconstruction permitting of modifications and construction of minor
stationary sources.
    EPA has made the preliminary determination that South Carolina's
SIP and practices are adequate for program enforcement of control
measures and regulation of minor sources and modifications related to
the 2008 Lead NAAQS.
    4. 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and (ii) Interstate and International transport
provisions: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) has two components;
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 110(a)(2)(D)(II). Each of these components have
two subparts resulting in four distinct components, commonly referred
to as ``prongs,'' that must be addressed in infrastructure SIP
submissions. The first two prongs, which are codified in section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are provisions that prohibit any source or other
type of emissions activity in one state from contributing significantly
to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state (``prong 1''), and
interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (``prong
2''). The third and fourth prongs, which are codified in section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are provisions that prohibit emissions activity in
one state from interfering with measures required to prevent
significant deterioration of air quality in another state (``prong
3''), or to protect visibility in another state (``prong 4''). Section
110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include provisions insuring
compliance with sections 115 and 126 of the Act, relating to interstate
and international pollution abatement.
    110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--prongs 1 and 2: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
requires infrastructure SIP submissions to include provisions
prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state
from contributing significantly to nonattainment in, or interfering
with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state. The physical properties
of lead prevent lead emissions from experiencing that same travel or
formation phenomena as PM2.5 and ozone for interstate
transport as outlined in prongs 1 and 2. More specifically, there is a
sharp decrease in lead concentrations, at least in the coarse fraction,
as the distance from a lead source increases. EPA believes that the
requirements of prongs 1 and 2 can be satisfied through a state's
assessment as to whether a lead source located within its State in
close proximity to a state border has emissions that contribute
significantly to the nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
NAAQS in the neighboring state. For example, EPA's experience with the
initial Lead designations suggests that sources that emit less than 0.5
tons per year (tpy) generally appear unlikely to contribute
significantly to the nonattainment in another state. EPA's experience
also suggests that sources located more than two miles from the state
border generally appear unlikely to contribute significantly to the
nonattainment in another state. South Carolina has one lead source that
may potentially emit over 0.5 tpy that is currently being constructed,
Johnson Controls, but it will be located well beyond 2 miles from the
border of neighboring states. Thus, EPA believes there are no sources
in South Carolina that are likely to contribute significantly to the
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in another
state. Therefore, EPA has made the preliminary determination that South
Carolina's SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
    110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--prong 3: With respect South Carolina's
infrastructure SIP submission related to the preconstruction PSD
permitting requirements for major sources of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), EPA approved this prong on March 18, 2015 (80 FR
14019), and thus is not proposing any action today regarding these
requirements.
    110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--prong 4: With regard to section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), the visibility sub-element, referred to as prong
4, significant impacts from lead emissions from stationary sources are
expected to be limited to short distances from the source. The 2011
Lead Infrastructure SIP Guidance notes that it is anticipated that lead
emissions will contribute only negligibly to visibility impairment in
Class I areas. Lead stationary sources in South Carolina are located
distances from Class I areas such that visibility impacts are
negligible. As noted above, South Carolina has one lead source that may
potentially emit over 0.5 tpy that is currently being constructed,
Johnson Controls, but it will be located at such a distance from Class
I areas such that visibility impacts would be negligible. Therefore,
EPA has preliminarily determined that the South Carolina SIP meets the
relevant visibility requirements of prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).
    110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate and International transport
provisions: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include
provisions insuring compliance with sections 115 and 126 of the Act,
relating to interstate and international pollution abatement. With
regard to the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), South Carolina
does not have any pending obligation under sections 115 and 126 of the
CAA. Additionally, Regulation 61-62.5, Standards 7 and 7.1 (q)(2)(iv),
Public Participation, requires SC DHEC to notify air agencies ``whose
lands may be affected by emissions'' from each new or modified major
source if such emissions may significantly contribute to levels of
pollution in excess of a NAAQS in any air quality control region
outside of the South Carolina. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that South Carolina's SIP and practices are adequate for
insuring compliance with the applicable requirements relating to
interstate and international pollution abatement for the 2008 Lead
NAAQS.
    5. 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate personnel, funding, and authority:
Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires that each implementation plan provide (i)
necessary assurances that the State will have adequate personnel,
funding, and authority under state law to carry out its implementation
plan, (ii) that the State comply with the requirements respecting State
Boards pursuant to section 128 of the Act, and (iii)

necessary assurances that, where the State has relied on a local or
regional government, agency, or instrumentality for the implementation
of any plan provision, the State has responsibility for ensuring
adequate implementation of such plan provisions. EPA is proposing to
approve South Carolina's SIP as meeting the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(E). EPA's rationale for today's proposal respecting each
requirement of section 110(a)(2)(E) is described below.
    With respect to section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii), SC DHEC
develops, implements and enforces EPA-approved SIP provisions in the
State. S.C. Code Ann. Section 48, Title 1, as referenced in SC DHEC's
infrastructure SIP submission, provides the Department's general legal
authority to establish a SIP and implement related plans. Specifically,
S.C. Code Ann. Sec.  48-1-50(12) grants SC DHEC the statutory authority
to ``[a]ccept, receive and administer grants or other funds or gifts
for the purpose of carrying out any of the purposes of this chapter;
[and to] accept, receive and receipt for Federal money given by the
Federal government under any Federal law to the State of South Carolina
for air or water control activities, surveys or programs.'' S.C. Code
Ann. Section 48, Title 2 grants SC DHEC statutory authority to
establish environmental protection funds, which provide resources for
SC DHEC to carry out its obligations under the CAA. Additionally,
Regulation 61-30, Environmental Protection Fees, provides SC DHEC with
the ability to access fees for environmental permitting programs. SC
DHEC implements the SIP in accordance with the provisions of S.C. Code
Ann Sec.  1-23-40 (the Administrative Procedures Act) and S.C. Code
Ann. Section 48, Title 1.
    The requirements of 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii) are further confirmed
when EPA performs a completeness determination for each SIP submittal.
This provides additional assurances that each submittal provides
evidence that adequate personnel, funding, and legal authority under
State Law has been used to carry out the State's implementation plan
and related issues. This information is included in all prehearings and
final SIP submittal packages for approval by EPA.
    EPA also notes that annually, states update grant commitments based
on current SIP requirements, air quality planning, and applicable
requirements related to the NAAQS, including the lead NAAQS. On March
11, 2014, EPA submitted a letter to South Carolina outlining 105 grant
commitments and current status of these commitments for fiscal year
2013. The letter EPA submitted to South Carolina can be accessed at
www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0852. There
were no outstanding issues, therefore South Carolina's grants were
finalized and closed out. EPA has made the preliminary determination
that South Carolina has adequate resources for implementation of the
2008 Lead NAAQS.
    With respect to 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), South Carolina satisfies the
requirements of CAA section 128(a)(1) for the SC Board of Health and
Environmental Control, which is the ``board or body which approves
permits and enforcement orders'' under CAA programs in South Carolina,
through S.C. Code Ann. Section 8-13-730. S.C. Code Ann. Section 8-13-
730 provides that ``[u]nless otherwise provided by law, no person may
serve as a member of a governmental regulatory agency that regulates
business with which that person is associated,'' and S.C. Code Ann.
Section 8-13-700(A) which provides in part that ``[n]o public official,
public member, or public employee may knowingly use his official
office, membership, or employment to obtain an economic interest for
himself, a member of his immediate family, an individual with whom he
is associated, or a business with which he is associated.'' S.C. Code
Ann. Section 8-13-700(B)(1)-(5) provides for disclosure of any
conflicts of interest by public official, public member or public
employee, which meets the requirement of CAA Section 128(a)(2) that
``any potential conflicts of interest . . . be adequately disclosed.''
These state statutes--S.C. Code Ann. Sections 8-13-730, 8-13-700(A),
and 8-13-700(B)(1)-(5)--have been approved into the South Carolina SIP
as required by CAA section 128. Thus, EPA has made the preliminary
determination that South Carolina's SIP and practices are adequate for
insuring compliance with the applicable requirements relating to state
boards for the 2008 Lead NAAQS.
    6. 110(a)(2)(F) Stationary source monitoring system: South
Carolina's infrastructure SIP submission describes the establishment of
requirements for compliance testing by emissions sampling and analysis,
and for emissions and operation monitoring to ensure the quality of
data in the State. SC DHEC uses these data to track progress towards
maintaining the NAAQS, develop control and maintenance strategies,
identify sources and general emission levels, and determine compliance
with emission regulations and additional EPA requirements. These SIP
requirements are codified at Regulation 61-62.1, Definitions and
General Requirements, which provides for an emission inventory plan
that establishes reporting requirements of the South Carolina SIP.
South Carolina's SIP requires owners or operators of stationary sources
to monitor emissions, submit periodic reports of such emissions and
maintain records as specified by various regulations and permits, and
to evaluate reports and records for consistency with the applicable
emission limitation or standard on a continuing basis over time. The
monitoring data collected and records of operations serve as the basis
for a source to certify compliance, and can be used by SC DHEC as
direct evidence of an enforceable violation of the underlying emission
limitation or standard. Accordingly, EPA is unaware of any provision
preventing the use of credible evidence in the South Carolina SIP.
    Additionally, South Carolina is required to submit emissions data
to EPA for purposes of the National Emissions Inventory (NEI). The NEI
is EPA's central repository for air emissions data. EPA published the
Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) on December 5, 2008, which modified
the requirements for collecting and reporting air emissions data (73 FR
76539). The AERR shortened the time states had to report emissions data
from 17 to 12 months, giving states one calendar year to submit
emissions data. All states are required to submit a comprehensive
emissions inventory every three years and report emissions for certain
larger sources annually through EPA's online Emissions Inventory
System. States report emissions data for the six criteria pollutants
and their associated precursors--NOX, sulfur dioxide,
ammonia, lead, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and VOC. Many
states also voluntarily report emissions of hazardous air pollutants.
South Carolina made its latest update to the 2011 NEI on April 8, 2014.
EPA compiles the emissions data, supplementing it where necessary, and
releases it to the general public through the Web site http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiinformation.html. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that South Carolina's SIP and practices are adequate for
the stationary source monitoring systems related to the 2008 Lead
NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve South Carolina's
infrastructure SIP submission with respect to section 110(a)(2)(F).
    7. 110(a)(2)(G) Emergency episodes: This section requires that
states

demonstrate authority comparable with section 303 of the CAA and
adequate contingency plans to implement such authority. Regulation 61-
62.3, Air Pollution Episodes, provides for contingency measures when an
air pollution episode or exceedance may lead to a substantial threat to
the health of persons in the state or region. S.C. Code Ann. Section
48-1-290 provides SC DHEC, with concurrent notice to the Governor, the
authority to issue an order recognizing the existence of an emergency
requiring immediate action as deemed necessary by SC DHEC to protect
the public health or property. Any person subject to this order is
required to comply immediately. Additionally, S.C. Code Ann. Section 1-
23-130 provides the Department with the authority to establish
emergency regulations if it finds that an imminent peril to public
health, safety, or welfare requires immediate promulgation of an
emergency regulation or it finds that abnormal or unusual conditions,
immediate need, or the state's best interest requires immediate
promulgation of emergency regulations to protect or manage natural
resources. EPA has made the preliminary determination that South
Carolina's SIP, state laws and practices are adequate for emergency
powers related to the 2008 Lead NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to
approve South Carolina's infrastructure SIP submission with respect to
section 110(a)(2)(G).
    8. 110(a)(2)(H) Future SIP revisions: As previously discussed, SC
DHEC is responsible for adopting air quality rules and revising SIPs as
needed to attain or maintain the NAAQS. South Carolina has the ability
and authority to respond to calls for SIP revisions, and has provided a
number of SIP revisions over the years for implementation of the NAAQS.
Additionally, S.C. Code Ann. Section 48, Title 1, provides SC DHEC with
the necessary authority to revise the SIP to accommodate changes in the
NAAQS and thus revise the SIP as appropriate. EPA has made the
preliminary determination that South Carolina adequately demonstrates a
commitment to provide future SIP revisions related to the 2008 Lead
NAAQS when necessary. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve South
Carolina's infrastructure SIP submission with respect to section
110(a)(2)(H).
    9. 110(a)(2)(J) Consultation with government officials, public
notification, and PSD and visibility protection: EPA is proposing to
approve South Carolina's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008
Lead NAAQS with respect to the general requirement in section
110(a)(2)(J) to include a program in the SIP that provides for meeting
the applicable consultation requirements of section 121, the public
notification requirements of section 127; and the visibility protection
requirements of Part C of the Act. With respect to South Carolina's
infrastructure SIP submission related to the PSD permitting
requirements, EPA approved this sub-element of 110(a)(2)(J) on March
18, 2015 (80 FR 14019) and thus is not proposing any action today
regarding these requirements. EPA's rationale for its proposed action
regarding applicable consultation requirements of section 121 and the
public notification requirements of section 127, and visibility
protection requirements is described below.
    110(a)(2)(J) (121 consultation) Consultation with government
officials: Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 7, Prevention of
Significant Deterioration, as well as the State's Regional Haze
Implementation Plan, See 77 FR 38509, (which allows for consultation
between appropriate state, local, and tribal air pollution control
agencies as well as the corresponding Federal Land Managers), provide
for consultation with government officials whose jurisdictions might be
affected by SIP development activities. South Carolina adopted state-
wide consultation procedures for the implementation of transportation
conformity, which require SC DHEC to consult with federal, state and
local transportation and air quality agency officials on the
development of motor vehicle emissions budgets. EPA has made the
preliminary determination that South Carolina's SIP and practices
adequately demonstrate consultation with government officials related
to the 2008 Lead NAAQS when necessary. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to
approve South Carolina's infrastructure SIP submission with respect to
section 110(a)(2)(J) consultation with government officials.
    110(a)(2)(J) (127 public notification) Public notification: These
requirements are met through 61-62.3, Air Pollution Episodes, which
requires that SC DHEC notify the public of any air pollution episode or
NAAQS violation. Regulation 61-62.5, Standard 7.1 (q), Public
Participation, notifies the public by advertisement in a newspaper of
general circulation in each region in which a proposed plant or
modifications will be constructed of the degree of increment
consumption that is expected from the plant or modification, and the
opportunity for comment at a public hearing as well as written public
comment. An opportunity for a public hearing for interested persons to
appear and submit written or oral comments on the air quality impact of
the plant or modification, alternatives to the plant or modification,
the control technology required, and other appropriate considerations
is also offered. EPA has made the preliminary determination that South
Carolina's SIP and practices adequately demonstrate the State's ability
to provide public notification related to the 2008 Lead NAAQS when
necessary. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve South Carolina's
infrastructure SIP submission with respect to section 110(a)(2)(J)
public notification.
    110(a)(2)(J)--Visibility protection: The 2011 Lead Infrastructure
SIP Guidance notes that EPA does not generally treat the visibility
protection aspects of section 110(a)(2)(J) as applicable for purposes
of the infrastructure SIP approval process. EPA recognizes that states
are subject to visibility protection and regional haze program
requirements under Part C of the Act (which includes sections 169A and
169B). However, in the event of the establishment of a new primary
NAAQS, the visibility protection and regional haze program requirements
under part C do not change. Thus, EPA concludes there are no new
applicable visibility protection obligations under section 110(a)(2)(J)
as a result of the 2008 Lead NAAQS, and as such, has made the
preliminary determination that South Carolina's SIP is adequate as it
relates to the visibility protection sub-element of section
110(a)(2)(J).
    10. 110(a)(2)(K) Air quality and modeling/data: Section
110(a)(2)(K) of the CAA requires that SIPs provide for performing air
quality modeling so that effects on air quality of emissions from NAAQS
pollutants can be predicted and submission of such data to the USEPA
can be made. Regulations 61-62.5, Standards No. 2, Ambient Air Quality
Standards, and Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 7, Prevention of
Significant Deterioration, of the South Carolina SIP specify that
required air modeling be conducted in accordance with 40 CFR part 51,
Appendix W ``Guideline on Air Quality Models.'' These standards
demonstrate that South Carolina has the authority to provide relevant
data for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air quality of
emissions of lead. Additionally, South Carolina supports a regional
effort to coordinate the development of emissions inventories and
conduct regional modeling for several NAAQS, including the 2008 Lead
NAAQS, for the southeastern states. Taken as a whole, South Carolina's
air quality regulations and

practices demonstrate that SC DHEC has the authority to provide
relevant data for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air
quality of any emissions of any pollutant for which a NAAQS had been
promulgated, and to provide such information to the EPA Administrator
upon request. EPA has made the preliminary determination that South
Carolina's SIP and practices adequately demonstrate the State's ability
to provide for air quality and modeling, along with analysis of the
associated data, related to the 2008 Lead NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is
proposing to approve South Carolina's infrastructure SIP submission
with respect to section 110(a)(2)(K).
    11. 110(a)(2)(L)--Permitting fees: This section requires the SIP to
direct the owner or operator of each major stationary source to pay to
the permitting authority, as a condition of any permit required under
the CAA, a fee sufficient to cover (i) the reasonable costs of
reviewing and acting upon any application for such a permit, and (ii)
if the owner or operator receives a permit for such source, the
reasonable costs of implementing and enforcing the terms and conditions
of any such permit (not including any court costs or other costs
associated with any enforcement action), until such fee requirement is
superseded with respect to such sources by the Administrator's approval
of a fee program under title V.
    Section 48-2-50 of the South Carolina Code prescribes that SC DHEC
charge fees for environmental programs it administers pursuant to
federal and state law and regulations including those that govern the
costs to review, implement and enforce PSD and NNSR permits. Regulation
61-30, Environmental Protection Fees \19\ prescribes fees applicable to
applicants and holders of permits, licenses, certificates,
certifications, and registrations, establishes procedures for the
payment of fees, provides for the assessment of penalties for
nonpayment, and establishes an appeals process for refuting fees. This
regulation may be amended as needed to meet the funding requirements of
the state's permitting program. Additionally, South Carolina has a
federally-approved title V program, Regulation 61-62.70, Title V
Operating Permit Program,\20\ which implements and enforces the
requirements of PSD and nonattainment NSR for facilities once they
begin operating. EPA has made the preliminary determination that South
Carolina's SIP and practices adequately provide for permitting fees
related to the 2008 Lead NAAQS when necessary. Accordingly, EPA is
proposing to approve South Carolina's infrastructure SIP submission
with respect to section 110(a)(2)(L).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ This regulation has not been incorporated into the
federally-approved SIP.
    \20\ Title V program regulations are federally-approved but not
incorporated into the federally-approved SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. 110(a)(2)(M) Consultation/participation by affected local
entities: This element requires states to provide for consultation and
participation in SIP development by local political subdivisions
affected by the SIP. Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 7, Prevention of
Significant Deterioration, of the South Carolina SIP requires that SC
DHEC notify the public of an application, preliminary determination,
the activity or activities involved in the permit action, any emissions
change associated with any permit modification, and the opportunity for
comment prior to making a final permitting decision. SC DHEC has
recently worked closely with local political subdivisions during the
development of its Transportation Conformity SIP, Regional Haze
Implementation Plan, and Early Action Compacts. EPA has made the
preliminary determination that South Carolina's SIP and practices
adequately demonstrate consultation with affected local entities
related to the 2008 Lead NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to
approve South Carolina's infrastructure SIP submission with respect to
section 110(a)(2)(M).

V. Proposed Action

    With the exception of the PSD permitting requirements for major
sources contained in section 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of (D)(i), and (J),
EPA is proposing to approve that SC DHEC's infrastructure SIP
submission, submitted September 20, 2011, for the 2008 Lead. EPA is
proposing to approve these portions of South Carolina's infrastructure
submission for the 2008 Lead NAAQS because this submission is
consistent with section 110 of the CAA.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. See 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 CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed 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 proposed 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 CAA; 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, this proposed action for the state of South Carolina
does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). The Catawba Indian Nation Reservation
is located within the State of South Carolina. Pursuant to the Catawba
Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C. Code Ann. 27-16-120, ``all state and
local environmental laws and regulations apply to the [Catawba Indian
Nation] and Reservation and are fully enforceable by all relevant state
and local agencies and authorities.'' However, EPA has determined that
because this proposed rule does not have substantial direct effects on
an Indian Tribe because, as noted above, this action is not approving
any specific rule, but rather proposing that South Carolina's already
approved SIP meets certain CAA requirements. EPA notes today's action
will not impose

substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

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.

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

    Dated: May 28, 2015.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2015-13947 Filed 6-5-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 175 (Friday, September 9, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62551-62552]
[FR Doc No: 2016-21715]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0324]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and
Seizure Disorders

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of denials.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to deny applications from 18
individuals who requested an exemption from the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) prohibiting persons with a clinical
diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition that is likely to cause a
loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to operate a commercial
motor vehicle (CMV) from operating CMVs in interstate commerce.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have questions
regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket
Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at: http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and/or Room W12-140 on the
ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in
the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed
at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    FMCSA received applications from 18 individuals who requested an
exemption from the FMCSRs prohibiting persons with a clinical diagnosis
of epilepsy or any other condition that is likely to cause a loss of
consciousness or any loss of ability to operate a CMV from operating
CMVs in interstate commerce.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and
concluded that granting these exemptions would not provide a level of
safety that would be equivalent to or greater than, the level of safety
that would be obtained by complying with the regulation 49 CFR
391.41(b)(8).

III. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for two years if it finds ``such an exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that
would be achieved absent such an exemption.''
    The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is
based on the eligibility criteria, the terms and conditions for Federal
exemptions, and an individualized assessment of each applicant's
medical information provided by the applicant.

IV. Conclusion

    The Agency has determined that these applicants do not satisfy the
criteria eligibility or meet the terms and conditions for a Federal
exemption and granting these exemptions would not provide a level of
safety that would be equivalent to or greater than, the level of safety
that would be obtained by complying with the regulation 49 CFR
391.41(b)(8). Therefore, the 18 applicants in this notice have been
denied exemptions from the physical qualification standards in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(8).
    Each applicant has, prior to this notice, received a letter of
final disposition regarding his/her exemption request. Those decision
letters fully outlined the basis for the denial and constitutes final
action by the Agency. This notice summarizes the Agency's recent
denials as required under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(4) by periodically
publishing names and reasons for denial.
    The following 17 applicants do not meet the minimum time
requirement for being seizure-free, either on or off of anti-seizure
medication:

Timothy Arthur (TX)
Thomas Fish (NY)
Richard Fryman (MN)
David Harrell (MD)
Patrick Hahn (WI)
Allan Jones (NY)
Angela Kalik (CA)
Douglas Kelbley (OH)
Richard Koewacich (OH)
Brent Krock (PA)
Donald Kuritz (MO)
Ryan Lewis (CA)
Donna Nardi (NJ)
Harold Seaton (KY)
Eric Smits (WI)
Scott Tucker (KY)
Jammian Weaver (MO)

    The following applicant is a citizen of Canada:

Michael Murchison

    Issued on: August 26, 2016.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-21715 Filed 9-8-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: September 22, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 182)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 48143-48151]
[DOCID:fr22se09-4]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0292; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-011-AD;
Amendment 39-16011; AD 2009-18-15]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300, A310, and A300-600
Series Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding an existing airworthiness directive
(AD), which applies to certain Airbus Model A300 and A310 series
airplanes. That AD currently requires replacement of the nose landing
gear drag strut upper attachment pin. This new AD requires revising the
Airworthiness Limitations section (ALS) of the Instructions for
Continued Airworthiness (ICA) to require additional life limits and/or
replacements for certain main landing gear and nose landing gear
components, and also expands the applicability. This AD results from
revisions to the ALS of the ICA to include new or more restrictive life
limits and/or replacements. We are issuing this AD to ensure the
continued structural integrity of these airplanes.

DATES: This AD becomes effective October 27, 2009.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of October 27,
2009.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS--EAW (Airworthiness Office), 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61
93 44 51; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://
www.airbus.com.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the Document Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30,
West

Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Stafford, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1622; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to include an AD that supersedes AD 87-16-06, amendment 39-
5692 (52 FR 28241, July 29, 1987). The existing AD applies to certain
Airbus Model A300 and A310 series airplanes. That NPRM was published in
the Federal Register on April 1, 2009 (74 FR 14751). That NPRM proposed
to continue to require replacement of the nose landing gear drag strut
upper attachment pin. That NPRM also proposed to require revising the
Airworthiness Limitations section (ALS) of the Instructions for
Continued Airworthiness (ICA) to require additional life limits and/or
replacements for certain main landing gear and nose landing gear
components, and would also expand the applicability.

Comments

    We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the
development of this AD. We have considered the comments that have been
received on the NPRM.

Request To Add Grace Period

    TradeWinds Airlines requests that we add a ``grace period'' to the
life limit placed on the nose landing gear (NLG) shock absorber bottom,
part number (P/N) C62037-1, listed in Table 1 of the NPRM, as
referenced in paragraph (h)(1)(i) of the NPRM. TradeWinds explains that
this component was not listed in Chapter 5 of the Airbus A300 Airplane
Maintenance Manual (AMM) and had no corresponding FAA AD issued against
it. Therefore, for U.S. operators, there was never a requirement to
track the life limit. TradeWinds suggests a grace period of the next
NLG overhaul or restoration be added so this internal component can be
replaced without unscheduled removal from the airplane.
    We do not agree that it is necessary to add a grace period based on
the operator's next overhaul or restoration. Maintenance schedules vary
among operators; there is no assurance that the overhaul or restoration
would occur within the maximum interval of time allowable for the
affected airplanes to operate safely. However, under the provisions of
paragraph (l) of this AD, we will consider requests for adjustments to
the compliance time if data are submitted to substantiate that such an
adjustment would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not
changed the AD in this regard.

Request To Clarify Purpose of Service Information Letter (SIL)

    TradeWinds Airlines requests that we clarify the purpose of Airbus
Service Information Letter (SIL) 32-118, Revision 02, dated October 24,
2007, as referenced in paragraph (j) of the NPRM. TradeWinds requests a
note or some clarification to describe the use or application of the
SIL as it pertains to the AD.
    We agree with the request to clarify the purpose of the SIL. We
have added Note 2 to the AD to include the following information from
page 1 of the SIL:

    Note 2:
    Airbus Service Information Letter 32-118, Revision 02, dated
October 24, 2007, provides operators with guidance on the means to
assign a conservative calculated life to parts whose history of
accumulated landings is partial or unknown; and to select the
limitations applicable to parts whose history of application details
(aircraft type, aircraft model, weight variant, etc.) is partial or
unknown.

Conclusion

    We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the
comments that have been received, and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD with the change described
previously. We have determined that this change will neither increase
the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators
to comply with this AD.

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
                                          Work     Average                   Cost per      U.S.-
                Action                   hours    labor rate     Parts       airplane    registered   Fleet cost
                                                   per hour                              airplanes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement (required by AD 87-16-06).        7          $80       $3,300       $3,860           94     $362,840
Revision (new action).................        1           80            0           80          238       19,040
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES
section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec.  39.13 by
removing amendment 39-5692 (52 FR 28241, July 29, 1987) and by adding
the following new airworthiness directive (AD):

2009-18-15 Airbus: Amendment 39-16011. Docket No. FAA-2009-0292;
Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-011-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD becomes effective October 27, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 87-16-06.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all Airbus Model A300, A310, and A300-600
series airplanes, certificated in any category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32: Landing
Gear.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD results from revisions to the Airworthiness
Limitations section (ALS) of the Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness (ICA) to include new or more restrictive life limits
and/or replacements. We are issuing this AD to ensure the continued
structural integrity of these airplanes.

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.

    Note 1: This AD requires revisions to certain operator
maintenance documents to include new replacements. Compliance with
these inspections is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes
that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the
areas addressed by these replacements, the operator may not be able
to accomplish the replacements described in the revisions. In this
situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must
request approval for an alternative method of compliance according
to paragraph (l) of this AD. The request should include a
description of changes to the required replacements that will ensure
the continued operational safety of the airplane.

Restatement of the Requirements of AD 87-16-06

    (g) For Model A300 and A310 series airplanes: Prior to the
accumulation of 16,000 landings, or within the next 2,000 landings
after September 3, 1987 (the effective date of AD 87-16-06),
whichever occurs later, replace the nose landing gear drag strut
upper attachment pin in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin
A300-32-374, Revision 1, dated July 15, 1986 (applicable to Model
A300 airplanes); or A310-32-2023, Revision 2, dated November 14,
1986 (applicable to Model A310 airplanes).

New Requirements of This AD

ALS Revision

    (h) For Model A300, A310, and A300-600 series airplanes: Within
3 months after the effective date of this AD, revise the ALS of the
ICA to incorporate the applicable document listed in paragraph
(h)(1), (h)(2), or (h)(3) of this AD. Accomplishing the actions
specified in the applicable document satisfies the requirements of
paragraph A. of AD 84-02-04, amendment 39-4795.
    (1) For Model A300 series airplanes: Incorporate the applicable
document listed in paragraph (h)(1)(i) or (h)(1)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) Section 05-10-00, Revision 28, dated February 27, 1998, of
Chapter 05, ``Service Life Limits and Maintenance Checks,'' of the
Airbus A300 Aircraft Maintenance Manual, except that the parts
listed in Table 1 of this AD are subject to the life limits defined
in the document listed in paragraph (h)(1)(ii) of this AD.
    (ii) ``Sub-part 1-2: Life Limits,'' and ``Sub-part 1-3:
Demonstrated Fatigue Lives'' of Part 1, ``Safe Life Airworthiness
Limitation Items,'' dated September 6, 2007, of the Airbus A300 ALS.

 Table 1--Parts Subject to the Life Limits Specified in the Document Identified in Paragraph (h)(1)(ii) of This
                                                       AD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Part No. (P/N)                                              Part name
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P/N C61643-2, P/N C61643-4, P/N       Main landing gear (MLG) shock absorber end fitting.
 C61643-5.
P/N A32210001205xx..................  Nose landing gear (NLG) pintle pin.
P/N C62037-1........................  NLG shock absorber bottom.
P/N 196-0328-501....................  Cross beam (Pratt & Whitney forward engine mount).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (2) For Model A310 series airplanes: Incorporate ``Sub-part 1-
2: Life Limits,'' and ``Sub-part 1-3: Demonstrated Fatigue Lives''
of Part 1, ``Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items,'' dated
December 21, 2006, of the Airbus A310 ALS.
    (3) For Model A300-600 series airplanes: Incorporate ``Sub-part
1-2: Life Limits,'' and ``Sub-part 1-3: Demonstrated Fatigue Lives''
of Part 1, ``Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items,'' dated
December 21, 2006, of the Airbus A300-600 ALS.

Initial Compliance Times and Repetitive Inspections

    (i) Do the replacement at the applicable time specified in
paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD, except as provided by
paragraph (j) of this AD. The replacement must be done thereafter
within the interval specified in the applicable document identified
in paragraph (h)(1), (h)(2), or (h)(3) of this AD.
    (1) For any life limitation/task that has been complied with
before the effective date of this AD in accordance with the
applicable document listed in paragraph (h)(1), (h)(2), or (h)(3) of
this AD, or in accordance with paragraph (g) of this AD, use the
last accomplishment of each limitation/task as a starting point for
accomplishing each corresponding limitation/task required by this
AD.
    (2) For any life limitation/task that has not been complied with
before the effective date of this AD in accordance with the
applicable document listed in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3)
of this AD, or in accordance with paragraph (g) of this AD, the
initial compliance time starts from the date of initial entry into
service as defined in the applicable document.

Special Compliance Times

    (j) For any airplane on which the history of accumulated
landings is partial or unknown, or where the history of application
details (airplane type, model, weight variant, etc.) is partial or
unknown, with or without using the information in Airbus Service
Information Letter 32-118, Revision 02, dated October 24, 2007:
Parts listed in Figure 1 of this AD must be replaced at the
associated compliance time. The replacement must be done thereafter
at the interval specified in the applicable document(s) specified in
paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD.

    Note 2: Airbus Service Information Letter 32-118, Revision 02,
dated October 24, 2007, provides operators with guidance on the
means to assign a conservative calculated life to parts whose
history of accumulated landings is partial or unknown; and to select
the limitations applicable to parts whose history of application
details (aircraft type, aircraft model, weight variant, etc.) is
partial or unknown.

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22SE09.000

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22SE09.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22SE09.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22SE09.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22SE09.004

BILLING CODE 4910-13-C

Alternative Intervals or Limits

    (k) Except as provided by paragraph (l) of this AD, after
accomplishing the actions specified in paragraphs (h), (i), and (j)
of this AD, no alternative replacements, replacement intervals, or
limitations may be used.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (l)(1) The Manager, ANM-116, International Branch, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for
this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
Send information to ATTN: Tom Stafford, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 227-1622; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your 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.

Related Information

    (m) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Airworthiness
Directive 2007-0293, dated November 29, 2007, also addresses the
subject of this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (n) You must use the service information contained in Table 2 of
this AD to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD
specifies otherwise.

               Table 2--Material Incorporated by Reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Document               Revision               Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 05-10-00 of Chapter    28...........  February 27, 1998.
 05, ``Service Life Limits
 and Maintenance Checks,'' of
 the Airbus A300 Aircraft
 Maintenance Manual.
Airbus A300 Airworthiness      Original.....  September 6, 2007.
 Limitations Section, ALS
 Part 1, ``Safe Life
 Airworthiness Limitations
 Items''.
Airbus A300-600 Airworthiness  Original.....  December 21, 2006.
 Limitations Section, ALS
 Part 1, ``Safe Life
 Airworthiness Limitations
 Items''.
Airbus A310 Airworthiness      Original.....  December 21, 2006.
 Limitations Section, ALS
 Part 1, ``Safe Life
 Airworthiness Limitation
 Items''.
Airbus Service Bulletin A300-  1............  July 15, 1986.
 32-374.
Airbus Service Bulletin A310-  2............  November 14, 1986.
 32-2023.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Airbus Service Bulletin A300-32-374, Revision 1, dated July 15,
1986, has the following effective pages:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Revision
           Page No.              level shown       Date shown on page
                                   on page
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1, 3-8, 11....................  1............  July 15, 1986.
2.............................  Original.....  April 16, 1986.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (Airbus Service Bulletin A300-32-374, Revision 1, dated July 15,
1986 does not contain pages 9 and 10.)
    Airbus Service Bulletin A310-32-2023, Revision 2, dated November
14, 1986, has the following effective pages:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Revision
           Page No.              level shown       Date shown on page
                                   on page
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1, 5-9........................  2............  November 14, 1986
2, 4..........................  1............  July 15, 1986
3.............................  Original.....  April 16, 1986
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Chapter 05 of Airbus A300 Aircraft Maintenance Manual has the
following effective pages:

                                             List of Effective Pages
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Page title/description             Page No.(s)            Revision No.           Date shown on page(s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMM Title Page....................  None shown...........  None shown *.........  February 27, 1998.
Chapter 05 Record of Revisions....  1-2..................  28...................  February 27, 1998.
Chapter 05 Effective Pages........  1-4..................  None shown *.........  February 27, 1998.
Chapter 05 Table of Contents......  1-4..................  None shown *.........  February 27, 1998.
Section 05-10-00..................  1....................  None shown *.........  February 27, 1998.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The revision number is indicated only in the Record of Revisions section of Chapter 05.

    (The List of Effective Pages (LOEP) for Chapter 05 of the Airbus
A300 Aircraft Maintenance Manual contains the following errors:
Transmittal Letter page, page 4 of the LOEP and Table of Contents
sections, page 2 of Subsection 05-00-01, page 1 of Subsection 05-11-
11, and Subsection 05-10-00, are not listed in the LOEP; and the
LOEP also does not specify a date for the Record of Revisions page.
In addition, the LOEP identifies three pages for Subsection 05-11-
00, Configuration 5; however, only one page exists. The LOEP
identifies three pages for Subsection 05-11-00, Configuration 9;
however, those pages do not exist.)
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS--EAW (Airworthiness Office), 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.airbus.com.
    (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> or<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 August 24, 2009.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E9-21033 Filed 9-21-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 4, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 68319]
[FR Doc No: C1-2016-22508]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0189; FRL-9952-03-Region 6]

Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of
Arkansas; Regional Haze and Interstate Visibility Transport Federal
Implementation Plan

Correction

    In rule document 2016-22508 beginning on page 66331 in the issue of
Tuesday, September 27, 2016, make the following correction:
    1. On page 66332, in the first column, after the DATES heading, the
second line, ``October 27, 2017'' should read ``October 27, 2016.''

[FR Doc. C1-2016-22508 Filed 10-3-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 1301-00-D