"Baer, Mitchell"<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 10/01/2007 10:36 AM

To

"Johansson, Robert"<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Farrell, Amy L." <EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Laur, Michele - Washington, DC" <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, "Schwab, Margo"<EMAIL_ADDRESS> cc

"Fraas, Arthur G."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject

RE: RIA NAAQS Workshop

Rob, Ron:

        I would like a thorough description 1) of the development of the number of potential nonattainment areas for each NAAQS option, 2) of the development of the control strategies and technologies for each of these areas modeled, and 3) of a timeline for attainment of the potential nonattainment areas identified.  I don't see the utility of the discussion of upcoming rulemakings that is set for the afternoon of the 18th.

Mitch

Mitchell T. Baer, Ph.D., CCM

Acting Director

Office of Oil and Gas Analysis, PI-42

Office of Policy and International Affairs

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Ave. SW

Washington, D.C. 20585

202-586-5167 (phone)

202-586-5391 (fax)

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

From: Johansson, Robert<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 10:19 AM

To: Johansson, Robert; Baer, Mitchell<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Farrell, Amy L.; Laur, Michele - Washington, DC; <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Schwab, Margo

Cc: Fraas, Arthur G.

Subject: RE: RIA NAAQS Workshop

It looks like EPA will be cutting down on staff time for this workshop to the afternoon of the 17th and the morning of the 18th.

This would allow folks to drive down from DC on Wednesday early morning and to drive back to DC late Thursday afternoon.

Please identify the content from the agenda below that you would like to focus on.

Thanks,

Rob

Day 1 - Wednesday, October 17

10:00 am - Kickoff (Ron Evans)

10:10 am - Comparison of NAAQS RIA and Risk Assessments (Bryan Hubbell)

10:30 am - Overview of RIA Process (Bryan Hubbell)

What are the Goals of the RIA?

What is the Scope?

What is outside of the Scope?

What is the timeline?

What are the components of the RIA?

11:00 am – Break

11:10 am - Role of AQ Modeling in the RIA (Norm Possiel and Pat Dolwick)

What are air quality models?

What are the key inputs to and outputs from air quality models?

How is international transport treated in air quality modeling?

What are the steps/timing for air quality model applications?

How are air quality models used to project future attainment/nonattainment?

How are air quality models used to provide inputs for calculating benefits?

How are air quality models or tools used to inform control strategy development?

12:00 pm – Lunch

1:00 pm - Overview of the Modeling Platform (Rich Mason)

What are the differences between the 2002 and 2001 Platforms?

How are International and Natural Emissions treated in the Emission Inventory?

What are the growth assumptions for the 2020 Inventory?

How are differences in the 2002 and 2001 platforms reflected in the 2020 inventories used for proposal and final?

2:00 pm – Break

2:10 pm - Discussion

3:00 pm - Preparation of Control Strategies (Serpil Kayin, Kevin Culligan, Darryl Weatherhead, Ken Adler, David Misenheimer, Rich Mason)

How are geographic areas selected for analysis of control measures?

How are EGU strategies prepared?

How are nonEGU Point and Area strategies prepared?

How are Mobile strategies prepared?

What role do engineering costs play in selection of control strategies?

How are incremental emission reductions calculated?

How are engineering costs calculated?

How are emission inputs prepared for the air quality model?

4:30 pm – Discussion

5:00 pm – Break for the Day

Day 2 - Thursday, October 18

8:30 am - Economic Impacts and Extrapolated Costs (Darryl)

How are economic impacts of known controls estimated?

What is the role of EMPAX?

How are extrapolated control costs estimated?

Why don’t we do EMPAX modeling for extrapolated costs?

10:00 am – Break

10:10 am – Discussion

11:00 am - Benefits Analysis – Interpolations, Extrapolations, and Sensitivity Analyses for O3 (Neal Fann)

How are human health and dollar benefits estimated?

How are we estimating full attainment benefits?

How do we "roll back" air quality monitors?

How do we interpolate benefits?

Are you performing a UVB analysis?

Will we perform a cost effectiveness analysis for ozone?

12:00 pm – Lunch

1:00 pm – Discussion

2:00 pm – Upcoming Rules and Schedules (Ron)

What are the schedules, methodological differences, and challenges of the NOx, SOx, Lead NAAQS RIAs?

2:30 pm – Break

2:40 pm – Ancillary Analyses (Nathalie Simon)

Cost effectiveness analyses

UVB analysis

2:50 pm – Other Impacts (Bryan)

Air Toxics Benefits

Ecological Benefits

Visibility

Agriculture

Forestry

NOx/SO2 Deposition

Materials Damage

3:10 pm – Discussion

4:30 pm – Break for the Day


 MACT Floor Calculation Details for Primary Aluminum Supplemental Proposal

	The attachments to this file contain the calculations supporting the development of MACT standards for the primary aluminum reduction supplemental proposal, as described in the memo: Revised Draft MACT Floor Determination for the Primary Aluminum Reduction Industry  -  Supplemental Proposal.  File names are given in the following table.

 Summary of UPL Calculation Sheets in MACT Floor Calculation Details for Primary Aluminum Supplemental Proposal  Polycyclic Organic Matter (POM) Standards                                     Category                                   Source Type                                   Subcategory                                  Distribution                              MACT Limit (99% UPL)                                   File Name  Existing Source Standards Potline Prebake  CWPB1 Normal                                                                             1.1 lb/ton Al 01_UPL_POM_Existing_Potlines_CWPB1.xlsx Potline Prebake  CWPB2 Normal                                                                              12 lb/ton Al 02_UPL_POM_Existing_Potlines_CWPB2.xlsx Potline Prebake  CWPB3 Normal                                                                             2.7 lb/ton Al 03_UPL_POM_Existing_Potlines_CWPB3.xlsx Potline Prebake  SWPB Normal                                                                              19 lb/ton Al 04_UPL_POM_Existing_Potlines_SWPB.xlsx New Source Standards  Potline All types N/A Normal                                                                            0.77 lb/ton Al 05_UPL_POM_New_Potlines.xlsx Particulate Matter (surrogate for HAP metals) Standards  Existing Source Standards Potline Prebake  CWPB1 Lognormal                                                                             7.2 lb/ton Al 06_UPL_PM_Existing_Potlines_CWPB1.xlsx Potline Prebake  CWPB2 Normal                                                                              11 lb/ton Al 07_UPL_PM_Existing_Potlines_CWPB2.xlsx Potline Prebake  CWPB3 Normal                                                                              20 lb/ton Al 08_UPL_PM_Existing_Potlines_CWPB3.xlsx Potline Prebake  SWPB Normal                                                                             4.6 lb/ton Al 09_UPL_PM_Existing_Potlines_SWPB.xlsx Potline Soderberg -- Lognormal                                                                              26 lb/ton Al 10_UPL_PM_Existing_Potlines_VSS2.xlsx Anode Bake Furnace N/A N/A Normal                                                                           0.068 lb/ton Anode 11_UPL_PM_Existing_Anode_Bake_Furnace.xlsx Paste Plant N/A N/A Lognormal                                                                           0.082 lb/ton Anode 12_UPL_PM_Existing_Paste_Plant.xlsx New Source Standards  Potline All types N/A Normal                                                                             4.6 lb/ton Al 13_UPL_PM_New_Potlines.xlsx Anode Bake Furnace N/A N/A Normal                                                                           0.036 lb/ton Anode 14_UPL_PM_New_Anode_Bake_Furnace.xlsx Paste Plant N/A N/A Lognormal                                                                          0.0056 lb/ton Anode 15_UPL_PM_New_Paste_Plant.xlsx


[Federal Register: May 13, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 91)]
[Notices]
[Page 22533-22534]
[DOCID:fr13my09-41]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER09-1061-000]

Woodland Biomass Power, Ltd.; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

May 6, 2009.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Woodland Biomass Power, Ltd.'s application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is May 26, 2009.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list.They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-11111 Filed 5-12-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


the Clean Air Act in the affected areas. See section 110(l) of the Act.
    In the case of Truckee Meadows, we believe that the considerations
for both types of areas described above are relevant because, although
Truckee Meadows Valley is nonattainment for TSP and PM10, we
are proposing to redesignate the area to attainment for PM10
in today's action. Thus, we must take into account both the potential
for

relaxation that would be inconsistent with continued maintenance of the
PM10 NAAQS as well as protection of the PM10
increments (as applies in areas designated attainment or
unclassifiable).

B. Deletion of TSP Nonattainment Area Designation for Truckee Meadows

    With respect to protection of the PM10 increments, the
TSP nonattainment designation is no longer necessary in Truckee Meadows
because, even though the WCAQMD does not currently have an approved PSD
program, if the EPA finalizes the actions in today's proposed
rulemaking, the federal PSD requirements under 40 CFR 52.21 (including
the PM10 increments) will apply to new major sources or
major modifications to existing major sources of PM10. See
40 CFR 52.1485(b). The WCAQMD administers the PSD pre-construction
permit program in 40 CFR 52.21 within Washoe County except for coal-
fired power plants, which fall under the jurisdiction of NDEP. Both the
WCAQMD and the NDEP administer the PSD permit program in 40 CFR 52.21
under delegation agreements with the EPA.
    To ensure that deletion of the TSP nonattainment designation for
Truckee Meadows would not result in any automatic relaxations in SIP
emissions limitations, control measures or programs that would
interfere with attainment, RFP or maintenance of the NAAQS (including
PM10) or any other requirement of the Act, we reviewed the
following portions of the Nevada SIP:
    [ssquf] The TSP portions of the Truckee Meadows Air Quality
Implementation Plan (AQIP) adopted in response to the CAA, as amended
in 1977;
    [ssquf] Washoe County stationary source rules, including section
040.005 (``Visible Air Contaminants''), section 040.010 (``Particulate
Matter''), section 040.020 (``Dust and Fumes''), section 040.030
(``Dust Control''), section 040.031 (``Street Sanding Operations''),
section 040.032 (``Street Sweeping Operations''), section 040.035
(``Open Fires''), section 040.040 (``Burning Permit Conditions''),
section 040.045 (``Refuge Disposal''), section 040.050 (``Incinerator
Emissions''), section 040.051 (``Wood Stove/Fireplace Insert
Emissions''), and section 040.060 (``Sulfur Content of Fuel'').
    Based on our review of the TSP provisions in the Truckee Meadows
AQIP and the various rules cited above, we find that none are
contingent upon continuation of the TSP nonattainment designation, and
thus deletion of the TSP designation would not automatically relax any
standard.
    In summary, because upon redesignation the PSD PM10
increments will apply in Truckee Meadows and because the deletion of
the TSP nonattainment designation for Truckee Meadows would not
automatically relax any emissions limitation or control measure in the
Nevada SIP, we find that the TSP nonattainment designation is no longer
necessary and can be deleted. Based on the above discussion and
evaluation, therefore, we are proposing to delete the TSP nonattainment
area designation for Truckee Meadows (HA #87) from the ``Nevada-TSP''
table in 40 CFR 81.329.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Because the TSP area designation for Truckee Meadows is the
last such designation for the State of Nevada in 40 CFR 81.329, we
will delete the entire TSP table in 40 CFR 81.329 if we finalize our
proposed deletion of the TSP area designation for Truckee Meadows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Proposed Actions and Request for Public Comment

    Under CAA section 110(k)(3), and for the reasons set forth above,
the EPA is proposing to approve the BACM demonstration submitted by the
NDEP on August 5, 2002 as part of the 2002 Truckee Meadows
PM10 Attainment Plan and the 2014 Truckee Meadows
PM10 Maintenance Plan submitted by the NDEP on November 7,
2014 as revisions of the Nevada SIP. In so doing, the EPA finds that
the 2011 attainment inventory in the maintenance plan meets the
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3) and finds that the maintenance
demonstration showing how Truckee Meadows will continue to attain the
PM10 standard through 2030, and the contingency provisions
describing the actions that the WCAQMD will take in the event of a
future monitored violation, meet all applicable requirements for
maintenance plans and related contingency provisions in CAA section
175A. The EPA is also proposing to approve the motor vehicle emissions
budgets in the 2014 PM10 Maintenance Plan (and shown in
table 5 above) because we find they meet the applicable adequacy
criteria under 40 CFR 93.118(e).
    In addition, under CAA section 107(d)(3)(D), we are proposing to
approve the state's request, which accompanied the submittal of the
2014 PM10 Maintenance Plan, to redesignate the Truckee
Meadows PM10 nonattainment area to attainment for the
PM10 standard. We are doing so based on our conclusion that
the area has met, or will meet as part of this action, all of the
criteria for redesignation under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E). More
specifically, we propose to find that Truckee Meadows has attained the
PM10 standard based on the most recent three-year period
(2012-2014) of quality-assured, certified, and complete (or otherwise
validated) PM10 data; that relevant portions of the Nevada
SIP are, or will be as part of this action, fully approved; that the
improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable
reductions in emissions; that Nevada has met all requirements
applicable to the Truckee Meadows PM10 nonattainment area
with respect to section 110 and part D of the CAA if we finalize our
approvals of the BACM demonstration in the 2002 PM10
Attainment Plan and the attainment inventory in the 2014
PM10 Maintenance Plan, as proposed herein; and that Truckee
Meadows will have a fully approved maintenance plan meeting the
requirements of CAA section 175A if we finalize our approval of it,
also as proposed herein.
    In connection with the above proposed approvals and determinations,
and as authorized under CAA section 189(e), we are proposing to
determine that major stationary sources of PM10 precursors
do not contribute significantly to PM10 exceedances in the
Truckee Meadows area based on the information in the 1988 DRI Report
and more recent inventory and speciation data available from the
WCAQMD.
    Lastly, the EPA is proposing to delete the nonattainment area
designation for Truckee Meadows for the revoked national standard for
total suspended particulate because we have concluded that the
designation is no longer necessary.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ If we finalize the proposed approval of the redesignation
request for Truckee Meadows to attainment for the PM10
standard and the proposed deletion of the TSP area designation for
Truckee Meadows, as proposed, then all areas within the State of
Nevada will be designated attainment or unclassifiable for all of
the current NAAQS for particulate matter (i.e., PM10 and
PM2.5). At that point, the EPA's finding at 40 CFR
52.1476(a) (``The requirements of subpart G of this chapter are not
met since the plan does not provide for the attainment and
maintenance of the national standards for particulate matter in the
Northwest Nevada and Nevada Intrastate Regions.''), promulgated at
37 FR 10842, 10879 (May 31, 1972), will become obsolete, and
therefore, we intend to delete 40 CFR 52.1476(a) if we finalize this
proposed rule, as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are soliciting comments on these proposed actions. We will
accept comments from the public on this proposal for 30 days following
publication of this proposal in the Federal Register. We will consider
these comments before taking final action.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the

accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E)
are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not
impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those
imposed by state law. Redesignation to attainment does not in and of
itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the
applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have
been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, 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, these actions merely propose to approve a
State plan and redesignation request as meeting Federal requirements
and do not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For these reasons, these proposed actions:
     Are 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);
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are 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.);
     Do 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);
     Do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not an economically significant regulatory action
based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are 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,
     Do not provide the 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, the State plan for which the EPA is proposing approval
does not apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area
where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the proposed rule, as
it relates to the maintenance plan, does not have tribal implications
and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000). However, the EPA has contacted the Reno-Sparks
Indian Colony and invited them to consult on today's action. The Reno-
Sparks Indian Colony, which consists of members of three Great Basin
Tribes--the Paiute, the Shoshone, and the Washo--and which has Indian
country within the Truckee Meadows air quality planning area because
the Indian country within the Truckee Meadows area would be
redesignated to attainment along with State lands if the EPA were to
finalize the proposed rules, as set forth herein.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

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

40 CFR Part 81

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

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

    Dated: September 18, 2015.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2015-24854 Filed 9-29-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 143 (Friday, July 25, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 43240]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17528]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 91

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0396]

Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of interpretation with request for comment; Extension of
comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is extending the comment period on its Interpretation
of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft that was published on June 25,
2014.

DATES: The comment period for the notice of interpretation published
June 25, 2014 (79 FR 36172), is extended. Comments must be received on
or before September 23, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by docket number FAA-2014-
0396 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC
20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room
W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean E. Griffith, Attorney,
International Law, Legislation, and Regulations Division, Office of the
Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA published a notice of interpretation
with request for comment in the Federal Register on June 25, 2014 (79
FR 36172) that discussed the FAA's interpretation of the Special Rule
for Model Aircraft established in section 336 of the FAA Modernization
and Reform Act of 2012. The notice requested that interested parties
submit written comments by July 25, 2014.
    On July 16, 2014, the Academy of Model Aeronautics submitted a
request to extend the comment period by 60 days, citing the need to
``educate the aeromodeling community, clarify the issues, and respond
to questions regarding the impact that the interpretive rule has on
various aspects of the modeling activity.'' The FAA agrees that
additional time for the submission of comments would be helpful, and
therefore has decided to extend the comment period until September 23,
2014. The FAA expects that the additional time for comments will allow
the affected community to prepare meaningful comments which will help
the FAA to determine what clarifications to the interpretation may be
necessary.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 22, 2014.
Mark W. Bury,
Assistant Chief Counsel for International Law, Legislation, and
Regulations.
[FR Doc. 2014-17528 Filed 7-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: December 28, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 248)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 73587-73589]
[DOCID:fr28de07-7]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-28352; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-037-AD;
Amendment 39-15309; AD 2007-26-07]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-200B, 747-300, 747-
400, 747-400D, and 747-400F Series Airplanes Equipped with General
Electric CF6-80C2 Engines

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Boeing Model 747-200B, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, and 747-400F
series airplanes. This AD requires repetitive inspections of the left-
and right-hand flipper door assemblies of the engine

core cowls for migrated pins and damaged flipper doors, and corrective
actions if necessary. Modification of the hinge assemblies terminates
the repetitive inspections. This AD results from two reports of missing
flipper doors for the engine core cowls. We are issuing this AD to
detect and correct migrated hinge pins and damaged flipper doors, which
could allow the flipper door to fall off, resulting in the potential
for an engine fire to propagate into the flammable leakage zone of the
strut and for the amount of fire extinguishing agent reaching the fire
to be diluted, and subsequent uncontained fire in the engine strut.

DATES: This AD becomes effective February 1, 2008.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of February 1,
2008.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-
2207.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
; 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 AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the Document Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sulmo Mariano, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 917-6501; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to certain Boeing Model
747-200B, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, and 747-400F series airplanes.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on June 5, 2007 (72 FR
31001). That NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections of the
left- and right-hand flipper door assemblies of the engine core cowls
for migrated pins and damaged flipper doors, and corrective actions if
necessary. That NPRM specified that the modification of the hinge
assemblies would terminate the repetitive inspections.

Comments

    We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the
development of this AD. We have considered the comments received.

Request to Clarify the Requirements Specified in Paragraph (f) of the
NPRM

    Boeing requests that we revise paragraph (f) of the NPRM to clarify
that the modification specified in Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 747-71-2310, dated October 13, 2005, is necessary only if
hinge pins have migrated or flipper doors are damaged or missing.
Boeing states that the instruction to do all applicable corrective
actions could be interpreted to mean that the proposed modification is
required, regardless of the inspection findings.
    We agree that modification is necessary only when hinge pins have
migrated or the flipper doors are damaged or missing. Both Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-71-2310, and Rohr Service
Bulletin TBC/80C2-NAC-71-035, dated October 10, 2005, clearly state
that modification is necessary only when hinge pins have migrated or
the flipper doors are damaged or missing. We have made no change to the
AD in this regard.

Request to Clarify the Requirements Specified in Paragraph (g) of the
NPRM

    Boeing requests that we revise paragraph (g) of the NPRM to clarify
that accomplishing Rohr Service Bulletin TBC/80C2-NAC-71-035, as
instructed in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-71-2310,
does not necessarily result in modification of the core cowl. Boeing
points out that, if the hinge pin is properly installed, modification
in accordance with Rohr Service Bulletin TBC/80C2-NAC-71-035 is not
necessary.
    We agree with Boeing's comment. The actions specified in Rohr
Service Bulletin TBC/80C2-NAC-71-035 do not require modification if the
hinge pin has not migrated and is properly peened. We have changed
paragraph (g) of this AD to say that accomplishment of the Rohr service
bulletin terminates the repetitive inspection requirements (for non-
discrepant hinge pins) of paragraph (f) of this AD.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received
from the single commenter, and determined that air safety and the
public interest require adopting the AD with the change described
previously. We also determined that this change will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 297 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for
U.S. operators to comply with this AD.

                                                                     Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Average labor                                            Number of U.S.-
               Action                  Work hours     rate per hour       Parts        Cost per airplane     registered airplanes        Fleet cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection of flipper door                        1             $80              $0  $80, per inspection    42...................  $3,360, per
 assemblies, per inspection cycle.                                                    cycle.                                        inspection cycle.
Modification of hinge assemblies,                 1              80               0  80...................  Up to 42.............  Up to $3,360.
 if accomplished.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 have determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866;
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES
section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2007-26-07 Boeing: Amendment 39-15309. Docket No. FAA-2007-28352;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-037-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD becomes effective February 1, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 747-200B, 747-300, 747-400,
747-400D, and 747-400F series airplanes, certificated in any
category, equipped with General Electric CF6-80C2 engines.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from two reports of missing flipper doors
for the engine core cowl. We are issuing this AD to detect and
correct migrated hinge pins and damaged flipper doors, which could
allow the flipper door to fall off, resulting in the potential for
an engine fire to propagate into the flammable leakage zone of the
strut and for the amount of fire extinguishing agent reaching the
fire to be diluted, and subsequent uncontained fire in the engine
strut.

Compliance

    (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Inspection of the Flipper Door Assemblies

    (f) Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD: Do a
general visual inspection for migrated hinge pins and damaged
flipper doors of the left- and right-hand flipper door assemblies of
the engine core cowls, and do all applicable corrective actions, by
accomplishing all the actions specified in the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-71-
2310, dated October 13, 2005. Do all applicable corrective actions
before further flight. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals
not to exceed 18 months for that flipper door assembly, until doing
the actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD.

    Note 1: Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-71-2310,
dated October 13, 2005, refers to Rohr Service Bulletin TBC/80C2-
NAC-71-035, dated October 10, 2005, as an additional source of
service information for accomplishing the actions specified in
paragraph (f) of this AD.

Terminating Action for Repetitive Inspections

    (g) Accomplishing the inspection and applicable modification of
a hinge assembly of a flipper door assembly of the engine core cowl
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 747-71-2310, dated October 13, 2005; or
Rohr Service Bulletin TBC/80C2-NAC-71-035, dated October 10, 2005;
terminates the repetitive inspection requirements of this AD for
that hinge assembly.

Parts Installation

    (h) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install,
on any airplane, a hinge assembly, part number 224-2335-69, for the
flipper door of the engine core cowl unless it has been modified in
accordance with the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) You must use Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-
71-2310, dated October 13, 2005, to perform the actions that are
required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director
of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of
this document in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,
Washington 98124-2207, for a copy of this service information. You
may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability
of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html
.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 11, 2007.
Michael J. Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E7-24520 Filed 12-27-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


1 Formal Notification for Proposed Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Section 316( b) Phase III Facilities NPRM Projected Date: June 15, 2003 Background Clean Water Act Requirements Section 316( b) of the CWA provides that any standard established pursuant to section 301 or 306 of the CWA and applicable to a point source must require that the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available ( BTA) for minimizing adverse environmental impact.

Section 316( b) addresses the adverse environmental impact caused by the intake of cooling water, not discharges into water. Despite this special focus, the requirements of section 316( b) are closely linked to several of the core elements of the NPDES permit program established under section 402 of the CWA to control discharges of pollutants into navigable waters. For example, section 316( b) applies to facilities that withdraw water from the waters of the United States for cooling through a cooling water intake structure and are point sources subject to an NPDES permit. Conditions implementing section 316( b) are included in NPDES permits and would continue to be included in such permits under this proposed rule. NPDES permits also routinely include monitoring and reporting requirements, standard conditions, and special conditions.

The proposed rule will be issued under the authority of sections 101, 301, 304, 306, 308, 316, 401, 402, 501, and 510 of the Clean Water Act ( CWA), 33 U. S. C. 1251, 1311, 1314, 1316, 1318, 1326, 1341, 1342, 1361, and 1370.

Brief History of 316( b) Rulemaking In April 1976, EPA published a rule under section 316( b) that addressed cooling water intake structures. [ 41 FR 17387 ( April 26, 1976), proposed at 38 FR 34410 ( December 13, 1973)]. In 1977, fifty eight electric utility companies challenged these regulations, arguing that EPA had failed to comply with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act ( APA) in promulgating the rule. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit agreed and, without reaching the merits of the regulations themselves, remanded the rule. [ Appalachian Power Co. v. Train, 566 F. 2d 451 ( 4th Cir. 1977)].

Since the Fourth Circuit remanded EPA's section 316( b) regulations in 1977, NPDES 2 permit authorities have made decisions implementing section 316( b) on a case by case, sitespecific basis. EPA published draft guidance addressing section 316( b) implementation in 1977.

Consent Decree and Current 316( b) Rulemaking The Phase III rulemaking will partially fulfill EPA's obligation to comply with an Amended Consent Decree. The Amended Consent Decree was filed on November 22, 2000, in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, in Riverkeeper Inc., et al. v. Whitman, No. 93 Civ 0314 ( AGS), a case brought against EPA by a coalition of individuals and environmental groups. The original Consent Decree, filed on October 10, 1995, provided that EPA was to propose regulations implementing section 316( b) by July 2, 1999, and take final action with respect to those regulations by August 13, 2001. Under subsequent interim orders and the Amended Consent Decree, EPA has divided the rulemaking into three phases and is working under new deadlines. As required by the Amended Consent Decree, on November 9, 2001, EPA took final action on a rule governing cooling water intake structures used by new facilities ( Phase I) [ 66 FR 65255 ( December 18, 2001)]. As required by the Amended Consent Decree, EPA also issued a proposal for Phase II facilities on February 28, 2002 [ 67 FR 17122 ( April 9, 2002)]; EPA is required to take final action on the Phase II rule by August 28, 2003. As proposed, Phase II facilities consist of existing utility and non utility electric power producers having a cooling water intake structure( s) with a design intake flow of50 million gallons per day or mroe, at least 25% of which is used for cooling purposes. The decree requires further that, in Phase III, EPA propose regulations governing cooling water intake structures used, at a minimum, by existing power plants not covered in Phase II, and by existing facilities in four industrial sectors ( pulp, paper and paperboard; petroleum and coal products; chemical and allied products; and primary metals). EPA must propose Phase III regulations by June 15, 2003, and take final action on these regulations by December 15, 2004. Because EPA did not have sufficient information to address new offshore and coastal oil and gas drilling facilities in the Phase I regulations, EPA will address these facilities in Phase III.

Environmental Objectives The proposed national requirements, which would be implemented through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) permits. They would establish location, design, construction, and capacity requirements that reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact from the cooling water intake structure based on water body type, and the amount of water withdrawn by a facility.

EPA expects that the proposed regulation would minimize adverse environmental impacts by substantially reducing the harmful effects of impingement and entrainment on fish and shellfish. As a result, the Agency anticipates that the proposed rule would help protect ecosystems in proximity to cooling water intake structures. The proposed rule would help preserve aquatic 3 organisms, including threatened and endangered species, and the ecosystems they inhabit in waters used by cooling water intake structures.

Regulatory Alternatives under Consideration EPA staff are now developing regulatory alternatives. At this writing ( September, 2002), formal consideration and selection of regulatory options by EPA management has not yet begun. As a starting point for developing alternative requirements, EPA staff have selected the preferred alternative in the Phase II proposed rule, also known as " option three" [ 67 FR 17122 ( April 9, 2002)]  see also the Economic and Benefits Analysis for the Proposed 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule ( available from EPA's web site, http:// www. epa. gov/ ost/ 316b).

The approach to regulatory alternatives described here is based on the requirements found in the Phase II proposed rule and the regulatory threshold in the Phase I final rule. The scheme described here is a starting point  other options will be considered, and the approach could be modified substantially or rejected in favor of another approach. Also, the nature of the requirements for the permit application, demonstration studies, and subsequent monitoring have not been considered thoroughly at this point in time ( September 2002), although the Phase II proposal can be considered as a starting point for developing such requirements.

Facilities having design intake flows ( DIF) no more than 2 MGD, and those using less than 25% of their design intake flow for cooling purposes ( regardless of DIF), would not be subject to the specific Phase III requirements. Instead, requirements for such facilities would continue to be developed by permitting authorities on case by case basis using best professional judgment.

The flow threshold of 2 MGD is a starting point; other MGD threshold values will be considered. Other thresholds will also be considered for the percentage of intake water used for cooling purposes and for capacity utilization at electric generators ( see below). EPA is also seeking information about intermittent or seasonal withdrawal of water by manufacturing facilities ( analogous to capacity utilization at electric generating plants). EPA will also consider ways to reduce the burden of permit application requirements for facilities with DIF less than 50 MGD.

These are the performance standards assumed as a starting point for discussion, and assumed for purposes of estimating costs in the next section.

° DIF less than 50 MGD:

Water source an estuary, tidal river, ocean, or one of the Great Lakes: reduce impingement ( 80% to 95%) and entrainment ( 60% to 90%)

Other water sources: reduce impingement ( 80% to 95%) 4 ° DIF 50 MGD or more, electric generators with capacity utilization < 15%

All water sources: reduce impingement ( 80% to 95%)

° DIF 50 MGD or more: electric generators with capacity utilization at least 15% and all other facilities.

Water source an estuary, tidal river, ocean, or one of the Great Lakes: reduce impingement ( 80% to 95%) and entrainment ( 60% to 90%)

Water source a freshwater lake or reservoir: reduce impingement ( 80% to 95%), and if increasing DIF must not disrupt natural thermal stratification or turnover pattern

Water source a freshwater stream or river and DIF is not more than 5% of mean annual stream or river flow: reduce impingement ( 80% to 95%)

Water source a freshwater stream or river and DIF is more than 5% of mean annual stream or river flow: reduce impingement ( 80% to 95%) and entrainment ( 60% to 90%)

A facility that already meets the performance standards, or one that has reduced its intake capacity commensurate with the use of a closed cycle, recirculating system would have already applied best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact.

A facility would, with the permitting authority's approval, be able to employ restoration measures in lieu of or in combination with intake structure technologies or operational measures, if it demonstrated to the permitting authority that it is maintaining the fish and shellfish within the waterbody, including community structure and function, to a level comparable to those which would result from employing design and construction technologies or operational measures to meet the performance standards for reducing impingement mortality and entrainment.

In addition, if the costs for meeting these performance standards at a facility are significantly greater than the costs EPA considered in establishing them or the site specific benefits of compliance, a facility may request and obtain alternative, site specific standards that are no less stringent than justified by the significantly greater cost.

We are considering two modifications( sub options) to the scheme described above.

Regulatory Suboption 1: The threshold ( 2 MGD design intake flow) for applicability of specific performance standards, may be set higher based on economic tests or small 5 business impacts, provided this does not produce financial inequity between Phase II and Phase III facilities.

Regulatory Suboption 2: Facilities with DIF < 50 MGD and located on sensitive waterbodies would have the same requirements as other small facilities to reduce impingement mortality only.

The majority of facilities that would be subject to Phase III performance standards are located on freshwater rivers and streams. Thus most would be required, under the preliminary draft performance standards described here, to meet the performance standard to reduce impingement mortality ( but not the standard for entrainment). Many of these facilities would be found to satisfy the performance standard because they already have in place appropriate cooling water intake technologies. The typical Phase III facility with cooling water intake structures at the shoreline would either need to install only a fish handling and/ or return system if they already have traveling screens. If they have fixed screens or no screens, they would need to install both traveling screens and a fish handling and/ or return system. The facilities that are located on freshwater rivers and streams that currently have offshore or submerged intake structures would most likely choose to install velocity caps if they selected a technology approach.

Using the initial proposed regulatory approach described above, we estimated the percentage of the national population of facilities subject to Section 316( b) that would require no further modifications to meet the performance standard ( 69 %). This 69 % is divided into 18 % that would fall under the 2 MGD threshold, about 11 % that withdraw more than 2 MGD but use less than 25 % for cooling purposes, and about 40% that meet the performance standard because of their existing technologies. Of the remaining 31 %, we estimated that about 18 % would install impingement controls, 4 % would install entrainment controls, and 9% would install controls for both impingement and entrainment. These percentages apply to the entire population of facilities, but differ little between the manufacturer and electricity producer populations. (* NOTE: as discussed above, there are alternative compliance options but for purposes of costing we assumed that cooling water intake technologies would be installed.) 6 Types of Small Entities Likely to Be Affected The exact scope of a proposed Phase III rule has not yet been determined ( as of September, 2002), because the rulemaking is now underway. It potentially may apply to all facilities not regulated under Phases I & II and to which Section 316( b) applies. This includes a wide range of existing facilities. Phase III will cover existing facilities, for the most part.

EPA anticipates that a majority of these facilities will fall into the following major categories of economic activity: electricity producers with design intake flows less than 50 million gallons per day; industrial chemicals; pulp & paper; primary metals ( iron and steel, aluminum); petroleum refining.

EPA conducted a questionnaire survey of these major industrial sectors. Of the survey respondents ( facilities) that might be affected by the Phase III requirements, there were 140 electricity producers ( 94 utilities and 46 non utilities) and 288 in other economic sectors.

Of the 288 responding facilities in manufacturing sectors, 33 are owned by small entities. Of the 94 utility plants, 12 are owned by small entities and for one the ownership has yet to be determined. Of the 46 utility plants, 1 is owned by a small entity and for 10 the ownership has yet to be determined. EPA is now working diligently to determine the SBA size status for all facilities.

Using standard methods of survey estimation, EPA is able to estimate the national population of facilities in these industrial sectors that may potentially be affected by a phase III rule. The estimated national population of facilities ( restricted to those having design intake flows over 2 MGD) is153 electric generating facilities ( 95 utility and 58 non utility) and 780 manufacturing facilities. These estimates are subject to minor revision as research continues on facility status and as missing survey information is obtained from facilities.

The Oil & Gas Extraction category was not represented in the 316( b) survey. Information provided in comments on the Phase I regulatory proposal prompted EPA to consider this category in its analyses for existing facilities ( as well as new facilities, see above). The category contains a large number of facilities and it presents unique engineering, cost, and economic issues associated with drilling rigs, ships, and platforms. EPA is acquiring current industry surveys and commercial databases that will identify offshore and coastal oil & gas extraction facilities in the Gulf of Alaska, California, and the Gulf of Mexico. EPA also has experience with and data for this category obtained during the rulemaking for Synthetic Based Drilling Fluids ( Final Rule published in January 2001; see http:// www. epa. gov/ ost/ guide/ sbf/). At the present time, based on that experience, EPA believes that a great majority of the owner entities are large businesses. 7 Potential impacts of the rule on small entities For details of how " small entities" were identified, the sources of information for their revenues, and the preliminary estimates of cost: revenue ratios for these small entities, please refer to the Background Paper ( sent to potential SERs) which accompanies this Notification. More detail is provided with this Notification in an appendix, " Preliminary Small Entity Impact Analysis."

The conclusion that may be drawn from the preliminary analysis described in the Appendix is that, in the major industries surveyed, including the preliminary information on the oil & gas extraction industry, ( a) the number of small entities subject to a Phase 3 rule is likely to be near100 if a DIF flow threshold of 2 MGD is used, and ( b) the number of firms having costs more than 1% and 3% of revenues is likely to be very small.

Bear in mind that these results are preliminary and will be revised. The costing methods are also being revised. At this writing ( September 2002), EPA lacks information about the SBAsize status and revenue for some facilities responding to the EPA survey, because some facilities did not provide complete responses and have not responded to further inquiries ( these consist of 34 out of 428 facilities having DIF above 2 MGD). EPA is working diligently to resolve these questions and obtain the missing data.

This preliminary analysis is a screening analysis of the sort usually conducted by EPA to make an initial evaluation of small entity impacts. A full scale economic impact analysis will be conducted during the course of the rulemaking process. The methods that EPA will use are described in the Economic Analysis of the Final Regulations Addressing Cooling Water Intake Structures for New Facilities ( EPA  821 R 01 035, November 2001), and in the Economic and Benefits Analysis for the Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule ( April 2002). These documents are available from EPA's 316( b) web site ( http:// www. epa. gov/ ost/ 316b). 8 EPA staff recommendations for small entity representatives for the 316( b) Phase III rulemaking as of September 14, 2002.

Note: Not all of the persons listed below have committed definitely to serve as SERs. EPA is waiting for replies from two more municipal electric generators and two more manufacturing plants. 9 EPA staff recommendations for small entity representatives for the 316( b) Phase III rulemaking, as of September 14, 2002.

Small Electric Generators Industry Business, Municipality, or Organization Contact Person Small Electric Generators Cooperative Wolverine Power Suppy Cooperative, Inc.

3150 143rd Ave.

Dorr, MI 49323 Brian L. Warner 231 775 5700 bwarner@ wpsci. com Municipal Henderson Municipal Power & Light 419 N. Water St.

Henderson, KY 42419 Wayne Thompson 270 826 2726 WThompson@ hmpl. net Municipal Iola Electric Department 1220 West 54 Hwy.

Iola, KS 66749 Steven D. Robb 316 365 4950 powerplt@ iolaks. com Municipal Village Of Winnetka 510 Green Bay Road Winnetka, IL 60093 Jeffrey M. Pietka 847 716 3601 jpietka@ winnetka. org Cooperative Great River Energy *

4001 Hwy 200A Stanton, ND 58571 9402 Steve Smokey 701 745 3387 ssmokey@ GREnergy. com * Note: Great River Energy is a large entity. This plant and the Elk River, MN plant belonged to United Power Association until a January 1999 merger with Cooperative Power. EPA was told that although the merged cooperatives are operating as one at the board level, UPA ( a small entity) is still the owner of the Elk River MN and Stanton ND plants. EPA is researching this matter to resolve the question of SBA status. 10 ( continued on next page) 11 EPA staff recommendations for small entity representatives for the 316( b) Phase III rulemaking, as of September 14, 2002.

Small Manufacturers Industry Business, Municipality, or Organization Contact Person Small Manufacturers Paper and Allied Products Oconto Falls Tissue, Inc.

2079 A Lawrence Drive De Pere, WI 54115 Jim Kellam 920 983 8379 JimK@ GBonline. com Steel Bayou Steel Corporation P. O. Box 5000 La Place, LA 70069 5000 Wendy Stehling 985 652 0322 WendyS@ bayousteel. com Cogeneration / Lumber & Wood Products Snider Industries, Incorporated P. O. BOX 668 Marshall, TX 75671 0668 Craig Parr 903 938 3282 cparr@ shreve. net Paper and Allied Products Mohawk Paper Mills, Inc.

PO Box 497 Cohoes, NY 12047 George Milner 518 233 6205 MilnerG@ mohawkpaper. com Petroleum and Coal Products Countrymark Cooperative, Inc.

225 S East St Indianapolis, IN Donald Horning 812 838 8133 Horning@ countrymark. com Petroleum and Coal Products Murphy Oil Corporation PO Box 7000 El Dorado, AR 71731 7000 Jim Britt 870 864 6520 jim_ britt@ murphyoilcorp. com ( continued on next page) 12 EPA staff recommendations for small entity representatives for the 316( b) Phase III rulemaking, as of September 14, 2002.

Associations Industry Business, Municipality, or Organization Contact Person Associations Rural Electric Cooperatives National Rural Electric Cooperative Association 4301 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, VA 22203 1860 James Stine 703 907 5739 james. stine@ nreca. org Municipal  MMUA represents small municipal utilities in Moorhead and Virginia MN Minnesota Municipal Utilities Association 12805 Highway 55, Suite 212 Plymouth, MN 55441 3859 Steve Downer 800 422 0119 sdowner@ mmua. org Municipal  AMP Ohio represents small municipal utilities in Dover and St.

Marys OH American Municipal Power  Ohio 2600 Airport Drive Columbus, OH 43219 Randy Meyer 800 875 2676 rmeyer@ amp ohio. org 13 Material previously shared with potential SERS:

Potential SERs were provided the accompanying 2 page summary " EPA CWI. pdf" and two documents describing the SBREFA and SBAR process (" Facts SBREFA01. pdf" and " Facts SERs01. PDF").

Attachments:

EPA CWI. pdf Facts SBREFA01. pdf" Facts SERs01. PDF Potential SERs were provided the accompanying outreach materials between September 16 and 18, 2002 as preparation for an outreach meeting and telephone conference:

Attachments:

Cover Letter. pdf Background Paper. pdf Ph2_ Ch3_ Technologies. pdf Ph2_ Ch2_ CostMethods. pdf Ph2_ Ch3_ Attach3. pdf Ph2_ Ch4_ Conversion. pdf Ph2_ AppxA_ ComplianceCosts. pdf Ph2_ Ch2_ charts210218. pdf Ph2_ Ch2_ charts219230. pdf Ph1_ Ch5_ Technologies. pdf 14 Appendix Preliminary Small Entity Impact Analysis for 316( b) Phase III EPA's methods of determining whether an entity meets the SBA size standard for " small" have been described in EPA documents available on the 316( b) web site. They are also described in the Background Paper ( sent to potential SERs) which accompanies this Notification. EPA has conducted an initial small entity impact analysis. Results of this preliminary analysis are shown in two sets of tables. The first set ( Tables H 1, H 2, H 3 and H 4 summarizes the number of small entities in the US and the number of these that are potentially subject to a 316( b) Phase III rule. The second set ( Table H 5, divided into three parts) summarizes costs, revenues, and the ratio of annualized cost to revenues for small businesses potentially subject to a 316( b) Phase III rule.

The analysis was based on all surveyed facilities that are " in scope." The definition of " in scope" is that each facility meets each of the following criteria: ( 1) they use a CWIS to withdraw water of the U. S.; ( 2) they have or require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) permit; and ( 3) they use at least 25 percent of the water withdrawn for cooling purposes. It was assumed that all steam electric generators would satisfy the third criterion.

The analysis assumed a threshold of 2 mgd design intake flow ( DIF) before a facility would be subject to a Phase III rule. Such a threshold was applied in the Phase I rule ( new facilities). If a similar threshold is eventually applied in a Phase III proposed rule, this analysis will have more accurately estimated the numbers of potentially affected facilities and firms.

This preliminary analysis was conducted at the facility level ( but using firm level revenues). However, conducting this analysis at the firm level would not change the results. None of the manufacturing entities or electric generators determined to be small own more than one facility subject to the proposed rule. Therefore, costs aggregated to the firm level would be identical to facility level costs. The number of firms with cost to revenue values of greater than 1% or 3% would also be the same as the number of facilities with those ratios. 15 Table H 1. Electric Generating Universe: This table provides the denominators for the percentages in Table H 5. The second to last column presents the adjusted number of all small entities by parent firm type. The last column presents the number of small in scope facilities ( at a zero MGD flow threshold) by parent firm type. [ The number of all small nonutilities ( irrespective of in scope status) could not be determined. To make the " All Small Adjusted" number in Table H 1 comparable to the " Small In Scope Facilities" ( the numerator), two adjustments were made: ( a) for privately owned utilities, the number of all small entities was reduced by 50% to reflect small utilities owned by large holding companies ( 50% of in scope privately owned utilities for which additional parent firm research was conducted were small at the utility level but large at the holding company level); ( b) for municipalities and municipal markets, the number of all small entities was reduced by 20% to reflect public entities that are small based on electricity sales but are large based on their population size ( 20% of in scope utilities owned by municipalities or municipal markets were small based on electricity sales but large based on population).]

Electric Generating Universe Firm Type All 2000 Form EIA 861 All Small 861 All Small Adjusted Estimated Small  Inscope (> 0MGD) Cooperative 894 868 868 2 Federal 9 5 5 Municipal 1,850 1,836 1,469 13 Municipal Market 25 18 14 Power Marketer 134 87 87 Private 240 107 54 14 State 25 17 17 Subdivision 113 103 103 Total 3,290 3,041 2,617 29 16 Table H 2. Manufacturing Facilities Universe: This table provides the denominators for the percentages discussed in table H 5 for manufacturers. The last column presents the weighted number of manufacturing facilities owned by a small entity, with a design intake flow ( DIF) exceeding 0 MGD and at least 25% of the DIF used for cooling water by facility industry type.

Table H 2. Manufacturing Facilities Universe Firm Type Total Mfg Establishments Total Establishments Owned by Small Mfg Firms Estimated Small Inscope ( all DIFs)

Chemicals 7,046 4,640 30 Paper 1,338 777 21 Petroleum 315 134 3 Steel/ Aluminum 1,881 1,141 13 Other 40,591 32,831 9 Total 51,171 39,523 76 17 Table H 3. Estimated Number of In Scope Electric Generating Facilities by SBREFA Size Determination: This table presents the estimated number of electric generating facilities, by ownership type and parent level SBREFA size determination. This table includes all in scope facilities, regardless of design intake flows.

Table H 3. Estimated Number of Inscope Electric Generating Facilities by Firm Type and SBREFA Size Determination Firm Type Large Small Total Cooperative 5 2 7 Municipal 6 13 19 Private 105 14 119 State 3 3 Subdivision 1 1 Total 120 29 149 Table H 4. Estimated Number of In Scope Manufacturing Facilities by SBREFA Size Determination: This table presents the estimated number of manufacturing facilities, by their facility industry type and firm level SBREFA size determination. This table includes all in scope facilities, regardless of design intake flows.

Table H 4. Estimated Number of Inscope Manufacturing Facilities by Faciliity Industry Type and SBREFA Size Determination Facility Type Large Small Total Chemicals 175 30 206 Paper 141 21 161 Petroleum 30 3 33 Steel/ Aluminum 86 13 99 Other 50 9 59 Total 483 76 558 18 The following bullets explain the columns in Table H 5

Small In Scope Facilities: This is the number of facilities owned by a small entity ( all DIFs) that potentially would be subject to the regulation with no DIF threshold..

Small In Scope Facilities with DIF > 2 MGD: This is the number of facilities owned by a small entity ( all DIFs) that potentially would be subject to the regulation under a 2 mgd DIF threshold.

Facilities as % of All Small: The percentage of the universe of small facilities that are in scope at the 2 MGD DIF threshold. This is the number of facilities owned by a small entity that are in scope under the DIF threshold ( column titles " Small In Scope Facilities") divided by the estimated number ( see Table H 1, H 2, the next to last column) of all facilities owned by a small entity ( irrespective of in scope status  the vast majority of these small firms do not have a CWIS and CWA § 316( b) does not apply to them). This number shows the percentage of all small businesses in the US that would be subject to the proposed § 316( b) Phase III proposed rule under the DIF threshold.

Facilities with Flow & Revenue Data: This is the number of facilities for which both flow and revenue data are available. The next series of variables in Table H 5, Part 1 ( average design intake flow, average firm revenues, and the average annualized cost numbers) are based on these facilities.

Average Design Intake Flow, Average Firm Revenues, Average Annualized Costs: These average values are calculated using data for those facilities that exceed the specified DIF threshold.

Number of Facilities with Total Annual Cost/ Revenue 1%  3%, > 3%: The next six columns present the number of facilities whose estimated annual costs are between 1% and 3%, and greater than 3% of revenues under three scenarios: ( 1) using total annualized technology costs only; ( 2) using total annualized technology costs plus the low average permitting and monitoring cost estimate; and ( 3) using total annualized technology costs plus the high permitting and monitoring cost estimate. 19 Table H 5, part 1. Preliminary small entity impact analysis, part A: surveyed facilities Firm / Facility Type Small In Scope Facilities ( all DIFs) Small In Scope Facilities ( DIF > 2 mgd) Facilities as % of All Small ( Universe) Facilities with Flow & Revenue Data Electric Generators by Firm Type Cooperative 2 2 0.2% 2 Municipal 13 12 0.8% 12 Municipal Mrkt 0 0 0 Private 14 11 20.5% 11 Sub Division 0 0 0 All Electric Gen. Facilities 29 25 1.0% 25 Manufacturers by Facility Type Chemicals 30 9 0.2% 9 Paper 21 15 2.0% 13 Petroleum 3 2 1.6% 2 Steel/ Aluminum 13 13 1.1% 13 Other 9 6 0.0% 4 All Mfr Facilities 76 44 0.1% 40 20 Table H 5, part 2. Preliminary small entity impact analysis, part B: costs and revenues Firm/ Facility Type Average Design Intake Flow ( MGD) Average Firm Revenues ($ 2002) Average Annualized Capital Cost Average Annual O& M Cost Average Total Annualized Technology Cost ( Capital + O& M) Average Total Annualized Technology + Low P& M Cost Average Total Annualized Technology + High P& M Cost Electric Generators by Firm Type Cooperative 16.5 121,433,699 7,166 2,098 9,264 117,083 127,412 Municipal 23.5 19,878,307 9,748 2,983 12,730 139,407 150,096 Municipal Mrkt 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Private 2.6 23,713,816 4,130 1,617 5,748 176,526 192,888 Sub Division 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 All Firm Types 13.8 29,738,924 7,077 2,313 9,391 153,879 167,025 Manufacturers by Facility Type Chemicals 15.5 46,300,000 4,783 1,391 6,174 113,331 117,858 Paper 15 128,819,713 5,558 1,629 7,187 87,146 95,119 Petroleum 211 2,427,092,058 0 0 0 0 0 Steel/ Aluminum 20 242,791,988 3,672 1,264 4,935 58,494 63,626 Other 14 16,150,736 0 0 0 0 0 All Facility Types 27 254,723,884 3,900 1,199 5,099 69,604 74,659 21 Table H 5, part 3. Preliminary small entity impact analysis, part C: number of facilities with costs exceeding 1% and 3% of revenues Firm/ Facility Type No. Facilities with Ann. Tech Cost/ Rev. 1 3% No. Facilities with Ann. Tech Cost/ Rev. > 3% No. Facilities with Ann. Tech + Low P& M Cost/ Rev. 1 3% No. Facilities with Ann. Tech + Low P& M Cost/ Rev. > 3% No. Facilities with Ann. Tech + High P& M Cost/ Rev. 1 3% No. Facilities with Ann. Tech + High P& M Cost/ Rev. > 3%

Electric Generators by Firm Type Cooperative 0 0 0 0 0 0 Municipal 0 0 5 1 5 1 Municipal Mrkt 0 0 0 0 0 0 Private 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub Division 0 0 0 0 0 0 All Firm Types 0 0 5 1 5 1 Manufacturers by Facility Type Chemicals 0 0 0 0 0 0 Paper 0 0 0 0 0 0 Petroleum 0 0 0 0 0 0 Steel/ Aluminum 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 All Mfr Types 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 Oil and Gas Extraction Industry As described above in Section B, the oil and gas extraction industry was not represented in the 316( b) survey. Information provided in comments on the Phase I regulatory proposal prompted EPA to consider this category in its analyses for Phase III existing facilities ( as well as new facilities).

EPA has a preliminary basis for an initial economic and financial analysis of the coastal and offshore oil and gas extraction industry. The technical development document for the 316( b) Phase I rulemaking ( Publication No. EPA 821 R 01 036, November 2001) contains a 12 page chapter profiling the oil & gas extraction industry. The economic analysis document for the final rule on synthetic based drilling fluids ( Publication No. EPA 821 B 00 012, December 2000) profiles US oil and gas extraction operations in the Gulf of Mexico through 1999.

The synthetic based drilling fluids economic analysis identified 100 firms operating in the Gulf of Mexico, of which 40% either met the SBA definition of a small entity or for which the revenues or employment figures were unknown. A summary appears in the following table, extracted from that document.

Based on this table, annual revenues for small firms ranged from $ 7 M to $ 1000 M, with a median at $ 72 M. Therefore, a cost: revenue ratio of 0.01 would occur with annualized compliance costs of $ 70,000 to $ 10,000,000 ($ 720,000 using the median revenue). Similarly, a cost: revenue ratio of 0.03 would occur with annualized compliance costs of $ 210,000 to $ 30,000,000 ($ 2,160,000 using the median revenue). In the spreadsheet accompanying this memo, annualized compliance costs for manufacturing facilities are on average about $ 75,000, with a cautious high estimate of $ 118,000. Those costs were not specifically developed for coastal and offshore oil & gas extraction facilities, which may present different engineering and cost issues. EPA is working with industry to develop technology options and costs for such facilities. 23 ( Table 3 4 from section 3 of economic analysis for final rule, synthetic based drilling fluids)

Minimum, Median, and Maximum Financial Data for Large and Small Firms ($ 1,000s)

Number of Employees Assets Equity Revenues Net Income Return on Assets Return on Equity Profit Margin Small firms Minimum 23 8,986 ( 71,313) 7,053 ( 35,027)  32%  15%  94% Median 89 268,798 140,011 71,630 ( 310)  1% 0%  4% Maximum 272 949,401 375,018 1,004,781 109,852 17% 46% 43% Large firms Minimum 47 69,276 ( 3,815) 9,509 ( 255,000)  18%  30%  108% Median * 1584.5 4,360,762 1,167,006 1,091,137 99,047 2% 9% 4% Maximum 99000 144,521,000 63,466,000 185,527,00 0 7,910,000 270% 50% 71%

All firms Minimum 23 8,986 ( 71,313) 7,053 ( 255,000)  32%  30%  108% Median * 501 800,052 375,018 387,452 18,228 2% 6% 3% Maximum 99,000 144,521,000 63,466,000 185,527,00 0 7,910,000 270% 50% 71%

Source: Oil & Gas Journal. OGJ 2000; Pennwell Petroleum Directory, 1998; SEC's Edgar Database at http:// www. sec. gov; Hoovers Online at http:// www. hoovers. com; and Lycos Companies Online at http:// www. companiesonline. com * Used hypothetical number ( 501) for employees for larger firms when number of employees was not available.


[Federal Register: October 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 209)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 63910-63912]
[DOCID:fr28oc08-17]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0997; Airspace Docket No. 08-AAL-28]

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Bethel, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class D and E airspace at
Bethel, AK. The Airport and Navigation Aids will be soon undergoing a
magnetic variation change. This change will result in the necessity to
revise the airspace descriptions. Additionally, the present 1,200 foot
airspace is no longer necessary, because Bethel lies within a larger
section of controlled airspace called the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta Class E
airspace covering the area required for the airport. Adoption of this
proposal would result in amendment of existing Class D and E airspace
upward from the surface, and from 700 feet (ft.) and 1,200 ft. above
the surface at the Bethel Airport, Bethel, AK.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 12, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal to the Docket Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-
0001. You must identify the docket number FAA-2008-0997/Airspace Docket
No. 08-AAL-28, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit
comments on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review
the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and
any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket
Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527) is on the plaza level of the
Department of Transportation NASSIF Building at the above address.
    An informal docket may also be examined during normal business
hours at the office of the Manager, Safety, Alaska Flight Service
Operations, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box
14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Rolf, Federal Aviation
Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587;
telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet address: http://www.alaska.faa.gov/at.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2008-0997/
Airspace Docket No. 08-AAL-28.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of Notice of Proposed Rulemakings (NPRMs)

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://
www.faa.gov or the Superintendent of Document's Web page at http://
www.access.gpo.gov/nara/index.html.
    Additionally, any person may obtain a copy of this notice by
submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of
Air Traffic Airspace Management, ATA-400, 800 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20591 or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. Communications must
identify both docket numbers for this notice. Persons interested in
being

placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's
Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>, to request a copy of Advisory
Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System,
which describes the application procedure.

The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71, which would amend the Class D and E
airspace at the Bethel Airport, in Bethel, AK. The intended effect of
this proposal is to amend Class D and E airspace upward from the
surface, and from 700 ft. and 1,200 ft. above the surface to contain
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the Bethel Airport, Bethel,
AK.
    The Bethel Airport and its Navigation Aids will be soon undergoing
a magnetic variation change. This change will result in the necessity
to amend the airspace descriptions. There will be no visible change to
the airspace currently depicted on aeronautical charts. Additionally,
the present 1,200 foot airspace description is no longer necessary,
because Bethel, Alaska lies within a larger section of Class E5
airspace, called Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, covering the area required for
the airport. Class D and E controlled airspace extending upward from
the surface, and from 700 ft. and 1,200 ft. above the surface in the
Bethel Airport area would be amended by this action. The proposed
airspace is sufficient in size to contain aircraft executing the
instrument procedures at the Bethel Airport, Bethel, AK.
    The area would be depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot
reference. The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North
American Datum 83. The Class D airspace area designations are published
in paragraph 5000 of FAA Order 7400.9R, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15,
2007, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace areas designated as surface areas are published in paragraph
6002 and 6004 in FAA Order 7400.9R, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15, 2007, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace areas
designated as 700/1200 foot transition areas are published in paragraph
6005 in FAA Order 7400.9R, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15, 2007, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace
designations listed in this document would be published subsequently in
the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore --(1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart 1, Section 40103, Sovereignty and use of
airspace. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing
regulations to ensure the safe and efficient use of the navigable
airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because
it proposes to create Class D and E airspace sufficient in size to
contain aircraft executing instrument procedures at the Bethel Airport,
AK, and represents the FAA's continuing effort to safely and
efficiently use the navigable airspace.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71-- DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND
CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

    1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9R, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15,
2007, is to be amended as follows:
* * * * *

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace Extending Upward from 700 Feet or
More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AAL AK D Bethel, AK [Amended]

Bethel, Bethel Airport, AK
    (Lat. 60[deg]46[min]47[sec] N., long. 161[deg]50[min]17[sec] W.)
Bethel VORTAC
    (Lat. 60[deg]47[min]05[sec] N., long. 161[deg]49[min]28[sec] W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,600 feet MSL and within a 4.1-mile radius of the Bethel Airport,
AK, excluding that portion below 1,100 feet MSL between the
058[deg](T)/044[deg](M) radial and the 078[deg](T)/064[deg](M)
radial of the Bethel VORTAC, AK, from 2.9 miles northeast of the
Bethel VORTAC, AK. This Class D airspace area is effective during
the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to
Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously
published in the Airport/Facility Directory.
* * * * *

Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas.

* * * * *

AAL AK E2 Bethel, AK [Amended]

Bethel, Bethel Airport, AK
    (Lat. 60[deg]46[min]47[sec] N., long. 161[deg]50[min]17[sec] W.)
Bethel VORTAC
    (Lat. 60[deg]47[min]05[sec] N., long. 161[deg]49[min]28[sec] W.)

    Within a 4.1-mile radius of the Bethel Airport, AK, excluding
that portion below 1,100 feet MSL between the 058[deg](T)/
044[deg](M) radial and the 078[deg](T)/064[deg](M) radial of the
Bethel VORTAC, AK, from 2.9 miles northeast of the Bethel VORTAC,
AK. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific
dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The
effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in
the Airport/Facility Directory.
* * * * *

Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as an Extension to
a Class D Surface Area.

* * * * *

AAL AK E4 Bethel, AK [Amended]

Bethel, Bethel Airport, AK
    (Lat. 60[deg]46[min]47[sec] N., long. 161[deg]50[min]17[sec] W.)
Bethel VORTAC
    (Lat. 60[deg]47[min]05[sec] N., long. 161[deg]49[min]28[sec] W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 3 miles
each side of the 023[deg](T)/009[deg](M) radial of the Bethel

VORTAC, AK, extending from the 4.1-mile radius of the Bethel
Airport, AK, to 8.2 miles northeast of the Bethel Airport, AK,
excluding that portion below 1,100 feet MSL between the 058[deg](T)/
044[deg](M) radial and the 078[deg](T)/064[deg](M) radial of the
Bethel VORTAC, AK, from 2.9 miles northeast of the Bethel VORTAC,
AK, and within 3.4 miles each side of the 008[deg](T)/354[deg](M)
radial of the Bethel VORTAC, AK, extending from the 4.1-mile radius
of the Bethel Airport, AK, to 11 miles north of the Bethel VORTAC,
AK, and within 3.5 miles each side of the 215[deg](T)/201[deg](M)
radial of the Bethel VORTAC, AK, extending from the 4.1-mile radius
of the Bethel Airport, AK, to 5 miles southwest of the Bethel
Airport, AK.
* * * * *

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Extending Upward from 700 Feet or
More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AAL AK E5 Bethel, AK [Amended]

Bethel, Bethel Airport, AK
    (Lat. 60[deg]46[min]47[sec] N., long. 161[deg]50[min]17[sec] W.)
Bethel VORTAC
    (Lat. 60[deg]47[min]05[sec] N., long. 161[deg]49[min]28[sec] W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 16.8-mile radius of the Bethel Airport, AK, and within 8
miles west and 4 miles east of the Bethel Localizer front course
extending from the 16.8-mile radius of the Bethel Airport, AK, to
22.8 miles north of the Bethel Airport, AK, and within 8 miles east
and 4 miles west of the Bethel Localizer back course extending from
the 16.8-mile radius of the Bethel Airport, AK, to 21.4 miles south
of the Bethel Airport, AK.
* * * * *

    Issued in Anchorage, AK, on October 20, 2008.
Marshall G. Severson,
Acting Manager, Alaska Flight Services Information Area Group.
 [FR Doc. E8-25714 Filed 10-27-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 178 (Thursday, September 15, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56640-56641]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19980]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2373-016]

Midwest Hydro, LLC; Notice of Application Tendered for Filing
With the Commission and Soliciting Additional Study Requests and
Establishing Procedural Schedule for Licensing and Deadline for
Submission of Final Amendments

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Subsequent License.
    b. Project No.: 2373-016.
    c. Date filed: August 30, 2022.
    d. Applicant: Midwest Hydro, LLC (Midwest Hydro).
    e. Name of Project: Rockton Hydroelectric Project (Rockton
Project).
    f. Location: The project is located on the Rock River in the town
of Rockton in Winnebago County, Illinois. The project does not include
any federal lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. David Fox, Senior Director of Regulatory
Affairs, Eagle Creek RE Management, LLC, 7315 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite
1100W, Bethesda, Maryland 20814,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].
    i. FERC Contact: Laura Washington<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].
    j. Cooperating agencies: Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies
with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the
environmental document should follow the instructions for filing such
requests described in item l below. Cooperating agencies should note
the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation
of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See, 94 FERC ]
61,076 (2001).
    k. Pursuant to section 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's
regulations, if any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person believes
that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to
form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the
application on its merit, the resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person
must file a request for a study with the Commission not later than 60
days from the date of filing of the application, and serve a copy of
the request on the applicant.
    l. Deadline for filing additional study requests and requests for
cooperating agency status: October 29, 2022.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency status
using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support
at [email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or (202)
502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a paper
copy. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed
to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent
via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue,
Rockville, Maryland 20852. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-2373-016.
    m. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    n. The Rockton Project consists of the following existing
facilities: (1) a 40.67-acre reservoir; (2) a 1000-foot-long the
concrete overflow dam; (3) a 1600-foot-long earthen dike; (4) power
canal headworks; (5) transmission equipment consisting of the
generators connected through two oil filled, three phase, 400 Ampere-
rated, 7.5-kilovolt (kV) circuit breakers to the 4.1-kV bus and three
4.1-kV/12.4-kV, 500-kilovolt amperes single phase transformers
connected to the non-project 12.4-kV distribution system; (6) a
tailrace; and (7) a powerhouse containing two generating units with a
total installed capacity of 1.1 megawatts.
    The Rockton Project is currently operated in a run-of-river mode
and generates an annual average of approximately 5,076 megawatt hours.
Midwest Hydro proposes to continue operating the project as a run-of-
river facility and does not propose any new construction to the
project.
    o. A copy of the application can be viewed on the Commission's
website at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the
docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field to access the document. At this time, the Commission has
suspended access to the Commission's Public Reference Room due to the
proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning the Novel
Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) issued on March 13, 2020. For
assistance, contact FERC at [email protected] or call toll-
free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY).
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    p. Procedural schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following preliminary schedule. Revisions to the schedule will
be made as appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue Deficiency Letter (if necessary)....  December 2022.
Request Additional Information............  December 2022.
Issue Scoping Document 1 for comments.....  June 2023.

Issue Scoping Document 2 (if necessary)...  October 2023.
Issue Notice of Ready for Environmental     October 2023.
 Analysis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice
of ready for environmental analysis.

    Dated: September 9, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-19980 Filed 9-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P