[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 97 (Thursday, May 19, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31571-31577]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10985]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0472; FRL-9946-20-Region 9]

Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality State
Implementation Plans; Arizona; Infrastructure Requirements for Nitrogen
Dioxide and Sulfur Dioxide

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove
the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP) as meeting the requirements
of Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the
Act) for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the 2010
nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and 2010 sulfur dioxide
(SO2) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). CAA
section 110(a)(1) requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP for
the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each NAAQS
promulgated by EPA, and that EPA act on such SIPs. We refer to such
SIPs as ``infrastructure'' SIPs because they are intended to address
basic structural SIP requirements for new or revised NAAQS including,
but not limited to, legal authority, regulatory structure, resources,
permit programs, monitoring, and modeling necessary to assure
attainment and maintenance of the standards. In addition to our
proposed partial approval and partial disapproval of Arizona's
infrastructure SIP, we are proposing to reclassify one region of the
state for SO2 emergency episode planning. EPA is also
proposing to approve Arizona Revised Statutes related to conducting air
quality modeling and providing modeling data to EPA into the Arizona
SIP. We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a
final action.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 20, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. [EPA-R09-
OAR-2015-0472] at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

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

Table of Contents

I. EPA's Approach to the Review of Infrastructure SIP Submissions
II. Background
    A. Statutory Framework
    B. Regulatory Background
    C. Changes to the Application of PSD Permitting Requirements
With GHGs
III. State Submittals
IV. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action
    A. Proposed Approvals and Partial Approvals
    B. Proposed Disapprovals and Partial Disapprovals
    C. Proposed Approval of Arizona Revised Statutes Into the State
SIP
    D. Proposed Reclassification of an Air Quality Control Region
    E. Request for Public Comments
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. EPA's Approach to the Review of Infrastructure SIP Submissions

    EPA is acting upon several SIP submittals from Arizona that address
the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)
for the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The
requirement for states to make a SIP submittal of this type arises out
of CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must
make SIP submittals ``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 submittals are to provide for the ``implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The statute directly
imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submittals, and the
requirement to make the submittals 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'' submittal must address.
    EPA has historically referred to these SIP submittals made for the
purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' submittals. Although the term
``infrastructure SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to
distinguish this particular type of SIP submittal from submittals that
are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as
``nonattainment SIP'' or ``attainment SIP'' submittals to address the
nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of the CAA,
``regional haze SIP'' submittals required by EPA rule to address the
visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A, and
nonattainment new source review (NSR) permit program submittals to
address the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.
    Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for
infrastructure SIP submittals, and section 110(a)(2) provides more
details concerning the required contents of these submittals. 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.\1\ 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
submittals provided in section 110(a)(2) contains ambiguities
concerning what is required for inclusion in an infrastructure SIP
submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 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 submittals for a given new or
revised NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is that section 110(a)(2)
requires that ``each'' SIP

submittal 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.\2\ Section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to
nonattainment SIP requirements and part D addresses when attainment
plan SIP submittals to address nonattainment area requirements are due.
For example, section 172(b) requires EPA to establish a schedule for
submittal 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.\3\ 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 submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 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 25163-25165, May 12, 2005 (explaining
relationship between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)
versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).
    \3\ 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 submittal of certain types of SIP submittals in designated
nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, e.g., that section
182(a)(1) provides specific dates for submittal 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 submittal, and whether EPA must act upon such SIP submittal 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 submittals separately addressing
infrastructure SIP elements for the same NAAQS. If states elect to make
such multiple SIP submittals to meet the infrastructure SIP
requirements, EPA can elect to act on such submittals either
individually or in a larger combined action.\4\ Similarly, EPA
interprets the CAA to allow it to take action on the individual parts
of one larger, comprehensive infrastructure SIP submittal for a given
NAAQS without concurrent action on the entire submittal. For example,
EPA has sometimes elected to act at different times on various elements
and sub-elements of the same infrastructure SIP submittal.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 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).
    \5\ 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 submittal 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
submittals for each NAAQS therefore could be different. For example,
the monitoring requirements that a state might need to meet in its
infrastructure SIP submittal for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(B) could
be very different for different pollutants, for example because the
content and scope of a state's infrastructure SIP submittal to meet
this element might be very different for an entirely new NAAQS than for
a minor revision to an existing NAAQS.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 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 submittals required under
the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submittals, EPA also has
to identify and interpret the relevant elements of section 110(a)(2)
that logically apply to these other types of SIP submittals. For
example, section 172(c)(7) requires that attainment plan SIP submittals
required by part D have to meet the ``applicable requirements'' of
section 110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment plan SIP submittals
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 submittals required by
part D would not need to meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that
pertains to the air quality prevention of significant deterioration
(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 submittal 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
submittal. In other words, EPA assumes that Congress could not have
intended that each and every SIP submittal, 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 submittals 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 submittals for particular elements.\7\ EPA
most recently issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on September 13,
2013 (2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance).\8\ EPA developed this document
to provide states with up-to-date guidance for infrastructure SIPs for
any new or revised NAAQS. Within this

guidance, EPA describes the duty of states to make infrastructure SIP
submittals 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 submittals.\9\
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 submittals need to address certain issues and need not address
others. Accordingly, EPA reviews each infrastructure SIP submittal for
compliance with the applicable statutory provisions of section
110(a)(2), as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA requires EPA to
provide guidance or to promulgate regulations for infrastructure SIP
submittals. The CAA directly applies to states and requires the
submittal of infrastructure SIP submittals, regardless of whether or
not EPA provides guidance or regulations pertaining to such
submittals. EPA elects to issue such guidance in order to assist
states, as appropriate.
    \8\ 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.
    \9\ EPA's September 13, 2013, guidance did not make
recommendations with respect to infrastructure SIP submittals to
address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA issued the guidance shortly
after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the D.C. Circuit
decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d7 (D.C. Circuit 2012) which had
interpreted the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light
of the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, EPA elected not to
provide additional guidance on the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that time. As the guidance is neither binding
nor required by statute, whether EPA elects to provide guidance on a
particular section has no impact on a state's CAA obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of
section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submittals. Under this
element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of section 128,
which pertain to state boards that approve permits or enforcement
orders and heads of executive agencies with similar powers. Thus, EPA
reviews infrastructure SIP submittals to ensure that the state's SIP
appropriately addresses the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
and section 128. The 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance explains EPA's
interpretation that there may be a variety of ways by which states can
appropriately address these substantive statutory requirements,
depending on the structure of an individual state's permitting or
enforcement program (e.g., whether permits and enforcement orders are
approved by a multi-member board or by a head of an executive agency).
However they are addressed by the state, the substantive requirements
of section 128 are necessarily included in EPA's evaluation of
infrastructure SIP submittals because section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
explicitly requires that the state satisfy the provisions of section
128.
    As another example, EPA's review of infrastructure SIP submittals
with respect to the PSD program requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the structural PSD program
requirements contained in part C, title I of the Act and EPA's PSD
regulations. Structural PSD program requirements include provisions
necessary for the PSD program to address all regulated sources and
regulated NSR pollutants, including greenhouse gases (GHGs). By
contrast, structural PSD program requirements do not include provisions
that are not required under EPA's regulations at 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) 51.166 but are merely available as an option for the
state, such as the option to provide grandfathering of complete permit
applications with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Accordingly, the latter optional provisions are types of provisions EPA
considers irrelevant in the context of an infrastructure SIP action.
    For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, EPA's review of a
state's infrastructure SIP submittal focuses on assuring that the
state's SIP meets basic structural requirements. For example, section
110(a)(2)(C) includes, inter alia, the requirement that states have a
program to regulate minor new sources. Thus, EPA evaluates whether the
state has a SIP-approved minor NSR program and whether the program
addresses the pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In the context of
acting on an infrastructure SIP submittal, however, EPA does not think
it is necessary to conduct a review of each and every provision of a
state's existing minor source program (i.e., already in the existing
SIP) for compliance with the requirements of the CAA and EPA's
regulations that pertain to such programs.
    With respect to certain other issues, EPA does not believe that an
action on a state's infrastructure SIP submittal is necessarily the
appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in
a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) Existing provisions
related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's
policies addressing such excess emissions (``SSM''); (ii) existing
provisions related to ``director's variance'' or ``director's
discretion'' that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to
allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public
process or not requiring further approval by EPA; and (iii) existing
provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current
requirements of EPA's ``Final NSR Improvement Rule,'' 67 FR 80186,
December 31, 2002, as amended by 72 FR 32526, June 13, 2007 (``NSR
Reform''). Thus, EPA believes it may approve an infrastructure SIP
submittal without scrutinizing the totality of the existing SIP for
such potentially deficient provisions and may approve the submittal
even if it is aware of such existing provisions.\10\ It is important to
note that EPA's approval of a state's infrastructure SIP submittal
should not be construed as explicit or implicit re-approval of any
existing potentially deficient provisions that relate to the three
specific issues just described.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to include a
new provision in an infrastructure SIP submittal that contained a
legal deficiency, such as a new exemption for excess emissions
during SSM events, then EPA would need to evaluate that provision
for compliance against the rubric of applicable CAA requirements in
the context of the action on the infrastructure SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's approach to review of infrastructure SIP submittals is to
identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that
submittal. EPA believes that this approach to the review of a
particular infrastructure SIP submittal 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
submittal. 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.
    For example, EPA's 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance gives simpler
recommendations with respect to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS
pollutants to meet the visibility requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon monoxide does not affect
visibility. As a result, an infrastructure SIP submittal for any future
new or revised NAAQS

for carbon monoxide need only state this fact in order to address the
visibility prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
    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.\11\ Section
110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as
past approvals of SIP submittals.\12\ Significantly, EPA's
determination that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submittal
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 submittal, 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.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 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,'' 76 FR 21639, April 18, 2011.
    \12\ EPA has used this authority to correct errors in past
actions on SIP submittals 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).
    \13\ See, e.g., EPA's disapproval of a SIP submittal 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, January 26, 2011 (final disapproval of such provisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

A. Statutory Framework

    Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to make a SIP
submission within 3 years after the promulgation of a new or revised
primary NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements
that ``[e]ach such plan'' submission must include. Many of the section
110(a)(2) SIP elements relate to the general information and
authorities that constitute the ``infrastructure'' of a state's air
quality management program and SIP submittals that address these
requirements are referred to as ``infrastructure SIPs.'' These
infrastructure SIP elements required by section 110(a)(2) are as
follows:
     Section 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control
measures.
     Section 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data
system.
     Section 110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control
measures and regulation of new and modified stationary sources.
     Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i): Interstate pollution transport.
     Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate and international
pollution abatement.
     Section 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources and authority,
conflict of interest, and oversight of local and regional government
agencies.
     Section 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring and
reporting.
     Section 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency episodes.
     Section 110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions.
     Section 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government
officials, public notification, PSD, and visibility protection.
     Section 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling and submittal
of modeling data.
     Section 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
     Section 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by
affected local entities.
    Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not governed by
the three-year submittal deadline of section 110(a)(1) and are
therefore not addressed in this action. These two elements are: Section
110(a)(2)(C) to the extent it refers to permit programs required under
part D (nonattainment NSR), and Section 110(a)(2)(I), pertaining to the
nonattainment planning requirements of part D. As a result, this action
does not address infrastructure for the nonattainment NSR portion of
section 110(a)(2)(C) or the whole of section 110(a)(2)(I).

B. Regulatory Background

    In 2010 EPA promulgated revised NAAQS for NO2 and
SO2, triggering a requirement for states to submit
infrastructure SIPs. The NAAQS addressed by this infrastructure SIP
proposal include the following:
     2010 NO2 NAAQS, which revised the primary 1971
NO2 annual standard of 53 parts per billion (ppb) by
supplementing it with a new 1-hour average NO2 standard of
100 ppb, and retained the secondary annual standard of 53 ppb.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 75 FR 6474, February 9, 2010. The annual NO 2 standard of
0.053 ppm is listed in ppb for ease of comparison with the new 1-
hour standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     2010 SO2 NAAQS, which established a new 1-hour
average SO2 standard of 75 ppb, retained the secondary 3-
hour average SO2 standard of 500 ppb, and established a
mechanism for revoking the primary 1971 annual and 24-hour
SO2 standards.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 75 FR 35520, June 22, 2010. The annual SO 2 standard of 0.5
ppm is listed in ppb for ease of comparison with the new 1-hour
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Changes to the Application of PSD Permitting Requirements With GHGs

    With respect to Elements (C) and (J), EPA interprets the Clean Air
Act to require each state to make an infrastructure SIP submission for
a new or revised NAAQS that demonstrates that the air agency has a
complete PSD permitting program meeting the current requirements for
all regulated NSR pollutants. The requirements of Element D(i)(II) may
also be satisfied by demonstrating the air agency has a complete PSD
permitting program correctly addressing all regulated NSR pollutants.
    On June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision
addressing the application of PSD permitting requirements to GHG
emissions.\16\ The Supreme Court said that EPA may not treat GHGs as an
air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a source is a major
source required to obtain a PSD permit. The Court also said that EPA
could continue to require that PSD permits, otherwise required based on
emissions of pollutants other than GHGs, contain limitations on GHG
emissions based on the application of Best Available Control Technology
(BACT). In order to act consistently with its understanding of the
Court's decision pending further judicial action to effectuate the
decision, EPA is not continuing to apply EPA regulations that would
require that SIPs include permitting requirements that

the Supreme Court found impermissible. Specifically, EPA is not
applying the requirement that a state's SIP-approved PSD program
require that sources obtain PSD permits when GHGs are the only
pollutant (i) that the source emits or has the potential to emit above
the major source thresholds, or (ii) for which there is a significant
emissions increase and a significant net emissions increase from a
modification (e.g., 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v)). EPA anticipates a need to
revise federal PSD rules in light of the Supreme Court opinion. In
addition, EPA anticipates that many states will revise their existing
SIP-approved PSD programs in light of the Supreme Court's decision. The
timing and content of subsequent EPA actions with respect to EPA
regulations and state PSD program approvals are expected to be informed
by additional legal process before the United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit. At this juncture, EPA is not
expecting states to have revised their PSD programs for purposes of
infrastructure SIP submissions and is only evaluating such submissions
to assure that the state's program correctly addresses GHGs consistent
with the Supreme Court's decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection
Agency, 134 S.Ct. 2427.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. State Submittals

    The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) has
submitted several infrastructure SIP submittals pursuant to EPA's
promulgation of specific NAAQS, including:
     January 18, 2013--``Arizona State Implementation Plan
Revision under the Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(1) and (2); 2010
NO2 NAAQS.'' (2013 NO2 I-SIP Submittal)
     July 23, 2013--``Arizona State Implementation Plan
Revision under the Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(1) and (2);
Implementation of the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) National
Ambient Air Quality.'' (2013 SO2 I-SIP Submittal)
     December 3, 2015--``Arizona State Implementation Plan
Revisions for 2008 Ozone and 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide NAAQS under Clean
Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D) and Revision for All Previous and Future
NAAQS under CAA Section 11(a)(2)(K).'' (2015 Submittal)
    We find that these submittals meet the procedural requirements for
public participation under CAA section 110(a)(2) and 40 CFR 51.102. We
are proposing to act on all of these submittals, except the part of the
2015 Submittal addressing the 2008 ozone standard which will be acted
on separately. The submittals collectively address the infrastructure
SIP requirements for the NO2 and SO2 NAAQS as
described by this proposed rule. We refer to them collectively herein
as ``Arizona's Infrastructure SIP Submittals.''

IV. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action

A. Proposed Approvals and Partial Approvals

    We have evaluated Arizona's Infrastructure SIP Submittals and the
existing provisions of the Arizona SIP for compliance with the
infrastructure SIP requirements (or ``elements'') of CAA section
110(a)(2) and applicable regulations in 40 CFR part 51 (``Requirements
for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of State Implementation
Plans''). The Technical Support Document (TSD), which is available in
the docket to this action, includes our evaluation for these
infrastructure SIP elements, as well as our evaluation of various
statutory and regulatory provisions identified and submitted by
Arizona. For some elements, our analysis refers to older TSDs for prior
NAAQS, which have also been included in the docket.
    Based upon this analysis, we propose to approve the 2010
NO2, and 2010 SO2 Arizona Infrastructure SIP with
respect to the following Clean Air Act requirements:
     110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures
(all jurisdictions, both pollutants).
     110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system
(all jurisdictions, both pollutants).
     110(a)(2)(C) (in part): Program for enforcement of control
measures and regulation of new stationary sources (ADEQ and Pinal
County for both pollutants).
     110(a)(2)(D) (in part, see below): Interstate Pollution
Transport.
    [ssquf] 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)(in part)--significant contribution to
nonattainment, or prongs 1 and 2 (all jurisdictions for the
NO2 NAAQS).
    [ssquf] 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (in part)--interference with
maintenance, or prong 3 (ADEQ and Pinal County for both pollutants).
    [ssquf] 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (in part)--interstate pollution abatement
Sec.  126 (ADEQ and Pinal County for both pollutants) and international
air pollution Sec.  115 (all jurisdictions, both pollutants).
     110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources and authority, conflict
of interest, and oversight of local governments and regional agencies
(all jurisdictions, both pollutants).
     110(a)(2)(F): Stationary solderurce monitoring and
reporting (all jurisdictions, both pollutants).
     110(a)(2)(G): Emergency episodes (all jurisdictions, both
pollutants).
     110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions (all jurisdictions, both
pollutants).
     110(a)(2)(J) (in part): Consultation with government
officials, Sec.  121 (all jurisdictions, both pollutants); public
notification of exceedances, Sec.  127 (all jurisdictions, both
pollutants); and prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and
visibility protection (ADEQ and Pinal County, both pollutants).
     110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling and submission of
modeling data (all jurisdictions, both pollutants).
     110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees (all jurisdictions, both
pollutants).
     110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local
entities (all jurisdictions, both pollutants).
    EPA is taking no action on Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and
2 for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

B. Proposed Partial Disapprovals

    EPA proposes to disapprove Arizona's NO2 and
SO2 Infrastructure SIP Submittals with respect to the
following infrastructure SIP requirements:
     110(a)(2)(C) (in part): Program for enforcement of control
measures and regulation of new and modified stationary sources
(Maricopa County and Pima County, both pollutants).
     110(a)(2)(D) (in part, see below): Interstate pollution
transport,
    [ssquf] 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (in part)--interference with
maintenance, or prong 3 (Maricopa County and Pima County, both
pollutants).
    [ssquf] 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--visibility transport or prong 4 (all
jurisdictions, both pollutants).
    [ssquf] 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (in part)--interstate pollution abatement
Sec.  126 (Maricopa County and Pima County, both pollutants).
     110(a)(2)(J) (in part): PSD and visibility protection
(Maricopa County and Pima County, both pollutants)
    As explained more fully in our TSD, we are proposing to disapprove
the Maricopa County and Pima County portions of Arizona's
Infrastructure Submittals with respect to the PSD-related requirements
of sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), and
the PSD requirements of 110(a)(2)(J). The Arizona SIP does not fully
satisfy the statutory and regulatory requirements for PSD permit
programs under part C, title I of the Act, because Maricopa County and
Pima County currently implement the Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21
for all regulated NSR pollutants, pursuant to delegation agreements
with EPA. Accordingly, although the Arizona SIP remains

deficient with respect to PSD requirements in both the Maricopa County
and Pima County portions of the SIP, these deficiencies are adequately
addressed in both areas by the federal PSD program and do not create
new FIP obligations.
    We are also proposing to disapprove all jurisdictions in Arizona
for 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--protecting visibility from interstate
transport or prong 4. Because Arizona relies on a FIP to control
sources under the Regional Haze Rule, they do not meet the requirements
of this portion of 110(a)(2)(D) for NO2 and SO2.
However, because a FIP is already in place to meet the requirements, no
additional FIP obligation is triggered by our disapproval of this
portion of Arizona's infrastructure SIP. EPA will continue to work with
Arizona to incorporate FIP emission limits and control technologies
into the state SIP.

C. Proposed Approval of Arizona Revised Statutes Into the State SIP

    Included in ADEQ's 2015 Submittal was a request to approve Arizona
Revised Statutes (ARS) Sec.  49-104(A)(3) and (B)(1) into the state
SIP. Arizona has requested that these statutes be included in order to
meet the air quality modeling and data submission requirements of
110(a)(2)(K) for the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS,
and past and future NAAQS, including previous Infrastructure SIP
disapprovals for the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, 2006
PM2.5, 2008 ozone, and 2008 lead NAAQS.
    110(a)(2)(K) requires states to provide for the performance of air
quality modeling and the submission of air quality modeling to EPA upon
request. On November 5, 2012, EPA disapproved 110(a)(2)(K) with respect
to ADEQ's submittals for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS (77 FR 66398). EPA again disapproved this I-SIP
element for the 2008 Pb and 2008 O3 NAAQS on July 14, 2015
(80 FR 40906). EPA disapproved those submissions because ADEQ, Pima,
Pinal, and Maricopa Counties did not submit adequate provisions or
narrative information related to the 110(a)(2)(K) requirements.
    EPA has reviewed the SIP approved provisions, narrative
information, and ARS Sec. Sec.  49-104(A)(3) and (B)(1) contained
within the 2015 Submittal. EPA is proposing to approve 110(a)(2)(K) as
described in part A of this section, and detailed further in the docket
for this action, based upon that review. EPA is also proposing to
approve ARS Sec. Sec.  49-104(A)(3) and (B)(1) into the state SIP. If
approval of these statutes into the Arizona SIP is finalized, previous
disapprovals for this element, found at 77 FR 66398 and 80 FR 40906,
will be corrected.

D. Proposed Reclassification for Emergency Episode Planning

    The priority thresholds for classification of air quality control
regions are listed in 40 CFR 51.150 while the specific classifications
of air quality control regions in Arizona are listed at 40 CFR 52.121.
Consistent with the provisions of 40 CFR 51.153, reclassification of an
air quality control region must rely on the most recent three years of
air quality data. Regions classified Priority I, IA, or II are required
to have SIP-approved emergency episode contingency plans, while those
classified Priority III are not required to have plans.\17\ We
interpret 40 CFR 51.153 as establishing the means for states to review
air quality data and request a higher or lower classification for any
given region and as providing the regulatory basis for EPA to
reclassify such regions, as appropriate, under the authorities of CAA
sections 110(a)(2)(G) and 301(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 40 CFR 51.151 and 51.152.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For SO2, the Pima Intrastate region is classified as
Priority II while the Central Arizona and Southeast Arizona Intrastate
regions are classified as Priority IA. All other areas of the state are
Priority III. After reviewing Arizona's 2013-2015 air quality data for
the Pima air quality control region (AQCR), we are proposing to
reclassify this region from Priority II to priority III, thus relieving
the AQCR of the emergency episode plan requirement for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS.
    The classification thresholds for SO2 are unique in that
thresholds are prescribed for three different averaging periods. The
thresholds and ranges for Priority II classification are as follows:
     3-hour: Greater than 0.5 ppm,
     24-hour: 0.10-0.17 ppm, and
     Annual arithmetic mean: 0.02-0.04 ppm.
    Areas with ambient air concentrations that are below the Priority
II threshold are classified as Priority III. There is one
SO2 monitor within the Pima Intrastate region, located in
Tucson and operated and maintained by Pima County. The highest
SO2 levels at the Tucson monitor were 1.1 ppb (.0011 ppm)
for the 24-hour average and .24 ppb (.00024 ppm) for the annual
arithmetic mean. Both occurred in 2013. In addition, the highest 1-hour
SO2 concentration at the Tucson monitor during this period
was 9.6 ppb (.0096 ppm), which occurred in 2014. Monitored levels in
2015 were even lower than the previous two years. The highest 1 hour
level was 5.1 ppb (.0051 ppm) and the annual arithmetic mean was .16
ppb (.00016 ppm) While there are no 1-hour SO2
classification thresholds in 40 CFR 51.150(b), by definition these
concentrations reinforce the fact that 3-hour and 24-hour levels have
not exceeded the respective Priority II classification thresholds
because they are lower than such thresholds.
    Thus, we propose to reclassify the Pima Intrastate AQCR to Priority
III for SO2. Should we finalize this reclassification, the
Pima Intrastate region would no longer be required to have an emergency
episode contingency plan in place for SO2.

E. Request for Public Comments

    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
document or on other relevant matters. We will accept comments from the
public on this proposal for the next 30 days. We will consider these
comments before taking final action.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA because this action does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities beyond those
imposed by state law.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This action does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law.

Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal
governments, or to the private sector, will result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175, because the SIP is not approved to apply on any
Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian
tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA
believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section
12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be
inconsistent with the CAA.

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

    The EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this rulemaking.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Approval and promulgation of implementation plans, Environmental
protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, and Sulfur dioxide.

    Dated: April 29, 2016.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2016-10985 Filed 5-18-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 60 (Monday, March 30, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16608-16611]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07072]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-0676; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-164-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Bombardier, Inc. Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes.
This proposed AD was prompted by a report of several events where
pilots experienced difficulty in lateral control of the airplane after
doing a climb through heavy rain conditions and a determination that
the cause was water ingress in the aileron control pulley assembly.
This proposed AD would require, for certain airplanes, inspecting for
correct clearance and rework if necessary, and, for certain other
airplanes, installing a cover for the aileron pulley assembly. We are
proposing this AD to prevent water ingress in the aileron control
pulley assembly, which could freeze in cold conditions and result in
reduced control of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 14, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec
H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You
may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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-2015-
0676; 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 proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fabio Buttitta, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury,
NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2015-0676;
Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-164-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2014-23, dated July 18, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory
Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an
unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-
700-1A11 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    There have been several reports whereby pilots have experienced
difficulty in lateral control following climb through heavy rain
conditions. In each event, the pilots were able to overcome this
difficulty without disconnecting the aileron control. An
investigation has determined that the root cause of the restricted
movement of the aileron was due to water ingress into the wing root
aileron control pulley assembly through a gap on the wing-to-
fuselage fairing resulting in freezing of the aileron control
system.
    If not corrected, this condition could result in reduced lateral
control of the aeroplane.
    This [Canadian] AD mandates [for certain airplanes] the
incorporation of a cover for the aileron pulley assembly [and
inspection and rework if necessary] to prevent water ingress in the
aileron control pulley assembly [and for certain other airplanes,
mandates an inspection and rework if necessary].

    The inspection involves doing a general visual inspection for
correct clearance. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2015-0676.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier has issued the following service information:
     Service Bulletin 700-1A11-27-034, Revision 04, dated
September 4, 2014;
     Service Bulletin 700-27-076, Revision 04, dated September
4, 2014;
     Service Bulletin 700-27-5004, Revision 04, dated September
4, 2014; and
     Service Bulletin 700-27-6004, Revision 04, dated September
4, 2014.
    This service information describes procedures, for certain
airplanes, for installing a cover for the No. 1 aileron pulley,
including an inspection for correct clearance and rework, and for
certain other airplanes, for an inspection for correct clearance and
rework. The actions described in this service information are intended
to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. This service
information is reasonably available; see ADDRESSES for ways to access
this service information.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 60 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We also estimate that it would take about 9 work-hours per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate
the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $45,900, or $765
per product.
    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed
AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2015-0676; Directorate Identifier
2014-NM-164-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by May 14, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-
700-1A11 airplanes, certificated in any category, having serial
numbers 9002 through 9520 inclusive and 9998.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight
Controls.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of several events where pilots
experienced difficulty in lateral control of the airplane after
doing a climb through heavy rain conditions and a determination that
the cause was water ingress in the aileron control pulley assembly.
We are issuing this AD to prevent water ingress in the aileron
control pulley assembly, which could freeze in cold conditions and
result in reduced control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Installation of Cover for the Aileron Pulley Assembly

    Except as provided by paragraph (j) of this AD, for airplanes on
which a cover for the No. 1 aileron pulley was not installed as of
the effective date of this AD: Within 150 flight cycles after the
effective date of this AD, install a cover for the No. 1 aileron
pulley, including doing a general visual inspection for correct
clearance and rework as applicable, in accordance with paragraph C.,
``PART B--Modification,'' of the Accomplishment Instructions of the
applicable service bulletins identified in paragraphs (g)(1) and
(g)(2) for this AD.
    (1) For Model BD-700-1A10 airplanes: Bombardier Service Bulletin
700-27-076, Revision 04, dated September 4, 2014; or 700-27-6004,
Revision 04, dated September 4, 2014.
    (2) For Model BD-700-1A11 airplanes: Bombardier Service Bulletin
700-1A11-27-034, Revision 04, dated September 4, 2014; or 700-27-
5004, Revision 04, dated September 4, 2014.

(h) Inspection and Rework

    Except as provided by paragraph (j) of this AD, for airplanes
that have incorporated a cover for the No. 1 aileron pulley using
the applicable service information identified in paragraphs (h)(1)
and (h)(2) of this AD as of the effective date of this AD: Within
150 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, do a general
visual inspection for correct clearance and, before further flight,
rework, as applicable, in accordance with paragraph B., ``PART A--
Inspection and Rework,'' of the Accomplishment Instructions of the
applicable service information identified in paragraphs (g)(1) and
(g)(2) of this AD.
    (1) For Model BD-700-1A10 airplanes: Bombardier Service Bulletin
700-27-076, dated March 5, 2012; or 700-27-6004, dated March 5,
2012.
    (2) For Model BD-700-1A11 airplanes: Bombardier Service Bulletin
700-1A11-27-034, dated March 5, 2012; or 700-27-5004, dated March 5,
2012.

(i) Re-Identification of Overwing Panels

    Except as provided by paragraph (j) of this AD, for airplanes on
which the Service Non-Incorporated Engineering Orders (SNIEO) or
Service Requests for Product Support Action (SRPSA) that are listed
in table 2 of paragraph 1.A., ``Effectivity,'' in the service
information identified in paragraphs (i)(1), (i)(2), or (i)(3) of
this AD have been incorporated: Within 150 flight cycles from the
effective date of this AD, do the re-identification of the overwing
panels, in accordance with paragraph 2.B(2)(g) of the Accomplishment
Instructions of the applicable service information identified in
paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-27-076, Revision 04, dated
September 4, 2014.
    (2) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-27-6004, Revision 04, dated
September 4, 2014.
    (3) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-1A11-27-034, Revision 04,
dated September 4, 2014.

(j) Exception to the Requirements of Paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of
this AD

    Airplanes on which the SRPSA, as listed in table 1 of paragraph
1.A., ``Effectivity,'' in the service information identified in
paragraph (j)(1), (j)(2), or (j)(3) of this AD has been accomplished
as of the effective date of this AD, meet the intent of paragraphs
(g), (h), and (i) of this AD and no further action is required.
    (1) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-27-076, Revision 04, dated
September 4, 2014.
    (2) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-27-6004, Revision 04, dated
September 4, 2014.
    (3) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-1A11-27-034, Revision 04,
dated September 4, 2014.

(k) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of this AD, if those actions were
performed before the effective date of this AD using the applicable
service information identified in paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(8)
of this AD, which are not incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (1) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-1A11-27-034, Revision 01,
dated July 16, 2012.
    (2) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-1A11-27-034, Revision 02,
dated June 17, 2014.
    (3) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-27-076, Revision 01, dated
July 16, 2012.
    (4) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-27-076, Revision 02, dated
June 17, 2014.
    (5) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-27-5004, Revision 01, dated
July 16, 2012.
    (6) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-27-5004, Revision 02, dated
June 17, 2014.
    (7) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-27-6004, Revision 01, dated
July 16, 2012.
    (8) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-27-6004, Revision 02, dated
June 17, 2014.

(l) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal

inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate.
If sending information directly to the ACO, send it to ATTN: Program
Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600
Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-
7300; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your
appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office/
certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must
specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO,
ANE-170, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or
Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If
approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized
signature.

(m) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-23, dated July 18,
2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0676.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te Vertu Road West, Dorval,
Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 514-855-
7401; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 19, 2015.
Michael Kaszyscki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-07072 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


1No SIDs or other identifying information is included in this memorandum in order to keep it nonconfidential

2The previous version of this memo reported an additional unweighted facility. The facility's response was clear that there was no unpaid labor at the site, but unclear whether or not there was unpaid management. Follow up with the facility indicates that no unpaid management exists. The facility has been removed from this analysis.

1 Date: 9 February 2004 To: Chris Miller, EPA From: Ian Cadillac and Maureen Kaplan, ERG Subject: UPDATED: Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production Industry: Unpaid Labor 1. How Many Facilities Within The Scope of the Regulation Report Unpaid Labor and/ or Management? 1 The population within the scope of the regulation are net pen, flow through, and recirculating systems that produce at least 100,000 pounds/ year. Within the scope of the regulation, we have # 2 unweighted facilities2, representing # 3 weighted facilities nationwide that are within the scope of the regulation and report unpaid labor and/ or management. One facility reports only unpaid management while the other reports both unpaid labor and unpaid management. In terms of financial organization, they are a S Corporation/ Limited Liability Corporation, and a Sole Proprietorship. All report annual sales less than $ 750,000, i. e., they are small businesses.

2. Baseline Status of These Facilities Both facilities pass the baseline discounted cash flow analysis. Neither incur impacts under any of the five options examined for the Notice of Data Availability or final rule. 3< http:// Stats. bls. gov/ cps/ cpsaat39. pdf> downloaded 26 January 2004 and < http:// Stats. bls. gov/ pdf/ cpsaat39. pdf> downloaded 12 April 2001.

4< http:// www. bls. oes. 2002. oes119011. htm> downloaded 26 January 2004.

5United States Department of Agriculture. Economic Research Service. Agricultural Income and Finance Outlook. AIS 81. 5 November 2003.

2 3. Estimated Costs for Sensitivity Analysis We examined several sources for possible wage estimates to use in the sensitivity analysis:

# Federal Minimum Wage ($ 5.15/ hr)

# Current Population Survey ( Bureau of Labor Statistics)

# United States Department of Agriculture ( USDA), Economic Research Service ( ERS).

Table 39 of the Current Population Survey lists median weekly earnings of full time wage and salary workers by detailed occupation. 3 For farm workers, median weekly earnings range from $ 309 in 2000 to $ 318 in 2002 or, roughly, $ 16,000 to $ 16,500 per year. For farm managers, median weekly earnings range from $ 547 in 2000 to $ 488 in 2002 or, roughly, $ 28,450 to $ 25,376 per year.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wages, 202 for category 11 9011 Farm, Ranch, and Other Agricultural Managers reports an average ( not median) annual wage of $ 51,370.4 USDA administers the Agricultural Resource Management Survey ( ARMS). USDA reports a 2002 average farm household income of $ 65,757 for all farms. 5 For commercial farms (>$ 250,000 in sales), farming contributes the major part of the income and the graph indicates an income of about $ 75,000.

We examined the effect of including the following labor and management costs:

# lowest of the USDA ARMS estimate for commercial farms, USDA ARMS estimate for all farms, and Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wages ($ 51,370).

# 2002 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Statistics, farm manager ($ 25,376/ yr).

# minimum wage ($ 10,712/ yr).

These costs were prorated according to the number of hours worked, if the respondent reported less than 40 hours/ week. 3 4. Results of the Sensitivity Analysis # Under the first assumption ($ 51,370), all facilities are baseline closures.

# Under the second assumption, all facilities remain open in the baseline and under all of the options.

# Under the minimum wage assumption, all facilities remain open in the baseline and under all of the options 5. Observations The threshold change from 20,000 lbs/ yr to 100,000 lbs/ year removed 10 of 12 unweighted facilities from the unpaid labor and management analysis reported in May 2003. So the majority of concern goes away with the change in threshold.

Of the two unweighted facilities that remain, none show a change in the impacts of the rule when a wage is imputed for unpaid labor and management. That is, either they are open in the baseline and remain open under all options, or they close in the baseline.