[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 21, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28269-28271]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12803]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0621; Directorate Identifier 2017-NM-049-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 DHC-8-400 series airplanes. This
proposed AD was prompted by reports that operation of fuselage doors
was interrupted due to corrosion in certain door roller bearings. This
proposed AD would require a one-time detailed inspection of the
bearings for corrosion, and replacement if necessary. We are proposing
this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 7, 2017.

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: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact
Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard,
Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 416-375-
4539; 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-2017-
0621; 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: Aziz Ahmed, 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-2017-0621;
Directorate Identifier 2017-NM-049-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-
2016-18, dated June 20, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory
Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an
unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-400 series
airplanes. The MCAI states:

    A number of translating fuselage door operation interruptions
has been reported. In one case, the Aft Service door could not be
opened. It was found that the door lift latch bearings had corroded,
which prevented the door from opening.
    The translating doors are classified as emergency exits. The
inability to open an emergency exit could inhibit evacuation in the
event of an emergency. This [Canadian] AD is issued to mandate a
one-time inspection of the translating door bearings to check for
corrosion, replace bearings if required, and apply Corrosion
Inhibiting Compound (CIC).

    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-2017-
0621.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 84-52-88, dated April 14,
2016. This service information describes procedures for identification
of corrosion in fuselage door bearings, replacement if necessary, and
CIC application. This service information is reasonably available
because the interested parties have access to it through their normal
course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

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 designs.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 143 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection and CIC application........  8 work-hours x $85 per                $0            $680         $97,240
                                         hour = $680 for 3 doors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements
that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection.
We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need
this replacement:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Action                        Labor cost             Parts cost           Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement..........................  4 work-hours x $85 per                 $432  $772 per door.
                                        hour = $340 per door.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-2017-0621; Directorate Identifier
2017-NM-049-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 7, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-400, -401, and
-402 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 4001
and 4003 through 4488 inclusive, except those incorporating
Bombardier ModSum IS4Q5200050.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52, Doors.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of interrupted operation of
translating fuselage doors caused by corrosion in the door lift and
latch shaft roller bearings. We are issuing this AD to detect and
correct bearing corrosion and prevent door operation interruptions
that could inhibit safe evacuation of the airplane in an emergency.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection and Replacement of Bearings

    Within 6,000 flight hours or 36 months after the effective date
of this AD, whichever occurs earlier, do a detailed visual
inspection of all translating fuselage door lift and latch shaft
roller bearings for signs of corrosion, damaged seals, and loss of
lubricant; replace any corroded bearings; and apply corrosion-
inhibiting compound (CIC); in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-88, dated April
14, 2016.

(h) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph
(g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective
date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-85, dated
September 23, 2015; or Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-85,
Revision A, dated January 22, 2016.

(i) 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 manager of the ACO, send it
to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New
York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; 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.
    (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.

(j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2016-18, dated June 20,
2016, 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-2017-0621.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Aziz Ahmed,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171,
FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY
11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt
Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; 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 June 12, 2017.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-12803 Filed 6-20-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: January 30, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 19)]
[Notices]
[Page 5720]
[DOCID:fr30ja09-116]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2009-0009]

Establishment of an Emergency Relief Docket for Calendar Year
2009

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of establishment of public docket.

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

SUMMARY: This Notice announces the establishment of FRA's emergency
relief docket (ERD) for calendar year 2009. The designated ERD for
calendar year 2009 is docket number FRA-2009-0009.

ADDRESSES: See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
information regarding submitting petitions and/or comments to Docket
No. FRA-2009-0009.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 9, 2007, FRA published a final rule
addressing the establishment of ERDs and the procedures for handling
petitions for emergency waivers of safety rules, regulations, or
standards during an emergency situation or event. 72 FR 17433. That
final rule added Sec.  211.45 to the FRA's Rules of Practice published
at 49 CFR Part 211. Paragraph (b) of Sec.  211.45 provides that each
calendar year FRA will establish an ERD in the publicly accessible DOT
docket system (available on the internet at http://
www.regulations.gov). Paragraph (b) of Sec.  211.45 further provides
that FRA will publish a notice in the Federal Register identifying by
docket number the ERD for that year. As noted in the final rule, FRA's
purpose for establishing the ERD and emergency waiver procedures is to
provide an expedited process for FRA to address the needs of the public
and the railroad industry during emergency situations or events. This
Notice announces that the designated ERD for calendar year 2009 is
docket number FRA-2009-0009.
    As detailed Sec.  211.45, if the FRA Administrator determines that
an emergency event as defined in 49 CFR 211.45(a) has occurred, or that
an imminent threat of such an emergency occurring exists, and public
safety would benefit from providing the railroad industry with
operational relief, the emergency waiver procedures of 49 CFR 211.45
will go into effect. In such an event, the FRA Administrator will issue
a statement in the ERD indicating that the emergency waiver procedures
are in effect and FRA will make every effort to post the statement on
its Web site http://www.fra.dot.gov/. Any party desiring relief from
FRA regulatory requirements as a result of the emergency situation
should submit a petition for emergency waiver in accordance with 49 CFR
211.45(e) and (f). Specific instructions for filing petitions for
emergency waivers in accordance with 49 CFR 211.45 are found at 49 CFR
211.45(f). Specific instructions for filing comments in response to
petitions for emergency waivers are found at 49 CFR 211.45(h).

Privacy

    Anyone is able to search all comments received into any of our
dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume
665, Number 7, Pages 19477-78). The statement may also be found at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

    Issued in Washington, DC on January 23, 2009.
Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,
Deputy Associate Administrator, for Safety Standards and Program
Development.
 [FR Doc. E9-1969 Filed 1-29-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 215 (Tuesday, November 6, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66548-66554]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26779]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0266; FRL-9736-9]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San
Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving revisions to the San Joaquin Valley Unified
Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) portion of the California
State Implementation Plan (SIP). This action was proposed in the
Federal Register on April 26, 2012 and concerns oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) from solid fuel fired boilers. We are approving a
local rule that regulates these emission sources under the Clean Air
Act (CAA or the Act).

DATES: This rule will be effective on December 6, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0266 for
this action. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy
at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While
all documents in the docket are listed at http://www.regulations.gov,
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, multi-volume
reports), and some may not be available in either location (e.g.,
confidential business information (CBI)). To inspect the hard copy
materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours
with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Idalia P[eacute]rez, EPA Region IX,
(415) 972-3248<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action

    On April 26, 2012 (77 FR 24883), EPA proposed to approve the
following rule into the California SIP.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Rule
               Local agency                   No.                Rule title               Adopted     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SJVUAPCD..................................     4352  Solid Fuel Fired Boilers, Steam       12/15/11     02/23/12
                                                      Generators and Process Heaters.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We proposed to approve this rule based on our conclusion that it
complies with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed rule and
Technical Support Document (TSD) \1\ contain more information on the
rule and our evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See U.S. EPA Region 9, ``Technical Support Document for
EPA's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the California State
Implementation Plan, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution
Control District's Rule 4352, Solid Fuel Fired Boilers, Steam
Generators and Process Heaters,'' April 2012 (TSD).
    \2\ See Air Pollution Control Operating Permit, Permit Activity
No. BOP090001, Covanta Essex Co. (Essex PTO) at pg. 57 of 95.
    \3\ See Air Pollution Control Operating Permit, Permit Activity
No. BOP090002, Covanta Warren Energy Resource Co. LP (Warren PTO) at
pp. 57 and 60 of 101.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this period, we received comments from the following party.
    1. Adenike Adeyeye, Earthjustice; letter dated and received May 29,
2012.
    The comments and our responses are summarized below.
    Comment #1: Earthjustice stated that these revisions are an
improvement over prior versions of this rule.
    Response #1: No response needed.
    Comment #2: Earthjustice disagreed with EPA's proposal to approve
the NOX emission limit in Rule 4352 for municipal solid
waste (MSW) fired units as RACT. Earthjustice provided several
arguments in support of its objection to EPA's proposal, each of which
we address following separate comment summaries below.
    Comment #2.a: Earthjustice stated that the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection (NJDEP) has set NOX emissions
limits for MSW-fired boilers at 150 ppmv at 7% O2
(approximately 142 ppmv at 12% CO2). Quoting from a SIP
submission from NJDEP, Earthjustice asserted that NJDEP established
this limit based on ``the capability of existing selective non-
catalytic reduction (SNCR) emission controls to reduce emissions more
than are now being achieved.'' The commenter stated that the District's
unsupported assertion that it is impossible to meet a limit lower than
165 ppmv at 12% CO2 is simply false.
    Response #2.a: We disagree with the commenter's suggestion that the
NOX emissions limits established in NJDEP's rule generally
represent NOX RACT for existing MSW-fired boilers equipped
with SNCR controls. As the commenter correctly notes, under Title 7,
Chapter 27, Subchapter 19, Section 12 of the New Jersey Administrative
Code (N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.12), NJDEP limits NOX emissions from
MSW combustors to 150 ppm at 7% O2 averaged over 24 hours
(approximately 142 ppm at 12% CO2). In lieu of complying
with this emissions limit, however, the rule allows an owner or
operator of an MSW incinerator to comply with an alternative emission
limit or a ``facility-specific NOX control plan'' upon
receipt of written approval from NJDEP, pursuant to section 13 of the
rule (N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.13). See N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.12(b). Section 13
identifies, among other things, the types of information that an owner
or operator must submit to NJDEP as part of a request for such an
alternative emission limit or facility-specific NOX control
plan, including a list of all NOX control technologies
available for use with the equipment or source operation, an analysis
of the technological feasibility and costs of installing and operating
each such control technology, and estimates of the NOX
emissions reductions attainable through the use of each control
technology which is technologically feasible. See N.J.A.C. 7:27-
19.13(d). The rule authorizes NJDEP to approve a request for an
alternative emission limit or facility-specific NOX control
plan only if, among other things, the request identifies all available
NOX control options and demonstrates that any control
options that the owner/operator has rejected are ineffective or
unsuitable for the particular equipment or would involve
disproportionately high costs, in comparison to the associated
NOX reductions or costs borne by other like facilities. See
N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.13(g)(3).
    According to NJDEP, three of the five MSW incinerators subject to
N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.12 appear to have obtained alternative emission limits
pursuant to Section 13 of the rule and are not currently subject to the
24-hour NOX limit of 150 ppm at 7% O2. See email
dated July 24, 2012, from Michael Klein (NJDEP) to Stanley Tong (EPA
Region 9). Table 1 below shows the current NOX limits in the
operating permits for each of these five MSW incinerators under NJDEP
jurisdiction.

                                                     Table 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Emission limit
                                                                  Emission limit   (approximate ppm   Averaging
                            Facility                                (ppm at 7%          at 12%           time
                                                                     O[ihel2])        CO[ihel2])       (hours)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Essex \2\......................................................               300               285            1
                                                                              155               147           24
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warren \3\.....................................................               300               285            3
                                                                              205               195           24
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Union \4\......................................................               225               214            3
                                                                              180               171           24
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gloucester \5\.................................................               350               333            3
                                                                              150               143           24
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Camden \6\.....................................................               300               285            3
                                                                              150               143           24
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of the three New Jersey facilities that have obtained permit limits
exceeding the 24-hour NOX limit of 150 ppm (at 7%
O2) in NJDEP's rule (Essex, Warren, and Union), two
facilities (Warren and Union) have permit limits that also exceed the
24-hour NOX limit of 165 ppm (at 12% CO2) in
SJVUAPCD's Rule 4352. See Table 1. The remaining two facilities, which
are subject to the 150 ppm limit in NJDEP's rule (Gloucester and
Camden), are both equipped with SNCR using urea injection as a
NOX control technique. See Gloucester PTO at pp. 45-46 of
106; Camden PTO at pg. 183 (of electronic file). Both of these
facilities became subject to the 24-hour NOX limit of 150
ppm (at 7% O2) in N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.12 effective May 1, 2011.
See Gloucester PTO at pp. 38 of 106; Camden PTO at pg. 34 of 99.
Notably, for the Camden facility, the 150 ppm limit applied ``on and
after May 1, 2011, if compliance is achieved by installing a new
NOX air pollution control system on an existing MSW
incinerator or by physically modifying an existing MSW incinerator.''
Camden PTO at pg. 34 of 99. The Gloucester and Camden facilities are
the only MSW incinerators we know of that are subject to the 24-hour
NOX limit of 150 ppm (at 7% O2) in N.J.A.C. 7:27-
19.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Air Pollution Control Operating Permit, Permit Activity
No. BOP080001, Covanta Union (Union PTO) at pp. 56 and 57 of 90.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Only one existing facility in the SJV (Covanta Stanislaus, Inc.)
currently operates MSW-fired boilers subject to SJVUAPCD's Rule 4352.
The two MSW-fired boilers at the Covanta Stanislaus facility are
equipped with SCNR using ammonia injection systems, instead of urea
injection systems, for NOX control. See Facility-wide Permit
to Operate for Covanta Stanislaus, Inc., San Joaquin Valley Air
Pollution Control District, Permit Unit: N-2073-1-10 (expiration date
10/31/2016), ``Equipment Description'' (Stanislaus PTO). Although
ammonia and urea injection both serve as reducing agents for
NOX emissions in combination with SNCR control systems,
these control methods require operation at different temperature
windows and generally are not interchangeable without facility
retrofits. See Alternative Control Techniques Document--NOX Emissions
from Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (ICI) Boilers, U.S. EPA 453/R-
94-022 (March 1994) (1994 ACT) at sections <IP_ADDRESS> (``Ammonia-based
SNCR'') and <IP_ADDRESS> (``Urea-based SNCR''). For example, the optimum
reaction temperature range for the reduction of NOX by
ammonia is 870[deg] to 1,100 [deg]C, while the optimum range for the
reduction of NOX by urea is 900[deg] to 1,150 [deg]C, and
ammonia can be injected both in aqueous solution or anhydrous form
while urea may only be injected in aqueous form. Id. These
technological distinctions between ammonia-based SNCR and urea-based
SNCR highlight uncertainties about whether the controls implemented by
the Gloucester and Camden incinerators in New Jersey (i.e., urea-based
SNCR) are technologically and economically feasible for implementation
at the one existing MSW-fueled facility in SJV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Air Pollution Control Operating Permit, Permit Activity
No. BOP090002, Wheelabrator Gloucester Company (Gloucester PTO) at
pp. 38 and 68 of 106.
    \6\ See Air Pollution Control Operating Permit, Permit Activity
No. BOP080002, Camden Cnty Energy Recovery Assoc LP (Camden PTO) at
pp. 34 and 66 of 99.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, according to information submitted by SJVUAPCD at
EPA's request, four of the five MSW incinerators subject to the NJDEP
rule have equipment that differs significantly from the equipment at
the Covanta Stanislaus facility in SJV. See emails dated September 4,
2012 and September 11, 2012, from Nichole Corless (SJVUAPCD) to Idalia
Perez (EPA Region 9), with attachments. Specifically, SJVUAPCD states
that the Covanta Stanislaus facility is configured with stoker grates
whereas the New Jersey MSW incinerators have reciprocating, horizontal,
and roller grates, which enable them to meet a slightly lower
NOX limit. Id. These technological distinctions raise
additional questions about whether the controls implemented by the New
Jersey facilities are feasible for implementation in SJV. Moreover, the
fact that both the Gloucester and Camden incinerators in New Jersey
became subject to the 150 ppm limit in N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.12 only as of
May 1, 2011, and in Camden's case only if the facility made physical
modifications to, or installed new air pollution control equipment on,
the existing MSW incinerator, further highlights uncertainties about
whether the chosen control methods at these two facilities are
``reasonably available'' for implementation at existing MSW-fired
boilers in SJV.
    Finally, information submitted by the SJVUAPCD indicates that
retrofits to existing SNCR systems to achieve additional NOX
reductions are not cost-effective in light of the relatively
insignificant difference between the NOX limit in NJDEP's
rule (150 ppm at 7% O2, or approximately 142 ppm at 12%
CO2, 24-hour average) and the limit in SJVUAPCD's Rule 4352
(165 ppm at 12% CO2, 24-hour average). Specifically, with
respect to staged combustion retrofits to an ammonia-based SNCR control
system, SJVUAPCD submitted information indicating that the cost per ton
of reductions in NOX emissions from 165 to 142 ppm at 12%
CO2 would be $27,650/ton. See email dated September 4, 2012,
from Nichole Corless (SJVUAPCD) to Idalia Perez (EPA Region 9), with
attachment. Further taking into account certain operational conditions
at the Covanta Stanislaus facility which indicate that the limit in
NJDEP's rule (150 ppm at 7% O2) would equate to
approximately 148 ppm (rather than 142 ppm) at 12% CO2, the
cost per ton of NOX emission reductions from 165 ppm to 148
ppm at 12% CO2 would be $37,404/ton. See id. These costs
exceed the levels generally

considered to be ``reasonable'' within the meaning of RACT.
    In sum, the information before us raises significant questions
about the technical and economic feasibility of achieving a 24-hour
NOX emission limit of 150 ppm at 7% O2
(approximately 142 ppm at 12% CO2) at existing MSW-fired
boilers equipped with ammonia-based SNCR in the SJV, and the commenter
has provided little information to substantiate its claim in this
regard. Absent specific information to support a conclusion that
further NOX controls are ``reasonably available'' for
implementation at existing MSW-fired boilers in the SJV, we find that
the 24-hour NOX emission limit of 165 ppm at 12%
CO2 in SJVUAPCD's Rule 4352 represents current RACT for
these units.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The commenter states that ``the District's unsupported
assertion that it is impossible to meet a limit lower than 165 ppmv
at 12% CO2 is simply false,'' but this assertion
mischaracterizes the District's position, as test data for Covanta
Stanislaus submitted by the District clearly show average
NOX emission levels below the 165 ppm limit in Rule 4352.
See TSD at 6. An emission limit of 165 ppm at 12% CO2
ensures that the source is obligated to continually operate its
emission control system while leaving the facility a small
compliance buffer to account for occasional short-term variabilities
inherent in its process. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment #2.b: Earthjustice asserted that the District has not
adequately analyzed and considered the feasibility of either injecting
more ammonia or adding more nozzles to existing SNCR controls to meet a
lower NOX emissions limit. The commenter stated that
according to the NJDEP State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision for the
Attainment and Maintenance of the Fine Particulate Matter
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NJDEP 2009
PM2.5 SIP) submitted to EPA in 2009, 11 regulated units at 4
facilities in New Jersey would meet the lower NOX emissions
limit in N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.12 by injecting more ammonia or adding more
nozzles to existing SNCR controls. The commenter stated that
``technical analysis of these demonstrated options must be conducted
before EPA can accept ammonia slip as an excuse for rejecting tighter
SNCR limits.''
    Response #2.b: We have generally evaluated the technical
feasibility of injecting more ammonia or adding nozzles to existing
SNCR controls but do not have sufficient information to conclude that
these control methods represent RACT for existing MSW-fired boilers in
SJV at this time. According to information submitted by SJVUAPCD at our
request, the orientation of the nozzles in the combustion gas stream
has a much greater impact on the resulting NOX emissions
than the number of nozzles in the system, and the Covanta Stanislaus
facility's nozzles have already been optimized based on the
``temperature window where SNCR works to reduce NOX
effectively.'' See email dated September 4, 2012, from Nichole Corless
(SJVUAPCD) to Idalia Perez (EPA Region 9), with attachments. SJVUAPCD
also stated that the amount of ammonia injected into the flue gas at
Covanta Stanislaus is closely controlled to maximize NOX
reductions and to prevent excessive ammonia slip, and that increases in
ammonia injection would ``result in negligible NOX
reductions and would exit the system and cause a detached plume,''
causing violations of permit conditions regarding visible emissions,
ammonia slip, and condensable particulate matter. Id. (citing
continuous emissions monitoring data submitted by Covanta Stanislaus to
support these conclusions).
    EPA's Alternative Control Techniques document for NOX
emissions from Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boilers (1994 ACT)
supports the general conclusion that simply injecting more ammonia or
adding nozzles will not necessarily reduce NOX emissions in
an ammonia-based SNCR system. The 1994 ATC describes the process in an
ammonia-based SNCR system as follows:

    In this process, aqueous or anhydrous ammonia is vaporized and
injected into the flue gas through wall-mounted nozzles at a
location selected for optimum reaction temperature and residence
time. The optimum reaction temperature range for this process is 870
to 1,100 [deg]C (1,600 to 2,000 [deg]F). * * * At temperatures above
1,100 [deg]C (2,000 [deg]F), ammonia injection becomes
counterproductive, resulting in additional NO formation. Below 870
[deg]C (1,600 [deg]F), the reaction rate drops and undesired amounts
of ammonia are carried out in the flue gas. Unreacted ammonia is
commonly referred to as ammonia slip, breakthrough, or carryover.
The amount of ammonia slip also depends in part on the amount of
ammonia injected. Although the chemical reaction requires one mole
of NH3 for each mole of NO, the NH3/
NOX ratio used is usually greater than 1 to avoid an
undesired reaction which results in formation of NO. * * *
Achievable NOX reductions for an individual boiler depend
on the flue gas temperature, the residence time at that temperature,
the initial NOX concentration, the NH3/
NOX ratio, the excess oxygen level, and the degree of
ammonia/flue gas mixing. Also, stratification of both temperature
and NOX in the flue gas can affect the performance of the
SNCR control. The optimum placement of SNCR injectors requires a
detailed mapping of the temperature profile in the convective passes
of the boiler, because of the narrow temperature window. 1994 ACT at
Section <IP_ADDRESS>.

    Thus, even assuming it is technologically feasible to inject more
ammonia and/or to install additional ammonia injection nozzles, it is
not clear that these methods would further reduce NOX
emissions in an ammonia-based SNCR system, and technical information
indicates that such methods could instead lead to increased ammonia
slip if not carefully adjusted to account for the specific temperature
profile, NH3/NOX ratio, oxygen levels, degree of
ammonia/flue gas mixing, and other factors specific to the particular
boiler and control system.
    As the commenter correctly notes, Appendix C of the NJDEP 2009
PM2.5 SIP states that ``the NJDEP anticipates that the
facilities will decrease their emissions due to optimizing their
existing NOX control systems (i.e., either injecting more
ammonia or adding more nozzles).'' See NJDEP 2009 PM2.5 SIP, App. C.,
at 5. This statement alone, however, does not establish that the
NOX emission limit in N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.12 (150 ppm at 3%
O2) represents RACT for existing MSW-fueled boilers. As
discussed above in Response 2.a, four of the five MSW incinerators
subject to the NJDEP rule have equipment configurations that appear to
differ significantly from the Covanta Stanislaus facility, and NJDEP
has approved alternate, higher NOX limits for three of the
five subject sources based on the agency's assessment of source-
specific technological and/or economic factors. Other than referencing
statements of general intent in a New Jersey SIP submission, the
commenter provides no technological or economic information to support
its assertion that existing MSW-fired boilers, either generally or in
SJV specifically, are capable of meeting a 24-hour NOX
emission limit of 150 ppm at 3% O2 (142 ppm of at 12%
CO2) by the application of control technology that is
reasonably available considering technological and economic
feasibility.
    Comment #2.c: Earthjustice asserted that the New Jersey rule, along
with data presented in EPA's TSD for the proposed rule, ``highlights
the need for further analysis of potential NOX controls by
the District.'' Earthjustice stated that information available in EPA's
1994 ACT, which shows NOX emissions from MSW-fired boilers
with SNCR controls ranging from 35 to 167 ppmv at 12% CO2,
calls into question the 165 to 210 ppmv at 12% CO2 range
provided in the District's 2011 Staff Report and places the District's
NOX emissions limit of 165 ppmv at 12% CO2 at the
highest end of the range. Earthjustice also asserted that ``[g]iven
that the Valley is in nonattainment of

the PM2.5 NAAQS and is in extreme nonattainment of the 1-
hour and 8-hour ozone NAAQS, EPA must require the District to conduct
further analysis and ensure that MSW-fired boilers meet the lowest
emission limit that can be achieved through the application of RACT.''
    Response #2.c: First, with respect to the commenter's assertions
about the NJDEP rule (N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.12), we addressed these comments
above in Response 2.a. Second, with respect to the commenter's
assertion about data presented in EPA's TSD, although we agree with the
commenter's observation that the NOX emission limit in Rule
4352 (165 ppmv at 12% CO2) is at the highest end of the
range of NOX levels identified in EPA's 1994 ACT for MSW-
fired boilers operating SNCR controls with ammonia or urea injection,
we disagree with the assertion that this necessarily compels further
evaluation of the NOX limit in Rule 4352.
    Municipal solid waste varies widely in composition--often including
durable goods, non-durable goods, demolition and construction wastes,
containers and packaging, food wastes and yard trimmings, and/or
miscellaneous inorganic wastes--and the exact makeup of MSW at a
particular facility may vary both seasonally and geographically. See
1994 ACT at Section 3.4.3. Variability in MSW can affect emissions both
due to differences in the availability of fuel-bound nitrogen as well
as differences in the heat content of the fuel, which can affect its
combustion characteristics. Given the broad technical diversity of
existing MSW-fired boilers and their varying fuel compositions, the
NOX emission level that one MSW-fired unit achieves by the
application of reasonably available controls may not necessarily be
achievable for others using similar controls. Even where boiler type,
control technology, and fuel type are the same, emission levels may
differ significantly from boiler to boiler depending on a number of
site-specific factors, including furnace dimensions and operating
characteristics, design and condition of burner controls, design and
condition of stream control systems, and fan capacity. See, for
example, 1994 ACT at Appendix B (page B-21), showing achievable
NOX emission levels ranging from 44 to 210 ppm at 3%
O2 for MSW boilers equipped with SNCR.
    ACT documents describe available control techniques and their cost
effectiveness but do not define presumptive RACT levels as EPA's
Control Techniques Guidelines (CTGs) do. The wide range of emission
levels provided in the 1994 ACT for MSW-fired boilers equipped with
SNCR and using ammonia or urea injection as a control technique (35 to
167 ppmv at 12% CO2) reflects the significant variation in
emission levels that may result from site-specific technological
considerations and fuel compositions at different MSW-fired units.
Notably, the NOX emission ranges provided in Appendix B of
the 1994 ACT do not identify applicable averaging periods and therefore
may not be directly comparable to the 24-hour NOX emission
limit in Rule 4352. See 1994 ACT at Appendix B.
    EPA has evaluated the control techniques and applicable permit
conditions for the two MSW incinerators in New Jersey that are
currently subject to the 24-hour NOX emission limit of 150
ppm (at 3% O2) in N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.12 (Gloucester and
Camden) and concluded that technical distinctions between these
facilities and the Covanta Stanislaus facility in SJV raise significant
questions about the technological and economic feasibility of those
same emission control methods at existing MSW-fired boilers in the SJV.
See Response 2.a. We do not currently have information
sufficient to support a conclusion that existing MSW-fired boilers
using ammonia-based SNCR systems, either generally or specifically in
the SJV, are capable of meeting a 24-hour NOX emission limit
of 150 ppm at 3% O2 (142 ppm of at 12% CO2) by
the application of control technology that is reasonably available
considering technological and economic feasibility.
    Finally, with respect to the commenter's statement about the SJV
area's air quality designations for the PM2.5 and ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), we note that attainment
status designations are not relevant to our evaluation of Rule 4352 for
compliance with the technology-based RACT control requirement in CAA
section 182(b)(2). The RACT requirement in CAA section 182 is a control
mandate that applies independent of the emission reductions needed for
attainment of the NAAQS. See, e.g., EPA's Proposed Rule to Implement
the 8-Hour Ozone [NAAQS], 68 FR 32802, 32837 (June 2, 2003) (explaining
that ``[u]nder subpart 2, RACT requirements for ozone nonattainment
areas apply independent of the emissions reductions needed to attain
the standard''). We note, however, that the general requirement in CAA
section 172(c)(1) to adopt all ``reasonably available control
measures'' (RACM) continues to apply in the SJV area for purposes of
attaining the ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS (see, e.g., 40 CFR
51.912(d) and 51.1010). Given the severity of the ozone and
PM2.5 pollution problems in the SJV and the NOX
and PM2.5 emission reduction commitments contained in the
SIP-approved plans for attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 and 1997
8-hour ozone standards in the SJV,\8\ we encourage the District to
further evaluate potential NOX and PM control options at its
earliest opportunity to determine whether additional controls for
existing MSW-fired boilers may be reasonably available for
implementation in the Valley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See, e.g., SIP-approved NOX emission reduction
commitments in 40 CFR 52.220(c)(356)(ii)(B)(2) and
52.220(c)(356)(ii)(B)(4), and 52.220(c)(397)(ii)(B)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment #3: Earthjustice asserted that EPA should urge the District
to reevaluate the startup and shutdown provisions in Rule 4352 as the
rule allows units to emit excess emissions for far longer than
necessary. In support of this assertion, the commenter referred to
rules adopted by the Placer County Air Pollution Control District
(PCAPCD), Yolo Solano Air Quality Management District (YSAQMD) and
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD), each
of which contain shorter time periods for startup and shutdown
operations. Citing a 1999 EPA policy document providing that startup
and shutdown periods should be limited ``to the maximum degree
practicable,'' the commenter asserted that the District had neglected
to evaluate the possibility of requiring shorter startup and shutdown
times under Rule 4352 for solid fuel-fired boilers.
    Response #3: We disagree with the commenter's assertion that the
startup and shutdown provisions in Rule 4352 are deficient. EPA policy
for SIPs regarding excess emissions during malfunctions, startup,
shutdown, and maintenance provides that for some source categories,
``given the types of control technologies available, there may exist
short periods of emissions during startup and shutdowns when, despite
best efforts regarding planning, design, and operating procedures, the
otherwise applicable emission limitation cannot be met.'' Thus, with
limited exceptions, it may be appropriate in consultation with EPA to
create ``narrowly-tailored SIP revisions'' that take these
technological limitations into account and state that the otherwise
applicable emissions limitations do not apply during these periods. See
Memorandum dated September 20, 1999, from Steven A. Herman, Assistant
Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance and Robert

Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to Regional
Administrators, Regions I-X, ``State Implementation Plans: Policy
Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown''
(1999 SSM Policy) at Attachment, pp. 4-5. According to the 1999 SSM
Policy, SIP provisions addressing these circumstances should, among
other things, be limited to specific, narrowly-defined source
categories. Id. Additionally, use of the control technology for the
source category should be technically infeasible during startup or
shutdown periods; the frequency and duration of operation in startup or
shutdown mode should be minimized to the maximum extent practicable;
and all possible steps should be taken to minimize the impact of
emissions during startup and shutdown on ambient air quality. Id.
    Rule 4352 generally applies to any boiler, steam generator or
process heater fired on ``solid fuel'' that is operated at a stationary
source with a potential to emit at least 10 tons per year of
NOX or VOC. See Rule 4352 at sections 2.0, 3.18, and 4.0.
Section 5.3 of the rule states that the applicable emission limits
established for this defined source category ``shall not apply during
start-up or shutdown provided an operator complies with the
requirements specified below.'' The rule then limits the duration of
each start-up to 96 hours, except that if curing of the refractory is
required after a modification to the unit is made, the duration of
start-up is limited to 192 hours, with exceptions only as approved by
the District, CARB, and EPA. See Rule 4352 at section 5.3.2. The rule
also limits the duration of each shutdown to 12 hours, with exceptions
only as approved by the District, CARB, and EPA. Id. at section 5.3.1.
Significantly, Rule 4352 requires, in all cases, that ``the emission
control system shall be in operation and emissions shall be minimized
insofar as technologically feasible during start-up or shutdown.'' Id.
at section 5.3.3. These provisions for start-up and shutdown apply to
all solid fuel-fired boilers subject to Rule 4352, including biomass-
fired and MSW-fired boilers.
    Earthjustice refers to rules adopted by the PCAPCD, YSAQMD and
SMAQMD to support its assertion that the District should consider
establishing shorter exemption periods for startup and shutdowns, but
these other California rules apply to source categories that differ
from the source category subject to Rule 4352. Both YSAQMD Rule 2.43
and PCAPCD Rule 233, which apply to boilers fueled entirely or
primarily with biomass, limit normal startups and all shutdowns to 24
hours and curing startups to 96 hours. See YSAQMD Rule 2.43 at sections
102 and 302, and PCAPCD Rule 233 at sections 101, 206, 214 and 215.
Thus, although both the YSAQMD rule and PCAPCD rule limit the allowed
duration of startup and shutdown to periods that are shorter than the
limits in Rule 4352, both rules apply only to a subset of the boilers
subject to Rule 4352. Biomass-fired boilers may not require start-up or
shutdown periods as long in duration as those needed by the range of
solid fuel-fired boilers subject to SJVUAPCD's Rule 4352, which combust
more complex and heterogeneous fuel mixes, including biomass, MSW,
coal, and other solid fuels. Notably, neither the YSAQMD rule nor the
PCAPCD rule explicitly requires continued operation of emission control
systems to the extent feasible during start-up and shutdown periods, as
does Rule 4352.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The YSAQMD rule states that ``the frequency and duration of
startup and shutdown periods and their associated emissions shall be
minimized as much as technologically feasible.'' YSAQMD Rule 2.43 at
section 302.3. The PCAPCD rule includes alternative pound per hour
emission limits for NOX and CO during startup and
shutdown periods. See PCAPCD Rule 233 at section 302.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SMAQMD Rule 411, which applies to units fueled with gaseous and
non-gaseous fuels, limits startup to a maximum of two hours after a
period in which the gas flow is shut off for a continuous period of 30
minutes or longer and limits shutdown to two hours. See SMAQMD Rule 411
at sections 102, 220-222. We are not aware, however, of any solid fuel
fired boilers operating in the Sacramento metro area subject to Rule
411. Thus, SMAQMD Rule 411 does not appear to establish that shorter
limits on startup and shutdown periods are technologically feasible for
solid fuel-fired boilers.
    In sum, the start-up and shutdown provisions in SJVUAPCD's Rule
4352 are narrowly-tailored to address the technological limitations of
emissions controls at solid fuel-fired boilers and require, unlike the
other California district rules cited by the commenter, that source
owners/operators continue to operate emission control systems and to
minimize emissions to the extent technologically feasible, even during
start-up or shutdown periods. We conclude that these provisions in Rule
4352 are consistent with EPA's 1999 SSM policy and appropriate for SIP
approval for this particular source category. We agree with the
commenter, however, that the District should reevaluate these
provisions at its earliest opportunity to determine whether shorter
limits on the duration of startup and shutdown periods may be feasible
for certain types of solid fuel-fired boilers covered by the rule, and
to consider establishing limits on the frequency of such events, to
ensure that emissions during start-up and shutdown events are minimized
to the maximum extent practicable. We also encourage the District to
carefully review the CEMS data required by section 5.4 of Rule 4352
(monitoring provisions), in particular NOX emissions data
during start-up and shutdown periods, to ensure that owners/operators
of solid fuel-fired boilers are in fact operating emission control
systems and minimizing emissions insofar as technologically feasible
during start-up or shutdown as required by Rule 4352, section 5.3.3.

III. EPA Action

    For the reasons provided in our proposed rule and above, and
pursuant to section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving Rule
4352 into the San Joaquin Valley portion of the California SIP. This
final approval of Rule 4352 satisfies California's obligation to
implement RACT under CAA section 182(b)(2) for solid fuel-fired boilers
in the SJV for the 1-hour ozone and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and thereby
terminates all CAA sanctions clocks and Federal Implementation Plan
(FIP) clocks associated with this source category. See 75 FR 60623
(October 1, 2010) (final limited approval and disapproval of Rule
4352); 77 FR 1417 (January 10, 2012) (final partial approval and
disapproval of SJV RACT SIP); and 77 FR 24857 (April 26, 2012) (interim
final determination to stay and defer sanctions).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 7, 2013. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: September 13, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(411) (i)(B)(4) to
read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (411) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (B) * * *
    (4) Rule 4352, ``Solid Fuel Fired Boilers, Steam Generators and
Process Heaters,'' amended on December 15, 2011.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-26779 Filed 11-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P