[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 14, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11155-11162]
[FR Doc No: 2018-04933]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0290; FRL-9975-14-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Regulatory Amendments Addressing Reasonably Available
Control Technology Requirements Under the 1997 and 2008 8-Hour Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing
rulemaking action on a state implementation plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania or the
Commonwealth). This revision consists of regulatory amendments intended
to meet certain reasonably available control technology (RACT)
requirements under the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS). EPA is proposing to approve most parts of
the Pennsylvania SIP revision as meeting RACT requirements under the
Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA is also proposing to conditionally approve
certain provisions of this SIP revision, based upon Pennsylvania's
commitment to submit additional enforceable measures that meet RACT.
This action is being taken under the CAA.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 13, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2017-0290 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, 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. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the ``For Further Information Contact'' section. For the
full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emlyn V[eacute]lez-Rosa, (215) 814-
2038, or by email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 16, 2016, the Pennsylvania Department
of Environmental Protection (PADEP) submitted a revision to the
Pennsylvania SIP consisting of amendments to regulations in 25 Pa. Code
Chapters 121 and 129, to meet certain RACT requirements of the CAA for
both the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

I. Background

    The Pennsylvania May 16, 2016 SIP revision submitted by PADEP
includes the Pennsylvania regulations in 25 Pa. Code sections 129.96-
129.100 titled ``Additional RACT Requirements for Major Sources of
NOX and VOCs'' (the RACT II Rule) and amendments to 25 Pa.
Code section 121.1, including

related definitions, to be incorporated into the Pennsylvania SIP.
These regulatory amendments were adopted by PADEP on April 23, 2016 and
effective on the same date upon publication in the Pennsylvania
Bulletin. The May 16, 2016 SIP revision was submitted to satisfy
certain CAA RACT requirements under both the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS for specific source categories.
    On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38856), EPA promulgated a standard for
ground level ozone based on 8-hour average concentrations (1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS). The 8-hour averaging period replaced the previous 1-hour
averaging period, and the level of the NAAQS was changed from 0.12
parts per million (ppm) to 0.08 ppm. On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23858),
EPA designated nonattainment areas under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Designations included 16 nonattainment areas in Pennsylvania, with only
2 moderate nonattainment areas, namely Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic
City, PA-NJ-MD-DE (the Philadelphia Area) and Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley
(the Pittsburgh Area). The remaining 14 areas in Pennsylvania were
designated marginal nonattainment areas. See 40 CFR 81.339.
    On March 12, 2008 (73 FR 16436), EPA strengthened the 8-hour ozone
standards, by revising its level to 0.075 ppm averaged over an 8-hour
period (2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS). On May 21, 2012, EPA designated most
areas in the country for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, including 5
marginal nonattainment areas in Pennsylvania: Allentown-Bethlehem-
Easton, Lancaster, Reading, the Philadelphia Area, and the Pittsburgh
Area. See 77 FR 30088 and 40 CFR 81.339.
    On March 6, 2015 (80 FR 12264), EPA announced its revocation of the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for all purposes and for all areas in the
country, effective on April 6, 2015. EPA also determined that certain
nonattainment planning requirements continue to be in effect under the
revoked standard for nonattainment areas under the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, including RACT. See 80 FR 12296 (March 6, 2015).

A. RACT Requirements for Ozone

    The CAA regulates emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and
volatile organic compounds (VOC) to prevent photochemical reactions
that result in ozone formation. RACT is an important strategy for
reducing NOX and VOC emissions from major stationary sources
within areas not meeting the ozone NAAQS.
    Areas designated nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS are subject to
the general nonattainment area planning requirements of CAA section
172. Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA provides that SIPs for nonattainment
areas must include reasonably available control measures (RACM) for
demonstrating attainment of all NAAQS, including emissions reductions
from existing sources through adoption of RACT. Further, section
182(b)(2) of the CAA sets forth additional RACT requirements for ozone
nonattainment areas classified as moderate or higher nonattainment.
    Section 182(b)(2) of the CAA sets forth three distinct requirements
regarding RACT for the ozone NAAQS: First, section 182(b)(2)(A)
requires states with ozone areas designated moderate or higher to
submit a rule (or negative declaration) for each category of VOC
sources in the nonattainment area covered by a Control Technique
Guideline (CTG) document issued by EPA between November 15, 1990 and
the date of attainment for an ozone NAAQS. These rules shall be
submitted as SIP revisions within the period set forth by EPA in
issuing the relevant CTG document. Second, section 182(b)(2)(B)
requires a rule (or negative declaration) for all VOC sources in the
nonattainment area covered by any CTG issued before November 15, 1990.
And third, section 182(b)(2)(C) requires a rule or rules for
implementing RACT for any other major stationary sources of VOCs
located in the nonattainment area.
    In addition, section 182(f) subjects major stationary sources of
NOX to the same RACT requirements that are applicable to
major stationary sources of VOC. EPA has not issued any CTGs for
categories of NOX sources, so the requirement in section
182(f) in essence refers to section 182(b)(2)(C). The ozone RACT
requirements under section 182(b)(2) are usually referred to as VOC CTG
RACT, non-CTG major VOC RACT, and major NOX RACT.
    Pursuant to section 183(c) of the CAA, EPA must revise and update
CTGs and Alternative Control Techniques guidelines (ACTs) as the
Administrator determines necessary. EPA's CTGs establish presumptive
RACT level control requirements for various source categories. The CTGs
usually identify a particular control level which EPA recommends as
being RACT. In some cases, EPA has issued ACTs for source categories,
which in contrast to the CTGs, only present a range for possible
control options but do not identify any particular option as the
presumptive norm for what is RACT. States are required to address RACT
for the source categories covered by CTGs through adoption of rules as
part of the SIP.
    Section 184(b)(1)(B) of the CAA applies the RACT requirements in
section 182(b)(2) for moderate nonattainment areas to nonattainment
areas classified as marginal and to attainment areas located within
ozone transport regions established pursuant to section 184 of the CAA.
Section 184(a) of the CAA established by law the current Ozone
Transport Region (the OTR) comprised of 12 eastern states, including
Pennsylvania. The requirement in section 184(b)(1)(B) is referred to as
OTR RACT. A ``major source'' is defined based on the source's potential
to emit (PTE) of NOX, VOC, or both pollutants, and the
applicable thresholds differ based on the classification of the
nonattainment area in which the source is located. See sections 182(c)-
(f) and 302 of the CAA.
    Since the 1970's, EPA has consistently defined RACT as the lowest
emission limit that a particular source is capable of meeting by the
application of the control technology that is reasonably available
considering technological and economic feasibility. See December 9,
1976 memorandum from Roger Strelow, Assistant Administrator for Air and
Waste Management, to Regional Administrators, ``Guidance for
Determining Acceptability of SIP Regulations in Non-Attainment Areas,''
and also 44 FR 53762 (September 17, 1979).
    EPA has provided more substantive RACT requirements through final
implementation rules for each ozone NAAQS as well as through guidance.
In 2004 and 2005, EPA promulgated an implementation rule for the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS in two phases (``Phase 1 of the 1997 Ozone
Implementation Rule'' and ``Phase 2 of the 1997 Ozone Implementation
Rule''). See 69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004) and 70 FR 71612 (November 29,
2005), respectively. Particularly, the Phase 2 Ozone Implementation
Rule addressed RACT statutory requirements under the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. See 70 FR 71652.
    On March 6, 2015, EPA issued its final rule for implementing the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (``the 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule''). See
80 FR 12264. At the same time, EPA revoked the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS,
effective on April 6, 2015.\1\ The 2008

Ozone SIP Requirements Rule provided comprehensive requirements to
transition from the revoked 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS to the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, as codified in 40 CFR part 51, subpart AA, following
revocation. Consistent with previous policy, EPA determined that areas
designated nonattainment for both the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS
at the time of revocation, must retain implementation of certain
nonattainment area requirements (i.e. anti-backsliding requirements)
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS as specified under section 182 of the
CAA, including RACT. See 40 CFR 51.1100(o). An area remains subject to
the anti-backsliding requirements for a revoked NAAQS until EPA
approves a redesignation to attainment for the area for the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. There are no effects on applicable requirements for areas
within the OTR, as a result of the revocation of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. Thus, Pennsylvania, as a state within the OTR, remains subject
to RACT requirements for both the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the 2008 ozone
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On February 16, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Cir. Court) issued an opinion
on the 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule. South Coast Air Quality
Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, No. 15-1115 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 16, 2018). The D.C.
Cir. Court found certain parts reasonable and denied the petition
for appeal on those. In particular, the D.C. Cir. Court upheld the
use of NOX averaging to meet RACT requirements for 2008
ozone NAAQS. However, the Court also found certain other provisions,
not relevant to this action, unreasonable. The D.C. Cir. Court
vacated the provisions it found unreasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addressing RACT, the 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule is
consistent with existing policy and Phase 2 of the 1997 Ozone
Implementation Rule. In the 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule, EPA
requires RACT measures to be implemented by January 1, 2017 for areas
classified as moderate nonattainment or above and all areas of the OTR.
EPA also provided in the 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule that RACT
SIPs must contain adopted RACT regulations, certifications where
appropriate that existing provisions are RACT, and/or negative
declarations stating that there are no sources in the nonattainment
area covered by a specific CTG source category. In the preamble to the
2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule, EPA clarified that states must
provide notice and opportunity for public comment on their RACT SIP
submissions, even when submitting a certification that the existing
provisions remain RACT or a negative declaration. States must submit
appropriate supporting information for their RACT submissions, in
accordance with the Phase 2 of the 1997 Ozone Implementation Rule.
Adequate documentation must support that states have considered control
technology that is economically and technologically feasible in
determining RACT, based on information that is current as of the time
of development of the RACT SIP.
    In addition, in the 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule, EPA clarified
that states can use weighted average NOX emissions rates
from sources in the nonattainment area for meeting the major
NOX RACT requirement under the CAA, as consistent with
existing policy.\2\ EPA also recognized that states may conclude in
some cases that sources already addressed by RACT determinations for
the 1-hour and/or 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS may not need to implement
additional controls to meet the 2008 ozone NAAQS RACT requirement. See
80 FR 12278-12279.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA's NOX RACT guidance ``Nitrogen Oxides
Supplement to the General Preamble'' (57 FR 55625; November 25,
1992) encouraged states to develop RACT programs that are based on
``area wide average emission rates.'' Additional guidance on area-
wide RACT provisions is provided by EPA's January 2001 economic
incentive program guidance titled ``Improving Air Quality with
Economic Incentive Programs,'' available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/eipfin.pdf. In addition, as mentioned previously,
the D.C. Cir. Court recently upheld the use of NOX
averaging to meet RACT requirements for 2008 ozone NAAQS. South
Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, No. 15-1115 (D.C. Cir. Feb.
16, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Applicability of RACT Requirements in Pennsylvania

    As indicated earlier, RACT requirements apply to any ozone
nonattainment areas classified as moderate or higher (serious, severe
or extreme) under CAA sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f). Pennsylvania has
outstanding ozone RACT requirements for both the 1997 and 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. The entire Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is part of the OTR
established under section 184 of the CAA and thus is subject statewide
to the RACT requirements of CAA sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f), pursuant
to section 184(b).
    At the time of revocation of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (effective
April 6, 2015), only two moderate nonattainment areas remained in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for this standard, the Philadelphia and
the Pittsburgh Areas. As required under EPA's anti-backsliding
provisions, these two moderate nonattainment areas continue to be
subject to RACT under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Given its location
in the OTR, the remainder of the Commonwealth is also treated as
moderate nonattainment area under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for any
planning requirements under the revoked standard, including RACT. The
OTR RACT requirement is also in effect under the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS throughout the Commonwealth, since EPA did not designate any
nonattainment areas above marginal for this standard in Pennsylvania.
Thus, in practice, the same RACT requirements continue to be applicable
in Pennsylvania for both the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. RACT
must be evaluated and satisfied as separate requirements under each
applicable standard.
    RACT applies to major sources of NOX and VOC under each
ozone NAAQS or any VOC sources subject to CTG RACT. Which
NOX and VOC sources in Pennsylvania are considered ``major''
and must be therefore subject to RACT, is dependent on the location of
each source within the Commonwealth. Sources located in nonattainment
areas would be subject to the ``major source'' definitions established
under the CAA. In the case of Pennsylvania, sources located in any
areas outside of moderate or above nonattainment areas, as part of the
OTR, shall be treated as if these areas were moderate.
    States were required to make RACT SIP submissions for the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS by September 15, 2006. PADEP submitted a SIP revision
on September 25, 2006, certifying that a number of previously approved
VOC CTG and non-CTG RACT rules continued to satisfy RACT under the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS for the remainder of Pennsylvania.\3\ PADEP has met
its obligations under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for its CTG and non-
CTG VOC sources. See 82 FR 31464 (July 7, 2017). RACT control measures
addressing all applicable CAA requirements under the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS have been implemented and fully approved in the jurisdictions of
Allegheny County and Philadelphia County in Pennsylvania. See 78 FR
34584 (June 10, 2013) and 81 FR 69687 (October 7, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The September 15, 2006 SIP submittal initially included
Pennsylvania's certification of NOX RACT regulations;
however, NOX RACT portions were withdrawn by PADEP on
June 27, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, states were required to submit
RACT SIP revisions by July 20, 2014. On May 16, 2016, PADEP submitted a
SIP revision addressing RACT under both the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in Pennsylvania. Specifically, the May 16, 2016 SIP submittal
intends to satisfy sections 182(b)(2)(C), 182(f), and 184 of the CAA
for both the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for Pennsylvania's major
NOX and VOC non-CTG sources, except ethylene production
plants, surface active agents manufacturing, and mobile equipment
repair and refinishing.

    This notice includes EPA's rationale for proposing rulemaking
action on the Pennsylvania May 16, 2016 SIP revision for purposes of
meeting these RACT requirements under the CAA. EPA prepared two
technical support documents (TSDs) in support of this proposed
rulemaking action: ``Technical Support Document for the Pennsylvania
State Implementation Plan Revision for Certain Reasonably Available
Control Technology Requirements under the 1997 and 2008 8-Hour Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' and ``Technical Support
Document for the Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan Revision for
Certain Reasonably Available Control Technology Requirements under the
1997 and 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards- Cost
Effective Analyses for Coal Fired Boilers.'' For further details on
this proposed rulemaking action, please refer to these TSDs, which are
included as part of this rulemaking docket and are available online at
www.regulations.gov.

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA's Evaluation

    The RACT II Rule applies statewide to existing major NOX
and/or VOC sources in Pennsylvania, except those subject to other
Pennsylvania regulations, as specified in 25 Pa. Code 129.96(a)-(b).\4\
All but one of the exempted rules listed in section 129.96(a)-(b) have
been previously approved by EPA into the SIP to meet RACT requirements
under the CAA. The RACT II Rule exempts all VOC source categories for
which PADEP had adopted CTG RACT regulations at the time the RACT II
Rule was finalized. In addition, regulations exempted under the RACT II
Rule also apply to three non-CTG VOC source categories: (1) Ethylene
production plants, (2) surface active agents manufacturing, and (3)
mobile equipment repair and refinishing. The RACT II Rule also exempts
25 Pa. Code sections 129.301-129.310, which has not been approved as
RACT, although it is approved into the SIP. This regulation establishes
NOX control requirements for glass melting furnaces. Any
other NOX major sources in Pennsylvania are covered by the
RACT II Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In the context of the RACT II Rule, the terms ``major
NOX emitting facility'' and ``major VOC emitting
facility,'' as defined in 25 Pa Code section 121.1, are used to
refer to major stationary sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The RACT II Rule requirements apply to any emissions unit or
process at an affected major source having a PTE of 1 ton per year
(TPY) or more of NOX and/or VOC. In the context of the rule,
existing major sources are those already in existence as of July 20,
2012 or any major sources installed or modified after July 20, 2012,
which became a major source before January 1, 2017. The RACT II Rule
establishes a general compliance date of January 1, 2017, as provided
in paragraphs in 129.97(a) and 129.99(d)(4). EPA recognizes that RACT
controls under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS were required to be
implemented in Pennsylvania by 2009 and that this requirement is past
due; however, EPA believes that the May 16, 2016 SIP revision should
sufficiently address the pending RACT obligations under the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS by addressing the more stringent RACT level of control
under the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The general compliance date of the
RACT II Rule is consistent with EPA's required deadline for states to
implement RACT controls under the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 80 FR
12279.
    The RACT II Rule permits an affected major source that needs
additional time to install an air pollution control device to meet the
requirements under the RACT II Rule to petition PADEP for an
alternative compliance schedule. The RACT II Rule also allows an owner
or operator of a major source to petition an alternative compliance
schedule if it needs additional time to install an air pollution
control device on an affected emissions unit in order to comply with
the RACT II requirements. These provisions allow the owner or operator
in this situation to petition in writing for an alternative compliance
schedule, by proposing an interim emission limit, and a later
compliance date to implement such control device ``as soon as possible
but not later than 3 years after the written approval of the
petition.'' EPA believes that the language in the rule allows for
Pennsylvania's implementation of RACT controls as expeditiously as
practicable.
    Section 129.97 of the RACT II Rule establishes NOX and
VOC emission limits or operational requirements on certain types of
emissions units in the affected major sources which Pennsylvania
presumes to meet RACT, thus referred to in the rule as presumptive
RACT. Operating requirements apply to smaller emissions units; namely,
combustion units with rated heat input equal to or greater than 20
million British Thermal Units per hour (MMBTU/hr) and less than 50
MMBTU/hr, NOX sources with PTE of less than 5 TPY, VOC
sources with PTE of less than 2.7 TPY, combustion units with rated heat
input of less than 20 MMBTU/hour, and emergency generators operating
less than 500 hours in a 12-month rolling period. Presumptive RACT
NOX limits are provided for combustion units, process
heaters, combustion turbines, stationary internal combustion engines,
cement kilns, and municipal waste combustors. Presumptive RACT VOC
limits are provided for combustion turbines, stationary internal
combustion engines, and municipal solid waste landfills.
    In evaluating whether controls and emission limitations meet RACT,
EPA generally considers controls that have been achieved in practice by
other similar existing sources to be technologically and economically
feasible. For that reason, to evaluate PADEP's RACT determinations
under the RACT II Rule, EPA reviewed NOX emissions limits in
effect in adjacent OTR states for certain source categories addressed
by Pennsylvania's rule.\5\ EPA also reviewed and considered guidance
documents that have been published to assist states in identifying
NOX RACT level of controls. EPA finds that the
NOX presumptive limits in 25 Pa. Code section 129.97 of the
RACT II Rule are comparable to NOX emission limitations in
other states and consistent with EPA's RACT guidance on additional
control requirements. EPA finds that the presumptive requirements of
the RACT II Rule represent emission limitations achievable through
implementation of reasonably available controls. EPA also finds the VOC
presumptive limits for combustion turbines and internal combustion
engines to be reasonable considering feasibility of available controls.
For municipal solid waste landfills, the RACT II Rule incorporates by
reference as VOC presumptive limits the federal New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc (Subpart Cc) and subpart
WWW (Subpart WWW). EPA finds that the NSPS standards represent
reasonably achievable NOX emissions limits based on the
operation of reasonably available controls, and thus, meet RACT for
this source category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ EPA evaluated NOX emission limits in adjacent OTR
states because the OTR states are all subject to the same RACT
requirements for the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS under CAA section
184.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA further evaluated the NOX presumptive requirements
in 25 Pa. Code section 129.97 of the RACT II Rule that are applicable
to large coal-fired boilers. Sources under these requirements would
include utility boilers and large industrial boilers, which are a
significant NOX emissions sector in Pennsylvania. The RACT
II Rule establishes more rigorous requirements for large coal-fired
boilers with certain post-combustion controls

in place, specifically selective catalytic reduction (SCR), while other
coal-fired boilers without these controls in place are the subject of
less stringent NOX emissions limits based on the boiler
type. EPA finds that the presumptive limit of 0.12 pounds of
NOX per heat input in million British Thermal Unit (lb/
MMBTU) is consistent with the operation of SCR presently installed and
reasonably represents RACT for coal-fired boilers with this control in
place. EPA evaluated economic feasibility of installing and operating
additional post-combustion controls on any large coal-fired boilers in
Pennsylvania that to date do not have these controls, in order to
determine which RACT control level is reasonable as a basis for PADEP's
presumptive requirements for this subset of boilers. EPA finds that
Pennsylvania's presumptive RACT determination for coal-fired boilers
without post-combustion controls is reasonable, as it is based on the
economic infeasibility of retrofitting coal-fired boilers in
Pennsylvania. Thus, EPA concludes that PADEP has adequately established
for coal-fired boilers NOX presumptive RACT requirements
based on reasonably available controls that therefore represent RACT.
For further details, refer to EPA's ``Technical Support Document for
the Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan Revision for Certain
Reasonably Available Control Technology Requirements under the 1997 and
2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards- Cost
Effective Analyses for Coal Fired Boilers.''
    Pursuant to 25 Pa. Code section 129.97(g)(4), any combustion unit
firing multiple fuels and subject to different presumptive limits for
each fuel, must comply with a single NOX or VOC emission
limit determined on a total heat input fuel weighted basis for any fuel
representing 1% of more of the combustion unit's annual fuel combustion
on a heat input basis. EPA finds the RACT II Rule's multiple fuel
compliance method practicable and adequate for RACT.
    Affected major sources subject to the presumptive requirements of
25 Pa. Code section 129.97 that cannot comply with the applicable
presumptive NOX limits for any given emissions units, may
choose one of two alternative compliance options to establish RACT.
Such sources may either propose an alternative NOX emissions
limit based on average NOX emissions from multiple sources
or else propose a source-specific emission NOX or VOC limit.
    The NOX averaging provisions established in 25 Pa. Code
section 129.98 allow the owner or operator of an affected major
NOX source that is unable to meet a NOX
presumptive limit for at least one of its emissions unit, to establish
an alternative RACT limit by averaging the NOX emissions
from the non-compliant emissions unit and other emissions units.
Participating NOX emissions units can be located either
within the same facility (facility-wide averaging) or in another
facility but within the same nonattainment area (system-wide
averaging). As discussed in the following section, EPA finds that 25
Pa. Code section 129.98 is not sufficient to address RACT for sources
seeking averaging, without the specific NOX averaging
provisions for any affected sources being submitted to EPA for SIP
approval. Therefore, EPA is proposing to conditionally approve the
provisions in 25 Pa. Code section 129.98. Additional discussion and
explanation for this conditional approval is provided in the following
section III of this notice.
    Under 25 Pa. Code section 129.99, the owner or operator of an
affected major NOX and/or VOC source that is unable to meet
a presumptive requirement under section 129.97, may propose an
alternative RACT emissions limit, based on the feasibility evaluation
of reasonably available controls for each emissions unit. The resulting
limits are typically unique to the affected emissions unit and
achievable through the application of specific controls, therefore
referred to as source-specific RACT limits. In addition, an affected
major source of NOX and/or VOC with any emissions unit that
is not subject to any presumptive limits or requirements under 25 Pa.
Code section 129.97, is required to propose a source-specific RACT
limit under 25 Pa. Code section 129.99, similarly based on the
evaluation of technologically and economically feasible controls.
    Section 129.99 outlines a common procedure for proposing a source-
specific RACT limit, whether proposed as an alternative under section
129.99(a) or as required under section 129.99(b)-(c). A written RACT
proposal under section 129.99 must be submitted to PADEP or local
agency for any affected emissions units with PTE of 5.0 TPY or more of
NOX and/or 2.7 TPY or more of VOC. Source-specific limits
determined to be adequate by PADEP or local agency will be approved
into federally enforceable permits and then submitted for EPA's review
and approval into the SIP to meet RACT. As discussed in the following
section, EPA finds that 25 Pa. Code section 129.99 is not approvable by
itself without further information on specific sources and is therefore
not approvable as RACT for sources seeking or required to establish an
alternative RACT limit. Therefore, EPA is proposing to conditionally
approve the provisions in 25 Pa. Code section 129.99. Additional
discussion and explanation for this conditional approval is provided in
the section III of this notice.
    The RACT II Rule contains certain ancillary provisions to ensure
RACT level of control for sources that have been previously subject to
RACT or are subject to other federally enforceable requirements.
Section 129.97(i) of the RACT II Rule provides that the presumptive
requirements in section 129.97 will supersede any RACT requirements of
a ``RACT permit'' issued prior April 23, 2016 under 25 Pa. Code
sections 129.91-95, unless the RACT permit contains more stringent
requirements. ``RACT permits'' under 25 Pa. Code sections 129.91-95
were submitted by Pennsylvania as SIP revisions and, if determined to
meet RACT, were approved by EPA into the Pennsylvania SIP under 40 CFR
52.2020(d). Section 129.99(k) of the RACT II Rule provides that any
source-specific requirements approved under section 129.99 will
supersede any similar NOX and/or VOC requirements that have
been approved into an existing enforceable permit issued for the
affected source prior to April 23, 2016, except to the extent the
existing permit requirements are more stringent. Subsequent RACT SIP
revisions under section 129.99 must include a demonstration consistent
with CAA section 110(l) to supersede any previously SIP approved RACT
requirements, and such revisions will be evaluated and acted on by EPA
separately. EPA finds that the provisions in sections 129.97(i) and
129.99(k) are approvable, as they adequately ensure that additional SIP
revisions establishing RACT for major NOX and non-CTG VOC
sources in Pennsylvania reflect the most stringent level of control for
the affected sources.
    25 Pa. Code section 129.100 of the RACT II Rule establishes
compliance demonstration and recordkeeping requirements for affected
sources. Specific monitoring and testing requirements are established
for sources complying with presumptive RACT requirements under section
129.97. Recordkeeping requirements are established under section
129.100(d) for any affected sources under the RACT II Rule.
    Additional compliance demonstration requirements for NOX
averaging or

source-specific RACT alternative limits will be established by PADEP or
the local permitting agency on a source-specific basis, in accordance
with sections 129.98 and 129.99, respectively, and consistent with
section 129.100. In the case of sources complying with 129.99, such
additional compliance demonstration requirements will be submitted to
EPA for approval into the SIP, along with the source-specific limits.
Because section 129.98 does not contain any similar requirement to
submit NOX averaging provisions for approval into the SIP,
EPA finds that the RACT II Rule does not sufficiently establish
compliance demonstration requirements for sources choosing to comply
with NOX averaging under section 129.98, without submitting
those additional compliance demonstration requirements to EPA for
approval in the SIP. EPA is proposing conditional approval of the
NOX averaging provisions in section 129.98, which will
address the lack of specific compliance demonstration requirements for
sources seeking to comply with these provisions. Additional discussion
and explanation for this conditional approval is provided in the
section III of this notice.
    Any definitions related to the RACT II Rule are codified in 25 Pa.
Code section 121.1. The May 16, 2016 SIP revision included amendments
to existing definitions: ``CEMS--continuous emissions monitoring
system,'' ``major NOX emitting facility,'' ``major VOC
emitting facility,'' ``stationary internal combustion engine or
stationary reciprocating internal combustion engine;'' and included new
definitions for ``process heater,'' ``refinery gas,'' ``regenerative
cycle combustion cycle combustion turbine,'' ``simple cycle combustion
turbine,'' and ``stationary combustion turbine.'' The definitional
changes in 25 Pa. Code section 121.1 are consistent with requirements
in the RACT II Rule and are thus approvable under CAA section 110.
    EPA finds that the presumptive requirements of 25 Pa. Code section
129.97 represent RACT for the NOX and VOC source categories
affected by these provisions. EPA also finds that the applicability
requirements of 25 Pa. Code section 129.96, the compliance
demonstration requirements of 25 Pa. Code section 129.100, and the
definitions in 25 Pa. Code section 121.1 are necessary to implement the
RACT requirements of section 129.97. Thus, EPA finds that these
particular provisions of the RACT II Rule are approvable in accordance
with requirements in CAA sections 110, 172, 182, and 184 as meeting
RACT for the affected major sources of non-CTG VOC and major sources of
NOX under both the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. As
discussed in the following section, EPA is also proposing conditional
approval of 25 Pa. Code sections 129.98 and 129.99.
    Additional details of Pennsylvania's SIP submission and EPA's
reasoning for proposing approval of this SIP revision can be found in
the ``Technical Support Document for the Pennsylvania State
Implementation Plan Revision for Certain Reasonably Available Control
Technology Requirements under the 1997 and 2008 8-Hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' prepared for this rulemaking action
and available online at www.regulations.gov for this rulemaking.

III. Rationale for Proposing Conditional Approval of Certain Provisions

    EPA identified deficiencies in 25 Pa. Code sections 129.98 and
129.99, respectively, that prevent full approval of the RACT II Rule
SIP revision. The NOX averaging provisions in 25 Pa. Code
section 129.98 are deficient because they do not clearly specify how to
properly establish an alternative RACT limit and do not require the
submission of averaging NOX limits to EPA for SIP approval
as RACT. EPA finds that the NOX averaging provisions,
particularly as provided in section 129.98(e), are too vague to
establish an adequate alternative RACT limit, without a specific
determination for each source and specific inclusion into the
Pennsylvania SIP of all permit conditions relevant to implementation of
the NOX alternative limit for each affected source. Although
section 129.98 (e) intended to define the alternative NOX
RACT emission limit under a NOX averaging plan, the equation
provided only stipulates that the cumulative actual NOX
emissions from the emission units included in the averaging plan must
be no greater than the cumulative allowable NOX emissions
for those emissions units. Section 129.98(e) also specifies that the
alternative NOX limit must be based on the application of
the relevant presumptive NOX limit (as an emissions rate)
under 25 Pa. Code section 129.97 or a more stringent limit and must be
expressed as NOX mass emissions; and it requires compliance
with the alternative NOX limit determined on a 30-day
rolling basis. Neither 25 Pa. Code section 129.98(e) nor any other
provision in section 129.98 establish how to properly compute the
alternative NOX limit, such that an affected source can
consistently establish an alternative limit and the resulting limit is
practically and federally enforceable to meet RACT and in accordance
with CAA section 110(a)(2)(A).
    The lack of specificity in 25 Pa. Code section 129.98 allows
certain unbounded discretion in determining an alternative
NOX RACT limit, which correspondingly results in our
inability to determine if such limit would be adequate for RACT for any
major source required to meet RACT. Also, this uncertainty prevents
consistent implementation of the NOX averaging provisions
and ultimately prevents the adequate enforceability of these provisions
as a practical matter. 25 Pa. Code Section 129.98 fails to provide, on
its face, a generic mechanism to establish a presumptive alternative
NOX limit.
    Further, EPA has long interpreted the RACT requirement of the CAA
to mean states must adopt and submit regulations that include emission
limitations \6\ as applicable to the subject sources. In other words, a
state would not fully meet the RACT requirement until it established
emissions limitations applicable to the appropriate sets of sources.
Hence, the NOX averaging provisions in section 129.98, even
if sufficiently specific, would not be adequate to fully meet RACT in
the absence of the submitted RACT emissions limitations for approval
into the SIP.\7\ Consequently, NOX averaging alternative
limits would need to be established on a source-specific basis, and
would need to be submitted to EPA for approval into the SIP.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The use of the term emissions limitation is not meant to
exclude the use of work practice standards or other operation and
maintenance requirements that might be determined to be RACT.
    \7\ EPA's November 7, 1996 Memorandum ``Approval Option for
Generic RACT Rules Submitted to Meet the non-CTG VOC RACT
Requirements and Certain NOX RACT Requirements.''
    \8\ However, as mentioned previously, the D.C. Cir. Court
recently upheld the use of NOX averaging to meet RACT
requirements for 2008 ozone NAAQS. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt.
Dist. v. EPA, No. 15-1115 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 16, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to 25 Pa. Code section 129.99 for source-specific
RACT, EPA finds that the generic process to subsequently establish
source-specific RACT emissions limits is deficient, because it lacks a
date certain by which Pennsylvania must submit the relevant source-
specific RACT SIP revisions to EPA to meet RACT requirements for the
1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS. According to EPA's longstanding policy, such
``generic rule'' or process cannot fully satisfy RACT, in the absence
of the submitted emission limitations.\9\ Thus,

EPA cannot fully approve 25 Pa. Code section 129.99 of the RACT II Rule
without the submission of all source-specific RACT limits established
under these provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ EPA's November 7, 1996 Memorandum ``Approval Option for
Generic RACT Rules Submitted to Meet the non-CTG VOC RACT
Requirements and Certain NOX RACT Requirements.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, EPA finds that the RACT II Rule does not specify
compliance demonstration requirements for sources choosing to meet RACT
by complying with NOX averaging under section 129.98.
Section 129.100 only establishes recordkeeping requirements for sources
complying with NOX averaging under section 129.98. Section
129.98 requires each source included in the NOX emissions
averaging plan to provide methods for demonstrating compliance and
recordkeeping and reporting requirements; however, those requirements
are not required to be included into the SIP. Because these additional
compliance demonstration requirements would need to be determined on a
source-specific basis consistent with the limits and affected sources
under a NOX averaging plan, EPA requires the submission of
such requirements for approval into the SIP, in order for the
alternative NOX limits under section 129.98 to be
practically and federally enforceable, pursuant to CAA section
110(a)(2)(A).
    On September 26, 2017, PADEP submitted a supplemental document to
EPA that included PADEP's specific commitments to address the
deficiencies in 25 Pa. Code sections 129.98 and 129.99. PADEP committed
to submit to EPA, within 12 months of EPA's final rulemaking action,
additional SIP revisions that include the portions of enforceable
permits containing the terms and conditions relevant for compliance
with section 129.98, which would include the alternative NOX
limits as averaging plans and relevant compliance demonstration
requirements. PADEP also committed to submit within 12 months of EPA's
final rulemaking action, additional source-specific RACT SIP revisions
containing source-specific RACT limits approved by PADEP under 25 Pa.
Code section 129.99. A copy of PADEP's September 22, 2017 documentation
containing these commitments is available in the docket for this
rulemaking and online at www.regulations.gov.
    EPA finds Pennsylvania's commitments adequately address the
deficiencies noted in this rulemaking action for 25 Pa. Code sections
129.98 and 129.99 and are a sufficient basis for EPA to propose
conditional approval of these provisions as meeting RACT for sources
seeking a NOX averaging plan or source-specific RACT. Under
section 110(k)(4) of the CAA, EPA may conditionally approve a plan
based on a commitment from the state to adopt specific enforceable
measures within 1 year from the date of approval. If the state fails to
adopt and submit the specified measures by the end of 1 year (from the
final conditional approval), or fails to submit anything at all, EPA
will revert its conditional approval to a disapproval, triggering
additional obligations under sections 179 and 110(c) of the CAA.
    In this event, EPA will send a letter to the state finding that it
had failed to meet its commitment and that the SIP submittal is
disapproved. Subsequently, a disapproval notice will be published in
the Federal Register, and appropriate language will be inserted in the
Code of Federal Regulations. EPA's disapproval, effective as of the
date of the letter to the state, will trigger a ``clock'' to impose
sanctions under section 179(a) and for EPA to issue a federal
implementation plan (FIP) under section 110(c)(1). For plan submittals
required under Part D, such as ozone RACT, section 179(a) allows for up
to 18 months for the state to correct the deficiency that is the
subject of a finding or disapproval before EPA is required to impose
sanctions. Further, section 110(c)(1) provides for up to 2 years for
the state to correct the deficiency, or else additional sanctions apply
at this time, and for EPA to approve a new submittal before being
obligated to promulgate a FIP. Similarly, if EPA receives a submittal
addressing the commitment but determines that the submittal is
incomplete, EPA will send a letter to the state making such a finding.
As with the failure to submit, the sanctions and FIP clocks will begin
as of the date of the finding letter.
    In addition, where the state does make a complete submittal by the
end of the 1-year period, EPA will have to evaluate that submittal to
determine if it may be approved and take final action on the submittal
within 12 months after the date EPA determines the submittal is
complete. If the submittal does not adequately address the deficiencies
that were the subject of the conditional approval, and is therefore not
approvable, EPA will go through notice-and-comment rulemaking to
disapprove the submittal. The 18-month clock for sanctions and the 2-
year clock for a FIP start as of the date of final disapproval. If EPA
determines that the rule is approvable, EPA will propose approval of
the rule. In either instance, whether EPA finally approves or
disapproves the rule, the conditional approval remains in effect until
EPA takes its final action.
    By conditionally approving 25 Pa. Code sections 129.98 and 129.99,
EPA would ensure that adequate RACT limits are established in addition
to or as alternative to the presumptive RACT requirements of 25 Pa.
Code section 129.97. Additional compliance demonstration requirements
would also be approved into the SIP for sources complying with either
25 Pa. Code section 129.98 or 129.99, which would ensure adequate
federal and practical enforceability of any additional RACT limits
under the RACT II Rule for compliance with CAA section 110(a)(2)(A). In
addition, with EPA's conditional approval of these requirements, EPA
would set a specific schedule for producing enforceable RACT measures,
resulting in more timely implementation of RACT controls in
Pennsylvania than would otherwise occur if EPA was to disapprove these
provisions and require a federal plan for control.
    Conditional approval of 25 Pa. Code sections 129.98 and 129.99
should not result in the approved portions of the RACT II Rule being
any more stringent than anticipated or intended by Pennsylvania. 25 Pa.
Code 129.99 requires source-specific RACT to receive EPA approval and
required sources complying with these requirements to submit an
alternative proposal to PADEP by a date certain which has already
passed. In addition, compliance with 25 Pa. Code sections 129.98 and
129.99 is intended in most cases as an alternative option for affected
sources that are unable to comply with the established presumptive RACT
emissions requirements under section 129.97. The presumptive RACT
requirements in section 129.97 remain applicable unless and until a
source receives approval of an alternative RACT limit (under 25 Pa.
Code sections 129.98 and 129.99) and EPA approves such alternative RACT
limits into the Pennsylvania SIP. Further, PADEP's September 22, 2017
commitments confirm PADEP's intention to submit alternative RACT limits
under 25 Pa. Code sections 129.98 and 129.99 to EPA for SIP approval.
The submission of any alternative RACT requirement approved by
Pennsylvania as a SIP revision will not supplant the presumptive RACT
requirements for purposes of Federal enforceability unless and until
the alternative is fully approved by EPA into the SIP.
    In conclusion, EPA is proposing conditional approval under CAA
section 110(k)(4) only of 25 Pa. Code sections 129.98 and 129.99 of the
RACT II Rule

for the reasons provided above. EPA is also proposing full approval
under CAA 110 of the rest of the RACT II Rule included for
incorporation in the Pennsylvania SIP through PADEP's May 16, 2016 SIP
submittal, as EPA finds that the remainder of the RACT II Rule meets
the intended RACT requirements under sections 172, 182, 184 and 110 of
the CAA for the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS.

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA's review of the Pennsylvania May 16, 2016 SIP submittal
indicates that certain portions of the submittal are adequate to meet
RACT requirements under the CAA for both the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. EPA is proposing to fully approve into the SIP the provisions in
25 Pa. Code sections 129.96-129.97, and 129.100 of the RACT II Rule and
relevant definitions in 25 Pa. Code section 121.1, adopted by
Pennsylvania on April 23, 2016, as meeting RACT for the 1997 and 2008
ozone NAAQS. These provisions are adequate to meet the ozone-specific
RACT requirements of sections 172, 182(b)(2)(C), 182(f), and 184 of the
CAA for both the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for specific
NOX and VOC sources in Pennsylvania, and in accordance with
section 110.
    In addition, EPA is proposing to conditionally approve 25 Pa. Code
sections 129.98 and 129.99, as these provisions provide alternative
RACT requirements which require further PADEP and EPA action in order
to meet RACT requirements under the CAA. The provisions of 25 Pa. Code
sections 129.98 and 129.99 will become fully approvable, if PADEP
submits to EPA, within 12 months of EPA's final action, additional SIP
revisions that include any alternative NOX averaging limits
and source-specific RACT limits adopted under sections 129.98 and
129.99, respectively, as well as any relevant compliance demonstration
requirements. Once EPA has determined that PADEP has satisfied this
condition, EPA shall remove the conditional nature of its approval and,
at that time, the provisions in 25 Pa. Code sections 129.98 and 129.99
will receive a full approval status. Should PADEP fail to meet this
condition, the final conditional approval of 25 Pa. Code sections
129.98 and 129.99 will convert to a disapproval. EPA is soliciting
public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These
comments will be considered before taking final action.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA
rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to
incorporate by reference the regulatory provisions of 25 Pa. Code
sections 129.96-129.100 of the RACT II Rule and related amendments of
25 Pa Code section 121.1, as adopted by Pennsylvania on April 23, 2016.
EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally
available through http://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region III
Office (please contact the person identified in the ``For Further
Information Contact'' section of this preamble for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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 CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule, concerning Pennsylvania's 1997 and
2008 8-hour ozone reasonably available control technology for certain
major NOx and VOC sources, 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: February 23, 2018.
 Cosmo Servidio,
 Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2018-04933 Filed 3-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Jim Ketcham Colwill/ DC/ USEPA/ US 08/ 30/ 2005 10: 04 AM To John Silvasi/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA cc Amy_ E._ Flynn@ omb. eop. gov, Arthur_ G._ Fraas@ omb. eop. gov, Denise Gerth/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Jan Tierney/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Kevin McLean/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Lydia Wegman/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Robert Meyers/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Tom Helms/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA Subject Re: Revised RACT section ( 8 hr O3 NAAQS implementation rule/ phase 2) & RFP section revisio John,

Thanks for doing this.

There is one sentence that is duplicated  see end of the redline paragraph:

However, even where a State allows opt ins from other source categories to meet CAIR emission levels, if a State transitions from the NOx SIP cal level of control to CAIR by the first two transition options for non EGUs discussed above, the NOx RACT requirement would be met for EGUs ( and the State would not need to conduct RACT analyses for these EGUs) if the Stat retains a summer season EGU budget under CAIR that is at least as restrictive as the EGU budget that was set in the State's NOx SIP call SIP. Otherwise, the State would need to conduct RACT analyses for EGUs ( either on an individual basis, or using the averaging approach within th nonattainment area). In either event, the State would need to conduct RACT analyses for EGUs ( either on an individual basis, or using the averaging approach within the nonattainment area). [ zzz DO WE KEEP THIS FOOTNOTE?]


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 130 (Monday, July 8, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32272-32274]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14420]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2019-0537]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway, Atlantic City, NJ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
certain navigable waters of the New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway. The
safety zone is needed to protect participants of the Jim Whelan Open
Water Festival on these navigable waters near Atlantic City, NJ, during
a swim event on July 14, 2019. This regulation prohibits non-
participant persons and vessels from entering, transiting through,
anchoring in, or remaining within the safety zone unless authorized by
the Captain of the Port (COTP) Delaware Bay or a designated
representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 5 p.m. through 9 p.m. on July 14,
2019.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2019-0537 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this rule,
call or email Petty Officer Thomas Welker, U.S. Coast Guard Sector
Delaware Bay, Waterways Management Division; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because it is impracticable and contrary to
the public interest to do so. There is insufficient time to allow for a
reasonable comment period prior to the date of the event. We are taking
immediate action to ensure the safety of participants and the general
public from hazards associated with non-participant vessel movement
near the swim event. It is impracticable and contrary to the public
interest to publish an NPRM because we must establish this safety zone
by July 14, 2019.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest
because the rule must be in effect by July 14, 2019, to mitigate the
potential safety hazards associated with the swim event.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). Green Whales Inc. notified the Coast
Guard that it will host the inaugural Jim Whelan Open Water Festival on
July 14, 2019. The event will include a 400-meter swim with up to 50
participants and a 2-kilometer swim with up to 150 participants. The
swim courses are on the waters of the New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway
in Atlantic City, NJ. The Captain of the Port Delaware Bay (COTP) has
determined that potential hazards associated with this swim event
scheduled for July 14, 2019, will be a safety concern for participants
and for vessels operating within the specified waters of the New Jersey
Intracoastal Waterway. The purpose of this rulemaking is to protect
participants, spectators, and transiting vessels on certain waters of
the New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway before, during, and after the
scheduled event.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 5 p.m. until 9 p.m. on
July 14, 2019. The safety zone will cover navigable waters of the New
Jersey Intracoastal Waterway between the Albany Avenue (Highway 40)
bridge in the southwest and New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway Daybeacon
204 in the northeast. Paragraph (a) of the regulation text below
provides a detailed description of the location. The duration of the
zone is intended to ensure the safety of participants and vessels on
these navigable waters before, during, and after the swim event
scheduled from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. on July 14, 2019. No person or vessel
will be permitted to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain
within the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP
Delaware Bay or a designated representative. If the COTP Delaware Bay
or a designated representative grants authorization to enter, transit
through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone, all persons and
vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions
of the COTP Delaware Bay or a designated representative. The Coast
Guard will provide public notice of the safety zone by Local Notice to
Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    The impact of this rule is not significant for the following
reasons: (1) The enforcement period will last four hours when vessel
traffic is usually low; (2) although non-participant persons and
vessels may not enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain with the
safety zone without authorization from the COTP Delaware Bay or a
designated representative, surrounding channels within the New Jersey
Intracoastal Waterways will remain unaffected. Persons and vessels will
be able to operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement
period; (3) persons and vessels will still be able to enter, transit
through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area if authorized
by the

COTP Delaware Bay or a designated representative; and (4) the Coast
Guard will provide advance notification of the safety zone to the local
maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to
Mariners, and on-scene actual notice from designated representatives.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01 and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have
determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting only 4 hours that
will prohibit entry within certain navigable waters during a swim
event. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph
L60(a) in Table 3-1 of U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning
Implementing Procedures 5090.1. A Record of Environmental Consideration
supporting this determination is available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T05-0537 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-0537  Safety Zone; New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway,
Atlantic City, NJ.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters of the New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway in Atlantic City, NJ,
within the polygon bounded by the following: Originating at the
southeast portion of the Albany Avenue Bridge where the bridge crosses
the shoreline at approximate position latitude 39[deg]21'12'' N,
longitude 074[deg]27'23'' W; thence northeasterly along the shoreline
to latitude 39[deg]21'43'' N, longitude 074[deg]26'41'' W; thence west
across the New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway to the shoreline at
latitude 39[deg]21'42'' N, longitude 074[deg]26'51'' W; thence west
along the shoreline to latitude 39[deg]21'41'' N, longitude
074[deg]26'55'' W; thence southwest across the mouth of Beach Thorofare
to the shoreline at latitude 39[deg]21'33'' N, longitude
074[deg]27'07'' W; thence southwest along the shoreline to the
northeast portion of the Albany Avenue Bridge where the bridge crosses
the shoreline at approximate position latitude 39[deg]21'15'' N,
longitude 074[deg]27'24'' W; thence south along the eastern, outermost
edge of the bridge to the point of origin.

    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative
means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard petty
officer, warrant or commissioned officer on board a Coast Guard vessel
or on board a federal, state, or local law enforcement vessel assisting
the Captain of the Port (COTP), Delaware Bay in the enforcement of the
safety zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter or remain in the zone, contact the
COTP or the COTP's representative via VHF-FM channel 16 or 215-271-
4807. Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or
directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated
representative.
    (3) This section applies to all vessels except those engaged in law
enforcement, aids to navigation servicing, and emergency response
operations.
    (d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol
and enforcement of the safety zone by Federal, State, and local
agencies.
    (e) Enforcement period. This zone will be enforced from
approximately (but no earlier than) 5 p.m. to approximately (but not
later than) 9 p.m. on July 14, 2019.

    Dated: June 28, 2019.
Scott E. Anderson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Delaware Bay.
[FR Doc. 2019-14420 Filed 7-5-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: January 26, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 16)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 3983-3984]
[DOCID:fr26ja10-1]

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

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

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0713; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-303-AD;
Amendment 39-16180; AD 2010-02-09]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A318 Series Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

    Some operators have reported airframe vibration under specific
flight conditions including gusts.
    Investigations have revealed that under such conditions,
vibrations may occur when the hinge moment of the elevator is close
to zero, associated to elevator free-play.
* * * * *

The unsafe condition is excessive vibration of the elevators, which
could result in reduced structural integrity and reduced
controllability of the airplane. We are issuing this AD to require
actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective March 2, 2010.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Dulin, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-2141; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on August 13, 2009 (74
FR 40776). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    Some operators have reported airframe vibration under specific
flight conditions including gusts.
    Investigations have revealed that under such conditions,
vibrations may occur when the hinge moment of the elevator is close
to zero, associated to elevator free-play.
* * * * *

The unsafe condition is excessive vibration of the elevators, which
could result in reduced structural integrity and reduced
controllability of the airplane. The corrective action includes
inspecting the elevators for excessive freeplay, and repairing the
elevator or servo controls, if necessary. You may obtain further
information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We considered the comment received. The commenter, Airbus,
states that it has no comment on the NPRM.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data, including the comment received, and
determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the
AD as proposed.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

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

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 11 products of U.S. registry. We
also estimate that it will take about 2 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of
this AD to the U.S. operators to be $1,760, or $160 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;

    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Examining the AD Docket

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2010-02-09 Airbus: Amendment 39-16180. Docket No. FAA-2009-0713;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-303-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective March 2,
2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all Airbus Model A318 series airplanes;
certificated in any category.

Subject

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

Reason

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

    Some operators have reported airframe vibration under specific
flight conditions including gusts.
    Investigations have revealed that under such conditions,
vibrations may occur when the hinge moment of the elevator is close
to zero, associated to elevator free-play.
* * * * *
The unsafe condition is excessive vibration of the elevators, which
could result in reduced structural integrity and reduced
controllability of the airplane. The corrective action includes
inspecting the elevators for excessive freeplay, and repairing the
elevator or servo controls, if necessary.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (f)(1)(i)
and (f)(1)(ii) of this AD, inspect the elevators for excessive
freeplay, using a load application tool and a spring scale assembly,
in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) (or its delegated agent).
Repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 20 months.

    Note 1:  Guidance on the inspection procedures can be found in
Task 27-34-00-200-001 of the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Aircraft
Maintenance Manual (AMM).

    (i) Within 20 months since the date of issuance of the original
French, German, or EASA airworthiness certificate or the date of
issuance of the original French, German, or EASA export certificate
of airworthiness, or within 3 months after the effective date of
this AD, whichever occurs later.
    (ii) Within 20 months since the last inspection of the elevators
for excessive freeplay performed in accordance with Task 27-34-00-
200-001 of the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 AMM.
    (2) If any inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD
indicates that the freeplay in the elevator exceeds 7 millimeters,
before further flight, repair the elevator or servo controls in
accordance with a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the EASA
(or its delegated agent).

FAA AD Differences

    Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows:
    (1) The EASA AD applies to Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and
A321 series airplanes, but the FAA AD applies only to Airbus Model
A318 series airplanes. The actions required by the EASA AD for
Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes are addressed in
FAA AD 2001-16-09, Amendment 39-12377; and FAA AD 2005-22-10 R1,
Amendment 39-14354.
    (2) This FAA AD does not require modification of the elevator
neutral setting as specified in paragraph 2. of the EASA AD because
this modification is already part of the FAA-approved type design
for Airbus Model A318 series airplanes.
    (3) This FAA AD does not require a detailed inspection to
determine the position of each tail cone triangle as specified in
paragraph 3. of the EASA AD because that action was already
accomplished on all Airbus Model A318 series airplanes during
production.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for
this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
Send information to ATTN: Tim Dulin, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 227-2141; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using any approved AMOC
on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your principal
maintenance inspector (PMI) or principal avionics inspector (PAI),
as appropriate, or lacking a principal inspector, your local Flight
Standards District Office.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2007-0163, dated
June 11, 2007, for related information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) None.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 14, 2010.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-1290 Filed 1-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P