Transportation and Air Quality Division

Center for Neighborhood Technology

Chicago IL

American Bottom Conservancy

East St. Louis, IL

East St. Louis Community Action Network

East St. Louis, IL

Madison County Conservation Alliance

Edwardsville, IL

Brian Urbaszewski, Director of Environmental Health Programs

American Lung Association of Metropolitan Chicago

Chicago, IL

INDIANA

Stephan J. Sullivan

Environmental Health Committee (OVCG)

Evanville, IN

Bobby W. Schroader

Izaak Walton League of America, Indiana Division

Griffith, IN

Jamie Wesseler, President

Citizen’s Organized Watch, Inc.

Whitley & Allen Counties, IN

John Blair

Valley Watch, Inc.

Evansville, IN

Thomas R. Anderson, Executive Director

Save the Dunes Council

Michigan City, IN

Robert Rust, Secretary

Ohio Valley Common Ground

Mt. Vernon, IN

KENTUCKY

Tom Fitzgerald, Director

Kentucky Resources Council, Inc.

Frankfort, KY

Craig Williams, Director

Chemical Weapons Working Group

Berea, KY

Elizabeth Crowe, Director

Non-Stockpile Chemical Weapons Citizen Coalition

Berea, KY

Peter Hille, Chair

Kentucky Environmental Foundation

Berea, KY

Namoi Shultz, Steering Committee

Common Ground

Berea, KY

LOUSIANA

Nancy Hirshfeld

Informed Choices

Slidell, LA

MAINE

Sue Jones

Natural Resources Council of Maine

Augusta, ME

MARYLAND

Jonathan Birdsong

Izaak Walton League of America

Gaithersburg, MD

MASSACUSETTS

Howard Hirsch

National Environmental Law Center

Boston, MA

MICHIGAN

Alex J. Sagady

Alex J. Sagady & Associates

East Lansing, MI

Jeff Gearhart, Campaign Director

Ecology Center

Ann Arbor, MI

MONTANA

Darrell Geist

Executive Director

Cold Mountain, Cold Rivers

Missoula, MT

NEVADA

Grace Marie Potorti

Rural Alliance for Military Accountability

Reno, NV

NEW JERSEY

Joe Parrish

NJ/NY Environmental Watch

Elizabeth, NJ

NEW YORK

Anne Rabe

Citizens' Environmental Coalition

Albany, NY

Keri Powell

New York Public Interest Research Group

New York, NY

NORTH CAROLINA

Chuck Rice

North Carolina Wildlife Federation

Raleigh, NC

E.M.T. O’Nan, Director

Protect All Children’s Environment

Marion, NC

Denise Lee, President

Anson County  Cactus

Wadesboro, NC

OHIO

Anjali Mathur, Director

Sustainable Cleveland Partnership

Earth Day Coalition

Cleveland, OH

OREGON

Connie Earnshaw

Swan Island Airshed Committee

Portland, OR

PENNSYLVANIA

Joseph Otis Minott, Esq.

Executive Director

Clean Air Council

Philadelphia, PA

TENNESSEE

Katey Culver

RecycleSource Paper

Nashville, TN

Donald B. Clark

United Church of Christ

Network for Environmental & Economic Responsibility

Pleasant Hill, TN

Walter Stark

Cumberland Countians for Peace & Justice

Pleasant Hill, TN

Charles Lord

Obed Watershed Association

Pleasant Hill, TN

Ulla Reeves, Clean Air Program Director

Southern Alliance for Clean Energy

Knoxville, TN

TEXAS

Karen Hadden

SEED Coalition

Austin, TX

LaNell Anderson

Grandparents of East Harris County

Kingwood, TX

Judy Starns

North Channel Citizens Against Pollution

Channelview, TX

UTAH

Kathy Van Dame

Wasatch Clean Air Coalition

Salt Lake City, UT

VIRGINIA

Jeff Gleason

Southern Environmental Law Center

Charlottesville, VA

WEST VIRGINIA

Vivian Stockman

Concerned Citizens’ Coalition

Spencer, WV

Dianne Bady

Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition

Huntington, WV

WISCONSIN

Melissa K. Scanlan, Legal Director

Midwest Environmental Advocates

Madison, WI

cc:	Jay Benforado, OPEI

Rob Brenner, OPAR

Bruce Buckheit, OECA

Alan Eckert, OGC

Bill Harnett, OAQPS

Barry Hill, OEJ

Caroline Petti, OA

Roger Powell, OAQPS

John Seitz, OAQPS

 	Fact Sheet - Draft Guidance on Designing Flexible Air Permits (White
Paper Number 3) (Aug. 8, 2000), at 1,
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/new.html.

 	See EPA is Considering Increased Flexibility in Issuing Industry
Air-Pollution Permits, Wall St.  J. (June 5, 2000) (Robert W.
Perciasepe, U.S. EPA Assistant Administrator for Air, referring to
prematurely released version of document substantially the same as Draft
Guidance as “very preliminary staff work” that has not been reviewed
by EPA lawyers or top officials); EPA Considers Relaxing Pollution Rules
on Industrial Plants, Seattle Daily Journal of Commerce (A.P. Wire)
(June 6, 2000) (“The draft paper ‘has not been seen by anyone in
senior management of the agency,’ said EPA spokesman Dave Cohen.
‘This thing is very embryonic.  It doesn’t represent much of
anything.’  He characterized it as ‘an idea sheet’ by midlevel
staff members in the agency’s air pollution control offices.”); see
also Draft Guidance cover page (Does Not Represent Agency Policy).

 	Office of the Administrator, Report of the EPA Innovations Task Force,
Aiming For Excellence: Actions to Encourage Stewardship and Accelerate
Environmental Progress (July 1999), at 59, EPA 100-R-99-006 (Aiming For
Excellence).

 	“The Next Generation in Permitting,” at 1,
http://www.epa.gov/permits/papmem.htm.

 	“A Decade of Progress: Innovation at the Environmental Protection
Agency,” U.S. EPA, Office of the Administrator, EPA 100-R-00-020
(April 2000), at 3-4, 29-34 (Decade of Progress) (“Well-informed
citizens who are actively involved in environmental decisions are a
powerful new force in achieving environmental results.  Increasingly,
Americans are getting involved in environmental issues and it’s clear
that they want a say in decisions that affect them.”  Id. at 3.
“Because Americans want to be actively involved in environmental
decision-making, we are increasing public participation in our programs
and providing more environmental information to help the public
understand critical, and often complex, issues.”  Id. at 29.)

 	See generally Draft Guidance at 16-18.  For example, the Draft
Guidance lists requirements that permit applications must contain for
advance approvals, including identification of applicable requirements,
permit terms that assure compliance, and boundaries on the magnitude of
the advanced approved change.  Id. at 16.  Notably absent from this list
is any requirement that the specific emissions units and emissions
activities be identified in the permit application, in direct violation
of § 70.5(c).  This does not appear to be an accidental omission,
either, as we discuss above.

 	For example, the document’s discussion of White Paper 1 rather than
the part 70 regulations is both telling and misplaced, considering that
White Paper 1 itself skirts and mischaracterizes part 70’s permit
applications requirements.

 	See generally Draft Guidance at § IV.B, 16-18; see id. at 17 (“The
concept of reasonably anticipated alternative operating scenarios and
the requirements in section 70.5(c) requiring ‘descriptions’ of the
advance approved activities inherently provide flexibility to you.  You
have broad authority to require sources to submit information regarding
proposed advance approvals.”)

 	Although its exact heritage is uncertain, and clearly not discussed in
the Draft Guidance, the apparent first and only EPA usage of the term
“replicable operating procedures” or ROPs in a Clean Air Act Federal
Register notice is in the preamble for the final rulemaking for the
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source
Categories: Pharmaceuticals Production, 63 FR 50280 (Sept. 21, 1998)
(Subpart GGG).  This Federal Register notice makes clear that the use of
ROPs as part of a Title V “change management” strategy involving
advance approvals is in turn part of an “experimental permitting
approach” for implementing Subpart GGG, the pharmaceutical MACT
standard.  Id. at 50310, 50312.  Considering that the compliance date
for this MACT standard is not until October 21, 2002, see 65 FR 52588,
52596 (Aug. 29, 2000) (§ 63.1250(f)), it is impossible for the Agency
to have had any implementation or enforcement experience with ROPs for
the “experimental permitting approach” for this MACT standard.  We
are mystified as to how the Agency has any experience with ROPs
sufficient to say anything at all about them in the Draft Guidance.  We
cannot believe that the Agency would so quietly, yet willfully abandon
any pretense that this experimental change management approach was both
genuine and experimental, and jump straight to adoption before the
“experiment” had even begun.  Yet this belief is discouragingly
consistent with the Project XL record discussed in section III of these
comments.

 	For a landmark treatment of the ambiguities of language and its
capacity for multiple interpretations, see William Empson, Seven Types
of Ambiguity (3d ed. 1966).

 	As noted earlier, supra note 9, considering that the compliance date
for this MACT standard is two years in the future, it is logically
impossible for EPA to have any implementation and enforcement experience
with the “applicability ROP” concept that the Draft Guidance roughly
describes.  This raises the obvious question of why this pharmaceutical
example is in the Draft Guidance at all.  Draft Guidance at 44-46.

 	For example, as EPA is well aware, industry groups and corporations
are presently before the United States Supreme Court in a multi-million
dollar campaign arguing the outrageous and offensive position that the
term “public health” in Clean Air Act § 109(b) requires a
cost-benefit test in establishing the health-based national ambient air
quality standards.  See, e.g., Brief for Respondents Appalachian Power
Co., et al., In Support of Petitioners, American Trucking Assoc., Inc.,
et al. v. EPA (No. 99-1426) (July 20, 2000).  If these companies are
willing to take this extreme position in a high-profile, public case
such as this, one shudders to imagine what interpretations they would be
capable of adopting under the secretive world of ROPs.

 	The Draft Guidance addresses the application of the permit shield to
ROPs with the remarkable and circular declaration that a such a shield
is available “but only if the source applies the procedures
correctly.”  Draft Guidance at 21.  This confounds a fundamental
principle of the Title V permitting program, that sources are not
eligible for the benefits of the permit shield when public review is not
available.  See, e.g., 40 CFR § 70.7(e)(2)(vi) (permit shield
unavailable for part 70 minor permit modifications because public review
unavailable).  The Draft Guidance invents a problem for itself, by
allowing advance approvals and ROPs to be a two-stage applicability
determination process, with the second stage – unilateral source
application of “ROPs” – never having public review.  The only
possible conclusion is that ROPs and advance approvals, even if
permissible, should never be able to qualify for the permit shield.  The
Draft Guidance apparently cannot abide that conclusion, however, so it
must resort to the above circularity.  The result is an illogical and
unlawful inquiry into the propriety of a permit shield after-the-fact,
rather than before-the-fact, which turns any notion of a shield on its
head.

No doubt unwittingly, the Draft Guidance’s declaration above also
gives lie to the notion that approvable ROPs “must not require
judgment,” id. at 20, since here the document acknowledges that
sources will have judgment to apply these ROPs incorrectly.  This is the
obvious point we make earlier, but the Draft Guidance acknowledges it
here since it proves too much even for the this document to allow
sources to be shielded from enforcement based upon unlawful
interpretations reached solely by them.  Of course, the Draft Guidance
does not grapple with the issue of how one is supposed to discover that
sources made incorrect determinations, or the point that Title V is
supposed to prevent incorrect applicability determinations from being
made by sources in the first place.  And of course the real conclusion
to be drawn from this, which the Draft Guidance will not reach, is that
ROPs are simply improper.

 	Even the part 70 provision governing reasonably anticipated operating
scenarios, which EPA relies upon (improperly) to authorize “advance
approvals,” requires permit terms at the time the permit is issued to
“ensure that the terms and conditions of each such alternative
scenario meet all applicable requirements and the requirements of this
part.”  40 CFR § 70.6(a)(9)(iii) (emphasis added).  There is nothing
in even this misused provision supporting the Draft Guidance’s
assertion that this obligation may be deferred to a future process
administered solely by sources.

 	Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 197 (1964) (Stewart J., concurring).

 	Id. at 29.  It is worth singling out an unlawful legal interpretation
in this section of the Draft Guidance that leads the Agency to conclude
erroneously that minor NSR permit actions may be incorporated into Title
V permits through minor permit modifications.  The Draft Guidance
states: “[i]f advance approved changes were only subject to minor NSR
and the advance approval provisions were established after the title V
permit has been issued, the advance approval provisions could then be
incorporated into the title V permit as a minor permit modification.”
 Id.  Embedded within this statement is the legal interpretation that
minor NSR permit actions do not constitute “title I modifications,”
which are ineligible for minor permit modification procedures under part
70.  See 40 CFR § 70.7(e)(2)(i)(A)(5) (disallowing minor permit
modification procedures for title I modifications).  This interpretation
is plainly unlawful and will be subject to legal challenge upon adoption
of the Draft Guidance.  See infra note 33.

	In 1994 comments to EPA, NRDC supported what was then EPA’s
interpretation of the term “title I modification” to include
modifications processed pursuant to State minor NSR permit programs.
See Letter from David G. Hawkins, Senior Attorney, NRDC, to EPA Air
Docket No. A-93-50 (Oct. 28, 1994).  We hereby incorporate these
comments by reference.  These comments expressed agreement with EPA that
“[m]odifications covered by [State minor NSR] programs clearly are
title I modifications: § 110(a)(2)(C) expressly uses the term
‘modifications’ to refer to the changes which such programs must
address; and, of course, this section is a part of Title I of the [Clean
Air] Act.”  Id. at 1.

	Not only is this the only defensible interpretation of the term
“title I modification” under the Act.  It is the interpretation
definitively adopted by EPA in the preamble to the 1994 proposal for
revisions to part 70.  Following discussion in this notice of disputes
over the meaning of the phrase “modifications under any provision of
title V,” EPA made clear its own interpretation: “EPA believes that
‘modifications under any provision of title I’ should be interpreted
to include minor NSR modifications.”  59 FR 44460, 44462 (Aug. 29,
1994).  Even if EPA could change this interpretation to the unlawful
Draft Guidance interpretation, an agency may only change its first,
definitively adopted legal interpretation pursuant to subsequent notice
and comment rulemaking, not through an illegal guidance enterprise.  See
generally Paralyzed Veterans v. D.C. Arena, 117 F.3d 579, 586 (D.C. Cir.
1997).

 	See, e.g., Bush Curbs Clean Air Provision; EPA Is Overridden On Public
Notice Rule For Emission Increases, Wash. Post,  May 17, 1992, at A1.

 	See Clean Air Implementation Project et al. v. EPA, No. 92-1303 (and
consolidated cases).

 	59 FR 44460 (Aug. 29, 1994) & 60 FR 45530 (Aug. 31, 1995).

 	See, e.g. 62 FR 30289 (June 3, 1997).

 	This section of the Draft Guidance notes in passing that permits
employing this particular “flexibility” should “contain the
authorization to use the minor permit modification process for
incorporating the new monitoring approach, once selected.”  Id. at 36.
 EPA-approved State regulations govern part 70 permit modifications and
the other procedural elements of the permit program; permits may not
contain conditions that predetermine and bias future application of
those regulations.  EPA points to no authority for this extraordinary
proposition and we know of no such authority.

 	See EPA Office of Reinvention, XL Project Progress Report: Intel
Corporation (March, 1999), at 1, EPA/100/F-99/005,
http://www.epa.gov/projectxl/intel/page5.htm (testing PALs).

 	These criteria include a project’s superior environmental
performance; costs savings and paperwork reduction; stakeholder support;
pollution prevention achievements; transferability for adoption
program-wide; feasibility; monitoring and reporting; and shifting of
risk burdens.  See generally 60 FR 27282 (May 23, 1995).  Apart from
these generalities, the Agency’s published XL materials are
frustratingly sparse on the questions of how XL projects will be
evaluated and whether the public will be involved in such evaluations
before claimed successes are adopted.  See, e.g., 62 FR 19872, 19881
(April 23, 1997) (admitting that “this notice does not provide
substantial guidance on the role of stakeholders in project
implementation and evaluation”).

 	See, e.g., Project XL 1999 Comprehensive Report, at 74-76.

 	For example, the “Example Approaches” in Section VIII of the Draft
Guidance bear a striking resemblance to the incomplete XL project for
Intel (semiconductor manufacturing facility) and the only recently
initiated XL project for Imation (magnetic tape manufacturing facility).
 See Draft Guidance at 42-44, 46-48; see generally Intel FPA, supra at
16; Imation FPA, supra at 16.  The final example from this section
relates to a pharmaceutical production facility and the MACT standard
for this source category, a curious example for a document purportedly
based upon implementation experience since, as noted above, this MACT
standard does not even have a compliance date until October 21, 2002.
See supra note 9.

 	Indeed, it is not clear whether P4 permits even require enforceable
pollution prevention measures.  Support for this conclusion is provided
by the Draft Guidance’s acknowledgment almost in passing that
pollution prevention is not “mandatory” in P4 permits.  See Draft
Guidance at 4.

 	See generally 60 FR 27282 (May 23, 1995) (establishing commitment to
superior environmental results in inaugural announcement of Project XL);
62 FR 19872, 19873-76 (April 23, 1997) (reaffirming commitment to
superior environmental performance under Project XL).

 	These organizations were Citizens for a Better Environment,
Communities for a Better Environment, Ecology Center of Ann Arbor,
Environmental Action, Environmental Defense Fund (now Environmental
Defense), Environmental Justice Working Group, Friends of the Earth,
Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, National Environmental Law
Center, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council,
New Mexico Environmental Law Center, People for Community Recovery,
Santa Clara Center for Occupational Safety and Health, Sierra Club,
Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, Southern Organizing Committee, and U.S.
PIRG.  Joint Statement at 1.

 	The Draft Guidance states: “In developing a linkage between
emissions and operational parameters, we believe that you may allow a
source to exceed its units’ emissions limits during testing without a
need for any type of enforcement action, provided that appropriate terms
and conditions appear in the permit (e.g., the emissions limitations
apply at all times, except during emissions testing to develop
operational parameter ranges), and that the source sends you an advance
notice to perform such testing.”  Id. at 38-39.  EPA cannot possibly
be suggesting that state permitting authorities allow sources to violate
emissions limits.  The passage is confusing in that it suggests the
emissions limitations would not be legally applicable during testing, in
which case exceedances within the allowable ranges during testing would
not appear to be violations.  While we are willing to attribute this
latter reading to the passage, the Draft Guidance still does not explain
why it is permissible or protective of the environment for permitting
authorities to do what the document recommends, that is, allow emissions
limits to be exceeded during testing.

 	See also Draft Guidance at 43 (claim that a mass balance monitoring
approach for a semiconductor manufacturing facility “was determined to
be CEMS equivalent monitoring”).

 	Id. at 39.  The Agency’s leading publication on the subject
describes an emissions factor as:

a representative value that attempts to relate the quantity of a
pollutant released to the atmosphere with an activity associated with
the release of that pollutant.  These factors are usually expressed as
the weight of pollutant divided by a unit weight, volume, distance, or
duration of the activity emitting the pollutant (e. g., kilograms of
particulate emitted per megagram of coal burned).  Such factors
facilitate estimation of emissions from various sources of air
pollution.  In most cases, these factors are simply averages of all
available data of acceptable quality, and are generally assumed to be
representative of long-term averages for all facilities in the source
category (i. e., a population average).

Compilation Of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume I: Stationary
Point And Area Sources, Introduction at 1, Fifth Edition, AP-42, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC (Jan. 1995),
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42.html (AP-42).  Emissions factors are
usually used for estimation purposes for areawide emissions inventories.
 Id., Introduction at 2.

 	As EPA is aware, the Office of Inspector General has designated the
Office of Air and Radiation’s emission factor development program “a
significant weakness that impedes achievement of major air program goals
and is, therefore, a material weakness under the Federal Managers'
Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA).”  Emission Factor Development, EPA
OIG Report No. 6100318 (Sept. 30, 1996); see also The Effectiveness and
Efficiency of EPA’s Air Program, EPA OIG Report No.
E1KAE4-05-0246-8100057, at 6, 33-35 (Feb. 27, 1998).  This latter report
has noted that emissions factors are unavailable for many sources of air
pollution, and those that are available are often unreliable.  Id. at
34.  The report notes further that without reliable emission factors,
OAR and the states cannot be sure that proper emission limits are
established and that air permitting programs are effective, in which
case “the nation’s air quality could be adversely affected and
people could be subjected to the health hazards associated with
excessive exposure to air pollutants.”  Id. at 35.

 	See generally Bennett v. Spears, 520 U.S. 154, 178 (1997) (agency
action final if action is one by which “'rights or obligations have
been determined,” or from which “legal consequences will flow”);
NRDC v. EPA, 22 F.3d 1125, 1132-33 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (finding final and
ripe for judicial review three documents authorizing conditional
approval of committal SIP submissions); see also Appalachian Power Co.
v. EPA, 208 F.3d 1015, 1021-22 (D.C. Cir. 2000).

 	See generally Paralyzed Veterans v. D.C. Arena, 117 F.3d 579, 586
(D.C. Cir. 1997).  The D.C. Circuit has held that “[o]nce an agency
gives its regulation an interpretation, it can only change that
interpretation as it would formally modify the regulation itself:
through the process of notice and comment rulemaking.”  Id. at 586.
Accordingly, because the Draft Guidance interpretations plainly are not
being set forth pursuant to notice and comment rulemaking, any
interpretations in the Draft Guidance that alter previous Agency
interpretations violate the Administrative Procedures Act and CAA the
Clean Air Act

 	See generally Appalachian Power, 208 F.3d at 1028; Barrick Goldstrike
Mines, Inc. v. Browner, 2000 WL 725727 (D.C.Cir.).  Where legal
interpretations set forth in guidance documents are found to have
effectively amended existing regulations, or found to be ultra vires as
a statutory interpretation, a court may set aside the guidance in its
entirety and prohibit EPA and state agencies from relying upon the
guidance interpretations.  See, e.g., Appalachian Power, 208 F.3d at
1028.

	One EPA Region has even opined, incorrectly we believe, that
alternative operating scenarios may be established in operating permits
under the 7-day notice provisions of 40 CFR § 70.4(b)(12).  See 61 FR
2983, 2986 (Jan. 30, 1996) (Region 2’s proposed interim approval of
New Jersey operating permits program).  Presumably, as supposed
alternative operating scenarios, advance approvals may be established in
the same manner.  The 7-day notice procedures of EPA’s current part 70
rules, which are the subject of pending legal challenge, allow sources
unilaterally to change their own permit without permit revision, and
without prior involvement by the permitting authority, much less EPA or
the public.  This of course confounds any pretense that advance
approvals (under the current regulations) would be subject to rigorous
or even meaningful oversight.  See Draft Guidance at 29.  Of course,
even if there were public oversight, the public would join EPA Regions
in protesting in vain that a permit’s advance approval failed to
adhere to EPA guidance that has no basis in the regulations.

 	Elsewhere in these comments, see section IV.A.2, we discuss the
serious ambiguities, gaps, and unanswered questions presented by the
Draft Guidance.  These problems will redound fully to the benefit of
industry, contrary to the interests of government enforcement personnel
and citizen suit enforcers, because adoption of the non-regulatory Draft
Guidance will obfuscate and compromise regulatory obligations.  It will
be fully in the interest of polluter defendants to erect the ambiguities
and permissions of final guidance as a shield to enforcement of
regulatory requirements.

	A related but separate issue is the consequences of intentional
“misinterpretation” of EPA regulations through the prism of
ambiguous Agency guidance.  Quite apart from negative enforcement
consequences, compliance with EPA’s regulations and achievement of the
environmental and health protections promised by these regulations will
suffer as a result of this guidance clouding regulatory obligations and
permits.

 	See, e.g., Appalachian Power, 208 F.3d 1015 ( D.C. Cir. 2000);
Barrick Goldstrike Mines, Inc., 2000 WL 725727 ( D.C. Cir. 2000)

 	59 FR 44460 (Aug. 29, 1994) (proposed part 70 amendments) & 60 FR
45530 (Aug. 31, 1995) (proposed part 70 amendments); 61 FR 38250 (July
23, 1996) (proposed PSD & NSR amendments).

 	The limited scope of applicable requirements under this proposal and
solicitation for comment – covering as they do just nonattainment NSR,
PSD, minor NSR and section 112(g) modifications – alone demonstrates
the absurdity of claiming that the 1992 regulations always have
authorized advance approval of all applicable requirements.  See Draft
Guidance at 11.  Why would EPA have proposed to cut back on the scope of
applicable requirements eligible for advance approval, while at the same
time proposing to grant itself authority (with respect to these four
applicable requirements) that it already had, all the while not
acknowledging that it was doing either?

 	See Letter from David G. Hawkins, Senior Attorney, NRDC, to Air and
Radiation Docket A-93-50 (Oct. 30, 1995) (NRDC 1995 Part 70 Comments).

 	A partial list of these issues includes: preauthorization of minor NSR
approvals under a major NSR PAL; increased operational flexibility of
PALs; emissions certainty regarding the triggering of major NSR;
elimination of the need for specific modification baselines; calculation
of contemporaneous emissions increases and decreases; elimination of
traditional NSR exemptions; resource burdens under different permitting
approaches; room for pollution prevention; reduction of “paper”
allowable emissions; availability of voluntary PALs for major
modifications, as an alternative to otherwise applicable NSR rules;
definition for “PAL” and “PAL major modification”; PAL levels;
operating margins in establishment of a PAL; PAL baselines; the federal
enforceability of PALs; the practical enforceability of PALs; control
technology application; public notice and comment procedures; periodic
reevaluation of a PAL; changes under a PAL; adjustment of a PAL;
application of BACT/LAER at sources with PALs; HAP reductions and VOC
PALs; PALs in serious and above ozone nonattainment areas; and
termination of a PAL.  See generally 61 FR 38250, 38264-66 (July 23,
1996).  The 1998 NSR Notice of Availability addresses even further
issues.  See generally 63 FR 39857 (July 24, 1998).

 	See Comments of NRDC on Notice of Availability; Alternatives for NSR
Applicability for Major Modifications, at 1, 63 FR 39857-39866 (July 24,
1998), Docket No. A-90-37 (Oct. 8, 1998).

 	For example, the Draft Guidance does not even address the specific
statutory provisions governing nonattainment NSR in serious, severe and
extreme areas that conflict with the document’s vague conception of a
PAL, and that would constrain any possible PAL concept under the Act.
See CAA §§ 182(c), (d) & (e).

 	See Draft Guidance at 31 (“Under the current major NSR regulations,
an existing major source proposing a project that will result in a
‘significant’ emissions increase may net out of major NSR by
providing creditable actual emissions decreases during a
‘contemporaneous’ period to offset the increases from the project
and other creditable increases during the contemporaneous period.
Although such sources can avoid major NSR by netting, title V permit
terms are nonetheless generated in each netting transaction because any
limits on PTE for the project, as well as any decreases used to generate
netting credit, must be made enforceable.”).

This is a useful spot to note that the Draft Guidance throughout suffers
from a serious failure to cite, quote, or explain the specific
regulations that it purports to interpret.  This failing is particularly
true in this section of the Draft Guidance, which addresses some of the
NSR program’s most complex regulations.  On top of this, EPA grafts a
completely new (and unfounded) concept – PALs.  This approach to
guidance writing poses a significant and unnecessary obstacle to the
public’s ability to understand EPA regulations, EPA guidance, and the
interpretive links that EPA claims to be drawing between the two.  In
addition, it promotes rule by fiat rather than rule by law.  We trust
that this poor draftsmanship is stylistic rather than calculated.
Although we do not expect EPA to adopt the Draft Guidance following
consideration of these comments, we would urge EPA to be mindful of
these concerns in the future.

 	As noted earlier, this exception is to be found in part 70’s
definition of “applicable requirement”: “[a]pplicable requirement
means all of the following as they apply to emissions units in a part 70
source (including requirements that have been promulgated or approved by
EPA through rulemaking at the time of issuance but have future-effective
compliance dates).”  Id. at § 70.2; see also supra at 36.  The one
exception for future requirements, then, concerns “requirements that
have been promulgated or approved by EPA through rulemaking at the time
of issuance but have future-effective compliance dates.”  A federal
MACT standard is an example.  A permit may include terms reflecting such
applicable requirements with future effective compliance dates, and a
permit shield may cover a source’s future compliance with those permit
terms.

	The principle preventing application of a permit shield to a PAL and
NSR applicability determinations has already been adopted by EPA.  In a
June 29, 1995 letter from Ann Pontius, Chief,

Air Compliance and Permitting Section, U.S. EPA Region X to John J.
Ruscigno, P.E., Manager,

Program Operations Section, Air Quality Division, Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality, EPA determined that a blanket permit shield could
not be applied to claims of past NSR non-applicability.  Id. at 1-2.
EPA explained that a permit shield was improper unless and until the
permitting authority specifically determined that requirements did not
apply, and that “[a] source seeking a determination of
nonapplicability of new source review requirements to a particular
change would need to provide the permitting authority with detailed
information regarding that change.”  Id. at 2.  EPA rejected the
company’s blanket assertion that it had not triggered NSR in the past,
thereby qualifying for the permit shield.  Id. at 2-3.

	These conclusions hold even more true with respect to future,
unidentified and unknown activities that may trigger NSR under a PAL.
Even if a permit shield could apply to future (non)applicability
determinations, which it may not, it could apply only after a source
provided detailed information regarding the future change and the
permitting authority determined that NSR would not apply to the change.
Because sources cannot and will not know with sufficient specificity
what future activities they may undertake under a PAL and what the NSR
implications may be, a permit shield may not be applied to a PAL and
future activities occurring under a PAL.

 	See, e.g., 54 FR 27274 (June 29, 1989); “Applicability of New Source
Review Circumvention Guidance to 3M - Maplewood, Minnesota,” John B.
Rasnic, Director, Stationary Source Compliance Division, to George T.
Czerniak, Chief, Air Enforcement Branch, Region V (Maplewood Memo).

 PAGE   31


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 25 (Monday, February 8, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6573-6576]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02366]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0348]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of applications for exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 20 individuals
for exemption from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations. They are unable to meet the vision requirement in
one eye for various reasons. The exemptions will enable these
individuals to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate
commerce without meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye.
If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals to qualify as
drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 9, 2016. All
comments will be investigated by FMCSA. The exemptions will be issued
the day after the comment period closes.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0348 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket numbers for this notice. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below
for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-113,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have questions
regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket
Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for a 2-year period
if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety
that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved
absent such exemption.'' FMCSA can renew exemptions at the end of each
2-year period. The 20 individuals listed in this notice have each
requested such an exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce.
Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each
applicant to determine whether granting an exemption will achieve the
required level of safety mandated by statute.

II. Qualifications of Applicants

Lonnie D. Barber

    Mr. Barber, 47, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/
70. Following an examination in 2015, his ophthalmologist stated, ``In
my medical

opinion, Mr. Barber's vision is sufficient to perform the driving tasks
required to operate a commercial vehicle.''
    Mr. Barber reported that he has driven straight trucks for 10
years, accumulating 14,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from
North Carolina. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no
crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Thomas M. Bowman

    Mr. Bowman, 50, has had a retinal detachment in his right eye since
2011. The visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception, and in
his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2015, his
ophthalmologist stated, ``In my opinion, Mr. Bowman has sufficient
vision to perform driving tasks required for a commercial vehicle.''
    Mr. Bowman reported that he has driven straight trucks for 27
years, accumulating 27,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for
25 years, accumulating 750,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Ohio.
His driving record for the last 3 years shows one crash, for which he
was not cited and to which he did not contribute, and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

Daniel T. Brown

    Mr. Brown, 48, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/
60. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated,
``Overall, I think that Mr. Brown has very good visual function and
life experience, which would allow him to operate a commercial vehicle
safely, and efficiently.'' Mr. Brown reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 13 years, accumulating 780,000 miles. He holds a
Class B CDL from Ohio. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no
crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Samuel S. Byler

    Mr. Byler, 53, has complete loss of vision in his left eye due to a
traumatic incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is
20/20, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an
examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, ``In my medical opinion
with the use of side mirrors the patient should be able to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Byler reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 12 years, accumulating 360,000 miles, and tractor-trailer
combinations for 8 years, accumulating 600,000 miles. He holds a Class
A CDL from Pennsylvania. His driving record for the last 3 years shows
no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Robert Fawcett, Jr.

    Mr. Fawcett, 65, has a retinal detachment in his right eye due to a
traumatic incident in 1976. The visual acuity in his right eye is no
light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination
in 2015, his ophthalmologist stated, ``Mr. Fawcett has sufficient
vision in his left eye to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Fawcett
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 45 years, accumulating
270,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 45 years,
accumulating 450,000 miles. He holds a Class AM CDL from Pennsylvania.
His driving record for the last 3 years shows 1 crash, for which he was
not cited and to which he did not contribute, and no convictions for
moving violations in a CMV.

James T. Friesner, Jr.

    Mr. Friesner, Jr., 47, has had optic nerve hypoplasia in his right
eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is counting
fingers, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2015,
his optometrist stated, ``It is my medical opinion that Mr. Friesner
has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate
a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Friesner reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 7 years, accumulating 350,000 miles. He holds an
operator's license from Ohio. His driving record for the last 3 years
shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Harry J. Glynn

    Mr. Glynn, 56, has a corneal transplant and a lensectomy with IOL
implant in his left eye due to a traumatic incident in 1984. The visual
acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/70. Following
an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, ``Harry Glynn has
sufficient vision to operate a commercial vehicle in my opinion.'' Mr.
Glynn reported that he has driven straight trucks for 40 years,
accumulating 480,000 miles. He holds a chauffer's license from
Louisiana. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Jerry L. Gray

    Mr. Gray, 51, has a prosthetic left eye due to a traumatic incident
in 1995. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left
eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2015, his
optometrist stated, ``It is my professional opinion that Mr. Gray can
operate any vehicle safely.'' Mr. Gray reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 32 years, accumulating 1.6 million miles, and
tractor-trailer combinations for 15 years, accumulating 375,000 miles.
He holds a Class AMV CDL from Alabama. His driving record for the last
3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

Lloyd Hinton

    Mr. Hinton, 63, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/
300. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, ``In
summary, I see no reason to restrict Mr. Hinton's license to drive a
commercial vehicle for any eye or vision related cause.'' Mr. Hinton
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 24 years, accumulating
72,000 miles. He holds a Class BM CDL from New York. His driving record
for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

James M. Knef

    Mr. Knef, 53, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/400, and in his left eye, 20/
30. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, ``Since
this is a longstanding condition, it does not affect his ability to
drive a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Knef reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 28 years, accumulating 1.9 million miles. He holds
a Class B CDL from New Jersey. His driving record for the last 3 years
shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Cody McDonnell

    Mr. McDonnell, 24, has had amblyopia in his left eye since
childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left
eye, counting fingers. Following an examination in 2015, his
optometrist stated, ``In summary, in my opinion there is nothing vision
or eye-related that should prevent Cody from obtaining his CDL and
driving safely.'' Mr. McDonnell reported that he has driven tractor-
trailer combinations for 3 years. He holds a Class A CDL from Oregon.
His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Brandon J. Michalko

    Mr. Michalko, 25, has a macular hole in his left eye due to a
traumatic incident in 2004. The visual acuity in

his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/200. Following an
examination in 2015, his ophthalmologist stated, ``In my medical
opinion, I believe he does have sufficient vision to perform a driving
test required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Michalko reported
that he has driven straight trucks for 8 years, accumulating 416,000
miles. He holds a Class BM CDL from New York. His driving record for
the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

John L. Ratayczak

    Mr. Ratayczak, 50, has had amblyopia in his left eye since
childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left
eye, 20/70. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated,
``In my medical opinion, Mr. Ratayczak has sufficient vision in both
eyes to operate a commercial vehicle he uses for his job.'' Mr.
Ratayczak reported that he has driven straight trucks for 15 years,
accumulating 496,500 miles. He holds a Class D operator's license from
Wisconsin. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Dennis C. Rokes

    Mr. Rokes, 51, has had macular degeneration in his left eye since
2012. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye,
20/400. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, ``In
my medical opinion, Mr. Rokes has sufficient vision to perform the
driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Rokes
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 33 years, accumulating
297,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 33 years,
accumulating 132,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Iowa. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

Brian W. Roughton

    Mr. Roughton, 51, has had a retinal detachment in his left eye
since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his
left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2015, his
optometrist stated, ``Again, Mr. Roughton has had this vision defect
since birth and there are no new changes. I see no reason that it would
affect his ability to continue driving or affect his DOT physical.''
Mr. Roughton reported that he has driven straight trucks for 20 years,
accumulating 160,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 20
years, accumulating 160,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
Missouri. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Eric A. Simonsen

    Mr. Simonsen, 53, has had corneal dystrophy in his right eye since
childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/60, and in his left
eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2015, his ophthalmologist
stated, ``Patient sees well enough to drive a commercial vehicle.'' Mr.
Simonsen reported that he has driven straight trucks for 35 years,
accumulating 1.23 million miles. He holds an operator's license from
SC. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Brian S. Tuttle

    Mr. Tuttle, 43, has had refractive amblyopia in his right eye since
childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/200, and in his
left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist
stated, ``I feel he does see well enough operate a commercial vehicle
without glasses.'' Mr. Tuttle reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 15 years, accumulating 300,000 miles. He holds a Class DMB
CDL from Kentucky. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no
crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Steven A. Van Raalte

    Mr. Van Raalte, 57, had a retinal detachment in his left eye in
1985. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye,
20/80. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, ``In
my opinion, Mr. Van Raalte has sufficient vision to perform the driving
tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Van Raalte
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 30 years, accumulating
57,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 30 years,
accumulating 255,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

Marvin L. Wernimont

    Mr. Wernimont, 59, has had a prosthetic left eye since 1979. The
visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, no light
perception. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated,
``I certify that in my medical opinion, Marvin has sufficient vision to
perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.''
Mr. Wernimont reported that he has driven straight trucks for 17 years,
accumulating 510,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 17
years, accumulating 425,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Iowa.
His driving record for the last 3 years shows one crash, for which he
was not cited and to which he did not contribute, and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

Brian J. Yole

    Mr. Yole, 45, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/60, and in his left eye, 20/
20. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, ``In my
opinion, he has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required
to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Yole reported that he has driven
tractor-trailer combinations for 9 years, accumulating 832,500 miles.
He holds a Class AM CDL from Texas. His driving record for the last 3
years shows no crashes and 1 conviction for a moving violation in a
CMV; he exceeded the speed limit by 6 mph.

III. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and
related materials.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice, indicate the specific section of this document to which each
comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by
fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means.
FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an
email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so the
Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
put the docket number FMCSA-2015-0348 in the ``Keyword'' box, and click
``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on ``Comment Now!''
button and type your comment into the text box in the following screen.
Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on
behalf of a third party and then submit. If you submit your comments by
mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than
8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you
submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the

facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or
envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period and may change this notice based on your comments.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
insert the docket number FMCSA-2015-0348 in the ``Keyword'' box and
click ``Search.'' Next, click ``Open Docket Folder'' button and choose
the document listed to review. If you do not have access to the
Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Issued on: January 21, 2016.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-02366 Filed 2-5-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 155 (Friday, August 12, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 49828]
[FR Doc No: 2022-17395]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0065; FRL-10141-01-OMS]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Inorganic Arsenic Emissions From
Primary Copper Smelters (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), NESHAP for Inorganic Arsenic
Emissions from Primary Copper Smelters (EPA ICR Number 1089.07, OMB
Control Number 2060-0044), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act.
This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently-approved
through October 31, 2022. Public comments were previously requested,
via the Federal Register, on April 8, 2022, during a 60-day comment
period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public
comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its
estimated burden and cost to the public. An agency may neither conduct
nor sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection
of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before September 12,
2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0065, online using https://www.regulations.gov/ (our preferred
method), or by email to [email protected]; or by mail to: EPA Docket
Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
    For additional delivery options and information about EPA's
dockets, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets. EPA's policy is that all
comments received will be included in the public docket without change
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute.
    Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed
information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for
Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Muntasir Ali, Sector Policies and
Program Division (D243-05), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina, 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
https://www.regulations.gov, or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC
West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC.
The telephone number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For
additional information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Inorganic Arsenic Emissions from Primary Copper
Smelters (40 CFR part 61, subpart O) were proposed on July 20, 1983,
and promulgated on August 4, 1986. These regulations apply to existing
facilities and new facilities where the total arsenic charging rate for
the copper converter department averaged over a 1-year period is
greater than 75 kg/hr (165 lb/hr), as determined under 40 CFR
61.174(f). New facilities include those that either commenced
construction, or reconstruction, after the date of proposal. This
information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part
61, subpart O.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Primary copper smelters.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 61,
subpart O).
    Estimated number of respondents: 3 (total).
    Frequency of response: Quarterly, annual.
    Total estimated burden: 6,260 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $753,000 (per year), which includes $1,500 in
annualized capital/startup and/or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase in burden from the
most-recently approved ICR as currently identified in the OMB Inventory
of Approved Burdens. The increase is due to revisions to the labor
burden associated with certain tasks including performing monthly
Method 108A sample collection, calculations, and the time to record
results. This ICR adjusts the burden for these activities based on
comments received from industry and incorporates additional burden
hours. The comments reflected additional time to complete activities
and resulted in an increase in labor burden.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2022-17395 Filed 8-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 10, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 236)]
[Notices]
[Page 65528-65529]
[DOCID:fr10de09-55]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER09-1142-003]

New York Independent System Operator, Inc.; Notice of Filing

December 3, 2009.
    Take notice that on November 30, 2009, the New York Independent
System Operator, Inc., pursuant to Rule 212 of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure,
18 CFR 385.212 (2009), filed a motion to defer effective date of
previously accepted tariff revisions that were conditionally accepted
by the Commission's November 20, 2009 Order, New York Independent
System Operator, Inc., 129 FERC ] 61,164, until January 1, 2010 and
request for waivers.
    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, 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.
Anyone filing a motion

to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    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 14 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 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>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on December 11, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-29413 Filed 12-9-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 12 (Friday, January 17, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3139-3142]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00833]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-28413; Directorate Identifier 2007-NE-25-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company Turbofan
Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede airworthiness directives (ADs) 90-26-
01, 91-20-02, and 2009-05-02, which apply to all General Electric
Company (GE) CF6-80C2 and CF6-80E1 series turbofan engines. Since we
issued ADs 90-26-01, 91-20-02, and 2009-05-02, we received a report of
an undercowl fire caused by a manifold high-pressure fuel leak, and
several additional reports of fuel leaks. This proposed AD would
require additional repetitive inspections, replacement of tube (block)
clamp, and inspection of fuel manifolds for wear at each tube (block)
clamp location. We are proposing this AD to

prevent failure of the fuel manifold, which could lead to uncontrolled
engine fire, engine damage, and damage to the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 3, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
General Electric Company, GE Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann Way,
Cincinnati, OH 45215; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You
may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller
Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-
238-7125.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2007-
28413; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any
comments received, and other information. The street address for the
Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kasra Sharifi, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12
New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. 01830; phone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2007-
28413; Directorate Identifier 2007-NE-25-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On December 20, 1990, we issued AD 90-26-01 (55 FR 49611, November
30, 1990), for GE CF6-80C2 series turbofan engines. That AD requires
replacing fuel manifold, part numbers (P/Ns) 1303M31G04 and 1303M32G04,
within 30 calendar days after the effective date of the AD. That AD
resulted from a report of an engine fire.
    On November 15, 1991, we issued AD 91-20-02 (56 FR 55231, October
25, 1991), for the same engines. That AD requires replacing fuel
manifold, P/Ns 1303M31G06, 1303M32G06, 1303M31G07, 1303M32G07,
1303M31G08, and 1303M32G08, at the next engine removal, but no later
than June 30, 1993. That AD also resulted from a report of an engine
fire.
    On March 31, 2009, we issued AD 2009-05-02 (74 FR 8161, February
24, 2009), for GE CF6-80C2 and CF6-80E1 series turbofan engines with
fuel manifolds, P/Ns 1303M31G12 and 1303M32G12, installed in drainless
fuel manifold assemblies. That AD requires removing the loop clamps
that hold the fuel manifold to the compressor rear frame damper
brackets, inspecting the fuel manifold for wear at each clamp location,
and replacing the clamps with new zero-time parts. That AD also
requires revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section to require
repetitive fuel manifold inspection and loop clamp replacement. That AD
resulted from reports of fuel leaks during engine operation.
    We issued these ADs to prevent failure of the fuel manifold, which
could lead to uncontrolled engine fire, engine damage, and damage to
the airplane. We are superseding these ADs to eliminate potentially
confusing and contradictory requirements in these ADs. This proposed AD
expands the inspection mandated by AD 2009-05-02 and it expands the
list of banned fuel manifolds mandated by AD 90-26-01 and AD 91-20-02.

Actions Since Previous ADs Were Issued

    Since we issued AD 90-26-01 (55 FR 49611, November 30, 1990); AD
91-20-02 (56 FR 55231, October 25, 1991); and AD 2009-05-02 (74 FR
8161, February 24, 2009); we received a report of an undercowl fire
caused by a fuel manifold high-pressure fuel leak in engine model CF6-
80C2, and several additional reports of fuel leaks; four in the CF6-
80C2 and one in the CF6-80E1 model engine.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would retain the requirements of AD 90-26-01 (55
FR 49611, November 30, 1990); and AD 91-20-02 (56 FR 55231, October 25,
1991); to remove certain fuel manifold P/Ns, and the requirements of AD
2009-05-02 (74 FR 8161, February 24, 2009); to inspect certain fuel
manifold P/Ns and replace certain consumable components. This proposed
AD would add a requirement to inspect an additional fuel manifold
configuration and replacement of certain loop clamps. This proposed AD
would also require repetitive inspection and replacement of tube
(block) clamp, and inspection of the fuel manifold for wear at each
tube (block) clamp location. This proposed AD would also require
removing certain drainless fuel manifold assembly P/Ns from service.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 1,126 engines
installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that required
parts cost about $34,894 per engine. We also estimate that is would
take about 6 hours to accomplish the actions required by this AD. The
average labor rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, we estimate
the total cost of the proposed AD to U.S. operators to be $39,864,904.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII,

Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General requirements.'' Under
that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of
civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This proposed regulation is within the
scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that
is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking
action.

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent
that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by:
0
a. Removing airworthiness directive (AD) 90-26-01 (55 FR 49611,
November 30, 1990); AD 91-20-02 (56 FR 55231, October 25, 1991); and AD
2009-05-02 (74 FR 8161, February 24, 2009); and
0
b. Adding the following new AD:

General Electric Company: Docket No. FAA-2007-28413; Directorate
Identifier 2007-NE-25-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by March 3,
2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 90-26-01 (55 FR 49611, November 30, 1990);
AD 91-20-02 (56 FR 55231, October 25, 1991); and AD 2009-05-02 (74
FR 8161, February 24, 2009).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all General Electric Company (GE) CF6-80C2
and CF6-80E1 turbofan engines with fuel manifold, part numbers (P/
Ns) 1303M31G04,1303M32G04, 1303M31G06, 1303M32G06, 1303M31G07,
1303M32G07, 1303M31G08, 1303M32G08,1308M31G12, 1308M32G12,
2420M70G01, and 2420M71G01, installed.

(d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of an undercowl fire caused by
a fuel manifold high-pressure fuel leak, and several additional
reports of fuel leaks. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of
the fuel manifold, which could lead to uncontrolled engine fire,
engine damage, and damage to the airplane.

(e) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.
    (1) Fuel Manifold Removal.
    (i) For CF6-80C2 and CF6-80E1 series engines, before further
flight after the effective date of this AD, remove fuel manifold, P/
Ns 1303M31G04, 1303M32G04, 1303M31G06, 1303M32G06, 1303M31G07,
1303M32G07, 1303M31G08, and 1303M32G08, from service.
    (ii) For CF6-80C2 and CF6-80E1 series engines, at the next
engine shop visit after effective date of this AD, remove fuel
manifold, P/Ns 1303M31G12, 1303M32G12, 2420M70G01, and 2420M71G01,
from service.
    (2) Fuel Manifold, Loop Clamp, and Tube (Block) Clamp Inspection
and Replacement--Drainless Assembly.
    (i) For CF6-80C2 series engines, with fuel manifold, P/N
1303M31G12 or 1303M32G12, installed, refer to Table 1 to paragraph
(e) of this AD, accomplish the initial inspections of the fuel
manifold and replacement of the loop clamps in accordance with
paragraphs 3.A and 3.D of GE Service Bulletin (SB) CF6-80C2 S/B 73-
0326, Revision 4, dated December 23, 2009.
    (ii) For CF6-80C2 series engines, with fuel manifold, P/Ns
2420M70G01 or 2420M71G01, installed, refer to Table 1 to paragraph
(e) of this AD, accomplish the initial inspection of the fuel
manifold and replacement of the loop clamps in accordance with
paragraphs 3.C and 3.D of GE SB CF6-80C2 S/B 73-0326, Revision 4,
dated December 23, 2009.
    (iii) For CF6-80E1 series engines, with fuel manifold, P/Ns
1303M31G12 or 1303M32G12, installed, refer to Table 1 to paragraph
(e) of this AD, accomplish the initial inspection of the fuel
manifold and replacement of the loop clamps in accordance with
paragraphs 3.A and 3.C of GE SB CF6-80E1 S/B 73-0061, Revision 4,
dated December 23, 2009.
    (iv) For CF6-80E1 series engines, with fuel manifold P/Ns
2420M70G01 or 2420M71G01 installed, refer to Table 1 to paragraph
(e) of this AD, accomplish the initial inspection of the fuel
manifold and replacement of the loop clamps in accordance with
paragraphs 3.B and 3.C of GE SB CF6-80E1 S/B 73-0061, Revision 4,
dated December 23, 2009.
    (v) Thereafter, inspect fuel manifolds P/Ns 1303M31G12,
1303M32G12, 2420M70G01, and 2420M71G01 installed, within every 7,500
flight hours (FH) since the last inspection, in accordance with
paragraphs (e)(2)(i) through (e)(2)(iv) of this AD.

    Table 1 to Paragraph (e)--Fuel Manifold Inspection and Loop Clamp
                   Replacement and Inspection Criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  If:                                 Then:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1--If the engine was previously
 inspected using any of the following:
     GE SB CF6-80C2 SB 73-0326   Then inspect fuel manifold and
     R04, Revision 4, dated December      replace clamps within 7,500
     23, 2009;                            flight hours (FH) time-since-
                                          last-inspection (TSLI) or
                                          within 6 months after the
                                          effective date of this AD,
                                          whichever occurs first.
     GE SB CF6-80C2 SB 73-0326,
     Revision 3, dated April 24, 2009;
     GE SB CF6-80E1 SB 73-0061
     R04, Revision 4, dated December
     23, 2009 or;
     GE SB CF6-80E1 SB 73-0061,
     Revision 3, dated April, 24, 2009.
2--If the loop clamps installed at last
 shop visit were previously used or of
 unknown heritage or the engine was
 previously inspected using either of
 the following:

     GE CF6-80C2 SB 73-0326,     Then inspect fuel manifold and
     Revision 2, dated August 30, 2007    replace clamps within 1,750 FH
     or earlier;                          time-since-last-shop-visit or
                                          within 4 months after the
                                          effective date of this AD,
                                          whichever occurs first.
     GE CF6-80E1 SB 73-0061,
     Revision 2, dated August 30, 2007
     or earlier.
3--If the engine is a first-run engine,  Then inspect fuel manifold and
 an engine with zero-time, or has new     replace clamps within 7,500 FH
 loop clamps previously installed on-     time-since-new or since zero-
 wing or at shop visit.                   time that new loop clamps were
                                          installed.
4--If the engine has already exceeded    Then inspect fuel manifold and
 the 1,750 FH initial inspection          replace clamps within 4,500 FH
 threshold on the effective date of       TSLI or 4 months after the
 this AD but has fewer than 4,500         effective date of this AD,
 flight hours TSLI.                       whichever occurs first.
5--If the engine has already exceeded    Then inspect fuel manifold and
 the 4,500 FH initial inspection          replace clamps within 4 months
 threshold on the effective date of       after the effective date of
 this AD.                                 this AD.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) For CF6-80C2 series engines, with fuel manifold, P/Ns
1303M31G12, 1303M32G12, 2420M70G01, or 2420M71G01, with tube (block)
clamp, P/N 1153M26G15, refer to Table 2 to paragraph (e) of this AD,
accomplish the initial inspection of the fuel manifold and tube
(block) clamp, and replacement of the fuel manifold and tube (block)
clamp, if required based on inspection results, in accordance with
paragraph 3.A of GE SB CF6-80C2 S/B 73-0414, dated July 2, 2013.
    (4) For CF6-80E1 series engines, with fuel manifold, P/Ns
1303M31G12, 1303M32G12, 2420M70G01, or 2420M71G01, with tube (block)
clamp, P/N 1153M26G15, refer to Table 2 to paragraph (e) of this AD,
accomplish the initial inspections of the fuel manifold and tube
(block) clamp, and replacement of the fuel manifold and tube (block)
clamp, if required based on inspection results, in accordance with
paragraph 3.A of GE SB CF6-80E1 S/B 73-0121, dated July 2, 2013.
    (5) Thereafter, inspect fuel manifold, P/Ns 1303M31G12,
1303M32G12, 2420M70G01, and 2420M71G01, within every 7,500 flight
hours (FH) since the last inspection, in accordance with paragraphs
(e)(3) and (e)(4) of this AD.

     Table 2 to Paragraph (e)--Fuel Manifold and Tube (Block) Clamp
                   Inspection and Replacement Criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  If:                                 Then:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1--If the engine is a first run engine
 or the engine was previously inspected
 using either of the following:
     GE SB CF6-80C2 S/B 73-      Then inspect clamps and replace
     0414, dated July 2, 2013;            within 7,500 FH TSLI.
     GE SB CF6-80E1 S/B 73-0121
     dated July 02, 2013.
2--If the engine has already exceeded    Then inspect clamps and replace
 the 7,500 FH initial inspection          within 3 months after the
 threshold on the effective date of       effective date of this AD.
 this AD.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(f) Prohibition Statement

    After the effective date of this AD, do not install fuel
manifold, P/Ns 1308M31G04, 1303M32G04, 1303M31G06, 1303M32G06,
1303M31G07, 1303M32G07, 1303M31G08, 1303M32G08, 1308M31G12,
1308M32G12, 2420M70G01, or 2420M71G01, on any engine.

(g) Definition

    For the purpose of this AD, an engine shop visit is the
induction of an engine into the shop for maintenance involving
separation of pairs of major mating engine flanges (lettered
flanges), except that the separation of engine flanges solely for
the purposes of transporting the engine without subsequent engine
maintenance does not constitute an engine shop visit.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your
request. Previously approved AMOCs for AD 2009-05-02 (74 FR 8161,
February 24, 2009) remain approved for the corresponding
requirements of paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(5) of this AD.

(i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Kasra Sharifi,
Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA
01830; phone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) General Electric Service Bulletin (SB) CF6-80C2 S/B 73-0326,
Revision 4, dated December 23, 2009, SB CF6-80E1 S/B 73-0061,
Revision 4, dated December 23, 2009, SB CF6-80C2 S/B 73-0414, dated
July 2, 2013, and SB CF6-80E1 S/B 73-0121, dated July 2, 2013,
pertain to the subject of this AD and can be obtained from GE using
the contact information in paragraph (i)(3) of this AD.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
General Electric Company, GE Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann Way,
Cincinnati, OH 45215; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington,
MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on December, 24, 2013.
Frank P. Paskiewicz,
Acting Director, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-00833 Filed 1-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 33 (Tuesday, February 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11639-11640]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03701]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP13-61-000]

Dominion Transmission, Inc.; Notice of Request Under Blanket
Authorization

    Take notice that on January 29, 2013, Dominion Transmission, Inc.
(Dominion), 701 East Cary Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219, filed in
Docket No. CP13-61-000, an application pursuant to sections 157.205 and
157.216 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA)
as amended, to plug and abandon two storage wells and their associated
pipelines in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania, under Dominion's
blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-537-000,\1\ all as more
fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission
and open to the public for inspection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 21 FERC ] 62,172 (1982).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dominion proposes to abandon and plug wells JW-451F and JW-454F and
their associated pipelines located near the Murrysville Pool of the
Oakford Storage Complex. Dominion states that it owns the Oakford
Storage Complex jointly and equally as tenants in common with Texas
Eastern Transmission, LP. Dominion also states that as the operator of
the Oakford Storage Complex, that it has filed this proposal on behalf
of both parties with the Commission. Dominion further states that the
certificated physical parameters, including total natural gas
inventory, reservoir pressure, reservoir and buffer boundaries, and the
certificated capacity of the Oakford Storage Complex would remain
unchanged with the abandonment and plugging of the two wells. Dominion
asserts that the proposed abandonment would not have any adverse effect
on existing customers, existing pipelines, landowners, or communities,
and would not result in any financial subsidization from existing
customers. Dominion

estimates that it would cost $1,479,000 to replicate the two wells and
their associated pipelines.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Amanda
K. Prestage, Regulatory and Certificates Analyst, Dominion
Transmission, Inc., 701 East Cary Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    This filing is available for review at the Commission or may be
viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number filed to access the document. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at FERC
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or, for
TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. Comments, protests and interventions may
be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
intervenors to file electronically.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of
the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the
request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day
after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and
not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the NGA.

    Dated: February 11, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-03701 Filed 2-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES TO: Christina Scheltema Betty Shackleford Michael Goodis Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508C)

FROM: James Wolf ERB3 Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507C)

DATE: November 20, 2001 RE: Disulfoton residues in ground water found in the Virginia BMP Study:

BMP Impacts on Nitrate and Pesticide Transport to Groundwater in the Nomini Creek Watershed. Final Report Report No. NC 0298 S. Mostaghimi, S. Shukla, and P. W. McClellan. 1998. Biological Systems Engineering Department Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Blacksburg, VA # The ground water monitoring component was started in 1986 and ended in June, 1997.

# Nomini Creek Watershed is located in Westmoreland County, Va. The 1463 ha watershed has typical Coastal Plain land use 49% cropland, 47% woodland, and 4% used for homestead and roads (different reports has slightly different breakdown, but have the same major uses). Average annual precipitation is 102 cm, with most of the rainfall occurring between April and September. Most ground water recharge occurs in late Fall or early spring.

# Nomini Creek Watershed is located in the Coastal Plain Physiographic providence. Soils, geology and topography are similar to the of the unglaciated Atlantic Coastal Plain. 2 Soils are mostly Ultisols. The major soil series are Suffolk and Rumford. These soils cover 91 percent of the area and have similar physical properties.

Soil Taxonomy Sulfolk Coarse loamy, siliceous, thermic Typic Hapudults Rumford Coarse loamy, siliceous, thermic Typic Hapudults The Coastal Plain has been identified as a vulnerable area to ground water contamination. Other vulnerable regions have also been identified. The soils could also be used to identify possible problem areas. (Can't be done by tomorrow). These are vulnerable soil for leaching.

# Agriculture is primarily row crops. Major crops are corn, soybeans, and small grains (wheat and barley). Typical rotation is conventionally tilled corn, followed by small grains with no till soybeans planted in the small grain residues. Occasionally, full season, conventionally tilled soybeans is also grown. USDA Ag Statistics do not report tobacco production for Westmoreland County. Potatoes are reported to be produced, but production appears to be declining.

# Study Objective to study the quality of surface and ground water as influenced by the agricultural practices in the watershed.

# Monitoring consisted of two (2) runoff and surface water monitoring stations; seven rain gauges; one weather station; and eight (8) ground water monitoring wells (GN1 to GN8). The ground water wells were located primarily in agricultural areas. These wells were drilled in pairs, 100  150 meters apart, with one in pair located hydraulically downgradient of the other.

Characteristic (m) Value Well GN1 GN2 GN3 GN4 GN5 GN6 GN7 GN8 Well depth 13.7 12.8 15.2 13.7 16.5 12.0 15.8 11.9 GW depth Mean 10.3 9. 6 13.1 9. 4 12.9 8. 2 13.3 8. 6 " Max. 12.0 10.8 14.0 12.7 13.9 9. 1 14.4 9. 6 " Min 8. 5 7.1 11.5 7. 0 11.3 7. 0 11.8 7. 4 # Approximately monthly samples were taken from each monitoring well and analyzed for a number of analytes including 22 pesticides. QA/ QC procedures were followed. 3 # Herbicide and insecticide application information in the watershed were obtained from farmer surveys. The rate and time of herbicide application was dependent on the crop rotation adopted by the farmer. Corn is usually planted between late April and early May. Post emergence sprays applications occur in early July. The timing and application rates of insecticides, applied individually or in combination, in the watershed depending on the type and extent of the insect problem observed.

Note: the label does allow for fall application to wheat. Perhaps fall application and greater fall recharge resulted in the observed concentration (2.87 µg/ L). Possible mitigation option?

# Disulfoton sampling results and detection statistics in the Nomini Creek Watershed (Table 15, after Mostaghimi, 1998). These are disulfoton parent.

Pesticide Total Samples Detections 1 Detection 2 Frequency (percent) Concentration (µg/ L)

Max Mean SD Disulfoton 1010 10 1.0 2.87 0.39 0.32 Pre BMP 3 (5/ 86  10/ 88)

229 7 3.1 2.87 0.52 Post BMP 4 (11/ 89  9/ 96)

693 3 0.4 0.10 0.08 1 Number of samples with detectable levels of pesticide 2 (samples with detectable levels of pesticide * 100)/ total number of samples 3 Before agricultural Best Management Practice (BMP) implemented in watershed. 4 Following the implementation of BMP within the watershed.

Note: I only had (raw) data through 1990. Thus, I only had 6 of the 10 detections, mean was 0.57 µg/ L, which is only slightly greater than the mean with 7 samples (pre BMP).

Disscussion and recommendation:

The following table was included in Feb. 7, 2000 Additional Clarification of Disulfoton GroundWater Monitoring Data Assessment. In a recent discussion about a "chronic" exposure for ground water the following suggestions was put forth (mean = 1.49 µg/ L = (2.87 +0.1)/ 2 for well site GN3. Considering there are many "monthly samples, with most being less than the detection limit, a lower mean is probably justified (disulfoton parent only). The mean of all the detections is 0.39 µg/ L, the mean of the pre BMP is 0.52 µg/ L, and post BMP is 0.08 µg/ L. Without specifically estimating a concentration, I think that as far as parent disulfoton goes, the average concentration would be expected to be considerably less than the DWLOC of 1.2(?). 4 Summary of Disulfoton Detections in ground water from the eight ground water monitoring wells in Nomini Creek Watershed (Virginia), during 1986 and 1987.

Sampling Date Well Site Number Concentration (µg/ L)

11/ 5/ 86 GN3 2.87 11/ 5/ 86 GN6 0.04 3/ 13/ 87 GN4 0.10 8/ 20/ 87 GN1 0.13 8/ 20/ 87 GN2 0.16 8/ 20/ 87 GN3 0.10


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 160 (Thursday, August 18, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 51459]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21048]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST); Notice of
Availability of the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)/AST To Issue, Renew, or Modify
Launch Operator Licenses for Atlas V Launch Vehicles Covered Under the
Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) Program From Space Launch
Complex-3 East (SLC-3E) at Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB), California

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of Availability of the FONSI.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) of 1969, 42 United States Code 4321-4347 (as amended), Council
on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA implementing regulations (40 Code
of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500-1508), and FAA Order 1050.1E,
Change 1, the FAA is announcing the availability of a FONSI for the
FAA/AST action to issue, renew, or modify Launch Operator Licenses for
Atlas V launch operations from SLC-3E at VAFB. The FONSI is based on
the analysis and findings of the 2003 United States Air Force (USAF)
Final Environmental Assessment for the Atlas V System at SLC-3E (2003
EA).
    In 1998, the USAF issued the 1998 Final Environmental Impact
Statement for the EELV Program (1998 EIS) to evaluate the potential
environmental impacts of the development, deployment, and operation of
EELV systems (later known as the Atlas V and Delta IV launch vehicle
families). In 2000, the USAF prepared the Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement for the EELV Program (2000 SEIS) to evaluate the
potential environmental impacts of adding up to five solid-propellant
strap-on rocket motors to the Atlas V launch vehicle and larger solid-
propellant strap-on rocket motors on the Delta IV vehicle. The FAA
participated as a cooperating agency in preparation of both the 1998
FEIS and 2000 SEIS.
    In 2003, changes in USAF programs resulted in a need for SLC-3E at
VAFB to be used for Atlas V launches rather than SLC-3W as originally
planned, and therefore the USAF prepared the 2003 EA. The EA
supplemented and updated the previous NEPA evaluation of implementing
the Atlas V program as analyzed in the 1998 FEIS and 2000 SEIS. The
2003 EA analyzed the environmental impacts associated with the proposed
action of modifying existing facilities and roadways and launching the
Atlas V up to four times annually from SLC-3E at VAFB. The 2003 EA
tiered its analyses from the 1998 FEIS and 2000 SEIS, and therefore
both documents were incorporated by reference into the 2003 EA. The FAA
did not participate as a cooperating agency with the USAF in
preparation of the 2003 EA. Under the FAA's Proposed Action as stated
in the FONSI, FAA/AST could issue, renew, or modify Launch Operator
Licenses for Atlas V launch operations from SLC-3E at VAFB. A Launch
Operator License would authorize launches of Atlas V vehicles over the
five-year term of the license.
    In accordance with the requirements of FAA Order 1050.1E, Change 1,
paragraph 410, the FAA has independently evaluated the information
contained in the 2003 EA and has verified the continued validity of the
analysis contained in the EA. The FAA has determined that the
discussion of Atlas V launch operations in the 2003 EA sufficiently
addresses the concerns of the FAA and complies with FAA requirements
for implementing NEPA as stated in FAA Order 1050.1E, Change 1. The FAA
has determined that there is no new information or analysis that would
require preparation of a new or supplemental EA or EIS according to the
CEQ Regulations (40 CFR 1502.9(c)(1)). Therefore, the FAA issued the
FONSI concurring with the analysis of impacts and findings in the 2003
EA and formally adopts the launch operations discussion in the EA in
compliance with the requirements of 40 CFR 1506.3 to support the
issuance, renewal, or modification of Launch Operator Licenses for
Atlas V launch operations from SLC-3E at VAFB. The 2003 EA is
incorporated by reference and is summarized as necessary in the FONSI.
    The FAA has posted the FONSI on the Internet at http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Daniel A. Czelusniak,
Environmental Program Lead, Office of Commercial Space Transportation,
Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave., SW., Room 325,
Washington, DC 20591, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; E-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 12, 2011.
Michael McElligott,
Manager, Space Transportation Development Division.
[FR Doc. 2011-21048 Filed 8-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Decision XVII/ 5: Essential use nominations for Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 for controlled substances for 2006 and 2007 Noting with appreciation the work done by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its Medical Technical Options Committee,

Noting with appreciation the progress made since the adoption of decision XV/ 5 by Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol in establishing a certain date by which they will cease submitting nominations for metered dose inhalers where the sole active ingredient is salbutamol,

Recalling paragraph 6 of decision XV/ 5 relating to the phase out of chlorofluorocarbons for metered dose inhalers where the active ingredient is not solely salbutamol,

1. To authorize the levels of production and consumption for 2006 and 2007 necessary to satisfy essential uses of chlorofluorocarbons for metered dose inhalers for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease as specified in the annex to the present decision;

2. That Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol, when licensing, authorizing, or allocating essential use exemptions for chlorofluorocarbons for a manufacturer, shall take into account preand post 1996 stocks of controlled substances as described in paragraph 1 ( b) of decision IV/ 25, such that no more than a one year operational supply is maintained by that manufacturer;

3. With reference to paragraph 6 of decision XV/ 5, to request that Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol submit a date to the Ozone Secretariat prior to the Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties by which time a regulation or regulations to determine the non essentiality of the vast majority of chlorofluorocarbons for metered dose inhalers where the active ingredient is not solely salbutamol will have been proposed;

Annex Essential use nominations for 2006 and 2007 of chlorofluorocarbons for metered dose inhalers approved by the Seventeenth Meeting of the Parties ( metric tonnes)

Party 2006 2007 Amount nominated Amount approved Amount nominated Amount approved European Community 539 539   Russian Federation 400 400 243 243 United States of America 1702 1100 1493 1000