  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1  	ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0353; FRL-     ]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland;
Redesignation of the Kent and Queen Anne’s 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment
Area to Attainment and Approval of the Maintenance Plan

AGENCY:	Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:	Final rule.

SUMMARY:  EPA is approving a redesignation request and a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Maryland.
The Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) is requesting that Kent
and Queen Anne’s 8-hour Ozone Nonattainment Area (Kent and Queen
Anne’s area) be redesignated as attainment for the 8-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS).  In conjunction with its
redesignation request, the State submitted a SIP revision consisting of
a maintenance plan which provides for continued attainment of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS for the next 12 years, until 2018.  Concurrently, EPA is
approving the maintenance plan as meeting the requirements of Clean Air
Act (CAA) 175A(b) with respect to the 1-hour ozone maintenance plan
update.  EPA is also approving the adequacy determination for the motor
vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) that are identified in the 8-hour
maintenance plan for Kent and Queen Anne’s area for purposes of
transportation conformity, and is approving those MVEBs.  EPA is
approving the redesignation request and the maintenance plan revision to
the Maryland SIP in accordance with the requirements of the CAA.

EFFECTIVE DATE:  This final rule is effective on [insert date 30 days
from date of publication].

ADDRESSES:  EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA- R03-OAR-2006-0353.  All documents in the docket are listed
in the     HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov
website.  Although listed in the electronic docket, some information is
not publicly available, i.e., confidential business information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.  Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
through     HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov
or in hard copy for public inspection during normal business hours at
the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.  Copies
of the State submittal are available at the Maryland Department of
Environment, 1800 Washington Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland, 21230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Linda Miller,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I.  Background

On  October 10, 2006 (71 FR 59414), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Maryland.  The NPR proposed approval
of Maryland’s redesignation request and a SIP revision that
establishes a maintenance plan for Kent and Queen Anne’s area setting
forth how Kent and Queen Anne’s will maintain attainment of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS for the next 12 years.  The formal SIP revision was
submitted on May 2, 2006 and supplemented on May 19, 2006.  Other
specific requirements of Maryland’s redesignation request and SIP
revision for the maintenance plan and the rationale for EPA’s proposed
action are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here.  No
public comments were received on the NPR.

II.  Final Action

EPA is approving the State of Maryland’s redesignation request and
maintenance plan for the Kent and Queen Anne’s area because the
requirements for approval have been satisfied.  EPA has evaluated
Maryland’s redesignation request, submitted on May 2, 2006, and
determined that it meets the redesignation criteria set forth in section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.  EPA believes that the redesignation request
and monitoring data demonstrate that the Kent and Queen Anne’s area
has attained the 8-hour ozone standard.  The final approval of this
redesignation request will change the designation of the Kent and Queen
Anne’s area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone
standard.  EPA is approving the associated maintenance plan for this
area, dated March 15, 2006 and submitted on May 2, 2006, as a revision
to the Maryland SIP.  EPA is concurrently approving the maintenance plan
for the Kent and Queen Anne’s area as the 1-hour ozone maintenance
plan update pursuant to 175A(b).

In this final rulemaking, EPA is notifying the public that we have found
that the motor vehicle emissions budgets for NOx and VOCs in the Kent
and Queen Anne’s Counties, Maryland submitted 8-hour ozone maintenance
plan are adequate and approved for conformity purposes.   As a result of
our finding, Kent and Queen Anne’s Counties must use the motor vehicle
emissions budgets from the submitted 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for
future conformity determinations.  The adequate and approved motor
vehicle emissions budgets are provided in the following table:

Adequate and Approved Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

Budget Year	Relevant Pollutants and Precursors	Relevant Pollutants and
Precursors

2009	NOx    5.11 Tons/Day	VOCs   2.72 Tons/Day

2018	NOx    2.38 Tons/Day	VOCs   1.62 Tons/Day

Kent and Queen Anne’s area is subject to the CAA’s requirements for
basic ozone nonattainment areas until and unless it is redesignated to
attainment.

 III.  Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A.  General Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this final
action is not a "significant regulatory action" and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.  For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
"Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use"  (66 Fed. Reg. 28355 (May 22, 2001)).  This action
approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Redesignation of an area to attainment under section 107(d)(3)(e) of the
Clean Air Act does not impose any new requirements on small entities.
Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical
area and does not impose any new regulatory requirements on sources.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this final rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and
does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4).  This final rule also 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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have substantial direct effects
on the States, on the relationship between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it affects the status of a
geographical area, does not impose any new requirements on sources, or
allow the state to avoid adopting or implementing other requirements,
and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act.  This final rule also
is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),
because it is not economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.  In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to
use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS.  It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission; to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act.  Redesignation is an
action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not
impose any new requirements on sources.  Thus, the requirements of
section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of
1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.  As required by section 3 of
Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this
final rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting
errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear
legal standard for affected conduct.  EPA has complied with Executive
Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings
implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General’s
Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of
Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order.

B.  Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

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 rule 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.  This rule is not a
“major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

C.  Petitions for Judicial Review

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 [insert date 60 days from date of
publication of this document in the Federal Register].  Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule 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, to approve the redesignation request, maintenance plan and
adequacy determination for MVEBs for the Kent and Queen Anne’s area,
may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements.
(See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects

40 CFR part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Ozone, Nitrogen Dioxides, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas

						                      /s/

_________				                        __________________________

Date:  December 15, 2006			   	Donald S. Welsh,

							Regional Administrator,

							Region III.

40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:

PART 52 - [AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart V– Maryland

2. In § 52.1070, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an
entry for the 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan for the Kent and Queen
Anne’s Area at the end of the table to read as follows:

§ 52.1070  		Identification of plan.

*		*		*		*		*

(e)***

Name of non-regulatory SIP revision	Applicable geographic area	State
submittal date	EPA approval date	Additional

explanation

*                    *                      *                   *
           *                 *                    *

8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan for the Kent and Queen Anne’s Area	Kent
and Queen Anne’s Counties 	05/2/06 05/19/06	[Insert Federal Register
publication date] [Insert page number where the document begins]

PART 81 - [AMENDED]

	1.  The authority citation for Part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

	2.  Section 81.321 is amended by revising the ozone table entry for the
Kent and Queen Anne’s Area to read as follows:

§ 81.321              Maryland

*          *          *          *          *

		Maryland - Ozone (8-Hour Standard)

Designated Area	Designationa	Category/

Classification

	Date1	Type	Date1	Type

*          *          *         *         *          *          *

Kent and Queen Anne’s Area

Kent County 	[Insert date of publication]	Attainment

Queen Anne’s County 	[Insert date of publication]	Attainment

*          *          *         *         *          *

a\ Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as
otherwise specified.

\1\ This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted.

\2\ Early Action Compact Area, effective date deferred until December
31, 2006.

\3\ November 22, 2004.

*          *          *         *         *

  PAGE   3

  PAGE   7


                 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                            REGION IX AIR DIVISION

Technical Support Document for EPA's Proposed Rulemaking on Rescission of Section 29 - Sulfur Contents of Fuel Oil, Section 30  -  Incinerators, Section 52 - Handling of Gasoline at Service Stations, Airports and Storage Tanks, and Section 60 - Evaporation and Leakage from the Nevada State Implementation Plan

                            Prepared by: Kevin Gong

	October 1, 2015

RULE IDENTIFICATION

Agency

Clark County Department of Air Quality (CCDAQ)

SIP Approved Rules / Subject of this TSD

Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) has submitted the following rule rescissions as a revision to the Clark County portion of the Nevada State Implementation Plan (SIP):

       Rule Section of the Clark County Air Quality Regulations (CCAQR)
                   Date of EPA Approval into the Nevada SIP
Section 29 (Sulfur Contents of Fuel Oil)
August 27, 1981
Section 30 (Incinerators), subsections 30.1-30.7 (excluding subsection 30.4)
August 27, 1981
Section 30 (Incinerators), subsections 30.4 and 30.8
June 18, 1982
Section 52 (Handling of Gasoline at Service Stations, Airports and Storage Tanks), subsections 52.1-52.10 (excluding subsections <IP_ADDRESS> and 52.7.2)
April 14, 1981
Section 52 (Handling of Gasoline at Service Stations, Airports and Storage Tanks), subsections <IP_ADDRESS> and 52.7.2
June 18, 1982
Section 60 (Evaporation and Leakage), (excluding sections 60.4.2 and 60.4.3)
April 14, 1981
Section 60 (Evaporation and Leakage), subsection 60.4.2
March 20, 1984
Section 60 (Evaporation and Leakage), subsection 60.4.3
June 18, 1982

Local Action
Sections 29, 30, 52, and 60 were repealed locally on April 5, 2011.

Submittal Dates
NDEP submitted the SIP revision to EPA on November 20, 2014.

Completeness Finding
This submittal was deemed complete by operation of law on May 20, 2015.

BACKGROUND

EPA first promulgated national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) in 1971 in response to the Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970. EPA originally established NAAQS for sulfur dioxide, total suspended particulate (TSP), photochemical oxidant, carbon monoxide (CO), and nitrogen dioxide. Over the years, EPA has revised the NAAQS and established new NAAQS. Current NAAQS exist for sulfur dioxide, particles generally less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), particles generally less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), ozone, CO, nitrogen dioxide, and lead.

The Clean Air Act of 1970 also established the requirement for states to submit plans, referred to as State Implementation Plans (SIPs), to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. EPA then is charged with approving, or disapproving, SIPs under section 110 of the CAA.

The State of Nevada submitted its SIP to EPA in 1972 and has submitted many revisions to EPA over the years to address new or revised NAAQS or other changed circumstances. NDEP has air pollution control jurisdiction over all of the state of Nevada, except for stationary sources in Clark County and Washoe County. Under Nevada law, the Clark County Board of County Commissioners has jurisdiction over stationary sources in Clark County, with the exception of plants that generate electricity by using steam produced from burning of fossil fuels, which remain under NDEP jurisdiction. Clark and Washoe counties are also responsible for developing control strategy plans to address nonattainment area designations applicable to their counties. Thus, the Nevada SIP includes a set of rules and plans adopted by Clark County and Washoe County, including those adopted by Clark County that are the subject of this TSD. The current Nevada SIP is set forth at 40 CFR 52.1470.

The rules that are the subject of this TSD, Clark County Air Quality Regulations (CCAQR) sections 29 ("Sulfur Content of Fuel Oil"), 30 ("Incinerators"), 52 ("Handling of Gasoline at Service Stations, Airports, and Storage Tanks"), and 60 ("Evaporation and Leakage"), have been revised by Clark County over the years. EPA initially approved these rules in 1973 as CCAQR section 14 ("Incinerators"), section 17 ("Particulate Matter from Incinerators"), section 20 ("Gasoline Unloading from Tank Trucks and Trailers into Storage Tanks"), section 31 ("Sulfur Contents of Commercial Fuel Oil"), and section 32 ("Evaporation and Leakage"). 38 FR 12702 (May 14, 1973). Clark County then amended and renumbered the rules leading to the versions that EPA approved in the 1980s as listed above.

Sections 29, 30, 52, and 60 established limits and control measures for emissions of oxides of sulfur (SOx), particulate matter (PM), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from the combustion of fuels (section 29), incinerators (section 30), gasoline dispensing facilities (section 52) and other processes and industries that use solvents, degreasing, surface coating, and cutback asphalt (section 60). VOCs (and oxides of nitrogen) are precursors to ozone formation.

Under the 1977 CAA Amendments, EPA designated all areas of the country as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassifiable with respect to the NAAQS.
In 1978, EPA designated the Las Vegas Valley (hydrographic area No. 212) portion of Clark County as a nonattainment area for the TSP, photochemical oxidant (later 1-hour ozone), and CO NAAQS. 43 FR 8962 (March 3, 1978). Outside of Las Vegas Valley, the rest of Clark County was designated as attainment or unclassifiable for the TSP, photochemical oxidant, and carbon monoxide NAAQS. Clark County as a whole was designated attainment or unclassifiable for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide NAAQS.

In response to the nonattainment designation of Las Vegas Valley for photochemical oxidant (later ozone), Clark County amended sections 52 and 60, which limit VOC emissions from certain types of sources, to meet the requirement for states to revise their SIPs for such areas to include provisions to require the implementation of reasonably available control technology (RACT) for VOC sources covered by EPA's control technique guidelines (CTG). See 45 FR 59334 (September 9, 1980). As listed above, at various times in the 1980s, the EPA approved these amended rules as revisions to the Clark County portion of the Nevada SIP. EPA redesignated the Las Vegas Valley to attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in 1986. 51 FR 41788 (November 19, 1986). Under the CAA Amendments of 1990, EPA designated Las Vegas Valley as a nonattainment area for the PM10 and carbon monoxide NAAQS.

Over the years, Clark County has developed, and EPA has approved, a number of local rules to reduce fugitive dust sources (e.g., construction sites, and motor vehicle travel over paved and unpaved roads), which are the predominant sources of PM10 in Las Vegas Valley, EPA also approved Clark County's demonstration that major sources of PM10 precursors, such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide, do not significantly contribute to violations of the PM10 standard. 69 FR 32273 (June 9, 2004). With full implementation of the fugitive dust controls, the PM10 NAAQS was attained, and in 2014, EPA approved the Las Vegas Valley PM10 maintenance plan and redesignated the valley to attainment for the PM10 NAAQS. 79 FR 60078 (October 6, 2014). Primarily due to reductions in emissions from mobile sources, the CO NAAQS was attained, and EPA approved the Las Vegas Valley CO maintenance plan and redesignated the valley to attainment for the CO NAAQS in 2010, 75 FR 59090 (September 27, 2010).

A portion of Clark County was designated nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS on June 15, 2004, and was reclassified as a marginal ozone nonattainment area on May 14, 2012 (77 FR 28424). Due to continued application of stationary source controls, including sections 52 and 60, and tighter mobile source controls, Clark County attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and in 2013, the EPA approved the Clark County ozone maintenance plan and redesignated the area to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 78 FR 1149 (January 8, 2013). Clark County is currently designated as unclassifiable or attainment for all of the NAAQS.

CCDAQ began a process to revise the CCAQR in May 2005 as the ozone redesignation process was underway. CCDAQ was concerned with regulatory conflict resulting from the delegation of authority or the local incorporation by reference of federal New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) for many source categories covered under existing local rules.  As a result, CCDAQ repealed Sections 29, 30, 52, and 60 on April 5, 2011.

SUMMARY OF RULES

Unless otherwise specified, all other references to CCAQR Sections are to the whole section, and not specific subsections.

Section 29  -  Sulfur Contents of Fuel Oil

Section 29 limits the sulfur content in fuel oil to no more than 1 percent in order to reduce SO2 emissions. The limits are broadly written, and apply to both mobile and stationary sources. The most recently approved version was approved by EPA on August 28, 1981.

Section 30  -  Incinerators

Section 30 establishes operating requirements and emission limits on particulate matter for incinerator units. The most recently approved version was approved by EPA in parts on August 27, 1981 and June 18, 1982. All subsections are subject to the request for rescission.

Section 52  -  Handling of Gasoline at Service Stations, Airports, and Storage Tanks

To reduce VOC emissions, Section 52 establishes gasoline handling requirements and Stage 1 vapor recovery requirements for gasoline service stations, airplane refueling areas, and other storage tank facilities with an annual throughput of at least 96,000 gallons per year. The most recently approved version was approved by EPA in parts on April 14, 1981 and June 18, 1982. All subsections are subject to the request for rescission.

Section 60  -  Evaporation and Leakage

Section 60 establishes requirements to control evaporation and leakage of VOCs. Subsections 60.2 and 60.3 describe operating conditions and limits for general degreasing operations and large appliance coating operations. Subsection 60.4 prohibits the use of cutback asphalt in the Las Vegas Valley. The most recently approved version was approved in parts by EPA on April 14, 1981, June 18, 1982, and March 20, 1984. All subsections are subject to the request for rescission.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

The following criteria were used to evaluate the request for rescission of these control measures from the SIP.

      1.	Stringency - CAA Section 172(c)(1) requires nonattainment areas to implement all reasonably available control measures (RACM), including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available control technology (RACT), as expeditiously as practicable.

      2.	SIP Relaxation - CAA Section 110(l) prohibits EPA from approving any SIP revision that would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP) or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.

      3.	General Savings Clause - CAA Section 193 prohibits the modification of any SIP-approved control requirement in effect before November 15, 1990, in a nonattainment area unless the modification insures equivalent or greater emission reductions of such air pollutant.

EPA EVALUATION

A summary of our evaluation of the three criteria follows.

      1. 	Stringency.  Clark County is currently designated as attainment or unclassifiable for all of the NAAQS, and thus, RACM/RACT is not an applicable requirement within the county. Sections 52 and 60 were amended, and approved, to meet the RACT requirements under the CAA, as amended in 1977, but, given Clark County's attainment status with respect to the ozone NAAQS, RACT level controls for VOC are no longer specifically required to be retained.

      2. 	CAA Section 110(l).  The initial staff report provided with the November 20, 2014 SIP revision submittal did not contain enough detail to evaluate the impact of these rescissions on attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS for the purposes of CAA section 110(l). EPA requested additional information from CCDAQ and CCDAQ provided two supplemental reports in response,[,]

          a.	CCAQR Section 29.  As noted above, Section 29 Sulfur Content in Fuels) establishes a fuel oil sulfur limit of 1% (which is equivalent to 10,000 ppm). Fuel oil includes both distillate (diesel) fuel and residual fuel. CCDAQ contends generally that Section 29 is no longer necessary because EPA has established lower sulfur content limits in 40 CFR 80.510 for mobile sources and in various NSPS and NESHAP regulations for applicable stationary source categories. CCDQA notes that applicable NSPS and NESHAP regulations incorporate the sulfur limits in 40 CFR 80.510. As an example, CCDAQ cites EPA's sulfur limits for fuel used by stationary compression ignition internal combustion engines (ICE) at 40 CFR 60.4207 and 40 CFR 63.6604.

          We agree with CCDAQ's basic contention that EPA mobile and stationary source regulations have made Section 29 largely unnecessary. The sulfur limit (15 ppm sulfur) in 40 CFR 80.510, for example, which applies to diesel fueled nonroad equipment, locomotives and marine engines, is several orders of magnitude lower than the 10,000 ppm sulfur limit in Section 29. Moreover, to the extent that the NSPS do not apply the limits in 40 CFR 80.510, they generally establish sulfur limits considerably lower than 10,000 ppm. For example, 40 CFR 60.4207(d) establishes a 1,000 ppm sulfur content limit beginning on June 1, 2012 for certain stationary compression ignition ICE.

          Thus, with respect to diesel fuel, the sulfur limits in Section 29 are not necessary to retain in the SIP. Residual fuels, e.g., Bunker C, are generally higher in sulfur content and could exceed 10,000 ppm. However, the trend in residual fuels, like diesel fuel, is toward lower sulfur content. CCDAQ reports that no Bunker C is in use in Clark County and there is no indication that rescission of Section 29, which has already been rescinded locally, from the SIP will have any effect on its use.

          Lastly, we note that ambient concentrations of sulfur dioxide in Clark County are well below the applicable NAAQS. More specifically, the 2012-2014 design values for sulfur dioxide in Clark County, as posted on EPA's design value website (www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html), are as follows:  1 ppb, annual average (compared to 30 ppb NAAQS); 4 ppb, 24-hour average (compared to 140 ppb NAAQS); and 8 ppb (compared to 75 ppb NAAQS). Sulfur oxides are also precursors to PM2.5, but as with sulfur dioxide, PM2.5 design values in Clark County are well below the applicable NAAQS:  9.9 ug/m[3], annual average (compared to 12 ug/m[3]) and 24 ug/m[3], 24-hour average (compared to 35 ug/m[3] NAAQS). Therefore, even if there were an incremental increase in emissions of sulfur oxides in Clark County due to the rescission of Section 29, there is no realistic possibility that such an increase would interfere with attainment of the sulfur dioxide or PM2.5 NAAQS in Clark County.

          b. 	CCAQR Section 30.  Local incinerators previously subject to Section 30 (Incinerators) are generally covered by more stringent Federal NSPS and NESHAP that have been delegated to CCDAQ for local enforcement. These include 40 CFR part 60, subparts Cb, Ce, E, Ea, Eb, Ec, and AAAA-FFFF. Thus, CCDAQ asserts that the requirements in Section 30 are unnecessary. EPA agrees that NSPS and NESHAPs generally impose more stringent PM limits to incinerators than Section 30. We also note that stationary sources, of which incinerators represent a small fraction, contribute little to ambient PM10 concentrations in Clark County. Elevated PM10 concentrations in Clark County are caused, rather, by fugitive dust sources (e.g., travel over unpaved roads and parking lots and wind-blown dust). Thus, any incremental increase in PM10 emissions due to rescission of Section 30 from the SIP would not interfere with attainment of the PM10 NAAQS in Clark County.

          c.	CCAQR Section 52.  CCDAQ asserted that Section 52 (Gas Dispensing Facilities (GDFs)) could be superseded by delegated Federal NESHAP at 40 CFR 63 subparts BBBBBB and CCCCCC for GDFs. EPA noted that the applicability thresholds in the NESHAP (1.2 million gallons per year) differed substantially from those in Section 52 (96 thousand gallons per year). In addition, Section 52 mandated the use of Stage 1 vapor recovery technologies at applicable GDFs. The repeal of Section 52 would allow GDFs operating between 96 thousand gallons per year and 1.2 million gallons per year to discontinue Stage 1 vapor recovery.

          	CCDAQ replied that GDFs must comply with VOC limits for New Source Review under Section 12.1 of the CCAQR and that such VOC limits were comparable to approximately 385 thousand gallons per year. The number of GDFs that were operating at a level between the Section 12.1 applicability limit and the Section 52 applicability limit was 88, and of those still operating today, the VOC emissions of these stations was 82.4 tpy, or .15% of the total VOC inventory.

          	EPA notes that while the current set of GDFs operating at a level between the thresholds of Sections 12.1 and 52 may be small, nothing prevents this set of GDFs from growing. EPA also notes that this analysis relies on Section 12.1 New Source Review VOC limits as an applicability threshold to trigger a permitting process for GDFs. NSR permitting, while potentially requiring similar control measures as SIP control measures, cannot be used in lieu of an equivalent SIP requirement unless CCDAQ submits these source specific permit requirements for approval into the SIP.

          	Finally, CCDAQ explicitly listed Section 52 as one of several "Permanent and Enforceable Emission Reduction Control Measures" in its 2011 ozone maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. CCDAQ's maintenance plan explicitly relies on control measures in Section 52 (albeit the locally enforced version, not the less stringent SIP-approved version) in order to demonstrate maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS through 2022. CCDAQ has not demonstrated that removing this control measure is protective of the NAAQS, particularly since the 2012-2014 ozone design value in Clark County exceeds the 2008 ozone NAAQS (0.078 ppm, 8-hour average in Clark County compared to 0.075 ppm, 8-hour average NAAQS).

          d.	CCAQR Section 60.  CCDAQ asserted that large scale degreasing operations that were previously covered under this rule were no longer present within the County. US EPA agrees with this assertion.

          	Additionally, CCDAQ asserted that Section 60.4's prohibition on the use of cutback asphalt during warm months is unnecessary to retain as cutback asphalt use in the maintenance area is not a significant contributor to VOC emissions. CCDAQ also pointed to several specifications on the use of cutback asphalt from the Southern Nevada Regional Transportation Commission, and to communications with major paving companies in the County, to support the assertion that cutback asphalt is not widely used.

          	However, the contribution of cutback asphalt to emissions in the county is approximately .32% of the total VOC inventory. CCDAQ has not demonstrated that removing this control measure is protective of the NAAQS, particularly since the 2012-2014 ozone design value in Clark County exceeds the 2008 ozone NAAQS (0.078 ppm, 8-hour average in Clark County compared to 0.075 ppm, 8-hour average NAAQS).

      3. 	CAA Section 193.  The Las Vegas Valley was reclassified to attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard in 1986 and was also designated attainment or unclassifiable for the other NAAQS. As a result, CAA Section 193 is not applicable.

EPA ACTION

For reasons discussed above, EPA staff recommends that the rescission of Clark County Air Quality Regulations Sections 29, all subsections; and 30, all subsections; from the Nevada SIP be approved.

For reasons discussed above, EPA staff recommends that the rescission of Clark County Air Quality Regulations Sections 52, all subsections, and 60, all subsections, from the Nevada SIP be disapproved.

REFERENCES

 Letter dated November 20, 2014, from Colleen Cripps, Ph.D., Administrator, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, US EPA Region 9, with enclosures including "Proposed Revision to Clark County Part of Nevada State Implementation Plan: Revisions to Clark County Air Quality Regulations Sections 26 and 92, and Repeal of Sections 11, 29, 30, 52, and 60," and other SIP submittal documents.
 "Rule Analysis: Comparison of Stringency of Repealed Clark County Sections 30 and 60 with Current Requirements," Clark County Department of Air Quality, May 2015.
 "Analysis of Remaining EPA Issues Pertaining to the Repeal of Clark County Air Quality Regulations Sections 29, 52, and 60," Clark County Department of Air Quality, August 14, 2015.
 "8-Hour Ozone Early Progress Plan for Clark County, Nevada," Clark County Department of Air Quality and Environmental Management, June 2008.
 "Ozone Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan, Clark County, Nevada," Clark County Department of Air Quality and Environmental Management, March 2011.
 "Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for Particulate Matter (PM10), Clark County, Nevada," August 2012.


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on December 20, 2002

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST 1997-2878

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  AEROSERVICIOS EJECUTIVOS, CORPORATIVOS, S.A. de C.V.
Date Filed:  November 27, 2002

Relief requested:  Exemption from 49 USC section 41301 to permit the
applicant to continue to conduct passenger charter operations between
Mexico and the United States, and other passenger charter operations in
accordance with 14 CFR Part 212, using small equipment.

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  December 13, 2001, in
this Docket.

Applicant representative:  Lee A. Bauer,<PHONE_NUMBER>        DOT
analyst:  Allen Brown,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None.

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved
                                                 Action date:  December
20, 2002

Effective dates of authority granted:  December 20, 2002, through
December 20, 2003

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity):  United
States-Mexico Air Transport Services Agreement of August 15, 1960, as
amended and extended (Agreement).

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

     X  Standard exemption conditions.

Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks:  In the conduct
of these operations, the carrier must adhere to all applicable
provisions of the U.S.-Mexico Agreement.  In the conduct of these
operations, the carrier may only use aircraft capable of carrying no
more than 60 passengers and having a maximum payload capacity of no more
than 18,000 pounds (small equipment).  The above grant includes
authority to conduct Third and Fourth Freedom charter operations.  While
we have subjected, consistent with the provisions of the Agreement,
Mexican carriers conducting charter operations with large aircraft to
prior approval or submission of notice for their Third and Fourth
Freedom charters, we determined that any such requirement was not
necessary on public interest grounds in this case, since the carrier
will be conducting these operations solely with small aircraft.  (Other
charter operations to/from the United States under this authority,
however, are subject to prior approval under 14 CFR Part 212.)  Further,
we are continuing to allow Mexican carriers conducting passenger
charters using small equipment to make stopovers in the United States in
the conduct of such operations.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed
operations; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in
the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for
revie⁷楷汬渠瑯愠瑬牥猠捵晥敦瑣癩湥獥⹳഍湁攠敬
瑣潲楮敶獲潩景琠楨⁳潤畣敭瑮椠⁳癡楡慬汢湯
琠敨圠牯摬圠摩敗瑡ഺ瑨灴⼺搯獭搮瑯朮癯⼯敲潰
瑲⽳敲潰瑲彳癡慩楴湯愮灳


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 154 (Thursday, August 9, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39377-39380]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16733]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0705; Product Identifier 2018-NM-077-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS 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 Airbus SAS Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231,
and -232 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report that
during removal of left-hand (LH) gear rib 5, four failed fasteners were
discovered. This proposed AD would require a one-time ultrasonic
inspection of the LH and right-hand (RH) wing rib 5-to-rear spar
attachments for cracked or failed fasteners, and if necessary, a
detailed inspection of the gear rib 5 and spar web for cracks and
damage, a rotating probe test of the gear rib and spar web bolt holes
for cracks and damage, reaming the gear rib and the spar web bolt
holes, and replacement of cracked or failed fasteners. We are proposing
this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 24,
2018.

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 Airbus
SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAL, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700
Blagnac Cedex, France; phone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 45
80; email: [email protected]; internet: http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the FAA,
Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-
231-3195.

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-2018-
0705; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-
5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD
docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2018-0705;
Product Identifier 2018-NM-077-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM because
of 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 NPRM.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD
2018-0102, dated April 27, 2018 (referred to after this as the
Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to
correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A321-111, -
112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During removal of the left hand (LH) rib 5, two of the fasteners
(bolts) attaching the rib to the wing inner rear spar were found to
have failed and two more failed during their removal. Two of the
bolts were found separated from the bolt shanks when the overcoat
sealant was being removed, and the other two bolt heads broke away
during removal.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could reduce the
structural integrity of the wing.
    To address this possible unsafe condition, Airbus issued
[Service Bulletin] SB A320-57-1167 to provide inspection
instructions. After that SB was issued, a potential manufacturing
issue was identified on early production A321 [airplanes] concerning
reports of fasteners ``jamming'' during installation on spar
assemblies. A process change was introduced in production line, and
SB A320-57-1167 was revised, changing the affected population to
include all A321 aeroplanes delivered before the introduction of
that process change.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-
time special detailed [ultrasonic] inspection (SDI) of the wing rib
5-to-rear spar attachments, both LH and right hand (RH) wings, [and
if necessary, a detailed inspection of the gear rib 5 and spar web
for cracks and damage (cracks along the length of the bolt or broken
bolt), a rotating probe test of the gear rib and spar web bolt holes
for cracks and damage (cracks in the bolt holes), reaming the gear
rib and the spar web bolt holes] and, depending on findings,
accomplishment of a repair [replacement of cracked or failed
(broken) fasteners (bolts)]. This [EASA] AD also requires the
reporting of findings.

    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-2018-
0705.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus SAS has issued Service Bulletin A320-57-1167, Revision 01,
dated January 16, 2018. This service information describes procedures
for a one-time special detailed (ultrasonic) inspection of the LH and
RH wing rib 5-to-rear spar attachments for cracked or failed (broken)
fasteners (bolts), and if necessary, a detailed inspection of the gear-
rib-5 and spar web for cracks and damage (cracks along the length of
the bolt or broken bolt), a rotating probe test of the gear rib and
spar web bolt holes for cracks and damage (cracks in the bolt holes),
reaming the gear rib and the spar web bolt holes, and replacement of
the cracked or damaged (broken) fasteners (bolts). 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

    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 the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

Proposed Requirements of This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously, except as discussed
under ``Differences Between this Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service
Information.'' This proposed AD also would require sending the
inspection results to Airbus SAS.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service
Information

    The MCAI specifies credit for actions accomplished in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-
57-1167, dated August 10, 2011. The MCAI also discusses a potential
manufacturing issue that was identified on early production Model A321
airplanes concerning reports of fasteners ``jamming'' during
installation on spar assemblies. The corrective action specified in
Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1167, dated August 10, 2011, includes
the same process that produced ``jamming'' previously. Therefore, this
proposed AD does not include credit for actions accomplished using the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1167,
dated August 10, 2011.

Explanation of Change to Applicability

    We have revised the applicability of this AD to identify model
designations as published in the most recent type certificate data
sheet for the affected model.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 29 airplanes of U.S.
registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16 work-hours x $85 per hour = $1,360........................              $0           $1,360          $39,440
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to
comply with the proposed reporting requirement in this proposed AD. The
average labor rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, we estimate
the cost of reporting the inspection results on U.S. operators to be
$2,465, or $85 per product.
    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary on-condition
actions that would be required based on the results of any required
actions. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that
might need these on-condition actions:

                 Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Cost per
              Labor cost                  Parts  cost        product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20 work-hours x $85 per hour = $1,700.              $0           $1,700
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for
failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control
number for the collection of information required by this NPRM is 2120-
0056. The paperwork cost associated with this NPRM has been detailed in
the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for
reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the
collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with
this NPRM is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden
and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA
at 800 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information
Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

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.
    This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated
by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as
authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order,
issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and
Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the
Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable
to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight
Division.

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):

Airbus SAS: Docket No. FAA-2018-0705; Product Identifier 2018-NM-
077-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by September 24, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus SAS Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211,
-212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes, certificated in any category,
as identified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1167, Revision 01,
dated January 16, 2018.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report that during removal of left-
hand (LH) gear rib 5, four failed fasteners (bolts attaching the
gear rib to the wing inner rear spar) were discovered. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct cracked or failed (broken)
fasteners (bolts) of the rib 5-to-rear spar attachment, which could
lead to reduced structural integrity of the wing.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection of the Rib 5-to-Rear Spar Attachment Fasteners (Bolts)

    Within 30 months after the effective date of this AD, do a
special detailed (ultrasonic) inspection of the LH and right-hand
(RH) wing rib 5-to-rear spar attachment fasteners (bolts) for
cracked or failed (broken) fasteners (bolts), in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1167,
Revision 01, dated January 16, 2018.

(h) Replacement of Cracked or Failed Fasteners (Bolts)

    If any cracked or failed (broken) fastener (bolt) is found
during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, before
further flight, do the actions specified in paragraph (h)(1),
(h)(2), (h)(3) and (h)(4) of this AD, as applicable.
    (1) Do a detailed inspection of the gear rib 5 and spar web for
cracks and damage (cracks along the length of the bolt or broken
bolt), in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus
Service Bulletin A320-57-1167, Revision 01, dated January 16, 2018.
If any crack or damage is found during any inspection required by
this paragraph, before further flight, obtain corrective actions
approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or
Airbus SAS's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA); and accomplish
the corrective actions within the compliance time specified therein.
If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized
signature.
    (2) If no cracks or damage are found during any inspection
required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD: Do a rotating probe test of
the gear rib and spar web bolt holes for cracks and damage (cracks
in the bolt holes), in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1167, Revision 01,
dated January 16, 2018. If any crack or damage is found during any
inspection required by this paragraph, before further flight, obtain
corrective actions approved by the Manager, International Section,
Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's EASA DOA;
and accomplish the corrective actions within the compliance time
specified therein. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include
the DOA authorized signature.
    (3) If no cracks or damage are found during any inspection
required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD: Ream the gear rib and the
spar web bolt holes, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1167, Revision 01,
dated January 16, 2018. If an oversize larger than 0.794 millimeter
(0.0313 inch) is required, before further flight, obtain corrective
actions approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport
Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's EASA DOA; and
accomplish the corrective actions within the compliance time
specified therein. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include
the DOA authorized signature.
    (4) Replace any cracked or failed fasteners (bolts) in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A320-57-1167, Revision 01, dated January 16, 2018.

(i) Reporting

    Within 90 days after the special detailed inspection required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, or within 30 days after the effective date
of this AD, whichever occurs later, report the inspection results
(both positive and negative) to Airbus SAS in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1167,
Revision 01, dated January 16, 2018. If operators have reported
findings as part of obtaining any corrective actions approved by the
EASA DOA, operators are not required to report those findings as
specified in this paragraph.

(j) Paperwork Reduction Act Burden Statement

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to
the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that
collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control
Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is
2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is
estimated to be approximately 1 hour per response, including the
time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this
burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to
the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20591, Attn:
Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

(k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, 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 International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (l)(2) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to: [email protected]. 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, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the EASA; or Airbus
SAS's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include
the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by
paragraph (i) of this AD: If any service information contains
procedures or

tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and tests must be
done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests that are not
identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and tests that
are not identified as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods
in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program
without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and
tests identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back
in an airworthy condition. Any substitutions or changes to
procedures or tests identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(l) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA AD 2018-0102, dated April 27, 2018, 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-2018-0705.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAL, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine
No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; phone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax:
+33 5 61 93 45 80; email: [email protected];
internet: http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th
St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on July 27, 2018.
James Cashdollar,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-16733 Filed 8-8-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


DRAFT prepared for public comment. DATE: June 2, 2005.

1 INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST ( ICR)

OMB 83 SUPPORTING STATEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY OFFICE OF AIR & RADIATION A. JUSTIFICATION 1. Identification of the Information Collection a. Title: Recordkeeping and Reporting for the Performance Based Qualification of Test Methods for Diesel Fuel.

EPA Number: 2180.02 b. Short characterization:

With this information collection request ( ICR), the Office of Air and Radiation ( OAR) is seeking permission to collect applications from refiners, importers, and independent laboratories in order to permit them to use performance based test methods for measuring sulfur in diesel fuel and detecting the presence of a marker in diesel sold as heating oil. An emergency ICR is in effect through September 2005.

In the past, we would set up a designated test method for measuring compliance with various fuel parameters. Typically, this test method was an American Society for Testing and Materials ( ASTM) procedure that our laboratory used. Regulated parties would have to use the same method. In certain circumstances, alternative test methods were named. If a regulated party used an alternative test method, all results would have to be correlated to the designated test method. Simply put, the party would have to develop and apply a correlation equation to all its results to bring them in line with the designated test method.

The recent regulations for diesel fuel incorporated a performance based test method approach. See " Air Pollution Control; New Motor Vehicles and Engines: Nonroad Diesel Engines and Fuel; Emissions Standards," 69 FR 38957 ( June 29, 2004). This approach sets up accuracy and precision DRAFT prepared for public comment. DATE: June 2, 2005.

2 criteria, but permits regulated parties to qualify their laboratories to use their own test methods. Industry supports this approach and welcomes it as a first step to a more comprehensive performance based approach to test method issues. In order to be qualified to use a test method, a refiner's or importer's laboratory or an independent laboratory will have to submit certain information to us. Unfortunately, these reporting provisions were not included in the information collection request for that final rule. The first day by which regulated parties may comply was December 27, 2004 and many were waiting to submit applications, so we submitted an emergency ICR request to OMB to permit us to accept applications until September 2005. This supporting statement has been prepared to support our " regular" ICR request, to take us beyond the emergency clearance's expiration date.

2. Need For, and Use of, the Collection a. Authority for the Collection Sections 114 and 208 of the Clean Air Act ( CAA), 42 U. S. C. § § 7414 and 7542, authorize EPA to require recordkeeping and reporting regarding enforcement of the provisions of Title II of the CAA. The relevant regulations are in 40 CFR Part 80, Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives.

b. Practical Utility/ Uses of the Data The reported data will enable EPA to:

1) Qualify laboratories to use test methods based upon accuracy and precision criteria supported by industry.

2) Ensure that diesel fuel and heating oil meet the standards required under 40 CFR Part 80 and that the associated benefits to human health and the environment are realized.

3. Non duplication, Consultation, and other Collection Criteria a. Non duplication DRAFT prepared for public comment. DATE: June 2, 2005.

3 Efforts have been made to eliminate duplication in this information collection. Where possible, information requirements from various organizations within the Agency have been combined to minimize the submittal of duplicate information in different formats. The information in this collection will not be available from another source.

b. Public Notice EPA will provide an opportunity for notice and comment regarding this ICR.

c. Consultations EPA has held several consultations with regard to the provisions related to performance based test methods. Information is in the rulemaking docket, available at www. epa. gov/ edocket under OAR 2003 0012. To develop estimates for the emergency ICR, industry sources were consulted ( the American Petroleum Institute's Analytical Test Method Group). Industry sources were again consulted with regard to the estimates contained in this supporting statement.

d. Effects of Less Frequent Data Collection This is a one time collection of data for nearly all parties. We expect that nearly all respondents will seek to qualify published ASTM test methods. In the event that a respondent develops an " in house" test method rather than seeking to qualify a laboratory to use a test method developed by a recognized voluntary consensus based standards organization, such as ASTM, EPA's approval will expire after five ( 5) years.

e. General Guidelines This rule does not exceed any of the OMB guidelines. However, records must be kept for five ( 5) years, because this is the time period for which a laboratory using an " in house" test method may be qualified under the regulations. DRAFT prepared for public comment. DATE: June 2, 2005.

4 f. Confidentiality EPA informs respondents that they may assert claims of business confidentiality for any or all of the information they submit. Information claimed as confidential will be treated in accordance with 40 CFR Part 2. The template for qualification ( a spreadsheet based form) permits a party to clearly assert a claim of business confidentiality on the actual submission. Information that is received without a claim of confidentiality may be made available to the public without further notice to the submitter under 40 CFR § 2.203.

g. Sensitive Information Individual reporting data may be claimed as sensitive and will be treated as confidential information in accordance with the procedures outline in 40 CFR Part 2.

4. The Respondents and the Information Requested a. Respondents/ SIC Codes The respondents to this information collection are:  Refiners ( both domestic and foreign refiners who manufacture diesel for use in the U. S.)  Importers of diesel into the U. S.

 Testing laboratories Recordkeeping and reporting are required by the following industries, with SIC Code/ 2002 NAICS Code indicated in parentheses: refiners ( 2911/ 324110), importers ( 5172/ 424720), and laboratories ( 8734/ 541380).

b. Information Requested In order to qualify a test method, the following information must be provided to the Agency A) Reporting: Respondents must provide the information shown in the template attached to this supporting statement. The purpose of this information is to establish that the test method to be used by the DRAFT prepared for public comment. DATE: June 2, 2005.

5 laboratory, in fact, meets the accuracy and precision requirements under the diesel fuel regulation.

B) Recordkeeping: Respondents must retain underlying records related to qualifying test methods for five ( 5) years. This time period is necessary since it is the time period for which a laboratory may be qualified to use an " in house" test method. DRAFT prepared for public comment. DATE: June 2, 2005.

6 5. The Information Collected, Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management a. Agency Activities   All reported data will be reviewed by EPA.

  EPA will use the data to determine if the test method meets the accuracy and precision criteria of the regulation.

  EPA will prepare a written response to the respondent qualifying ( or not qualifying) the test method.

  The data will be stored.

b. Collection and Methodology and Management Data will be collected by industry and reported to EPA in the form of the attached template, typically submitted with an accompanying letter and contact information. Confidential business information will be stored in appropriately controlled areas.

c. Small Entity Flexibility This collection will not adversely affect small entities. The regulation provides a relatively simple means of qualifying test methods that is welcome by industry and may encourage development of new test methods by entities of all sizes.

d. Collection Schedule This information is to be submitted on a one time basis by nearly all parties. The time of collection is driven by the respondent, but may occur at any time from December 27, 2004 onward.

6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of Collection a. We drew upon experience implementing similar regulations among the same entities to develop estimates of the burden associated with this collection. We also discussed our estimates for this ICR and for the preceding emergency ICR with industry. DRAFT prepared for public comment. DATE: June 2, 2005.

7 b. Estimating the Respondent Cost Three labor categories are involved: managerial ( includes legal and professional review), technical, and clerical. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employer Costs for Employee Compensation, " Table 12  Private industry, manufacturing, and non manufacturing industries by occupational group ( December, 2003)," 2 the following wages and benefits apply by category:

Wages and Benefits Managerial $ 49.30 per hour Technical $ 32.31 per hour Clerical $ 22.42 per hour Doubling for company overhead beyond wages and benefits, and for convenience, rounding to the dollar, gives the following rates for this ICR:

Total Employer Cost Managerial $ 99 per hour Technical $ 65 per hour Clerical $ 45 per hour The labor mix for the activities above will be about the same for each. It is assumed that for each hour of activity the mix will be about 0.1 hour managerial, 0.7 hour technical, and 0.2 hour clerical. This gives an average labor cost of about $ 65 per hour, which will be used in this ICR. The annual burden estimates given below are based upon the likely respondents and estimated number of reports, industry contact, and our knowledge of likely industry activity over the next three years.

Since laboratories already engage in cross check programs with other laboratories, we have assumed no additional expense for O& M.

2 See http:// stats. bls. gov/ news. release/ ecet. t12. htm. ( Accessed April 8, 2004.) DRAFT prepared for public comment. DATE: June 2, 2005.

8 Finally, we have not double counted any reporting that was covered by ICR 1718.06 which already includes QA testing by refiners, importers and independent laboratories. This collection covers only the application process to qualify laboratories to use test methods got QA testing.

The annual estimates for hours and burden follow: DRAFT prepared for public comment.

DATE: June 2, 2005. 9 Annual Respondent Burden Hours & Costs ( Including Capital & Maintenance  O& M)

Collection Activity Number of Respondents Number of Responses per Respondent Total Number of Responses Hours per Response Total Hours & Total Cost ($ 000)

@ $ 65/ hour Total O& M Prepare and Submit Application 225 1 225 180 46,500 hours

$ 3,023 ($ 000) 0 Total 46,500 hours

$ 3,023 ($ 000) 0 DRAFT prepared for public comment. DATE: June 2, 2005.

10 c. Estimating Agency Burden and Cost The annual Agency burden is determined using the 2003 OPM annual base pay table divided by 2,080 to estimate the hourly wage and the multiplied by 1.6, the standard government benefits multiplier. The hour wage rates are as follows, rounded up to the nearest five dollars:

EPA Manager = $ 70 Technical Staff ( GS 13) = $ 50 Clerical Staff ( GS 5) = $ 20 We have assumed that each response will require 5 hours of technical staff time to review and prepare the written response. It is estimated that manager will be required to expend 1/ 2 hour per response and that the clerical staff will expend 1/ 2 hour per response. Contractors will not be used to handle these applications and are not included.

The total annual Agency burden hours are estimated as follows:

Activity No. of Responses Manager Hours Technical Hours Clerical Hours Total Agency Hours Evaluate Data 225 0 2.5 0 529 Prepare And Send Response 225 0.25 1 0.0 65 Store Data 225 0 0 0.25 65 Total 0.25 3.5 0.25 659 The total cost per responses is estimated to be $ 5/ clerical worker, $ 175/ technical staff, and $ 18/ manager, which yields $ 198/ response. The total cost burden to the Agency for 225 responses would be $ 44,550.

d. Estimating the Respondent Universe We were able to estimate the number of regulated entities drawing upon experience regulating the same entities.

e. Bottom Line Annual Burden Hours and Costs DRAFT prepared for public comment. DATE: June 2, 2005.

11 We estimate the total annual burden to respondents as 46,500 hours and the total annual cost as $ 3,023,000 from the table on page 9. We estimate the total annual burden hours to the Agency as 659 hours and $ 44,500 from the table and discussion on page 10.

f. Reason for Change in Burden The change in burden is due to new regulatory provisions regarding performance based test methods for determining the sulfur content of diesel fuel or the presence of a dye in heating oil.

g. Burden Statement The foregoing discussion and tables on pages 9 10 present the average annual respondent burden. The burden is summarized in paragraph e., Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs, of this section.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review the instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transit or otherwise disclose the information.

An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, OPPE Regulatory Information DRAFT prepared for public comment. DATE: June 2, 2005.

12 Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 2137) 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W., Washington, DC; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management of Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention, Desk Officer for EPA. Be sure to include the EPA ICR number ( 2180.02) in correspondence.