[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 133 (Thursday, July 13, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32294-32301]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14693]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0129; FRL-9964-20-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Louisiana;
Regional Haze State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve for the
Entergy R. S. Nelson facility (Nelson) (1) a portion of a revision to
the Louisiana Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted
on February 20, 2017; and (2) a revision submitted for parallel
processing on June 20, 2017, by the State of Louisiana through the
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ). Specifically, the
EPA is proposing to approve these two revisions, which address the Best
Available Retrofit Technology requirement of Regional Haze for Nelson
for sulfur-dioxide (SO2) and particulate-matter (PM).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 14, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2017-0129, at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact Jennifer Huser,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), and some may not be publicly available at either location
(e.g., CBI).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Huser,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To inspect the hard copy materials, please
schedule an appointment with Jennifer Huser or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-
665-7253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. The Regional Haze Program
    B. Our Previous Actions and Our Proposed Action on Louisiana
Regional Haze
II. Our Evaluation of Louisiana's BART Analysis for Nelson
    A. Identification of Nelson as a BART-Eligible Source
    B. Evaluation of Whether Nelson Is Subject to BART
    1. Visibility Impairment Threshold
    2. CALPUFF Modeling to Screen Sources
    3. Nelson is Subject to BART
    C. Reliance on CSAPR To Satisfy NOX BART
    D. Louisiana's Five-Factor Analyses for SO2 and PM
BART for Nelson
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. The Regional Haze Program

    Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a
multitude of sources and activities that are located across a broad
geographic area and emit fine particulates (PM2.5) (e.g.,
sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon (OC), elemental carbon (EC), and
soil dust), and their precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide
(SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and in some cases,
ammonia (NH3) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)). Fine
particle precursors react in the atmosphere to form PM2.5,
which impairs visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Visibility
impairment reduces the clarity, color, and visible distance that can be
seen. PM2.5 can also cause serious adverse health effects
and mortality in humans; it also contributes to environmental effects
such as acid deposition and eutrophication.
    Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, ``Interagency
Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments'' (IMPROVE), shows that
visibility impairment caused by air pollution occurs virtually all the
time at most national parks and wilderness areas. In 1999, the average
visual range in many Class I areas (i.e., national parks and memorial
parks, wilderness areas, and international parks meeting certain size
criteria) in the western United States was 100-150 kilometers, or about
one-half to two-thirds of the visual range that would exist without
anthropogenic air pollution. In most of the eastern Class I areas of
the United States, the average visual range was less than 30
kilometers, or about one-fifth of the visual range that would exist
under estimated natural conditions. CAA programs have reduced some
haze-causing pollution, lessening some visibility impairment and
resulting in partially improved average visual ranges.
    CAA requirements to address the problem of visibility impairment
continue to be implemented. In Section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to
the CAA, Congress created a program for protecting visibility in the
nation's national parks and wilderness areas. This section of the CAA
establishes as a national goal the prevention of any future, and the
remedying of any existing, man-made impairment of visibility in 156
national parks and wilderness areas designated as mandatory Class I
Federal areas. On December 2, 1980, the EPA promulgated

regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I areas that is
``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small group of
sources, i.e., ``reasonably attributable visibility impairment.'' These
regulations represented the first phase in addressing visibility
impairment. The EPA deferred action on regional haze that emanates from
a variety of sources until monitoring, modeling, and scientific
knowledge about the relationships between pollutants and visibility
impairment were improved.
    Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional
haze issues, and the EPA promulgated regulations addressing regional
haze in 1999. The Regional Haze Rule revised the existing visibility
regulations to add provisions addressing regional haze impairment and
established a comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I
areas. The requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and
51.309, are included in our visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR
51.300-309. The requirement to submit a regional haze SIP applies to
all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands. States
were required to submit the first implementation plan addressing
regional haze visibility impairment no later than December 17, 2007.
    Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of
retrofit controls at certain larger, often under-controlled, older
stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these
sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states
to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to
make reasonable progress toward the natural visibility goal, including
a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary
sources built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate the
``Best Available Retrofit Technology'' (BART). Larger ``fossil-fuel
fired steam electric plants'' are one of these source categories. Under
the Regional Haze Rule, states are directed to conduct BART
determinations for ``BART-eligible'' sources that may be anticipated to
cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. The
evaluation of BART for electric generating units (EGUs) that are
located at fossil-fuel fired power plants having a generating capacity
in excess of 750 megawatts must follow the ``Guidelines for BART
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule'' at appendix Y to 40 CFR
part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the ``BART Guidelines''). Rather
than requiring source-specific BART controls, states also have the
flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative
program as long as the alternative provides for greater progress
towards improving visibility than BART.

B. Our Previous Actions and Our Proposed Action on Louisiana Regional
Haze

    On June 13, 2008, Louisiana submitted a SIP to address regional
haze (2008 Louisiana Regional Haze SIP or 2008 SIP revision). We acted
on that submittal in two separate actions. Our first action was a
limited disapproval \1\ because of deficiencies in the State's regional
haze SIP submittal arising from the remand by the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR).
Our second action was a partial limited approval/partial disapproval
\2\ because the 2008 SIP revision met some but not all of the
applicable requirements of the CAA and our regulations as set forth in
sections 169A and 169B of the CAA and 40 CFR 51.300-308, but as a
whole, the 2008 SIP revision strengthened the SIP. On August 11, 2016,
Louisiana submitted a SIP revision to address the deficiencies related
to BART for four non-EGU facilities. We proposed to approve that
revision on October 27, 2016.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 77 FR 33642 (June 7, 2012).
    \2\ 77 FR 39425 (July 3, 2012).
    \3\ 81 FR 74750 (October 27, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 10, 2017, Louisiana submitted a SIP revision intended
to address the deficiencies related to BART for EGU sources (February
2017 Louisiana Regional Haze SIP or February 2017 SIP revision). We
proposed approval of that SIP revision as it pertains to all of the
BART-eligible EGUs in the State on May 19, 2017, except for Nelson,
which we address herein.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 82 FR 22936 (May 19, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 20, 2017, Louisiana submitted a SIP revision with a request
for parallel processing, specifically addressing the BART requirements
for Nelson. (June 2017 Louisiana Regional Haze SIP or June 2017 SIP
revision). This revision, along with the Nelson portion of the February
20, 2017 SIP revision, are the subject of this proposed action.
Parallel processing of the June 2017 SIP revision means that, at the
same time Louisiana is completing the corresponding public comment and
rulemaking process at the state level, we are proposing action on it.
Because Louisiana has not yet finalized the June 2017 SIP revision that
we are parallel processing, we are proposing to approve this SIP
revision in parallel with Louisiana's rulemaking activities. If changes
are made to the State's proposed rule after the EPA's notice of
proposed rulemaking, such changes must be acknowledged in the EPA's
final rulemaking action. If the changes are significant, then the EPA
may be obligated to withdraw our initial proposed action and re-
propose. If there are no changes to the parallel-processed version, EPA
would proceed with final rulemaking on the version finally adopted by
Louisiana and submitted to EPA, as appropriate after consideration of
public comments.

II. Our Evaluation of Louisiana's BART Analysis for Nelson

    Nelson is located in Westlake, Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana. The
nearest Class I areas are Breton National Wilderness Area in Louisiana,
located 264 miles east of the facility and Caney Creek Wilderness Area
in Arkansas, located 286 miles north of the facility.

A. Identification of Nelson as a BART-Eligible Source

    In our partial disapproval and partial limited approval of the 2008
Louisiana Regional Haze SIP, we approved the LDEQ's identification of
76 BART-eligible sources, which included Nelson.\5\ Nelson is a fossil-
fuel steam electric power generating facility and operates three BART-
eligible steam generating units: Unit 4, Unit 4 Auxiliary Boiler, and
Unit 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 77 FR 11839 at 11848 (February 28, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Evaluation of Whether Nelson Is Subject to BART

    Because Louisiana's 2008 Regional Haze SIP relied on CAIR as a BART
alternative for EGUs, the submittal did not include a determination of
which BART-eligible EGUs were subject to BART. On May 19, 2015, we sent
a CAA Section 114 letter to the Nelson BART-eligible source in
Louisiana. In that letter, we noted our understanding that the source
was actively working with the LDEQ to develop a SIP. However, in order
to be in a position to develop a FIP should that be necessary, we
requested information regarding the BART-eligible sources, including
Nelson. The Section 114 letter required the source to conduct modeling
to determine if the source was subject to BART, and included a modeling
protocol. The letter also requested that a BART analysis be performed
in accordance with the BART Guidelines for Nelson if determined to be
subject to BART. We worked closely with the BART-eligible facility and
with the LDEQ to this end, and all the information we received from the

facility was also sent to the LDEQ. As a result, the LDEQ submitted the
February and June SIP revisions addressing BART for Nelson. The LDEQ
provides a BART determination for each of the three units at the source
for all visibility impairing pollutants except NOX.\6\ Once
a list of BART-eligible sources still in operation within a state has
been compiled, the state must determine whether to make BART
determinations for all of them or to consider exempting some of them
from BART because they are not reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. The BART
Guidelines present several options that rely on modeling analyses and/
or emissions analyses to determine if a source is not reasonably
anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a Class
I area. A source that is not reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area is not
``subject to BART,'' and for such sources, a state need not apply the
five statutory factors to make a BART determination.\7\ Sources that
are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility
impairment in a Class I area are subject to BART.\8\ For each source
subject to BART, 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A) requires that the LDEQ
identify the level of control representing BART after considering the
factors set out in CAA section 169A(g)(2). To determine which sources
are anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment, the BART
Guidelines state ``you can use CALPUFF or other appropriate model to
estimate the visibility impacts from a single source at a Class I
area.''\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ We have previously proposed approval of the portion of
LDEQ's February 2017 revision that relies on CSAPR participation as
an alternative to source-specific EGU BART for NOX,
therefore, a source by source analysis for NOX is
unnecessary. 82 FR 22936, at 22943.
    \7\ See 40 CFR part 51, Appendix Y, III, How to Identify Sources
``Subject to BART''.
    \8\ Id.
    \9\ See 40 CFR part 51, Appendix Y, III, How to Identify Sources
``Subject to BART''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Visibility Impairment Threshold
    The preamble to the BART Guidelines advise that, ``for purposes of
determining which sources are subject to BART, States should consider a
1.0 deciview \10\ change or more from an individual source to `cause'
visibility impairment, and a change of 0.5 deciviews to `contribute' to
impairment.'' \11\ They further advise that ``States should have
discretion to set an appropriate threshold depending on the facts of
the situation,'' and describes situations in which states may wish to
exercise that discretion, mainly in situations in which a number of
sources in an area are all contributing fairly equally to the
visibility impairment of a Class I area. In Louisiana's 2008 Regional
Haze SIP submittal, the LDEQ used a contribution threshold of 0.5 dv
for determining which sources are subject to BART, and we approved this
threshold in our previous action.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ As we note in the Regional Haze Rule (64 FR 35725, July 1,
1999), the ``deciview'' or ``dv'' is an atmospheric haze index that
expresses changes in visibility. This visibility metric expresses
uniform changes in haziness in terms of common increments across the
entire range of visibility conditions, from pristine to extremely
hazy conditions.
    \11\ 70 FR 39104, 39120 (July 6, 2005), [40 CFR part 51,
Appendix Y].
    \12\ See, 77 FR 11839, 11849 (February 28, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. CALPUFF Modeling to Screen Sources
    The BART Guidelines recommend that the 24-hour average actual
emission rate from the highest emitting day of the meteorological
period be modeled, unless this rate reflects periods of start-up,
shutdown, or malfunction. The maximum 24-hour emission rate (lb/hr) for
NOX and SO2 from the baseline period (2000-2004)
for the source is identified through a review of the daily emission
data for each BART-eligible unit from the EPA's Air Markets Program
Data.\13\ Because daily emissions are not available for PM, maximum 24-
hr PM emissions are estimated based on permit limits, maximum heat
input, and AP-42 factors, and/or stack testing. EPA conducted CALPUFF
modeling and provided it to LDEQ to determine whether Nelson causes or
contributes to visibility impairment in nearby Class I areas (see
Appendix F of the June 2017 SIP revision). See the CALPUFF Modeling TSD
for additional discussion on modeling protocol, model inputs, and model
results for this portion of the screening analysis. The CALPUFF
modeling establishes that Nelson's visibility impacts are above LDEQ's
chosen threshold of 0.5 dv.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ http://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Nelson Is Subject to BART
    The BART-eligible units at the Nelson facility have visibility
impacts greater than 0.5 dv. Therefore, Nelson is subject to BART and
must undergo a five-factor analysis. See our CALPUFF Modeling TSD for
further information.
    We note that, in addition to CALPUFF modeling, Appendix D of the
February 2017 SIP revision includes the results of CAMx modeling \14\
performed by Trinity consultants for Entergy. This modeling purports to
demonstrate that the baseline visibility impacts from Nelson \15\ are
significantly less than the 0.5 dv threshold. However, this modeling
was not conducted in accordance with the BART Guidelines or a previous
modeling protocol we developed for the use of CAMx modeling for BART
screening,\16\ and does not properly assess maximum baseline impacts.
Therefore, we agree with LDEQ's decision in the February 2017 SIP
revision to not rely on this CAMx modeling.\17\ See the CAMx Modeling
TSD for a detailed discussion. We also note that, for the largest
emission sources in Louisiana, such as the Nelson facility, we
performed our own CAMx modeling while following the BART Guidelines and
the modeling protocol to provide additional information on visibility
impacts and impairment and address possible concerns with utilizing
CALPUFF to assess visibility impacts at Class I areas located at large
distances from the emission sources. Our CAMx modeling indicates that
Nelson has a maximum impact \18\ of 2.22 dv at Caney Creek, with 31
days out of the 365 days modeled exceeding 0.5 dv, and 9 days exceeding
1.0 dv. See the CAMx Modeling TSD for additional information on the
EPA's CAMx modeling protocol, inputs, and model results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ CAMx Modeling Report, prepared for Entergy Services by
Trinity Consultants, Inc. and All 4 Inc, October 14, 2016, included
in Appendix D of the February 2017 Louisiana Regional Haze SIP
submittal.
    \15\ Entergy's CAMx modeling included model results for Michoud,
Little Gypsy, R.S. Nelson, Ninemile Point, Willow Glen, and
Waterford.
    \16\ Texas was the only state that developed a modeling
protocol, which EPA approved, to screen sources using CAMx. Texas
had over 120 BART-eligible facilities located at a wide range of
distances to the nearest class I areas in their original Regional
Haze SIP. CAMx modeling was appropriate in that instance due to the
distances between sources and Class I areas and the number of
sources. Texas worked with EPA and FLM representatives to develop
this modeling protocol, which proscribed how the modeling was to be
performed and what metrics had to be evaluated for determining if a
source screened out. See Guidance for the Application of the CAMx
Hybrid Photochemical Grid Model to Assess Visibility Impacts of
Texas BART Sources at Class I Areas, ENVIRON International, December
13, 2007, available in the docket for this action. EPA, the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), and FLM representatives
verbally approved the approach in 2006 and in email exchange with
TCEQ representatives in February 2007 (see email from Erik Snyder
(EPA) to Greg Nudd of TCEQ Feb. 13, 2007 and response email from
Greg Nudd to Erik Snyder Feb. 15, 2007, available in the docket for
this action).
    \17\ See Response to Comments in Appendix A of the 2017
Louisiana Regional Haze SIP submittal.
    \18\ Maximum impact is defined as the maximum or1st high out of
all modeled days (365 days in 2002).

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

C. Reliance on CSAPR To Satisfy NOX BART

    Louisiana's February 2017 SIP revision relies on CSAPR as a BART
alternative for NOX for EGUs. In our previous proposed
approval of this February 2017 SIP revision,\19\ we proposed to find
that the NOX BART requirements for all EGUs in Louisiana,
including Nelson, will be satisfied by our determination and proposed
for separate finalization that Louisiana's participation in CSAPR's
ozone-season NOX program is a permissible alternative to
source-specific NOX BART.\20\ We cannot finalize this
portion of that proposed SIP approval action unless and until we
finalize our separate proposed finding that CSAPR continues to provide
for greater reasonable progress than BART \21\ because finalization of
that proposal provides the basis for Louisiana to rely on CSAPR
participation as an alternative to source-specific EGU BART for
NOX. If for some reason our proposed approval of LDEQ's
reliance on CSAPR as a BART alternative cannot be finalized, source-by-
source BART analyses for NOX will be required for all
subject-to-BART EGUs in Louisiana, including Nelson.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 82 FR 22936.
    \20\ Id, at 22943.
    \21\ 81 FR 78954.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Louisiana's Five-Factor Analyses for SO2 and PM BART for
Nelson

    In determining BART, the state must consider the five statutory
factors in section 169A of the CAA: (1) The costs of compliance; (2)
the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; (3)
any existing pollution control technology in use at the source; (4) the
remaining useful life of the source; and (5) the degree of improvement
in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the
use of such technology. See also 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A). All units
that are subject to BART must undergo a BART analysis. The BART
Guidelines break the analysis down into five steps: \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 70 FR 39103, 39164 (July 6, 2005) [40 CFR 51, App. Y].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    STEP 1--Identify All Available Retrofit Control Technologies,
    STEP 2--Eliminate Technically Infeasible Options,
    STEP 3--Evaluate Control Effectiveness of Remaining Control
Technologies,
    STEP 4--Evaluate Impacts and Document the Results, and
    STEP 5--Evaluate Visibility Impacts.
    As mentioned previously, we disapproved portions of Louisiana's
2008 Regional Haze SIP due to the State's reliance on CAIR as an
alternative to source-by-source BART for EGUs.\23\ Following our
limited disapproval, LDEQ worked closely with Louisiana's BART eligible
EGUs, including Nelson, and with us to revise its Regional Haze SIP,
which resulted in the submittal of its February and June 2017 SIP
revisions addressing BART for Nelson. Although the February 2017 SIP
revision addressed Nelson, we did not propose to take action on the
SO2 and PM BART for Nelson in our May 19, 2017 proposed
approval.\24\ Louisiana's February 2017 SIP revision relies on CSAPR
participation as an alternative to source-specific EGU BART for
NOX. The June 2017 SIP revision includes additional
information that the State used to evaluate BART for the Nelson
facility. Nelson has three BART-eligible steam generating units: Unit
4, Unit 4 Auxiliary Boiler, and Unit 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 77 FR 33642.
    \24\ 82 FR 22936.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Unit 4 is permitted to combust natural gas, No. 2, No. 4 and No. 6
fuel oils, and refinery fuel gas. Unit 4 has a maximum heat-rated
capacity of 5,400 MMBtu/hour and exhausts out of one stack. It has flue
gas recirculation equipment installed for control of NOX
emissions. The Unit 4 Auxiliary Boiler is permitted to burn natural gas
and fuel oil.
    Unit 6 burns coal as its primary fuel and No. 2 and No. 4 fuel oils
as secondary fuels. Unit 6 has a maximum heat-rated capacity of 6,216
MMBtu/hour and exhausts out of one stack. It has an electrostatic
precipitator (ESP) with flue gas conditioning for control of PM
emissions. Unit 6 has installed Separated Overfire Air Technology
(SOFA) and a Low NOX Concentric Firing System (LNCFS) for
NOX control. Entergy submitted a BART screening analysis to
us and the LDEQ on August 31, 2015, and a BART five-factor analysis
dated November 9, 2015, revised April 15, 2016, in response to an
information request.\25\ These analyses were adopted and incorporated
into Louisiana's February 2017 SIP revision (Appendix D). As part of
our effort to assist the State, we submitted a draft analysis of
Entergy's CALPUFF and CAMx modeling, our own draft CAMx and CALPUFF
modeling, and our own draft cost analysis for Nelson to LDEQ. These
analyses were adopted and incorporated into Louisiana's June 2017 SIP
revision (Appendix F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Letter from Wren Stenger, Director, Multimedia Planning and
Permitting Division, EPA Region 6, to Renee Masinter, Entergy
Louisiana (May 19, 2015); letter from Wren Stenger to Paul Castanon,
Entergy Gulf States (May 19, 2015; and letter from Wren Stenger to
Marcus Brown, Entergy New Orleans (May 19, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unit 4 and Unit 4 Auxiliary Boiler
    These units are currently permitted to burn natural gas and fuel
oil. However, Entergy has not burned fuel oil at either unit in several
years. Further, Entergy has no current operational plans to burn fuel
oil. The LDEQ did not conduct a five-factor BART analysis for these
units. The preamble to the BART Guidelines states: \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 70 FR 39116.

    Consistent with the CAA and the implementing regulations, States
can adopt a more streamlined approach to making BART determinations
where appropriate. Although BART determinations are based on the
totality of circumstances in a given situation, such as the distance
of the source from a Class I area, the type and amount of pollutant
at issue, and the availability and cost of controls, it is clear
that in some situations, one or more factors will clearly suggest an
outcome. Thus, for example, a State need not undertake an exhaustive
analysis of a source's impact on visibility resulting from
relatively minor emissions of a pollutant where it is clear that
controls would be costly and any improvements in visibility
resulting from reductions in emissions of that pollutant would be
negligible. In a scenario, for example, where a source emits
thousands of tons of SO2 but less than one hundred tons
of NOX, the State could easily conclude that requiring
expensive controls to reduce NOX would not be
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
appropriate.

    The SO2 and PM emissions from gas-fired units are
inherently low,\27\ so the installation of any additional PM or
SO2 controls on this unit would likely achieve very small
emissions reductions and have minimal visibility benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume 1, Chapter 1: External
Sources, Section 1.4, Natural Gas Combustion, available here:
https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch01/final/c01s04.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address SO2 and PM BART for Unit 4 and the Unit 4
Auxiliary boiler, the June 2017 SIP revision precludes fuel-oil
combustion at these units. To make the prohibition on fuel-oil usage
enforceable, Entergy and the LDEQ intend to enter an Administrative
Order on Consent (AOC), included in the June 2017 SIP revision, that
establishes the following requirement:

    Before fuel oil firing is allowed to take place at Unit 4, and
the auxiliary boiler at the Facility, a revised BART determination
must be promulgated for SO2 and PM for the fuel oil
firing scenario through a FIP or an action by the LDEQ as a SIP
revision and approved by the EPA such that the action will become
federally enforceable.

    We propose to approve the AOC as sufficient to meet the
SO2 and PM BART requirements for Unit 4 and the Unit 4
Auxiliary Boiler. If we finalize our

approval of the AOC, it will become federally enforceable for purposes
of regional haze.
Unit 6
Identification of Controls
    In assessing SO2 BART in the February 2017 SIP revision
(Appendix D), Entergy considered the five BART factors. In assessing
feasible control technologies and their effectiveness, Entergy
considered low-sulfur coal, Dry Sorbent Injection (DSI), an enhanced
DSI system, dry scrubbing (spray dry absorption, or SDA), and wet
scrubbing (wet flue gas desulfurization, or wet FGD).
    DSI is performed by injecting a dry reagent into the hot flue gas,
which chemically reacts with SO2 and other gases to form a
solid product that is subsequently captured by the particulate control
device. We agree with the LDEQ that no technical feasibility concerns
warrant removing these controls from consideration as potential BART
options for Unit 6.
    SO2 scrubbing techniques utilize a large dedicated
vessel in which the chemical reaction between the sorbent \28\ and
SO2 takes place either completely or in large part. In
contrast to DSI systems, SO2 scrubbers add water to the
sorbent when introduced to the flue gas. The two predominant types of
SO2 scrubbing employed at coal-fired EGUs are limestone wet
FGD and lime SDA. These controls are in wide use and have been
retrofitted to a variety of boiler types and plant configurations. We
agree with the LDEQ that no technical feasibility concerns warrant
removing these controls from consideration as potential BART options
for Unit 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Limestone is the most common sorbent used in wet scrubbing,
while lime is the most common sorbent used in dry scrubbing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Utilization of coal with a lower sulfur content will also result in
a reduction in SO2 emissions. Thus, Entergy identified
switching to a lower sulfur coal in order to meet an emission limit of
0.6 lb/MMBtu as a potential BART control option. We note that the BART
Guidelines do not require states to consider fuel supply changes as a
potential control option,\29\ but states are free to do so at their
discretion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 40 CFR part 51, Appendix Y, Section IV.D.1.5, ``STEP 1: How
do I identify all available retrofit emission control techniques?''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Control-Effectiveness
    Entergy assessed SDA and wet FGD as being capable of achieving
SO2 emission rates of 0.06 lb/MMBtu and 0.04 lb/MMBtu,
respectively. As we discuss in the TSD, based on review of IPM
documentation, industry publications, and real-world monitoring data,
we agree with the LDEQ that 98% control efficiency for wet FGD and 95%
control efficiency for SDA are reasonable assumptions and consistent
with the emission rates identified by Entergy.
    Entergy determined that DSI could achieve an SO2
emission rate of 0.47 lb/MMBtu when coupled with the existing Unit 6
ESP and that enhanced DSI could achieve an SO2 emission rate
of 0.19 lb/MMBtu when coupled with a new fabric filter. Finally,
Entergy determined that switching to a lower sulfur coal could reduce
the SO2 emission rate at Unit 6 to approximately 0.6 lb/
MMBtu.
Impact Analysis
    Entergy presented cost-effectiveness figures for each control they
evaluated. Entergy estimated that the cost-effectiveness of switching
to lower sulfur coal (LSC) would be $597/ton of emissions removed, the
cost-effectiveness of DSI would be $5,590/ton, the cost-effectiveness
of enhanced DSI would be $5,611/ton, the cost-effectiveness of SDA
would be $4,536/ton, and the cost-effectiveness of wet FGD would be
$4,413/ton. See Appendix D of the February 2017 Louisiana Regional Haze
SIP. In general, Entergy's DSI and scrubber cost calculations were
based on a propriety database, so we were unable to verify any of the
company's costs. We solicit comment with respect to any information
that would support or refute the undocumented costs in Entergy's
evaluation. We also note that Entergy's control cost estimates included
costs not allowed under our Control Cost Manual (e.g., escalation
during construction and owner's costs).\30\ Entergy also assumed a
contingency of 25%, which we note is unusually high. The lack of
documentation aside, removing the disallowed costs and adjusting the
contingency to a more reasonable value of 10% significantly improves
(lower $/ton) Entergy's cost-effectiveness estimates. For instance,
assuming the same SO2 baseline as we used in our
analyses,\31\ Entergy's SDA cost-effectiveness would improve from a
value of $5,094/ton to $4,154/ton.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ As noted in our letter to Kelly McQueen of Entergy on March
16, 2016, we requested documentation for the Nelson Unit 6 cost
analyses. Entergy replied on April 15, 2016, but did not supply any
additional site specific documentation.
    \31\ Our SO2 baseline, used in all of our cost-
effectiveness calculations (including our adjustment of Entergy's
cost analyses), was obtained from eliminating the max and min of the
Nelson Unit 6 annual SO2 emissions from 2012-2016, and
averaging the SO2 emissions from the remaining years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the cost to switch to lower sulfur coal, Entergy states
that its $597/ton cost-effectiveness value is based on a lower sulfur
coal premium of $0.50/ton, but Entergy does not provide any
documentation to support this figure. We examined information regarding
Entergy's coal purchases for Nelson Unit 6 from the Energy Information
Administration. This information indicated that, although there is some
variability in the data, the premium Entergy has historically paid for
lower sulfur coal has averaged higher than $0.50/ton.\32\ We solicit
comments on Entergy's $0.50/ton figure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ We calculated a premium of $2.48 based on a review of coal
purchase data for 2016 from EIA. See the TSD for additional
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because of these issues, we developed our own control cost
analyses, which we present in our TSD. Table 1 summarizes the results
of our analyses. For our cost-effectiveness calculations, we used a
SO2 baseline constructed from annual SO2
emissions from the 2012-2016 period.\33\ LDEQ incorporated our cost
analysis into Appendix F of its June 2017 SIP revision along with
Entergy's cost analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Our SO2 baseline, used in all of our cost-
effectiveness calculations (including our adjustment of Entergy's
cost analyses), was obtained from eliminating the max and min of the
Nelson Unit 6 annual SO2 emissions from 2012-2016, and
averaging the SO2 emissions from the remaining years.

                                                         Table 1--Summary of EPA's Cost Analysis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2016
                                                                                SO2 reduction    2016 Total      2016 Cost-      Incremental
                   Unit                                Control             Control level       (tpy)        annualized     effectiveness       cost-
                                                                                (%)                            cost           ($/ton)      effectiveness
                                                                                ($/ton) *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nelson Unit 6.............................  Low-Sulfur Coal.............            11.3           1,149      $3,397,281          $2,957          $2,957
                                            DSI.........................              50           5,082      18,180,195           3,578           3,759

                                            SDA.........................           92.11           9,361      25,332,736           2,706           1,671
                                            Wet FGD.....................           94.74           9,628      26,409,798           2,743           4,027
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* For low-sulfur coal, the incremental $/ton is relative to use of coal typically used by the source in the past. For each remaining control,
  incremental $/ton is relative to the control in the row above.

    In assessing energy impacts, Entergy identified additional power
requirements associated with operating DSI, SDA, and wet FGD.
Documentation issues aside, these auxiliary-power costs were accounted
for in the variable operating costs in the cost evaluation. Entergy did
not identify any energy impacts associated with switching to a lower
sulfur coal. We agree with LDEQ's identification of the energy impacts
associated with each of the control options.
    In assessing non-air quality environmental impacts, Entergy noted
that DSI, SDA, and wet FGD would add spent reagent to the waste stream
generated by the facility. Entergy accounted for these waste-disposal
costs in the variable operating costs in the cost evaluation. See our
TSD for further information. Entergy did not identify any non-air
quality environmental impacts associated with switching to a lower
sulfur coal. We agree with LDEQ's identification of the non-air quality
environmental impacts associated with each of the control options.
    In assessing remaining useful life, Entergy indicated this factor
did not impact the evaluation of controls as there is no enforceable
commitment in place to retire Unit 6. We agree with LDEQ that Entergy's
use of a 30-year equipment life for the DSI, SDA, and wet FGD cost
evaluations, which is consistent with the Control Cost Manual, was
therefore appropriate.
    In assessing visibility impacts, Entergy evaluated the visibility
impacts and potential benefits of each control option (See Appendix D
for Entergy's visibility BART analysis for Nelson Unit 6). However,
Entergy's CALPUFF modeling included errors in its estimates of sulfuric
acid and PM emissions.\34\ EPA performed CALPUFF modeling to correct
for these errors (See CALPUFF Modeling TSD). The LDEQ incorporated our
modeling, among other things, into the June 2017 SIP revision (Appendix
F) and considered it along with the visibility analysis developed by
Entergy. As we discuss above and in the CAMx Modeling TSD, Entergy also
provided additional screening modeling results using CAMx to support
its conclusion that visibility impacts from Unit 6 are minimal.
However, this modeling was not conducted in accordance with the BART
Guidelines and does not properly assess maximum baseline impacts, so we
consider this CAMx modeling provided by Entergy to be invalid for
supporting a determination of minimal visibility impacts. We performed
our own CAMx modeling that follows the BART Guidelines and uses
appropriate techniques and metrics to provide additional information on
visibility impacts and benefits and to address possible concerns with
utilizing CALPUFF to assess visibility impacts at Class I areas located
farther from the emission sources. The LDEQ also incorporated this
information into the June 2017 SIP revision (Appendix F) and considered
it along with the visibility analysis developed by Entergy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See the CALPUFF Modeling TSD for discussion of these errors
and corrected values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's CAMx modeling for Unit 6 directly evaluated the maximum
baseline visibility impacts and potential benefits from DSI. In
addition to the DSI modeled benefits, visibility benefits for SDA, wet
FGD, and low-sulfur coal were estimated based on linear extrapolation
for the average across the top ten impacted days using the modeled
baseline and DSI visibility impacts, and estimated emission reductions.
We note that the baseline emission rate modeled is based on 24-hr
actual emissions during the baseline period (2000-2004), while the
control scenario emission rates are based on anticipated 30-day
emission rates, as noted in the table below. At a maximum heat input of
6,126 MMBtu/hr for the boiler, the baseline short-term emission rate is
approximately 1.2 lb/MMBtu for the 2000-2004 baseline. The results of
this modeling for the maximum-impact day and the average across the top
ten most impacted baseline days are summarized in Table 2. We note that
wet FGD is estimated to provide a very small visibility benefit over
SDA on average across the top ten most impacted baseline days, so we do
not show the results for wet FGD in this table. See the CAMx Modeling
TSD for a full description of the modeling and model results.

                                                  Table 2--Summary of EPA's Visibility Analysis (CAMx)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Visibility     Visibility benefit of controls over baseline
                                                                             Baseline       benefit of        (dv) average for top ten impacted days
                                                             Baseline       Impact (dv)    controls over -----------------------------------------------
                      Class I area                          impact \a\     (average for    baseline (dv)
                                                               (dv)           top ten     maximum impact    Low-sulfur
                                                             (maximum)    impacted days) ----------------    coal \c\         DSI \d\         SDA \e\
                                                                                DSI \b\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Breton..................................................           0.599           0.314           0.250           0.133           0.165           0.266
Caney Creek.............................................           2.179           1.302           1.187           0.411           0.511           0.831
Mingo...................................................           1.468           0.785           0.370           0.215           0.265           0.430
Upper Buffalo...........................................           1.219           0.934           0.374           0.330           0.408           0.663
Hercules-Glade..........................................           1.287           0.777           0.473           0.273           0.338           0.548

Wichita Mountains.......................................           0.575           0.412           0.287           0.180           0.223           0.360
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ 2000-2004 baseline.
\b\ DSI at 0.47 lb/MMBtu.
\c\ Low-Sulfur Coal benefit (at 0.6 lb/MMBtu, estimated based on linear extrapolation of baseline and DSI visibility impacts at each Class I area.
\d\ DSI at 0.47 lb/MMBtu.
\e\ SDA at 0.06 lb/MMBtu, estimated based on linear extrapolation of baseline and DSI visibility impacts at each Class I area.

Louisiana's SO2 BART Determination for Nelson Unit 6
    The LDEQ weighed the statutory factors, reviewed Entergy's and
EPA's information, and concluded that SO2 BART is an
emission limit of 0.6 lbs/MMBtu based on a 30-day rolling average,
consistent with the use of lower-sulfur coal. The LDEQ acknowledged
that the visibility benefits of SDA and wet FGD are larger than those
associated with lower-sulfur coal, but explained that lower-sulfur coal
still achieves some visibility benefits and at a lower annual cost. The
LDEQ also noted that SDA and wet FGD create additional waste due to
spent reagent and have additional power demands to run the equipment.
Louisiana's PM BART Determination for Nelson Unit 6
    The LDEQ noted that Nelson Unit 6 is currently equipped with an ESP
to control PM emissions, the visibility impacts from PM emissions are
small, and that any additional controls beyond the ESP would have
minimal visibility benefits and would not be cost-effective. Therefore,
the LDEQ determined that PM BART is an emission limit of 317.61 lb/hr,
consistent with the use of the existing ESP.
Our Review of Louisiana's BART Determination for Nelson Unit 6
    We propose to approve LDEQ's proposed finding in the June 2017 SIP
revision that the visibility impacts from Unit 6's PM emissions are so
minimal that any additional PM controls would result in very minimal
visibility benefits that would not justify the cost of any upgrades
and/or operational changes needed to achieve a more stringent emission
limit. Unit 6 is currently equipped with an ESP for controlling PM
emissions. The PM control efficiency of ESPs varies somewhat with the
design of the ESP, the resistivity of the PM, and the maintenance of
the ESP. We do not have information on the control efficiency of the
ESP in use at Unit 6. However, reported control efficiencies for well-
maintained ESPs typically range from greater than 99% to 99.9%.\35\ We
consider this pertinent in concluding that the potential additional PM
control that a baghouse could offer over an ESP would be very minimal
and come at a very high cost.\36\ Also, our visibility modeling
indicates that the impact from Unit 6's baseline PM emissions is very
small, so the visibility improvement from replacing the ESP with a
baghouse would be only a fraction of that small impact.\37\ As
discussed above, states can adopt a more streamlined approach to making
BART determinations where appropriate. We therefore propose to agree
with Louisiana that no additional controls are required to satisfy PM
BART. In the June 2017 SIP revision, the LDEQ and Entergy have proposed
to enter into an AOC establishing an enforceable limit on
PM10 consistent with current controls at 317.61 lb/hr on a
30-day rolling basis. We are proposing to approve this AOC if it is
finalized without significant changes and included in the final
submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ EPA, ``Air Pollution Control Technology Fact Sheet: Dry
Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP)--Wire Plate Type,'' EPA-452/F-03-
028. Grieco, G., ``Particulate Matter Control for Coal-fired
Generating Units: Separating Perception from Fact,'' apcmag.net,
February, 2012. Moretti, A. L.; Jones, C. S., ``Advanced Emissions
Control Technologies for Coal-Fired Power Plants, Babcox and Wilcox
Technical Paper BR-1886, Presented at Power-Gen Asia, Bangkok,
Thailand, October 3-5, 2012.
    \36\ We do not discount the potential health benefits this
additional control can have for ambient PM. However, the regional
haze program is only concerned with improving the visibility at
Class I areas.
    \37\ See the TSD for additional information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are also proposing to approve the LDEQ's February 2017 SIP
revision as revised by the LDEQ's June 2017 SIP revision that addresses
BART for the Nelson facility, including the State's proposed finding
that lower sulfur coal is the appropriate SO2 BART control
for Unit 6. LDEQ has weighed the statutory factors and after a review
of both Entergy's and EPA's information has concluded that BART is the
emission limit of 0.6 lbs/MMBtu based on a 30-day rolling average as
defined in the AOC. The LDEQ and Entergy have proposed to enter into an
AOC establishing an enforceable limit of SO2 at 0.6 lbs/
MMBtu on a 30-day rolling basis. The emission limit will become
enforceable upon EPA's final approval of the SIP. We are proposing to
approve this AOC if finalized without significant changes and if it is
included in the final submittal.
    As the energy industry evolves, the LDEQ has committed to continue
to work with EGUs throughout Louisiana to evaluate the operation of
utilities. As such, the LDEQ will engage in discussions with Entergy
about any potential changes in usage or emission rates at the Nelson
facility. Any such changes will be considered for reasonable progress
for future planning periods as appropriate.

III. Proposed Action

    We are proposing to approve the remaining portion of the
Louisiana's Regional Haze SIP revision submitted on February 10, 2017,
related to the Entergy Nelson facility and the SIP revision submitted
to the EPA for parallel processing on June 20, 2017 that establishes
BART for the Nelson facility. We propose to approve the BART
determination for Nelson Units 6 and 4 and Unit 4 auxiliary boiler, and
the AOC that makes emission limits that represent BART permanent and
enforceable for the purposes of regional haze. We solicit comment with
respect to any information that would support or refute the
undocumented costs in Entergy's evaluation for SO2 controls
on Unit 6. Once we take final action on our proposed approval of
Louisiana's 2016 SIP revision addressing non-EGU

BART,\38\ our proposed approval addressing BART for all other BART-
eligible EGUs \39\ and this proposal to address SO2 and PM
BART for the Nelson facility, we will have fulfilled all outstanding
obligations with respect to the Louisiana regional haze program for the
first planning period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 81 FR 74750 (October 27, 2016).
    \39\ 82 FR 22936 (May 19, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA has made the preliminary determination that the June 2017
SIP revision requested by the State to be parallel processed is in
accordance with the CAA and consistent with the CAA and the EPA's
policy and guidance. Therefore, the EPA is proposing action on the June
2017 SIP revision in parallel with the State's rulemaking process.
After the State completes its rulemaking process, adopts its final
regulations, and submits these final adopted regulations as a revision
to the Louisiana SIP, the EPA will prepare a final action. If changes
are made to the State's proposed rule after the EPA's notice of
proposed rulemaking, such changes must be acknowledged in the EPA's
final rulemaking action. If the changes are significant, then the EPA
may be obligated to withdraw our initial proposed action and re-
propose.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, 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, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because this action does not involve technical standards; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the proposed rule 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).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
dioxides, Visibility, Interstate transport of pollution, Regional haze,
Best available control technology.

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

    Dated: June 23, 2017.
Samuel Coleman,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2017-14693 Filed 7-12-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 196 (Thursday, October 8, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63431-63434]
[FR Doc No: 2020-22259]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0856; Product Identifier 2019-SW-071-AD; Amendment
39-21270; AD 2020-20-14]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters

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

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Airbus Helicopters Model SA-365N, SA-365N1, AS-365N2, AS 365
N3, EC 155B, EC155B1, AS350B3, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N,
AS355NP, EC130B4, and EC130T2 helicopters. This AD requires inspecting
the main rotor (M/R) servo actuators, and depending on the inspection
results, replacing the affected part, applying a slippage mark, and
reporting information. This AD was prompted by an incident of a sudden,
strong nose-up attitude followed by intensive vibrations and increased
loads on the flight controls during a cruise flight. The actions of
this AD are intended to address an unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective October 23, 2020.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain documents listed in this AD as of October 23,
2020.
    The FAA must receive comments on this AD by November 23, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

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-
0856; 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 AD, the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, any
service information that is incorporated by reference, 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 service information identified in this final rule, contact
Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at https://www.airbus.com/helicopters/services/technical-support.html. You may
view the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321,
Fort Worth, TX 76177. It is also available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0856.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew L. Thompson, Aerospace
Engineer, DSCO Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 10101
Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and the FAA did not provide you with notice and an opportunity
to provide your comments prior to it becoming effective. However, the
FAA invites you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written
comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a
specific portion of the AD, explain the reason for any recommended
change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not
contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of
written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters
should submit them only one time.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will file in the docket all comments received, as well
as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA
personnel concerning this rulemaking during the comment period. The FAA
will consider all the comments received and may conduct additional
rulemaking based on those comments.

Confidential Business Information

    Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial
information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by
its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552),
CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to
this final rule contain commercial or financial information that is
customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and
that is relevant or responsive to this final rule, it is important that
you clearly designate the

submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission
containing CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked
submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed
in the public docket of this final rule. Submissions containing CBI
should be sent to Matthew L. Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, DSCO Branch,
Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort
Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Any comments that the FAA receives which
are not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public
docket for this rulemaking.

Discussion

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD No. 2019-0184, dated July 29, 2019,
to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Helicopters (AH), formerly
Eurocopter, Eurocopter France, Aerospatiale, Sud Aviation, Model SA 365
N, SA 365 N1, AS 365 N2, AS 365 N3, EC155 B and EC155 B1 helicopters,
AS 350 B3 helicopters if equipped with dual hydraulic system (OP 3346
or OP 3082), EC 130 B4 and EC 130 T2 helicopters, and AS355 F, AS355
F1, AS355 F2, AS355 N and AS355 NP helicopters. EASA advises that a
Model AS 365 N3 helicopter experienced a sudden, strong nose-up
attitude followed by intense vibrations and increased loads on the
flight controls during a cruise flight. Following an emergency landing,
the post-flight visual inspection of the front left-hand M/R servo
actuator showed that the threaded-shouldered bushing holding the lower
end-fitting was uncoupled from the actuator body. EASA further advises
that other helicopter models are affected due design similarity of the
installed M/R servo actuators. EASA also advises that this condition,
if not detected and corrected, could lead to loss of control of the
helicopter.
    Accordingly, the EASA AD requires a one-time inspection of each M/R
servo actuator for correct installation and, depending on the findings,
replacing the affected part or applying a slippage mark. The EASA AD
also requires inspecting the slippage mark for misalignment and,
depending on the findings replacing the affected part. EASA considers
its AD an interim action and states that further AD action may follow.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by EASA and are approved for
operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral
agreement with the European Union, EASA has notified the FAA of the
unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA is issuing this AD after
evaluating all of the information provided by EASA and determining the
unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other
helicopters of the same type designs.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed one document that co-publishes eight Airbus
Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (EASB) identification
numbers: No. 67.00.17 for Model AS365 N, N1, N2, and N3 helicopters and
non FAA-type certificated military Model AS365 F, Fs, Fi, K, and K2
helicopters; No. 67.00.10 for non FAA-type certificated military Model
AS565 MA, MB, MBe, SA, SB, and UB helicopters; No. 67.11 for non FAA-
type certificated military Model SA366 GA helicopters; No. 67A016 for
Model EC155 B and B1 helicopters; No. 67.00.77 for Model AS350 B3
helicopters; No. 67.00.48 for Model AS355 F, F1, F2, N, and NP
helicopters; No. 67.00.33 for non FAA-type certificated military Model
AS555 AF, AN, AP, SN, UF, and UN helicopters; and No. 67A021 for Model
EC130 B4 and T2 helicopters, each Revision 0 and dated July 25, 2019.
EASB Nos. 67.00.17, 67A016, 67.00.77, 67.00.48, and 67A021 are
incorporated by reference in this AD. EASB Nos. 67.00.10, 67.11, and
67.00.33 are not incorporated by reference in this AD.
    This service information specifies procedures for inspecting the
links between the lower ball end fitting and the M/R actuator rods.
This service information also specifies procedures for applying a
slippage mark (red mark) and inspecting the slippage mark.
    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.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires, within 30 hours time-in-service (TIS), with any
sealing compound on the lower ball end fitting link removed, inspecting
each M/R servo actuator for correct installation by inspecting the link
between the lower ball end fitting and the actuator rod for visible
threads and play between the actuator rod and the punched lockwasher,
inspecting for protrusion of the threaded shouldered bushing from the
punched lockwasher, and inspecting the alignment between the punching
of the punched lockwasher and the stud of the lower ball end fitting.
Depending on the inspection results, this AD requires replacing the M/R
servo actuator and reporting the inspection results to Airbus
Helicopters if there is any visible thread or play between the actuator
rod and the punched lockwasher, protrusion of the threaded shouldered
bushing, or misalignment between the punching of the punched lockwasher
and the stud of the lower ball end fitting. This AD also requires
applying a slippage mark from the actuator rod (excluding the chamfered
part of the rod) to the nut, including the punched lockwasher and the
lockwasher.

Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD is applicable to affected M/R servo actuators that were
supplied by Airbus Helicopters before August 12, 2019, whereas this AD
applies to affected M/R servo actuators that were manufactured before
July 25, 2019 or with an unknown date of manufacture, instead. The EASA
AD requires the one-time inspection within 55 flight hours, whereas
this AD requires the one-time inspection within 30 hours TIS instead.
The EASA AD requires a longer-term inspection of the slippage mark for
misalignment for affected M/R servo actuators regardless of when they
were originally supplied, whereas this AD does not. The FAA plans to
publish a notice of proposed rulemaking to give the public an
opportunity to comment on this longer-term requirement.

Interim Action

    The FAA considers this AD to be an interim action. If final action
is later identified, the FAA might consider further rulemaking then.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) do not
apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt
a rule without prior notice and comment. Because the FAA has determined
that it has good cause to adopt this rule without notice and comment,
RFA analysis is not required.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 1,270 helicopters of U.S.
Registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on
these numbers, the FAA estimates that operators may incur the following
costs in order to comply with this AD.
    Inspecting the M/R servo actuators takes about one work-hour for an
estimated cost of $85 per helicopter and

$107,950 for the U.S. fleet. Applying a slippage mark takes a minimal
amount of time at a nominal cost.
    If required, reporting information takes about 1 hour for an
estimated cost of $85.
    Replacing an M/R actuator takes about 2 work-hours and parts cost
up to $53,315 for an estimated cost of up to $53,485 per replacement.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for
failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB
Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public
reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be
approximately 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory. Send comments regarding this burden estimate
or any other aspect of this collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing this burden to: Information Collection
Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood
Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.)
authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedures for
rules when the agency, for ``good cause'' finds that those procedures
are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.''
Under this section, an agency, upon finding good cause, may issue a
final rule without seeking comment prior to the rulemaking.
    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to
adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public
justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule
because the required corrective action must be completed within 30
hours TIS, a time period of up to one month based on the average
flight-hour utilization rate of these helicopters. Therefore, the FAA
finds good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment
are impracticable. In addition, for the reason(s) stated above, the FAA
finds that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in
less than 30 days.

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 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, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866, and
    2. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2020-20-14 Airbus Helicopters: Amendment 39-21270; Docket No. FAA-
2020-0856; Product Identifier 2019-SW-071-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to the following Airbus Helicopters model
helicopters, certificated in any category:
    (1) Model SA-365N, SA-365N1, AS-365N2, AS 365 N3, EC 155B, and
EC155B1 helicopters with a main rotor (M/R) servo actuator part
number (P/N) 704A44831074 (manufacturer part number (MP/N) SC8031),
P/N 704A44831117 (MP/N SC8031-1), P/N 704A44831144 (MP/N SC8031-2),
P/N 704A44831106 (MP/N SC8031A), P/N 704A44831097 (MP/N SC8032), P/N
704A44831118 (MP/N SC8032-1), P/N 704A44831145 (MP/N SC8032-2), P/N
704A44831127 (MP/N SC8033-1), P/N 704A44831146 (MP/N SC8033-2), P/N
704A44831128 (MP/N SC8034-1), P/N 704A44831147 (MP/N SC8034-2), P/N
704A44831149 (MP/N SC8037), or P/N 704A44831155 (MP/N SC8037-1)
manufactured before July 25, 2019 or with an unknown date of
manufacture, installed.
    (2) Model AS350B3, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, AS355NP,
EC130B4, and EC130T2 helicopters with an M/R servo actuator P/N
704A44831102 (MP/N SC8042) or P/N 704A44831103 (MP/N SC8043)
manufactured before July 25, 2019 or with an unknown date of
manufacture, installed.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as an uncoupled M/R servo
actuator rod. This condition could result in excessive vibrations,
increased loads on the flight controls, failure of the M/R servo
actuator, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

(c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective October 23, 2020.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

    (1) Within 30 hours time-in-service, with any sealing compound
on the lower ball end fitting link removed, determine if each M/R
servo actuator is correctly installed by:
    (i) Inspecting the link between the lower ball end fitting (f)
and the actuator rod (a) for visible threads and play between the
actuator rod (a) and the punched lockwasher (b) as depicted in
Figures 1 and 2 of Airbus Helicopters Emergency Alert Service
Bulletin (EASB) Nos. 67.00.17, 67A016, 67.00.77, 67.00.48, or
67A021, each Revision 0 and dated July 25, 2019 (EASB 67.00.17,
67A016, 67.00.77, 67.00.48, or 67A021), as applicable to your
helicopter. If there is a visible thread

or play, before further flight, replace the M/R servo actuator.
    (ii) Inspecting for protrusion of the threaded shouldered
bushing (c) from the punched lockwasher (b) as depicted in Figure 3
of EASB 67.00.17, 67A016, 67.00.77, 67.00.48, or 67A021, as
applicable to your helicopter. If there is a protrusion, before
further flight, replace the M/R servo actuator.
    (iii) Inspecting the alignment between the punching of the
punched lockwasher (b) and the stud of the lower ball end fitting
(f) as depicted in Figure 4 of EASB 67.00.17, 67A016, 67.00.77,
67.00.48, or 67A021, as applicable to your helicopter. If there is
misalignment, before further flight, replace the M/R servo actuator.
    (2) After accomplishing paragraph (e)(1) of this AD, before
further flight, apply a slippage mark from the actuator rod (a)
(excluding the chamfered part of the rod) to the nut (e), including
the punched lockwasher (b) and the lockwasher (d) as depicted in
Figure 5 of EASB 67.00.17, 67A016, 67.00.77, 67.00.48, or 67A021, as
applicable to your helicopter.
    (3) If any parts were required to be replaced as a result of the
inspections required by paragraph (e)(1) of this AD, within 10 days
after completing the inspection, report the information in Appendix
1 to this AD by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (4) For Model SA-365N, SA-365N1, AS-365N2, AS 365 N3, EC 155B,
and EC155B1 helicopters, as of the effective date of this AD, do not
install an M/R servo actuator identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this
AD on any helicopter, unless the actions required by paragraphs
(e)(1) and (2) of this AD have been accomplished.
    (5) For Model AS350B3, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N,
AS355NP, EC130B4, and EC130T2 helicopters, as of the effective date
of this AD, do not install an M/R servo actuator identified in
paragraph (a)(2) of this AD on any helicopter, unless the actions
required by paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this AD have been
accomplished.

(f) Paperwork Reduction Act Burden Statement

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to
the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that
collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control
Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is
2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is
estimated to be approximately 1 hour per response, including the
time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this
collection of information are mandatory. Send comments regarding
this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of
information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to:
Information Collection Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation
Administration, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, may approve
AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Matthew L. Thompson,
Aerospace Engineer, DSCO Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone
817-222-5251; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, the FAA suggests
that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal
inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office
or certificate holding district office, before operating any
aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(h) Additional Information

    (1) Airbus Helicopters EASB Nos. 67.00.10, 67.11, and 67.00.33,
each Revision 0 and dated July 25, 2019, which are not incorporated
by reference, contain additional information about the subject of
this AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at
https://www.airbus.com/helicopters/services/technical-support.html.
You may view a copy of the service information at the FAA, Office of
the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room
6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.
    (2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Union
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2019-0184, dated July 29, 2019.
You may view the EASA AD on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No.
FAA-2020-0856.

(i) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6730, Rotorcraft
Servo System.

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Airbus Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (EASB)
No. 67.00.17, Revision 0, dated July 25, 2019.
    (ii) Airbus Helicopters EASB No. 67A016, Revision 0, dated July
25, 2019.
    (iii) Airbus Helicopters EASB No. 67.00.77, Revision 0, dated
July 25, 2019.
    (iv) Airbus Helicopters EASB No. 67.00.48, Revision 0, dated
July 25, 2019.
    (v) Airbus Helicopters EASB No. 67A021, Revision 0, dated July
25, 2019.

    Note 1 to paragraph (j)(2):  Airbus Helicopters EASB Nos.
67.00.17, 67A016, 67.00.77, 67.00.48, and 67A021, each Revision 0
and dated July 25, 2019 are co-published as one document along with
Airbus Helicopters EASB Nos. 67.00.10, 67.11, and 67.00.33, each
Revision 0 and dated July 25, 2019, which are not incorporated by
reference in this AD.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at
https://www.airbus.com/helicopters/services/technical-support.html.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Office of
the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room
6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

Appendix 1 to AD 2020-20-14

    Report the following information by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(Airbus Helicopters Emergency Alert
Service Bulletin Nos. 67.00.17, 67A016, 67.00.77, 67.00.48, and
67A021, each Revision 0 and dated July 25, 2019.)
    (1) Date of Inspection:
    (2) Helicopter Model and Serial Number:
    (3) Total hours time-in-service (TIS) on the aircraft:
    (4) Date of manufacture of the main rotor (M/R) servo actuator:
    (5) Total hours TIS on M/R servo actuator:
    (6) Total hours TIS since last service of the M/R servo actuator
and description of service:
    (7) Describe in detail any information and findings and, if
possible, provide photos.

    Issued on September 24, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-22259 Filed 10-7-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: June 28, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 124)]
[Notices]
[Page 35450]
[DOCID:fr28jn07-42]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-413-001]

Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Compliance
Filing

June 20, 2007.
    Take notice that on June 18, 2007, Columbia Gas Transmission
Corporation (Columbia) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas
Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, with an effective date of August
1, 2007:

Seventh Revised Sheet No. 538
First Revised Sheet No. 538A
Third Revised Sheet No. 540

    Columbia states that it is making this filing in compliance with
the Commission's Order in this docket, issued June 5, 2007.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of section 154.210 of
the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest
must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is 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 docket(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. E7-12472 Filed 6-27-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 49 (Monday, March 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13652-13653]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5825]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2011-0007]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request, 1660-0104; Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) Appeals

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice; 60-day notice and request for comments; extension,
without change, of a currently approved information collection; OMB No.
1660-0104; FEMA Form--None.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity
to comment on a proposed extension, without change, of a currently
approved information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning the Severe
Repetitive Loss (SRL) Program appeals process.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before May 13, 2011.

ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use
only one of the following means to submit comments:
    (1) Online. Submit comments at http://www.regulations.gov under
Docket ID FEMA-2011-0007. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments.
    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to Docket Manager, Office of
Chief Counsel, DHS/FEMA, 500 C Street, SW., Room 835, Washington, DC
20472-3100.
    (3) Facsimile. Submit comments to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) E-mail. Submit comments to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include Docket
ID FEMA-2011-0007 in the subject line.

    All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket
ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material,
all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any
personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this
information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy Act
notice that is available via the link in the footer of http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cecelia Rosenberg, Grants Policy
Branch Chief, FEMA, Mitigation Directorate,<PHONE_NUMBER> for
additional information. You may contact the Records Management Division
for copies of the proposed collection of information at facsimile
number<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA's regulations implementing the SRL
program appeals process, authorized by the Flood Insurance Act of 1968
(42 U.S.C. 4102a) are located at 44 CFR 79.7(d). This information
collection outlines the process by which any owner of a severe
repetitive loss of property may appeal a FEMA decision that would
increase the chargeable insurance premium rate on the property. This
process requires the owner to submit a written appeal, including any
supporting documentation, to FEMA within 90 days of the notice of the
insurance increase. Much of the supporting documentation for SRL
applications is covered under a separate collection, OMB No. 1660-0072,
Mitigation Grant Programs (e-Grants). Although much of the supporting
documentation has already been submitted in the original application
for SRL grant funds, the property owner may submit any additional
documentation that supports their appeal. Without this required
information, FEMA will be unable to implement the appeals process for
the SRL program, and will be in violation of the requirements under the
Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4102a.

Collection of Information

    Title: Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) Appeals.
    Type of Information Collection: Extension, without change, of a
currently approved information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0104.
    Form Titles and Numbers: None.
    Abstract: The SRL program provides property owners with the ability
to appeal an increase in their flood insurance premium rate if they
refuse an offer of mitigation under this program. The property owner
must submit information to FEMA to support their appeal.
    Affected Public: Individuals or Households.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 100 hours.

                                                       Estimated Annualized Burden Hours and Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Number of                Avg. burden     Total                     Total
                                                                Number of    responses    Total No.       per         annual    Avg. hourly     annual
         Type of respondent            Form name/Form number   respondents      per           of        response   burden  (in   wage rate    respondent
                                                                             respondent   responses    (in hours)     hours)                     cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individuals or Households...........  Appeals Written Request           10            1           10           10          100       $23.94       $2,394
                                       and Supporting
                                       Documentation/No. Form.
                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...........................  .......................           10  ...........           10  ...........          100  ...........        2,394
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimated Cost: The estimated annual operations and maintenance
costs for SRL appeals is $30,488. There is no annual start-up or
capital costs.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Dated: March 8, 2011.
Lesia M. Banks,
Director, Records Management Division, Mission Support Bureau, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2011-5825 Filed 3-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 49 (Friday, March 13, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 13371]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05683]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AC15-60-000]

National Grid USA; Notice of Request for Waiver

    Take notice that on March 4, 2015, National Grid USA, on behalf of
certain of its subsidiary operating companies \1\ submitted a request
for a waiver granting a permanent standing extension, until 150 days
after its fiscal year end of March 31 each year, to submit the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) Form 1, Form 1-F, and Form 2-
A Supplemental Statements with CPA Certifications as well as the first
quarter Form 3-Qs that would otherwise be due earlier in the year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ These companies include Massachusetts Electric Company,
Nantucket Electric Company, New England Hydro-Transmission
Corporation, New England Hydro-Transmission Electric Company, Inc.,
New England Power Company, The Narragansett Electric Company,
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, National Grid LNG, LP, New England
Electric Transmission Corporation, and National Grid Generation,
LLC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 or 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is 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 email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on March 25, 2015.

    Dated: March 4, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-05683 Filed 3-12-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P