Commenter 10046 states, IEA recommends that a "dash to gas" be anchored "in a broader energy policy framework" that embraces more concerted efforts to deploy low-carbon technologies, including CCS. Commenter says, in contrast to IEA's recommendations, EPA is effectively mandating a "dash to gas" by precluding new coal development while also employing a policy to "develop" CCS that IEA calls "not credible."
Commenter 10046 states, the Green Alliance, a London-based environmental think-tank, agrees with IEA's assessment.
Commenter 10046 states, a recent analysis by the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment similarly concludes that a "dash for gas" only makes sense from a climate change perspective if it is accompanied by a rapid acceleration of CCS "research, development, demonstration and deployment." Commenter says, the Global CCS Institute opens its 2013 report by observing: "Much attention is focused on the environmental benefits of fuel switching from coal- to gas-fired power generation. However, natural gas is not carbon free and, to meet longer term emissions reductions goals, both coal- and gas-fired generating capacity will need to be fitted with CCS." Commenter says, but EPA's decision to mandate CCS on coal plants before it is ready, and to not require that gas units do anything, precludes any development of CCS whatsoever, let alone its acceleration. Commenter says, the EPA is relying on natural gas to provide the answer to the climate change issue, while inhibiting DOE and industry efforts to rapidly develop CCS technology.
Commenter says, it is a stubborn fact that EPA simply refuses to acknowledge: over the past ten years, even if U.S. carbon dioxide emissions had gone to zero, global emissions would still have increased because of the demand for low-cost energy. Commenter says, the simple truth is that banning new coal plants in the United States by imposing an unworkable emissions mandate will not make one bit of difference when it comes to reducing GHG emissions from coal-fired generation. Commenter says, rather than penalizing those who risk capital to reap technological rewards intended to benefit society as a whole, the Obama Administration should focus on driving CCS development in a meaningful way.
Commenter 10046 states that there is no evidence that a regulatory standard reflecting performance of CCS will not have a positive effect on development and deployment of the technology.  The EPA disagrees, see preamble section V.I.4, and the commenter's statement is at odds with public statements from this same industry.  The EPA notes that responsible members of the generating industry itself have indicated that CCS can be a key to a viable future of coal-fired capacity.  See e.g., statement of Alstom senior Vice President for Power and Environment Policies Joan Macnaughton's statement (August 4, 2011): "AEP's decision to put Mountaineer II on-hold (sic) is a bellwether to our leaders on the consequences of uncertain climate policy.  The Validation Plant at Mountaineer demonstrated the ability to capture up to 90% of the carbon dioxide from a stream of the plant's emissions.  The technology works.  But without clear policies in place outlining options for cost recovery, power generators are hard-pressed to invest in its continued refinement."  The press release further states that Vice President Macnaughton "presented findings from a recently-conducted cost analysis showing that the cost of electricity generated by coal and natural gas plants equipped with CCS is competitive with other low or no-carbon energy carbon energy sources, such as wind, solar, geothermal, hydro and nuclear."  Even more directly, Saskpower executive Dave Jobe stated, "if coal power is to have a future, this is it" (POWER magazine, Aug.1, 2015, p. 26).
3.7.3 Reliance on Coal Generation
Coal is necessary for a balanced energy portfolio
Commenters (5630, 9193, 9593, 9734, 10048) provide comments regarding the necessity of coal for a balanced energy portfolio.
Commenter 5630 strongly supports a portfolio approach for domestic energy development. Commenter believes a broad energy portfolio will be necessary to meet the needs of manufacturers and businesses in the Great Lakes. Manufacturing industries in particular require a reliable, competitively priced supply of base-load electricity and natural gas to compete in a global economy. Commenter says, the EPA's proposed NSPS propose a carbon dioxide emissions limit on new coal-powered power plants that is about 40% less than is currently possible to achieve with the best technology available. Commenter says, as the nation's leading source of electricity, coal is essential and must be regulated by practical approaches that use sound science and must be shown to be technologically attainable, not overly burdensome on manufacturers and must not disrupt or altogether shut down companies.
Commenter 5630 states, with coal providing roughly 40% of the country's electricity, and an even greater percentage in industrial Great Lakes states, the proposed regulation poses a serious threat to the future of reliable electricity generation and economic output in the United States. Commenter says, it is for this reasons that we oppose the NSPS as written. Commenter says, manufacturing is the heart of the Great Lakes economy and a reliable, competitively priced energy supply is essential to powering our industries, supporting our jobs and maintaining our competitiveness. Commenter says, inexpensive domestic energy sources are a primary factor in the nation's manufacturing resurgence and will be increasingly important to our nation's future manufacturing success. Commenter says, if reducing of greenhouse gas emissions is a critical public policy goal, then that goal should be pursued by funding research to develop technology that is both technically and economically feasible. Commenter says, for that reason, we are strong advocates for the Department of Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory, whose projects are critical to the efficient, environmentally sustainable development of the nation's abundant coal, oil and natural gas resources.
Commenter 9193 has long been a supporter of alternative and renewable sources of energy. Commenter says, Iowans are leaders in clean sources of energy that emit fewer greenhouse gases - including geothermal, solar panels, methane digesters, wind energy, and biofuels to power farming operations, rural communities, and cities. Commenter says, for example, over the past decade, Iowa utilities and customers have invested heavily in wind energy with both wind farms and local distributed generation. Commenter says, state policies have encouraged wind development to bring Iowa to the point of having the largest share of our energy portfolio coming from wind than any other state Commenter says, Iowa's reliance on coal as an energy source for electricity has dropped from 84% to 62% of electrical generation production between the years 2000 and 2012. Commenter says, wind as a percentage of electric energy generation has risen from 1% to 25% in the same time period. Commenter says, additional wind generation projects are scheduled to be online in the coming years. Commenter says, as a result of state energy policies, Iowa's CO2 production per MWh of electricity generated has declined and is on a downward trend. Commenter says, however, coal remains the dominant fuel source for the generation of electricity in the state of Iowa. Commenter says, while they support the growth of renewable energy production, coal is a cost-effective, reliable fuel source which continues to be important to our state's electric generation portfolio.
Commenter 9593 states that likely future trends in the power market landscape show why new baseload power generation options should not be limited.  Commenter says, many recent forecasts for coal plant retirements, driven in large degree by EPA's programs to regulate non-GHG pollutants, estimate that retirements could reach 60-100 GW by 2020.  Commenter says, this represents between 20% and 35% of the national total coal-fired capacity.  Commenter notes, additional coal plant retirements are possible under the forthcoming 111(d) rule.  Commenter says, further, the U.S. nuclear fleet is aging, few new nuclear power plants are being built or proposed, and the pressure to retire decades-old nuclear plants will increase over time, potentially pulling more of today's baseload capacity out of the energy mix.
Commenter 9593 states without adequately considering the implications, the GHG NSPS proposal would help tilt the nation's energy mix even more dramatically toward natural gas-fired generation.  Commenter says, history provides hard lessons about over-reliance on one fuel.  Commenter says, while we anticipate increased supplies of natural gas and moderate prices for the forseeable future, natural gas has historically been a volatile commodity, with prices reaching over $10/mmBTU for a short time only a few years ago.  Commenter notes in fact, today's increased natural gas supplies and reduced price levels were not expected only a few years ago.
Commenter 9593 states EPA only considered the cost impact of this proposal through the year 2020. Commenter says today, utilities are investing in power generation that will run well into the 2040s. Commenter says, it is risky to implement a policy that relies so strongly on a single fuel for such a long period of time. Commenter notes, the best defense against such risks is a balanced energy portfolio, one that can be sustained through the option to build all types of new power plants. Commenter says, the U.S. sourced its 2013 generation from a diverse portfolio: 39% coal, 27% natural gas, 19% nuclear, 7% hydro, and 7% renewable and other. Commenter's company generation portfolio is similarly diverse, with coal providing 46% of their generation, natural gas 23%, nuclear 11%, renewables and other forms providing 20% in 2013. Commenter states, the proposed GHG NSPS rule would limit the ability of the power sector to reduce consumer risk by maintaining such diverse generating portfolios in the future.
Commenter 9734 states it is simply not feasible for the nation's entire existing coal-fired generating capacity to be transitioned to natural gas. Commenter says, natural gas generation requires transportation from natural gas wells to power plants via an intricate network of interstate pipelines and compressor stations that allow the gas to be constantly pressurized. Commenter says, these requirements raise not only infrastructure concerns but also safety and national security concerns. Commenter says, if a key compressor station were to fail or be targeted in a terrorist attack, the nation's electric grid would be placed in jeopardy. Commenter says, when these natural gas supply requirements are contrasted with coal, which is plentiful in supply, can be stockpiled at a 30-45 day supply, and can be transported via several different methods without the use of interstate pipelines, it makes no practical sense to require wholesale conversions from coal-fired generation to natural gas, particularly in areas of the country that are rich in coal resources and are not located in close proximity to natural gas wells.
Commenter 9734 states, while the current low price of natural gas has contributed to the decline in coal-fired electricity generation and the resurgence of natural gas-fired units, EPA's new regulations are an equally important factor in this trend. Commenter says, in recent years electric utilities have faced a daunting array of environmental regulations on all fronts (air, water, and waste) that have contributed to widespread unit retirements. Commenter says, according to the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, EPA's rules have contributed to the closure of some 300 existing coal-fired units in 33 states.
Commenter 9734 states, coal-fired generation is essential to ensure energy diversity and to keep electricity prices low. Commenter says, although natural gas prices are currently low, recent data from the EIA shows that natural gas prices have increased by more than 50% since April 2012. Commenter says, EIA's Annual Energy Outlook for 2013 projects that natural gas prices for the electric power sector will continue to increase by about 3.7% each year until 2040, and that total electricity demand will increase about 28% by 2040. Commenter says, these estimates underscore the need for a diverse fuel mix that includes coal to meet these energy demands. Commenter says, recent harsh winter conditions across the country have resulted in severe natural gas price spikes which demonstrate that low gas prices are far from stable.
Commenter 9734 states, indeed, natural gas constraints experienced by all utilities affected by this past winter's "Polar Vortices" underscore these concerns. Commenter says, despite the rapid development of shale resources in the Marcellus region, Kentucky, its neighbor states and eastward were faced with natural gas curtailments, interruptions, supply restrictions, extremely volatile prices upwards of $120 per Dekatherm, and well head "freeze-ups" dangerously restricting or curtailing natural gas power plants. Commenter says, this scenario was exacerbated, if not driven, by extreme home and business heating demands that are fueled by natural gas in the northeast. Commenter says, those electric generating facilities with dual fuel capability were faced with the impracticality of refueling with long lines of fuel oil tanker trucks due to lack of on-site storage for extended periods of heavy usage that were broadly experienced. Commenter says, these events revealed clearly that the natural gas market and infrastructure is simply not able to support the needs of electric generators today, much less the rapid build out expected in the near future as a result of the regulations contemplated by the proposed GHG NSPS.
Commenter 10048 states, this rule effectively establishes a new national energy policy that will significantly hamper electric generation diversity in the United States. Commenter says, at a time when coal-fired units are being shuttered at an unprecedented level, limiting options for new baseload plants could detrimentally impact reliability and drive up consumer costs. Commenter says, the EPA needs to ensure that this rule does not preclude an adequate supply of reliable, affordable electricity, but instead allows for all energy sources - including coal - to play an important role in meeting our nation's future energy needs. Commenter says, the reliance on a diverse portfolio of fuels has been one of the key reasons why the U.S. electric power sector has been successful in providing abundant, reliable, affordable electricity to power the nation's economic growth and high standards of living.
EPA disagrees.  See response at beginning of this Section.
EPA should allow for a continued role for coal use in electricity generation
Commenters (1959, 3862, 9665) believe the EPA should allow for a continued role for coal in electricity generation.
Commenter 1959 states, there are areas of the country that will require additional electric capacity in the future, but do not have sufficient access to natural gas, do not have suitable sites for CO2 storage or enhanced oil recovery sites, and cannot be supplied wholesale power reliably through the existing transmission grid. Commenter says, it is critical that new coal remain an economically viable option for such locations. Commenter asks, how will EPA reconcile elimination of new coal-fired capacity in these situations?
Commenter 3862, states, a shift in fuel prices in the future could necessitate additional coal use for our country.
Commenter 9665 states the EPA's regulatory decisions should promote the increased use of natural gas-fired power, while also allowing for a continued role for coal. Commenter says natural gas is an abundant and reliable domestic resource, which can be used to generate power in an extremely efficient manner. Commenter adds, moreover, gas turbines are an ideal match with renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar power. Commenter says at the same time, coal continues to be a vital and viable component of our nation's energy mix, and the latest technology in coal is cleaner and more adaptable than ever before.
Commenter 9665 states that the EPA should allow for a continued role for coal use in electricity generation. Commenter says while the proposed rule appropriately recognizes the increasing role that natural gas will play in the nation's electricity production and its lower carbon emission profile, it is important for EPA to (1) recognize that coal remains an abundant natural resource in the U.S. that can be used in an environmentally-sound manner, and (2) adopt reasonably achievable emissions standards for new fossil fuel-fired boilers and IGCC units. Commenter says as of January 1, 2013, EIA estimated that the demonstrated reserve base (DRB) for coal is 481 billion short tons. Commenter says U.S. coal resources are larger than existing natural gas and oil resources, based on total British thermal units (BTU). Commenter says as is recognized in the President's "all of the above" energy policy, it is important for EPA to allow for coal to remain a vital part of our country's fuel mix.

Commenter 9665 states that his company has made substantial investments to make IGCC commercially available. Commenter says IGCC systems utilizing GE gasification technology have been successfully deployed at 19 commercial facilities. Commenter notes IGCC systems are more efficient and emit less pollution than traditional coal-fired units. Commenter says according to EPA's Regulatory Impact Analysis, IGCC units emit 99 percent less SO2 and significantly less NOx and hazardous air pollutants, such as mercury, than supercritical pulverized coal plants. Commenter says IGCC units also emit significantly less CO2 than other coal-based technologies. Commenter says in the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA notes that new IGCC units emit approximately 1,450 lb. CO2/MWh, which is approximately 25 percent less than the CO2 emissions from an efficient subcritical pulverized coal-fired boiler. Commenter states finally, IGCC units also are well suited for carbon capture technology, and can be constructed to be carbon capture ready.
In response to commenter 9665, use of IGCC with natural gas co-firing is a potential compliance pathway to meet the promulgated standard of performance.  This is another instance of how the rule is structured to preserve a role for coal.
Economic impacts without coal as an option
Commenters (8955, 8966, 9033, 9775) comment on the economic impacts without coal as an option.
Commenter 8955 is concerned that the one-size-fits-all approach, often characteristic to EPA rulemaking, for regulating GHGs may be short-sighted, as the EPA stated that "existing and anticipated economic conditions mean that few, if any, solid fossil fuel-fired EGUs will be built in the foreseeable future". Commenter suggests that the standards set for new coal-fired EGUs are not set to make them so cost prohibitive that we only use natural gas as the fuel for new EGUs for the rest of time. Commenter says, by doing so, the economic and social impacts to our constituents and Wyoming itself would be enormous and long lasting.
Commenter 8966 states, reductions in coal-based energy generation are expected to have considerable ripple effects well beyond the industry. Commenter says, as has already been observed in several states, communities whose vitality depends on the coal industry will become economically depressed. Commenter says, availability of relatively cheap energy will be reduced, particularly hurting the poor, who spend a disproportionate amount of income on energy. Commenter says, further, because coal generates such a large portion of electricity in the U.S., many regional authorities predict disruptions in service, hurting consumers and businesses. Commenter says, therefore, while the proposed rule on its face only affects construction of new plants, in reality, it will do great harm to the coal industry and the U.S. economy. Commenter says, to protect the livelihood of thousands of coal workers and their families, as well as their communities and the overall economy, Commenter urges the EPA to withdraw and reconsider its proposed rule.
Commenter 9033 states with no new coal power generation being built it's our view that this presents a real threat to the US economy both in terms of employment in the industries that build and supply materials for coal plants, as well as coal mining, transportation and maintaining the necessary skill sets to design, build and operate such plants through a period of 10 or more years of inactivity. Commenter adds coal has always been the fuel that balanced electric prices through price spikes of gas and other market conditions.
Commenter 9775 states, by effectively eliminating coal, one of Utah's and our nation's most affordable and abundant fuel sources, for use in new power plants, this regulation will likely result in more volatile and expensive electricity prices. Commenter says, the EPA does not show, however, that these regulations will reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions rather than merely shifting power production and related emissions to unregulated entities in the U.S. and abroad. Commenter says, while new U.S. coal-fired power plants would likely be cleaner and more efficient than foreign alternatives, the EPA's proposed rule would make these foreign power producers more attractive to industry. Commenter says, this would result in the EPA shifting many of the economic advantages of coal to foreign markets without achieving the stated goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Commenter 9775 states, low, stable energy prices and reliable power are key drivers for Utah's economy, and coal provides a significant portion of Utah's base load electricity. Commenter says, in addition, our coal industry is one of the most important industries in the state, employing thousands and supporting significant economic activity, particularly in rural areas. Commenter says, recent environmental upgrades and financial investment have made existing Utah coal plants very clean and efficient. Commenter says, new plants would be even more clean and efficient. Commenter says, these developments and other technological improvements would continue to reduce emissions in the absence of the costly and unjustified new regulations.
Commenter 9775 states, these expensive, inflexible, and ineffective regulations will result in higher electricity prices, which will negatively impact all aspects of Utah's economy. Commenter says, in particular, industrial energy users, who provide tens of thousands of high-paying technical jobs in Utah, will pay significantly more for power, and will be less able to compete against unregulated producers in global markets. Commenter says, there will also be significant detrimental fiscal impacts to local, state, and federal government, including Utah's public schools, if the mining and utilization of coal is curtailed or stopped. Commenter says, effectively excluding coal from our nation's future energy mix will have significant and long-term negative consequences for our nation's security and economic health, including for families and businesses nationwide, all of which will be forced to bear artificially high energy prices.
The premise of these comments is mistaken.  The final rule preserves a place for coal.  As SaskPower Executive Dave Jobe recently stated, "As Dave Jobe said, "if coal power is to have a future, this is it."
National natural gas infrastructure may be inadequate
Commenters (8501, 9396, 9597) provide comment on the potential inadequacy of the national natural gas infrastructure.
Commenter 8501 states, fuel needs to be near the electric generating facilities which are connected to transmission lines. Commenter says, unlike coal, which can be transported by rail, barge, conveyor, and truck, natural gas can be moved from its source to the generating facility only by pipeline. Commenter says currently there is a deficiency in pipeline capacity to supply natural gas to the sources that would need to use the fuel to generate electricity. Commenter says furthermore, there is great risk that such new capacity will never be constructed. Commenter says, investors won't invest in new pipeline capacity unless gas suppliers will make long term commitments regarding gas shipments. Commenter says, suppliers are currently reluctant to make commitments under current market scenarios because prices are low (in many cases below production costs) and there is a fear of significant natural gas price increases created by increased demand and potentially tighter supply caused by power generators needing more natural gas. Commenter says, in contrast, coal supplies are stable and storable.
Commenter 9396 recommends for background analysis an Aspen Institute Report developed for the American Public Power Association entitled "Implications of Greater Reliance on Natural Gas for Electric Generation." Commenter says, the report details the implications of limited availability and capacity of natural gas infrastructure near existing generation sites that might be candidates for repowering in the future. Commenter says, in these areas that lack ready access to natural gas supplies, the proposed NSPS would effectively preclude the construction of any fossil fuel-fired EGUs until such time as the cost of fossil fuel generation with partial CCS attains the nth-of-kind cost expectations of EPA or a new natural gas pipeline and storage infrastructure has been put into place. Commenter says, however, in some areas, even CCS would not be an option if access to sites suitable for geologic sequestration impaired by factors such as geographic unsuitability, liability, mineral rights, or other reasons.
Commenter 9396 states, during the most recent "polar vortex" utilities in the Midwest experienced weather extremes that created a number of systemic risks to the electric grid. Commenter says, notably, during the period of Monday, January 6th to Wednesday January 8th PJM set a new record level of demand for electricity keeping the lights on only by reliance on demand reduction based on mandatory and voluntary curtailment. Commenter says, during this period, 50,000MW of capacity was offline and gas generation units not operating as a result of inability to secure natural gas supply due to pipeline constraints jumped a shocking 320% to 9160MW during the event. Commenter says, spot prices for natural gas in the Mid-Atlantic in January surged almost 340 percent to $45 per million British thermal units, and gas prices in New York City rose more than 780 percent. Commenter says, as a result of the high fuel costs, the price of electricity in the region shot up to $857 per MWh on January 22.
Commenter 9396 states, pipeline capacity and natural gas supply remain a serious policy obstacle to NGCC development that is under discussion at the FERC and within the industry but to date remains unresolved. Commenter says, PJM has narrowly avoided rolling blackouts in 2014 but future retirements of existing units jeopardize future reliability. Commenter says, American Electric Power (AEP) reports that 89% of the roughly 6000MW of capacity scheduled for closure due to environmental regulations were operating during the polar vortex. Commenter says, PJM utilities weren't alone: the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) had to shut power off at Murray State University in order to avoid regional blackouts and South Carolina experienced rolling brownouts as the local utility, SCE&G, was unable to keep up with demand.
Commenter 9597 states, an additional concern with the proposal's practical effect of banning new coal-fired EGUs is that the national natural gas infrastructure may not currently be robust enough to support whole scale fuel switching. Commenter says, the EPA cannot assume that all sites are adequately supplied to a level that would support intermediate and baseload EGUs.
EPA does not agree with these concerns.  The natural gas infrastructure issues are entirely manageable under this rule.  Natural gas pipeline capacity has historically expanded to meet the needs of new natural gas generation capacity, and the same developments will happen in the future.  This is particularly true in the case of comments where additional capacity will be required to meet the requirements of generation already connected to the pipeline system.  It is also true for areas not yet connected to the natural gas pipeline system.  Thus, the normal expansion process will address most cases where additional infrastructure is needed.  In is also important to recognize that other areas that are not connected to the pipeline network are connected to the electric transmission network and can receive electricity generated by natural gas; where necessary, the electricity transmission system, like the natural gas pipeline system, has historically expanded to fill the needs of new load as well as new generation.  In the near term, there should be few additional infrastructure needs, as this rule does not affect the continued operation of any existing sources.  In the longer term, as the generating fleet turns over, much of the existing fossil generating will remain and continue to be diverse, while the normal infrastructure development noted above can accommodate much of the new demand.  Moreover, much of the new demand need not be met by natural gas, but by various forms of new renewable energy.  The new sources are becoming more competitive and are already serving significant load previously served by older generation sources.  Many studies demonstrate the ability for these sources to serve as much as 30 percent of the total load in the US.

Also, as new combined cycle gas units operate more in a baseload capacity, they are better able to support the long term contracting process because they can expect to have a steady stream of revenue to support the regular payments under such contracts.  This increased ability to support the longer term revenue stream also means that operators of NGCC facilities will provide greater support for the use of firm natural gas contracts.  These firm contracts will, in turn, support increased pipeline capacity to ensure the a reliable supply of gas where needed to forestall a recurrence of the "Polar Vortex" like winter emergency periods where natural gas and electricity peak demands intersect.  .  The combination of firm contracts and risk management through market mechanisms will provide the needed basis for managing natural gas pricing and delivery.  For these reasons, EPA believes the rule will aid in easing industry concerns of both natural gas price fluctuations and supply
A wholesale transition from coal to natural gas is not feasible
Commenter 9382 states, a wholesale transition from coal to natural gas is not feasible. Commenter says, it is simply not feasible for the nation's entire existing coal-fired generating capacity to be transitioned to natural gas. Commenter says, when natural gas supply requirements are contrasted with coal which is plentiful in supply, can be stockpiled for several months of supply, and can be transported via several different methods without the use of interstate pipelines, it makes no sense to require wholesale conversions from coal-fired generation to natural gas, particularly in areas of the country that are rich in coal resources and are not located in close proximity to natural gas wells.

Commenter 9382 states, while the current low price of natural gas has contributed to the decline in coal-fired electricity generation and the resurgence of natural gas-fired units, EPA's new regulations are an equally important factor in this trend. Commenter says, in recent years electric utilities have faced a daunting array of environmental regulations on all fronts - air, water, and waste -that have contributed to widespread unit retirements. Commenter says, according to the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, EPA's rules have contributed to the closure of some 300 existing coal-fired units in 33 states.

Commenter 9382 states, coal-fired generation is essential to ensure energy diversity and to keep electricity prices low. Commenter says, although natural gas prices are currently low, recent data from the United States Energy Information Administration ("EIA") shows that natural gas prices have increased by more than 50% since April 2012. Commenter says, EIA's Annual Energy Outlook for 2013 projects that natural gas prices for the electric power sector will continue to increase by about 3.7% each year until 2040, and that total electricity demand will increase by 28% by 2040. Commenter says, these estimates underscore the need for a diverse fuel mix that includes coal to meet these energy demands. Commenter says, natural gas constraints experienced by utilities this winter underscore these concerns.

Commenter 9382 states, the ongoing increases in natural gas prices should be viewed through a historical lens. Commenter says, the two units at the Merom Generating Station, which represent over 80% of Hoosier Energy's owned coal generation, were constructed during the oil embargo and Fuel Use Act years of 1973-1987 when Congress banned the use of natural gas for generating electricity. Commenter says, the EPA's proposal now does opposite by effectively banning new coal-fired generation. Commenter says, the option to construct new coal-fired generation should not be foreclosed by this rulemaking. Commenter says, fuel diversity, including new coal-fired generation, is vital to our nation's economy and national security.
EPA disagrees with this comment.  As EPA has emphasized in response to previous comments, this rule does not constitute a moving away from energy diversity and coal will remain a significant part of the energy mix. SaskPower executive Dave Jobe stated "if coal is to have a future, this is it".  AEP executives made similar statements with regard to the successful Mountaineer demonstration retrofit project.  See preamble section V.I.4.
Coal is not needed
Commenter 1975 states, the proposed standards are on track with current trends and technologies in power plants, and reflect the continuing decline in applications for new coal-fired power plants. Commenter says, these regulations represent an important shift in support from coal and other fossil fuels that pose serious national security, environmental and public health risks.
Commenter 9514 states looking ahead, forecasts indicate that with the possible exception of a small number of projects already under development, new coal-fired generating capacity will neither be needed nor economically viable over at least the next decade. Commenter notes for example, EIA predicts in its Annual Energy Outlook 2014 Early Release Overview that total domestic coal-fired capacity will decrease by over 15 percent from 2012 to 2040. Commenter says, EIA attributes this trend to slower growth in electricity demand, competition from renewable energy and natural gas, and economic changes resulting from more stringent environmental regulations. Commenter says, similarly, NERC anticipates that 31.5 GW of net coal-fired capacity will retire by 2023. Commenter adds that EPA notes in the preamble to the proposed rule that as coal-fired plants retire, current power sector economics suggest that they will likely be replaced with new natural gas combined cycle plants (NGCCs) also known as combined cycle gas turbines, (CCGTs) and with zero-emitting wind, solar, and energy efficiency resources.
These comments are consistent with EPA's analysis.


[Federal Register: October 16, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 199)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 53154-53156]
[DOCID:fr16oc09-3]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-1369; Directorate Identifier 2003-NE-03-AD;
Amendment 39-16048; AD 2009-21-09]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc RB211 Trent 800 Series
Turbofan Engines

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding an existing airworthiness directive
(AD) for Rolls-Royce plc RB211 Trent 875-17, Trent 877-17, Trent 884-
17, Trent 892-17, Trent 892B-17, and Trent 895-17 turbofan engines with
high-pressure (HP) compressor rotor rear stage 5 and 6 discs and cone
shafts, part numbers (P/Ns) FK25230 and FK27899 installed. That AD
currently requires removal from service of these HP compressor rotor
rear stage 5 and 6 discs and cone shafts before reaching newly reduced
life limits. This AD requires removing these parts at new reduced cycle
limits. This AD results from Rolls-Royce plc reducing the lives of
these parts and changing the life calculating method to use ``Standard
Duty Cycles'' with ``Multiple Flight Profile Monitoring'' and ``Flight
Cycles'' with ``Heavy Flight Profile Monitoring''. We are issuing this
AD to prevent stage 5 and 6 disc crack initiation and propagation that
might lead to uncontained disc failure and damage to the airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective November 20, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You can get the service information identified in this AD
from Rolls-Royce plc, P.O. Box 31, Derby, DE24 8BJ, UK, telephone 44
(0) 1332 242424; fax 44 (0) 1332 249936.
    The Docket Operations office is located at Docket Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-
0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Lawrence, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12
New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 by

superseding AD 2003-15-06, Amendment 39-13249 (68 FR 44610, July 30,
2003), with a proposed AD. The proposed AD applies to Rolls-Royce plc
RB211 Trent 875-17, Trent 877-17, Trent 884-17, Trent 892-17, Trent
892B-17, and Trent 895-17 turbofan engines with HP compressor rotor
rear stage 5 and 6 discs and cone shafts, P/Ns FK25230 and FK27899
installed. We published the proposed AD in the Federal Register on
April 27, 2009 (74 FR 19025). That action proposed to require changing
the life calculating method to use ``Standard Duty Cycles'' with
``Multiple Flight Profile Monitoring'' and ``Flight Cycles'' with
``Heavy Flight Profile Monitoring'', and reducing the lives of the
affected parts to 5,000 ``Standard Duty Cycles'' or ``5,000 Flight
cycles'', respectively.

Examining the AD Docket

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

Comments

    We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the
development of this AD. We have considered the comments received.
    One commenter, Kenya Airways Limited, requests that in the
compliance section, we insert ``Rolls-Royce plc Alert Service Bulletin
No. RB.211-72-AE082, Revision 7, dated June 18, 2008, pertains to the
subject of this AD.''
    We do not agree. That information already exists in paragraph (k)
of the AD. We did not change the AD.
    One commenter, American Airlines, states that the FAA should
include a reasonable schedule for operators to manage the replacement
of parts with lives already in excess of the proposed reduced limit, to
avoid unnecessary and unreasonable hardship once the final rule becomes
effective.
    We do not agree. We have confirmed that all U.S. operators are
already operating to the reduced life limit specified in this AD. There
are no U.S. operators with parts lives in excess of the reduced limit.
We did not change the AD.

Conclusion

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

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 94 Rolls-Royce plc RB211 Trent
875-17, Trent 877-17, Trent 884-17, Trent 892-17, Trent 892B-17, and
Trent 895-17 turbofan engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
Removal of these HP compressor rotor rear stage 5 and 6 discs and cone
shafts will not impose any additional labor costs if performed at the
time of scheduled engine overhaul. The prorated life loss is about
$225,000 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of
this AD on U.S. operators to be $21,150,000. Our cost estimate is
exclusive of possible warranty coverage.

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 summary of the costs to comply with this AD and
placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary at the
address listed under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Amendment 39-13249 (68 FR
44610, July 30, 2003), and by adding a new airworthiness directive,
Amendment 39-16048, to read as follows:

2009-21-09 Rolls-Royce plc: Amendment 39-16048. Docket No. FAA-2009-
1369; Directorate Identifier 2003-NE-03-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective November
20, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 2003-15-06, Amendment 39-13249.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Rolls-Royce plc RB211 Trent 875-17, Trent
877-17, Trent 884-17, Trent 892-17, Trent 892B-17, and Trent 895-17
turbofan engines with high-pressure (HP) compressor rotor rear stage
5 and 6 discs and cone shafts, part numbers FK25230 and FK27899
installed. These engines are installed on, but not limited to,
Boeing 777 series airplanes.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from Rolls-Royce plc reducing the lives of
these parts and changing the life calculating method to use
``Standard Duty Cycles'' with ``Multiple Flight Profile
Monitoring'', and ``Flight Cycles'' with ``Heavy Flight Profile
Monitoring''. We are issuing this AD to prevent stage 5 and 6 disc
crack initiation and propagation that might lead to uncontained disc
failure and damage to the airplane.

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.

    (f) For operators using ``Multiple Flight Profile Monitoring''
(Flight Profiles ``A'' through ``F''), remove HP compressor rotor
rear stage 5 and 6 discs and cone shafts from service at or before
accumulating 5,000 ``Standard Duty Cycles''. Guidance on ``Multiple
Flight Profile Monitoring'' can be found in the Aircraft Maintenance
Manual, Chapter 70-01-10.
    (g) For operators using ``Heavy Flight Profile Monitoring'',
remove HP compressor rotor rear stage 5 and 6 discs and cone shafts
from service at or before accumulating 5,000 ``Flight Cycles''.
Guidance on ``Heavy Flight Profile Monitoring'' can be found in the
Aircraft Maintenance Manual, Chapter 70-01-10.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

    (h) The Manager, Engine Certification Office, has the authority
to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD if
requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

Related Information

    (i) Contact James Lawrence, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (781) 238-
7199, for more information about this AD.
    (j) European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2007-0004, dated January
8, 2007, also addresses the subject of this AD.
    (k) Rolls-Royce plc Alert Service Bulletin No. RB.211-72-AE082,
Revision 7, dated June 18, 2008, pertains to the subject of this AD.
Contact Rolls-Royce plc, P.O. Box 31, Derby, DE24 8BJ, UK, telephone
44 (0) 1332 242424; fax 44 (0) 1332 249936, for a copy of this
service information.
    (l) Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,
Washington 98124-2207, for a copy of the Aircraft Maintenance Manual
referenced in this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (m) None.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on October 8, 2009.
Diane S. Romanosky,
Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E9-24855 Filed 10-15-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 192 (Thursday, October 3, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52885-52886]
[FR Doc No: 2019-21506]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2018-D-3197]

Further Testing of Donations That Are Reactive on a Licensed
Donor Screening Test for Antibodies to Hepatitis C Virus; Guidance for
Industry; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the availability of a final guidance entitled ``Further Testing of
Donations that are Reactive on a Licensed Donor Screening Test for
Antibodies to Hepatitis C Virus; Guidance for Industry.'' The guidance
document provides blood establishments that collect Whole Blood and
blood components, including Source Plasma, with recommendations for
further testing of donations that are reactive on a licensed donor
screening test for antibodies to hepatitis C virus (anti-HCV). The
guidance also provides guidance to blood establishments on how to
report the implementation of these recommendations. The guidance
updates the recommendations related to the use of an appropriate
multiantigen supplemental test contained in ``Guidance for Industry:
`Lookback' for Hepatitis C Virus (HCV): Product Quarantine, Consignee
Notification, Further Testing, Product Disposition, and Notification of
Transfusion Recipients Based on Donor Test Results Indicating Infection
with HCV'' dated December 2010. The guidance announced in this notice
finalizes the draft guidance of the same title dated September 2018.

DATES: The announcement of the guidance is published in the Federal
Register on October 3, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as
follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2018-D-3197 for ``Further Testing of Donations that are Reactive on
a Licensed Donor Screening Test for Antibodies to Hepatitis C Virus;
Guidance for Industry.'' Received comments will be placed in the docket
and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,''
publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets
Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)).
    Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the
Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send
one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the office in processing
your requests. The guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling
CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or<PHONE_NUMBER>. See the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for electronic access to the guidance document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-
402-7911.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a document entitled ``Further
Testing of Donations that are Reactive on a

Licensed Donor Screening Test for Antibodies to Hepatitis C Virus;
Guidance for Industry.'' The guidance document provides blood
establishments that collect Whole Blood and blood components, including
Source Plasma, with recommendations for further testing of donations
that are reactive on a licensed donor screening test for anti-HCV, as
required under Sec.  610.40(e) (21 CFR 610.40(e)). The guidance also
provides guidance to blood establishments on how to report the
implementation of these recommendations.
    In accordance with Sec.  610.40(e), each donation, including
autologous donations, found to be reactive by a donor screening test
must be further tested using a licensed, approved or cleared
supplemental test, when available. If no such supplemental test is
available, blood establishments must perform one or more licensed,
approved, or cleared tests as adequate and appropriate to provide
additional information concerning the reactive donor's infection status
(Sec.  610.40(e)). The guidance provides recommendations for adequate
and appropriate testing under Sec.  610.40(e), using a licensed HCV NAT
(nucleic acid test) labeled with the supplemental indication and
licensed anti-HCV donor screening tests or approved or cleared anti-HCV
diagnostic tests that are currently available, to provide additional
information concerning the donor's infection status. The guidance
updates the recommendations related to the use of an appropriate
multiantigen supplemental test contained in ``Guidance for Industry:
`Lookback' for Hepatitis C Virus (HCV): Product Quarantine, Consignee
Notification, Further Testing, Product Disposition, and Notification of
Transfusion Recipients Based on Donor Test Results Indicating Infection
with HCV'' dated December 2010 (available at: https://www.fda.gov/media/124265/download).
    In the Federal Register of September 25, 2018, (83 FR 48446), FDA
announced the availability of the draft guidance of the same title
dated September 2018. FDA received a few comments on the draft guidance
and those comments were considered as the guidance was finalized. In
addition, editorial changes were made to improve clarity. The guidance
announced in this notice finalizes the draft guidance dated September
2018.
    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance
practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the
current thinking of FDA on further testing of donations that are
reactive on a licensed donor screening test for antibodies to hepatitis
C virus. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not
binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it
satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The
collections of information in 21 CFR part 601 have been approved under
OMB control number 0910-0338; and the collections of information in 21
CFR part 610 and 21 CFR part 630 have been approved under OMB control
number 0910-0116.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at
either https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/guidance-compliance-regulatory-information-biologics/biologics-guidances or
https://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: September 27, 2019.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-21506 Filed 10-2-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:February 10, 2014

OSHA Docket Office
Docket No. OSHA-2010-0034
U.S. Department of Labor
Room N-2625
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC  20210

Re:	Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s Proposed Rule on Occupational        	Exposure to Respirable Crystalline Silica, Docket No. OSHA-2010-0034

 Dear Sir or Madam:

The AFL-CIO is submitting testimony/comments on OSHA’s Proposed Rule on Occupational Exposure to Respirable Silica, 78 Fed.Reg. 56274 (Sept. 12, 2013), Docket No. OSHA-2010-0034.  Attached please find:

•	Testimony/Comments of the AFL-CIO, Submitted by Peg Seminario, Safety and Health Director, AFL-CIO.
•	Testimony/Comments Submitted by Dr. Franklin Mirer on behalf of the AFL-CIO.
•	Testimony of Dr. Ruth Ruttenberg on behalf of the AFL-CIO.

	The AFL-CIO is also submitting documentary evidence to the docket under separate cover.

	Please contact Peg Seminario, AFL-CIO Safety and Health Department if you have any questions regarding this testimony<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>).

	Thank you.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 55 (Friday, March 20, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16008-16011]
[FR Doc No: 2020-05762]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 55 / Friday, March 20, 2020 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0200; Product Identifier 2019-NM-185-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited
(Type Certificate Previously Held by Bombardier, Inc.) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2015-14-01, which applies to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-400
series airplanes. AD 2015-14-01 requires a detailed inspection for
loose bolts on the aft translating door crank assembly, and removal and
reinstallation of the bolts. Since AD 2015-14-01 was issued, the FAA
received a report that additional airplanes may be subject to the
unsafe condition. In addition, the design of the translating door crank
handle has been improved. This proposed AD would retain the inspections
of AD 2015-14-01 and add airplanes to the applicability. For all
airplanes, this proposed AD would also require a modification of the
door crank handle, which would terminate the inspections. The FAA is
proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 4,
2020.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact De
Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited, Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123
Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416-375-
4000; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet https://dehavilland.com. You may view this service information at the FAA,
Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-
231-3195.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0200; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Darren Gassetto, Aerospace Engineer,
Mechanical Systems and Administrative Services Section, FAA, New York
ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2020-0200;
Product Identifier 2019-NM-185-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
The FAA specifically invites comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. The
FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may
amend this proposed AD based on those comments.
    The FAA will post all comments received, without change, to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide.
The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The FAA issued AD 2015-14-01, Amendment 39-18199 (80 FR 38615, July
7, 2015) (``AD 2015-14-01''), for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-
8-400 series airplanes. AD 2015-14-01 requires a detailed inspection
for loose bolts on the aft translating door crank assembly, and removal
and reinstallation of the bolts. AD 2015-14-01 resulted from a report
of loose bolts that are intended to secure the translating door crank
assembly to the outside handle shaft. The FAA issued AD 2015-14-01 to
prevent loose bolts from falling out. If both bolts become loose or
fall out after the door is closed and locked, the door cannot be opened
from inside or outside, which could impede evacuation in the event of
an emergency.

Actions Since AD 2015-14-01 was Issued

    Since AD 2015-14-01 was issued, the FAA received a report that
loose bolts were found on airplane serial numbers that were outside the
applicability range. Further, the manufacturer reclassified the forward
baggage door on some airplanes as an emergency exit, which is not
subject to AD 2015-14-01. The FAA also received a report that the
manufacturer has modified the design of the translating door crank
handle to improve retention of the bolts.
    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2014-08R1, dated July
30, 2019 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for certain De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited (Type
Certificate Previously Held by Bombardier, Inc.) Model DHC-8-400 series
airplanes. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by

searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0200.
    This proposed AD was prompted by reports of loose bolts that are
intended to secure the translating door crank assembly to the outside
handle shaft, and of sealant missing from these bolts on another
translating door. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the potential
for both bolts to become loose or fall out after the door is closed and
locked, which would prevent the door from being opened from inside or
outside and impede evacuation in the event of an emergency. See the
MCAI for additional background information.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR part 51

    De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited has issued the following
service information.
     Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-89, Revision A, dated
January 29, 2018.
     Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-92, Revision A, dated
January 24, 2018.
     Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-94, Revision A, dated
January 24, 2018.
    This service information describes procedures for modifying the
door crank handle with an improved bolt retention design on the type 1
emergency door, the aft entry door, and the aft service door, as
necessary. These documents are distinct since they apply to different
airplane configurations.
    De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited has also issued Bombardier
Service Bulletin 84-52-96, dated February 26, 2019, which describes
procedures for a detailed visual inspection of the translating door
crank assembly for any loose bolts.
    De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited has also issued
Modification Summary Package IS4Q5200101, Revision A, dated July 5,
2019, which describes a deviation to the actions specified in certain
service information.
    This proposed AD would also require Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-
52-75, Revision A, dated July 11, 2013, which the Director of the
Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of August
11, 2015 (80 FR 38615, July 7, 2015).
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to a bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, the FAA
has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD
because the agency evaluated all the relevant information and
determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist
or develop on other products of the same type design.

Proposed Requirements of This NPRM

    This proposed AD would retain the inspections of AD 2015-14-01.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in
the service information described previously.

Explanation of Change to Manufacturer's Name Specified in AD 2015-14-01

    This NPRM identifies the manufacturer's name as published in the
most recent type certificate data sheet for the affected models.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 59 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this proposed AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Labor cost                    Parts cost               Cost per product       Cost on U.S.  operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 13 work[dash]hours x $85  Up to $677................  Up to $1,782.............  Up to $105,138.
 per hour = $1,105.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
    The FAA is 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

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, 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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2015-14-01, Amendment 39-18199 (80 FR 38615, July 7, 2015), and adding
the following new AD:

De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited (Type Certificate Previously
Held by

Bombardier, Inc.) Airplanes: Docket No. FAA-2020-0200; Product
Identifier 2019-NM-185-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by May 4, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2015-14-01, Amendment 39-18199 (80 FR 38615,
July 7, 2015) (``AD 2015-14-01'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited (Type
Certificate Previously Held by Bombardier, Inc.) Model DHC-8-400, -
401, and -402 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial
numbers (S/Ns) 4001 through 4530 inclusive.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

    This proposed AD was prompted by reports of loose bolts that are
intended to secure the translating door crank assembly to the
outside handle shaft, and of sealant missing from these bolts on
another translating door. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the
potential for both bolts to become loose or fall out after the door
is closed and locked, which would prevent the door from being opened
from inside or outside and impede evacuation in the event of an
emergency.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection and Corrective Actions for S/Ns 4001 Through 4411
Inclusive

    For airplane S/Ns 4001 through 4411 inclusive: Within 600 flight
hours or 100 days, whichever occurs first after August 11, 2015 (the
effective date of AD 2015-14-01): Perform a detailed inspection for
loose bolts of the aft translating door crank assembly, in
accordance with paragraph 3.B., ``Procedure,'' of Part A--INSPECTION
of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin
84-52-75, Revision A, dated July 11, 2013.
    (1) If the detailed inspection was done before the effective
date of this AD and the corrective action was done in accordance
with 3.B., ``Procedure,'' and steps 3.C.(4) and 3.C.(5) of paragraph
3.C., ``Close Out,'' of Part B--RECTIFICATION, of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-75, dated July 27,
2012; or Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-75, Revision A, dated
July 11, 2013: No further work is required by paragraph (g) of this
AD.
    (2) If the detailed inspection is done on or after the effective
date of this AD, and any loose bolt is found: Before further flight,
do the modification in paragraph (i) of this AD.

(h) Inspection and Modification for S/Ns 4412 Through 4491 Inclusive

    For airplane S/Ns 4412 through 4491 inclusive: Within 800 flight
hours or 120 days, whichever occurs first after the effective date
of this AD, perform a detailed inspection for loose bolts of the
translating door crank assembly, in accordance with paragraph 3.B.,
``Procedure,'' of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier
Service Bulletin 84-52-96, dated February 26, 2019.
    (1) If any loose bolt is found, before further flight do the
modification specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
    (2) If no loose bolt is found, at the compliance time specified
in paragraph (i) of this AD, do the modification specified in
paragraph (i) of this AD.

(i) Modification for S/Ns 4001 Through 4530 Inclusive

    For airplane S/Ns 4001 through 4530 inclusive: Except as
required by paragraphs (g)(2) and (h)(1) of this AD, within 8,000
flight hours or 48 months, whichever occurs first after the
effective date of this AD, modify the door crank handle with an
improved bolt retention design on the type 1 emergency door, the aft
entry door, and the aft service door, as applicable, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service
information specified in paragraphs (i)(1) through (3) of this AD.
    (1) For the aft entry door: Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-
89, Revision A, dated January 29, 2018.
    (2) For the aft service door: Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-
92, Revision A, dated January 24, 2018.
    (3) For the type 1 emergency door: Bombardier Service Bulletin
84-52-94, Revision A, dated January 24, 2018.

(j) Alternative Modification

    For airplanes with de Havilland Modification Summary Package
4Q459324 incorporated for the cargo combi configuration:
Accomplishing the modification in paragraph (i) of this AD using
Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-89, Revision A, dated January 29,
2018; and Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-92, Revision A, dated
January 24, 2018; as applicable; in combination with de Havilland
Modification Summary Package IS4Q5200101, Revision A, dated July 5,
2019, also meets the requirement specified in paragraph (i) of this
AD for the aft entry and aft service doors.

(k) Terminating Actions

    Accomplishing the action required by paragraph (i) of this AD
terminates the requirements of paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.

(l) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by the
introductory text to paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were
performed before August 11, 2015 (the effective date of AD 2015-14-
01) using Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-75, dated July 27, 2012,
which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (2) This paragraph provides credit for the modification of the
applicable doors in paragraph (i) of this AD, if the modification
was performed before the effective date of this AD using the
applicable service information specified in paragraphs (l)(2)(i)
through (iii) of this AD.
    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-89, dated April 13, 2017.
    (ii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-92, dated April 18, 2017.
    (iii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-94, dated April 13,
2017.

(m) Other FAA AD Provisions

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In
accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal
inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate.
If sending information directly to the manager of the certification
office, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational
Safety, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before
using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO
Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or De
Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited's TCCA Design Approval
Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO, the approval must
include the DAO-authorized signature.

(n) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Canadian AD CF-2014-08R1, dated July 30, 2019, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2020-0200.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Darren Gassetto,
Aerospace Engineer, Mechanical Systems and Administrative Services
Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact De
Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited, Q-Series Technical Help Desk,
123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone
416-375-4000; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet
https://dehavilland.com. You may view this service information at
the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued on March 13, 2020.
Gaetano A. Sciortino,
Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-05762 Filed 3-19-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 247 (Friday, December 23, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 94371]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31046]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9030-9]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or http://www.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) Filed 12/12/
2016 Through 12/16/2016
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

EIS No. 20160309, Final, BOEM, AK, Cook Inlet Planning Area Oil and Gas
Lease Sale 244, Review Period Ends: 01/23/2017, Contact: Sharon Randall
907-334-5200
EIS No. 20160310, Final, FRA, NAT, NEC FUTURE: A Rail Investment Plan
for the Northeast Corridor Tier 1, Review Period Ends: 01/31/2017,
Contact: Rebecca Reyes-Alicea<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20160311, Draft, USACE, NE, Missouri River Recovery Management
Plan, Comment Period Ends: 02/24/2017, Contact: Aaron Quinn 402-995-
2669

    Dated: December 20, 2016.
Dawn Roberts,
Management Analyst, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal
Activities.
[FR Doc. 2016-31046 Filed 12-22-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on November 2, 2005

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2005-22646

________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________

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

Application of AMERICA WEST AIRLINES, INC. (America West) filed 10/3/05
for:

XX Exemption for two years under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide the
following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between (1) the terminal points Boston, Massachusetts; Charlotte, North
Carolina; Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on the one hand, and the terminal point
Cancun, Mexico, on the other hand; (2) the terminal points Charlotte,
North Carolina and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the one hand, and the
terminal point Cozumel, Mexico, on the other hand and (3) the terminal
point Charlotte, North Carolina, and the terminal point Mexico City,
Mexico.  America West also requests authority to combine this exemption
authority with all of American West’s existing certificate and
exemption authority, consistent with applicable international
agreements.

America West states that it requests this authority in order to expand
services under a code-share arrangement with US Airways, Inc. (US
Airways), whereby America West will place its “HP” code on flights
operated by US Airways in the respective city-pair markets.

Applicant rep: Joanne W. Young<PHONE_NUMBER>	DOT Analyst: Tretha
Chromey<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX	Granted (subject to conditions, see below)

The above action was effective when taken:  November 2, 2005, through
November 2, 2007.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

XX  The authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement
between the United States and Mexico.

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

	XX The holder’s certificates of public convenience and necessity

	XX Standard exemption conditions (attached)

Conditions:  The U.S.-Mexico exemption authority granted is subject to
the dormancy notice requirements set forth in condition 7 of Appendix A
of Order 88-10-2, and is limited to code-share services only.

The code-share operations conducted under this authorization are subject
to the following conditions:

The code-sharing operations conducted under this authority must comply
with 14 CFR 257 and with any amendment to the Department’s regulations
concerning code-share arrangements that may be adopted.  Notwithstanding
any provisions in the contract between the carriers, our approval here
is expressly conditioned upon the requirements that the subject foreign
air transportation be sold in the name of the carrier holding out such
service in computer reservation systems and elsewhere; that the carrier
selling such transportation (i.e., the carrier shown on the ticket)
accept responsibility for the entirety of the code-share journey for all
obligations established in its contract of carriage with the passenger;
and that the passenger liability of the operating carrier be unaffected;
and

The authority granted here is specifically conditioned so that neither
America West nor US Airways shall give any force or effect to any
contractual provisions between themselves that are contrary to these
conditions.

The route integration authority granted is subject to the condition that
any service provided under this exemption shall be consistent with all
applicable agreements between the United States and the foreign
countries involved.  Furthermore, (a) nothing in award of the route
integration authority granted should be construed as conferring upon
America West rights (including fifth-freedom intermediate and/or beyond
rights) to serve markets where U.S. carrier entry is limited unless
America West notifies the Department of its intent to serve such a
market and unless and until the Department has completed any necessary
carrier selection procedures to determine which carrier(s) should be
authorized to exercise such rights; and (b) should there be a request by
any carrier to use the limited-entry route rights that are included in
America West’s authority by virtue of the route integration exemption
granted here, but that are not then being used by America West, the
holding of such authority by route integration will not be considered as
providing any preference for America West in a competitive carrier
selection proceeding to determine which carrier(s) should be entitled to
use the authority at issue.

________________________________________________________________________
______

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department's regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the exemption services authorized.

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

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

  HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp"
http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

APPENDIX

U.S. Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1544.
To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing any new service
(including charter flights) to or from a foreign airport, contact its
International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise the IPSI of
its plans and to find out whether the Transportation Security
Administration has determined that security is adequate to allow such
airport(s) to be served; and

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

05/2004

 America West states that on September 27, 2005, America West Holdings
Corporation merged with US Airways Group, Inc.  As a result, America
West became a subsidiary of US Airways Group.  Although selling tickets,
advertising, and marketing itself under the “US Airways” brand name,
America West will continue to operate under its own certificate of
public convenience and necessity and authorities until America West and
US Airways are integrated under a single certificate.