[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 159 (Thursday, August 16, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49404-49408]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20140]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0453, FRL-9616-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Vermont: Prevention of Significant Deterioration; Greenhouse Gas
Permitting Authority and Tailoring Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Vermont State
Implementation Plan (SIP) relating to regulation of Greenhouse Gases
(GHGs) under Vermont's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
program. This revision was submitted by Vermont, through the Vermont
Department of Environmental Conservation (VT DEC), Air Pollution
Control Division on February 14, 2011. It is intended to align
Vermont's regulations with EPA's ``Prevention of Significant
Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule.'' EPA is
proposing to approve the revision because the Agency has made the
preliminary determination that the SIP revision, already adopted by
Vermont as a final effective rule, is in accordance with the Clean Air
Act (CAA or Act) and EPA regulations regarding PSD permitting for GHGs.
The SIP submittal also contains proposed amendments to several other
sections of Vermont's SIP not directly related to GHG permitting which
EPA is not acting on at this time.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 17, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2011-0453, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email: dahl.donald@epa.govmailto:.
    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``Docket Identification Number EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0453'',
Donald Dahl, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, 5 Post Office Square--
Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to: Donald Dahl,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,
Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Permits,

Toxics, and Indoor Programs Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100,
(mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912. 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 legal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. ``EPA-R01-OAR-
2011-0453.'' 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 Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem
Protection, Air Permits, Toxics, and Indoor Programs Unit, 5 Post
Office Square--Suite 100, Boston, Massachusetts. 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 to
4:30, excluding federal holidays.
    In addition, copies of the state submittal and EPA's technical
support document are also available for public inspection during normal
business hours, by appointment at the State Air Agency; Air Pollution
Control Division, Agency of Natural Resources, 186 Mad River Park,
Waitsfield, VT.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding the Vermont
SIP, contact Donald Dahl, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New
England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Permits,
Toxics, and Indoor Programs Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100,
(mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912. Mr. Dahl's telephone number
is<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What action is EPA proposing in this document?
II. What is the background for the action proposed by EPA in this
document?
    A. GHG-related Actions
    B. Vermont's Actions
III. What is EPA's analysis of Vermont's SIP revision?
    A. Greenhouse Gases
    B. Other Revisions Adopted by Vermont
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA proposing in this document?

    On February 14, 2011, the State of Vermont submitted a formal
revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP). The revisions
establish thresholds for GHG emissions in Vermont's PSD regulations at
the same emissions thresholds and in the same time-frames as those
specified by EPA in the ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration and
Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule; Final Rule'' (75 FR 31514),
hereafter referred to as the ``Tailoring Rule,'' ensuring that smaller
GHG sources emitting less than these thresholds will not be subject to
permitting requirements for GHGs that they emit. The revisions to the
SIP clarify the applicable thresholds in the Vermont SIP, and address
the flaw discussed in the ``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) (the ``PSD SIP Narrowing Rule''). In today's
action, pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, EPA is proposing to approve
these revisions into the Vermont SIP.
    EPA is not proposing to take action on various other revisions to
Vermont's state implementation plan contained in the February 14, 2011
submittal. Those are changes to Vermont Air Pollution Control
Regulations, Chapter 5, Sections 5-101 (changes to the definitions of
Emergency use engine, Federal Land Manager, and Public Notice), 5-251,
5-252, 5-401 (except for 5-401(16)), 5-402, 5-404, 5-406, 5-501, and 5-
502.

II. What is the background for the action by EPA in this document?

    This section briefly summarizes EPA's recent GHG-related actions
that provide the background for today's proposed action. More detailed
discussion of the background is found in the preambles for those
actions. In particular, the background is contained in what we call the
GHG PSD SIP Narrowing Rule,\1\ and in the preambles to the actions
cited therein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources
in State Implementation Plans; Final Rule.'' 75 FR 82536 (Dec. 30,
2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. GHG-Related Actions

    EPA has recently undertaken a series of actions pertaining to the
regulation of GHGs that, although for the most part distinct from one
another, establish the overall framework for today's proposed action on
the Vermont SIP. Four of these actions include, as they are commonly
called, the ``Endangerment Finding'' and ``Cause or Contribute
Finding,'' which EPA issued in a single final action,\2\ the ``Johnson
Memo Reconsideration,'' \3\ the ``Light-Duty Vehicle Rule,'' \4\ and
the ``Tailoring Rule.'' Taken together and in conjunction with the CAA,
these actions established regulatory requirements for GHGs emitted from
new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines; determined that such
regulations, when

they took effect on January 2, 2011, subjected GHGs emitted from
stationary sources to PSD requirements; and limited the applicability
of PSD requirements to GHG sources on a phased-in basis. EPA took this
last action in the Tailoring Rule, which, more specifically,
established appropriate GHG emission thresholds for determining the
applicability of PSD requirements to GHG-emitting sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for
Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.'' 74 FR
66496 (Dec. 15, 2009).
    \3\ ``Interpretation of Regulations that Determine Pollutants
Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting Programs.'' 75 FR 17004 (Apr. 2,
2010).
    \4\ ``Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule.'' 75 FR 25324
(May 7, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PSD is implemented through the SIP system. In December 2010, EPA
promulgated several rules to implement the new GHG PSD SIP program.
Recognizing that some states had approved SIP PSD programs that did not
apply PSD to GHGs, EPA issued a SIP call and, for some of these states,
a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP).\5\ Recognizing that other states
had approved SIP PSD programs that do apply PSD to GHGs, but that do so
for sources that emit as little as 100 or 250 tpy of GHG, and that do
not limit PSD applicability to GHGs to the higher thresholds in the
Tailoring Rule, EPA issued the GHG PSD SIP Narrowing Rule. Under that
rule, EPA withdrew its approval of the affected SIPs to the extent
those SIPs covered GHG-emitting sources below the Tailoring Rule
thresholds. EPA based its action primarily on the ``error correction''
provisions of CAA section 110(k)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Specifically, by notice dated December 13, 2010, EPA
finalized a ``SIP Call'' that would require those states with SIPs
that have approved PSD programs but do not authorize PSD permitting
for GHGs to submit a SIP revision providing such authority. ``Action
To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits Under the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions: Finding of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP Call,'' 75 FR
77698 (Dec. 13, 2010). EPA has made findings of failure to submit
that would apply in any state unable to submit the required SIP
revision by its deadline, and finalized FIPs for such states. See,
e.g., ``Action To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits Under the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Finding of Failure To Submit State
Implementation Plan Revisions Required for Greenhouse Gases,'' 75 FR
81874 (Dec. 29, 2010); ``Action To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits
Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources
of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Federal Implementation Plan,'' 75 FR
82246 (Dec. 30, 2010). Because Vermont's SIP already authorizes
Vermont to regulate GHGs once GHGs became subject to PSD
requirements on January 2, 2011, Vermont was not subject to the
proposed SIP Call or FIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Vermont's Actions

    On July 22, 2010, Vermont provided a letter to EPA, in accordance
with a request to all States from EPA in the Tailoring Rule, with
confirmation that the State has the authority to regulate GHG in its
PSD program. The letter also confirmed that current Vermont rules
require regulating GHGs at the existing 50 tpy threshold, rather than
at the higher thresholds set in the Tailoring Rule. See the docket for
this proposed rulemaking for a copy of Vermont's letter.
    In the SIP Narrowing Rule, published on December 30, 2010, EPA
withdrew its approval of Vermont's SIP (among other SIPs) to the extent
the SIP applies PSD permitting requirements to GHG emissions from
sources emitting at levels below those set in the Tailoring Rule.\6\ As
a result, Vermont's current approved SIP provides the state with
authority to regulate GHGs, but only at and above the Tailoring Rule
thresholds; and requires new and modified sources to receive a federal
PSD permit based on GHG emissions only if they emit at or above the
Tailoring Rule thresholds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ``Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources
in State Implementation Plans; Final Rule.'' 75 FR 82536 (Dec. 30,
2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The basis for this SIP revision is that limiting PSD applicability
to GHG sources to the higher thresholds in the Tailoring Rule is
consistent with the SIP provisions that provide required assurances of
adequate resources, and thereby addresses the flaw in the SIP that led
to the SIP Narrowing Rule. Specifically, CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)
includes as a requirement for SIP approval that States provide
``necessary assurances that the State * * * will have adequate
personnel [and] funding * * * to carry out such [SIP].'' In the
Tailoring Rule, EPA established higher thresholds for PSD applicability
to GHG-emitting sources on grounds that the states generally did not
have adequate resources to apply PSD to GHG-emitting sources below the
Tailoring Rule thresholds,\7\ and no State, including Vermont, asserted
that it did have adequate resources to do so.\8\ In the SIP Narrowing
Rule, EPA found that the affected states, including Vermont, had a flaw
in their SIPs at the time they submitted their PSD programs, which was
that the applicability of the PSD programs was potentially broader than
the resources available to them under their SIPs.\9\ Accordingly, for
each affected state, including Vermont, EPA concluded that EPA's action
in approving the SIP was in error, under CAA section 110(k)(6), and EPA
rescinded its approval to the extent the PSD program applies to GHG-
emitting sources below the Tailoring Rule thresholds.\10\ EPA
recommended that States adopt a SIP revision to incorporate the
Tailoring Rule thresholds, thereby (i) assuring that under State law,
only sources at or above the Tailoring Rule thresholds would be subject
to PSD; and (ii) avoiding confusion under the Federally approved SIP by
clarifying that the SIP applies to only sources at or above the
Tailoring Rule thresholds.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Tailoring Rule, 75 FR 31517.
    \8\ SIP Narrowing Rule, 75 FR 82540.
    \9\ Id. at 82542.
    \10\ Id. at 82544.
    \11\ Id. at 82540.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What is EPA's analysis of Vermont's SIP revision?

    The regulatory revisions that VT DEC submitted on February 14, 2011
establish thresholds for determining which stationary sources and
modification projects become subject to permitting requirements for GHG
emissions under Vermont's PSD program. The revisions also include
unrelated changes to other portions of the Vermont air permitting
regulations. Specifically, the submittal includes changes to Vermont's
regulations at Chapter 5, Air Pollution Control, Subchapter I
(Definitions), Subchapter II (Prohibitions), Subchapter IV (Operations
and Procedures), and Subchapter V (Review of New Air Contaminant
Sources).
    Vermont is currently a SIP-approved state for the PSD program. In a
letter provided to EPA on July 22, 2010, Vermont notified EPA of its
interpretation that the State currently has the authority to regulate
GHGs under its PSD regulations. The current Vermont program (adopted
prior to the promulgation of EPA's Tailoring Rule) applies to major
stationary sources (having the potential to emit at least 50 tpy or
more of a regulated NSR pollutant) or major modifications constructing
in areas designated attainment or unclassifiable with respect to the
NAAQS.
    The amendments to Subchapter I that EPA is proposing to approve
into Vermont's SIP include: new definitions of ``Greenhouse Gases'' and
``Subject to Regulation,'' amendments to the definition of ``Major
Stationary Source,'' and the addition of a provision regarding
significance levels of greenhouse gases to the definition of
``Significant.'' EPA is also proposing to approve the classification of
certain sources of greenhouse gas emissions as air contaminant sources
in Subchapter IV, section 5-401(16).

A. Greenhouse Gases

    The changes to Vermont's PSD program regulations regarding
greenhouse gases are in most respects substantively the same as the
amendments to the federal PSD regulatory provisions in EPA's Tailoring

Rule. However, there are several issues that we note here.
    First, Vermont submitted as part of its SIP revision its entire
definition of ``significant'' in Section 5-101, not just the addition
made to address greenhouse gases. Vermont's definition of
``significant'' in Section 5-101 departs from EPA's definition of
``significant'' at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(23) in two ways. On the one hand,
Vermont provides significance levels for several pollutants (asbestos,
mercury, beryllium, and vinyl chloride) that are not listed in the
federal regulation. On the other hand, Vermont fails to provide
significance levels for several pollutants (particulate matter 2.5
microns or less in diameter, municipal waste combustor organics,
municipal waste combustor metals, municipal waste combustor acid gases,
and municipal solid waste landfill emissions) that are listed in the
federal regulation. In the first case, the issue is moot because
asbestos, mercury compounds, beryllium compounds, and vinyl chloride
are all listed as hazardous air pollutants under Section 112(b) of the
Clean Air Act, and Section 112(b)(6) provides that PSD does not apply
to hazardous air pollutants listed under Section 112. In the case of
the other pollutants, however, the situation is more complex. Vermont's
regulation neither specifically provides significance levels for these
pollutants (particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter,
municipal waste combustor organics, municipal waste combustor metals,
municipal waste combustor acid gases, and municipal solid waste
landfill emissions) nor provides a default significance threshold of
zero. Therefore, Vermont's regulation fails to require application of
best available control technology for emissions of these pollutants at
any level--even at major source levels. See Section 5-502(3)(a)(i)-(ii)
(applying control technology requirement only to emissions that are
``significant'').
    Despite this flaw, EPA is nonetheless proposing approval of
Vermont's SIP revision. The revised definition adds a significance
threshold for ``greenhouse gases,'' which does not exist in the
currently approved SIP, and the lack of significance thresholds for
particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter, municipal waste
combustor organics, municipal waste combustor metals, municipal waste
combustor acid gases, and municipal solid waste landfill emissions is a
continuation from the currently approved SIP, not a new flaw. For that
reason, EPA is proposing to approve Vermont's SIP revision as ``SIP
strengthening.''
    Several lesser issues require discussion regarding EPA's proposed
interpretation of the Vermont regulation. First, Vermont defines
``greenhouse gases'' in Section 5-101 as ``carbon dioxide, methane,
nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur
hexafluoride, and any other chemical or physical substance emitted into
the air that the Secretary may reasonably anticipate to cause or
contribute to climate change.'' This definition does not explicitly
state whether ``greenhouse gases'' is an aggregate pollutant consisting
of six (or more) components, cf. 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(i), or six (or
more) individual gases. However, elsewhere in Vermont's regulations,
``greenhouse gases'' is referred to in a manner suggesting the
aggregate interpretation. See, e.g., Section 5-101 (definition of
``Major Stationary Source'') (referring to ``the air contaminant that
is greenhouse gases''). Therefore, EPA proposes to interpret the
definition of ``greenhouse gases'' in Section 5-101 as an aggregate
pollutant.
    Second, Vermont incorporates by reference EPA's definition of
``subject to regulation'' at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48).\12\ This definition
provides that the pollutant ``greenhouse gases'' is subject to
regulation if ``both a significant emissions increase (as calculated
using the procedures in (a)(7)(iv) of this section) and a significant
net emissions increase (as defined in paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(23) of
this section) occur.'' 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(iii). This, in turn,
incorporates two different elements of the federal PSD regulation:
emissions increase calculation, and emissions increase netting. For
non-greenhouse gas pollutants, Vermont uses a different emissions
increase calculation methodology, and does not allow for netting.
However, EPA understands that Vermont intends for its greenhouse gas
permitting requirements to match the federal requirements, and
consequently EPA is proposing to interpret Vermont's definition of
``subject to regulation'' as including the calculation methodology
specified in the federal regulations. See also VT DEC's Jan. 3, 2011
response to comments; response No. 2 (emphasizing VT DEC's ``intent to
have the same (and not more stringent) permitting thresholds for
greenhouse gases in Vermont as required by federal regulations''), and
response No. 8 (``The [VT DEC] intends for the federal netting and
baseline calculation procedures to apply for applicability of
permitting greenhouse gases.''). Thus, for example, an existing Vermont
source, in determining whether a proposed modification's greenhouse gas
emissions would be ``subject to regulation,'' would be permitted to use
the actual-to-projected-actual applicability test of 40 CFR
51.166(a)(7)(iv)(c), and to incorporate creditable and contemporaneous
reductions in actual emissions in calculating the ``net emissions
increase.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The Vermont regulation actually refers to ``40 CFR
51.166(48)(b)'' [sic]. See Section 5-101 (definition of ``Subject to
Regulation''). We assume this is a clerical error and was intended
to refer to Sec.  51.166(b)(48).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, in light of the preceding two proposed interpretations, it
is possible that an ambiguity may arise if Vermont adds a new component
gas to its state-defined ``greenhouse gases'' pollutant but that
component gas is not part of the federal ``greenhouse gases''
definition at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(i). In this situation, it may not be
clear in any given context whether ``greenhouse gases'' in Vermont's
regulations refers to ``greenhouse gases'' as defined by EPA or as
defined by Vermont. This could be relevant if, for example, an existing
source sought to take credit for reductions in a state-only gas when
calculating its net emissions increase of greenhouse gases. Since
Vermont's definition of ``subject to regulation'' in Section 5-101
includes all of 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48), it must therefore include the
federal definition of ``greenhouse gases'' at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(i).
Therefore, EPA proposes to interpret ``greenhouse gases'' in Vermont's
regulations as meaning greenhouse gases as defined by 40 CFR
51.166(b)(48)(i) for purposes of the ``subject to regulation''
definition and any reference elsewhere in Vermont's regulations that
specifically references the ``subject to regulation'' definition, but
as meaning greenhouse gases as defined by Section 5-101 for all other
purposes in Vermont's SIP.
    Finally, as noted above, the Vermont regulation in several places
incorporates federal regulations by reference. See, e.g., Section 5-101
(definition of ``Major Stationary Source'') (referring to ``the
thresholds in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(1)(i)''). However, these references do
not specify whether the incorporation by reference is intended to be
prospective (i.e., to incorporate the federal regulation as it may be
amended from time to time, without need for revising the state
regulation to accommodate federal regulatory revisions) or fixed. We
propose to interpret each incorporation by reference of a federal
regulation as referring to the date of adoption of the Vermont
regulation, i.e., January 24, 2011.

B. Other Revisions Adopted by Vermont

    Vermont submitted other amendments to its SIP which EPA is not
acting on at this time. These amendments include Sections 5-101
(changes to the definitions of Emergency use engine, Federal Land
Manager, and Public Notice), 5-251 (NOX limits), 5-252
(SO2 limits), 5-401(1-15, 17, and 18) (Classification of Air
Contaminant Sources), 5-402 (Written Reports When Requested), 5-404
(Methods of Sampling and Testing of Sources), 5-406 (Required Air
Modeling), 5-501 (Review of Construction or Modification of Air
Contaminant Sources), and 5-502 (Major Stationary Sources and Major
Modifications).

IV. Proposed Action

    Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, EPA is proposing to approve
Vermont's February 14, 2011 SIP revision, relating to PSD requirements
for GHG-emitting sources. Specifically, Vermont's February 14, 2011 SIP
revision establishes appropriate emissions thresholds for determining
PSD applicability to new and modified GHG-emitting sources in
accordance with EPA's Tailoring Rule. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that this SIP revision is approvable because it is in
accordance with the CAA and EPA regulations regarding PSD permitting
for GHGs.
    If EPA does approve Vermont's changes to its air quality
regulations to incorporate the appropriate thresholds for GHG
permitting applicability into Vermont's SIP, then Section 52.2372(b) of
40 CFR part 52, as included in EPA's SIP Narrowing Rule--which codifies
EPA's limiting its approval of Vermont's PSD SIP to not cover the
applicability of PSD to GHG-emitting sources below the Tailoring Rule
thresholds--is no longer necessary. In today's proposed action, EPA is
also proposing to amend Section 52.2372(b) of 40 CFR part 52 to remove
this unnecessary regulatory language.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this 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 Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

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

    Dated: August 2, 2012.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 2012-20140 Filed 8-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 106 (Friday, June 1, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25363-25365]
[FR Doc No: 2018-11446]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-1063; Product Identifier 2017-SW-088-AD; Amendment
39-19291; AD 2018-11-03]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters

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

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) Airbus
Helicopters Model SA-365C, SA-365C1, and SA-365C2 helicopters. This AD
requires establishing a life limit of 2,000 hours time-in-service (TIS)
for the Starflex star/mast connecting bolt (bolt) and removing from
service each bolt that exceeds its life limit. This AD is prompted by
the discovery that the bolt's life limit was not included in helicopter
maintenance records. The actions of this AD are intended to prevent an
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective June 18, 2018.
    We must receive comments on this AD by July 31, 2018.

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

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
1063; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for Docket
Operations Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.
    For service information identified in this final rule, contact
Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at
http://www.helicopters.airbus.com/website/en/ref/Technical-Support_73.html. You may review the referenced service information at
the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101
Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety
Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA,
10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

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

each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this
rulemaking during the comment period. We will consider all the comments
we receive and may conduct additional rulemaking based on those
comments.

Discussion

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD No. 2016-0115-E, dated June 16,
2016, to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Helicopters Model SA-
365C, SA-365C1, SA-365C2, and SA-365C3 helicopters. EASA advises that
the 2,000 flight hour life limit for the bolts was not referenced in
the helicopter maintenance documentation. EASA states that some
helicopters are therefore likely to continue flying with these bolts
past their life limit. This condition, if not detected and corrected,
could lead to bolt failure, resulting in main rotor mast, hub or blade
damage and reduced helicopter control, EASA advises. As a result, the
EASA AD requires replacing the bolts if they have reached or exceeded
2,000 flight hours, if the bolt part number (P/N) cannot be identified,
or if the number of flight hours of the bolt is not known. The EASA AD
also requires maintaining the continuous airworthiness records for the
bolts.

FAA's Determination

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

Related Service Information

    Airbus Helicopters has issued Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No.
SA365 65.51, Revision 0, dated June 2, 2016. This service information
establishes a life limit of 2,000 flight hours for certain bolts
installed on Airbus Helicopters Model SA-365C, SA-365C1, SA-365C2, and
SA-365C3 helicopters and specifies replacing the bolts if necessary.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires the following before further flight:
     Removing from service any bolt P/N 365A31-1182-20, 365A31-
1182-21, 365A31-1183-20, 365A31-1183-21, 365A31-1928-20, or 365A31-
1143-20 that has accumulated 2,000 or more hours TIS or any bolt for
which the hours TIS is unknown. Thereafter, removing from service each
bolt P/N 365A31-1182-20, 365A31-1182-21, 365A31-1183-20, 365A31-1183-
21, 365A31-1928-20, or 365A31-1143-20 before it accumulates 2,000 hours
TIS.
     Removing from service any bolt with a P/N not listed in
the AD or any bolt for which you cannot determine the P/N.
     Creating a component history card or equivalent record for
each bolt P/N 365A31-1182-20, 365A31-1182-21, 365A31-1183-20, 365A31-
1183-21, 365A31-1928-20, or 365A31-1143-20 and recording a life limit
of 2,000 hours TIS.

Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Model SA-365C3
helicopters. This AD does not because the SA-365C3 helicopter has no
FAA type certificate.

Costs of Compliance

    There are no costs of compliance with this AD because there are no
helicopters with this type certificate on the U.S. Registry.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    There are no helicopters with this type certificate on the U.S.
Registry. We believe it is therefore unlikely that we will receive any
adverse comments or useful information about this AD from U.S.
operators.
    Therefore, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior
public comment are unnecessary. In addition, for the reasons stated
above, we find that good cause exists for making this amendment
effective in less than 30 days.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

2018-11-03 Airbus Helicopters: Amendment 39-19291; Docket No. FAA-
2017-1063; Product Identifier 2017-SW-088-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Model SA-365C, SA-365C1,
and SA-365C2 helicopters, certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a Starflex star/mast
connecting bolt (bolt) remaining in service beyond its fatigue life.
This condition could result in failure of a

bolt, leading to failure of the main rotor blade mast, hub, or blade
and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

(c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective June 18, 2018.

(d) Compliance

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

(e) Required Actions

    Before further flight:
    (1) Remove from service any bolt part number (P/N) 365A31-1182-
20, 365A31-1182-21, 365A31-1183-20, 365A31-1183-21, 365A31-1928-20,
or 365A31-1143-20 that has accumulated 2,000 or more hours time-in-
service (TIS), or any bolt for which the hours TIS is unknown.
Thereafter, remove from service each bolt P/N 365A31-1182-20,
365A31-1182-21, 365A31-1183-20, 365A31-1183-21, 365A31-1928-20, or
365A31-1143-20 before accumulating 2,000 hours TIS.
    (2) Remove from service any bolt with a P/N not listed in
paragraph (e)(1) of this AD or for which the P/N is unknown.
    (3) Create a component history card or equivalent record for
each bolt P/N 365A31-1182-20, 365A31-1182-21, 365A31-1183-20,
365A31-1183-21, 365A31-1928-20, and 365A31-1143-20 and record a life
limit of 2,000 hours TIS.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

(g) Additional Information

    (1) Airbus Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No.
65.51, Revision 0, dated June 2, 2016, which is not incorporated by
reference, contains additional information about the subject of this
AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus
Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone
(972) 641-0000 or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at http://www.helicopters.airbus.com/website/en/ref/Technical-Support_73.html.
You may review a copy of the service information at the FAA, Office
of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy.,
Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.
    (2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2016-0115-E, dated June 16, 2016. You
may view the EASA AD on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2017-1063.

(h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6220, Main Rotor
Head.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 16, 2018.
Scott A. Horn,
Deputy Director for Regulatory Operations, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-11446 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 30 (Wednesday, February 17, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9925-9926]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03146]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Number: PR21-28-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc.
    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b),(e)/: COH Rates effective
Jan 29 2021 to be effective 1/29/2021 under PR21-28.
    Filed Date: 2/9/2021.
    Accession Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>78.
    Comments/Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/2/2021.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-427-001.
    Applicants: LA Storage, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Filing of Negotiated Rate,
Conforming IW Agreements (Amendment) to be effective 1/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 2/8/21.
    Accession Number: 20210208-5127.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/22/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-1111-004.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing GT&C Section 49--Bid Evaluation--
Compliance Filing 2 to be effective 3/12/2021.
    Filed Date: 2/9/21.
    Accession Number: 20210209-5081.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/22/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-466-000.
    Applicants: Viking Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate PAL
Agreement--World Fuel to be effective 2/10/2021.

    Filed Date: 2/9/21.
    Accession Number: 20210209-5132.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/22/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-467-000.
    Applicants: Alliance Pipeline L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Future Sales of Capacity
Filing to be effective 3/11/2021.
    Filed Date: 2/9/21.
    Accession Number: 20210209-5137.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/22/21.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 10, 2021.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-03146 Filed 2-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P