[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 150 (Monday, August 9, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43451-43454]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16558]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0616; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00256-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Saab AB, Support and Services (Formerly
Known as Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain Saab AB, Support and Services Model SAAB 340B airplanes.
This proposed AD was prompted by a report that the circuit breaker for
the emergency cabin lighting tripped without fault in the system. This
proposed AD would require replacing a certain circuit breaker with a
part having a higher rating, as specified in a European Union Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is proposed for incorporation by
reference. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition
on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by September
23, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For material that will be incorporated by reference (IBR) in this
AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany;
telephone +49 221 8999 000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this IBR material on the EASA
website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this IBR material at
the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch,
2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also
available in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-
0616.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-
0616; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this NPRM, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for Docket Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace
Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA,
2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-
3220; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2021-0616; Project Identifier
MCAI-2021-00256-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
the proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this proposed AD.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to
Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section,
International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines,
WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Any commentary that the FAA receives which
is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public
docket for this rulemaking.

Background

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2021-0058, dated March 1, 2021 (EASA
AD 2021-0058) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition
for certain Saab AB, Support and Services Model SAAB 340B airplanes.
    This proposed AD was prompted by a report that the 2LN circuit
breaker for the emergency cabin lighting on a SAAB 340B airplane
tripped without fault in the system. Investigation results found that
the circuit breaker 2LN has too low a rating (5A) for maximum charging
conditions. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the low rating of
the 2LN circuit breaker during maximum charging conditions. This
condition, if not corrected, could lead to an insufficiently charged
emergency battery, with consequent loss of cabin emergency lighting,
possibly resulting in injury to occupants during an evacuation. See the
MCAI for additional background information.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2021-0058 describes procedures for replacing the 2LN
circuit breaker having a rating of 5A with a new breaker having a
current rating of 7.5A.
    This material is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority,
the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD because the FAA
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 require accomplishing the actions specified
in EASA AD 2021-0058 described previously, as incorporated by
reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the
regulatory text of this AD.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA developed a process to use certain civil aviation
authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance
with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been
coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result,
EASA AD 2021-0058 will be incorporated by reference in the FAA final
rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA
AD 2021-0058 in its entirety, through that incorporation, except for
any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this
proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a
particular section in EASA AD 2021-0058 does not mean that operators
need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD
requirement refers to ``all required actions and compliance times,''
compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section
titled ``Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)'' in EASA AD 2021-
0058. Service information specified in EASA AD 2021-0058 that is
required for compliance with it will be available at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-
0616 after the FAA final rule is published.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 27 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this proposed AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 work-hour x $85 per hour = $85.............................             $50             $135           $3,645
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Saab AB, Support and Services (Formerly Known as Saab AB, Saab
Aeronautics): Docket No. FAA-2021-0616; Project Identifier MCAI-
2021-00256-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by September 23, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Saab AB, Support and Services (Formerly Known
as Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics) Model SAAB 340B airplanes,
certificated in any category, as identified in European Union
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2021-0058, dated March 1, 2021
(EASA AD 2021-0058).

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 33, Lights.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report that the circuit breaker for
the emergency cabin lighting tripped without fault in the system.
The FAA is issuing this AD to address the low rating of the 2LN
circuit breaker during maximum charging conditions. This condition,
if not corrected, could lead to an insufficiently charged emergency
battery, with consequent loss of cabin emergency lighting, possibly
resulting in injury to occupants during an evacuation.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, EASA AD 2021-0058.

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2021-0058

    (1) Where EASA AD 2021-0058 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2021-0058 does not apply
to this AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, has
the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or responsible Flight
Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to
the Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, send it
to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(2) of
this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, Large Aircraft
Section, International Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Saab AB,
Support and Services' EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If
approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized
signature.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For information about EASA AD 2021-0058 contact EASA,
Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221
8999 000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu. You
may find this EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this material at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This material may be
found in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2021-0616.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Shahram
Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section,

International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Issued on July 29, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-16558 Filed 8-6-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on January 17, 2006

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2004-17065

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

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

Applicant:  Varig Logistica S.A., d/b/a VARIG LOG 				Date Filed:
December 22, 2005

Relief requested:  Renew exemption from 49 U.S.C. § 41301 to engage in
scheduled foreign air transportation of property and mail from a point
or points in Brazil, via intermediate points, to New York, Atlanta,
Miami, Orlando, Detroit, Washington/Baltimore, Houston, Chicago, Los
Angeles, San Francisco, Boston and San Juan, Puerto Rico; and to conduct
all-cargo charters subject to 14 CFR Part 212 of the Department’s
rules.

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  December 27, 2005, in
this docket

Applicant representative: George Mencio, Jr.<PHONE_NUMBER>

DOT Analyst:  Shelita A. Smith<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None filed

DISPOSITION

Action: Approved										Action date:  January 17, 2006

Effective dates of exemption authority granted:  January 17, 2006 –
January 17, 2007

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity): Air Transport
Agreement between the United States and Brazil

(the Agreement)

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

   X    Standard exemption conditions (attached)
Foreign air carrier permit   (          )

The authority granted above is subject to the provisions of the
Agreement, and the further condition that VARIG LOG shall not perform
any third- and fourth-freedom charters unless specific authority in the
form of a statement of authorization for such charter(s) has been
granted by the Department.   VARIG LOG shall file applications for such
statements of authorization pursuant to the procedures set forth in §
212.10 of the Department’s rules.

Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks:

Action taken by:  Paul L. Gretch, Director

		   Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) the applicant is qualified to perform the
proposed operations; (2) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied

all requests in the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke
the authority granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our
discretion.

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

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

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

Foreign Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the foreign carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Not conduct any operations unless it holds a currently effective
authorization from its homeland for such operations, and it has filed a
copy of such authorization with the Department;

(2)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, including, but not limited to, 14 CFR Parts 129, 91, and
36, and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning
security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1546 or 1550, as
applicable.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government
requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing
any new service (including charter flights) from a foreign airport that
would be the holder’s last point of departure for the United States,
contact its International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise
the IPSI of its plans and to find out whether the Transportation
Security Administration has determined that security is adequate to
allow such airport(s) to be served;

(3)  Comply with the requirements for minimum insurance coverage
contained in 14 CFR Part 205, and, prior to the commencement of any
operations under this authority, file evidence of such coverage, in the
form of a completed OST Form 6411, with the Federal Aviation
Administration’s Program Management Branch (AFS-260), Flight Standards
Service (any changes to, or termination of, insurance also shall be
filed with that office);

(4)  Not operate aircraft under this authority unless it complies with
operational safety requirements at least equivalent to Annex 6 of the
Chicago Convention;

(5)  Conform to the airworthiness and airman competency requirements of
its Government for international air services;

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

(7)  Agree that operations under this authority constitute a waiver of
sovereign immunity, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a), but only with
respect to those actions or proceedings instituted against it in any
court or other tribunal in the United States that are: (a)  based on its
operations in international air transportation that, according to the
contract of carriage, include a point in the United States as a point of
origin, point of destination, or agreed stopping place, or for which the
contract of carriage was purchased in the United States; or (b)  based
on a claim under any international agreement or treaty cognizable in any
court or other tribunal of the United States.  In this condition, the
term "international air transportation" means "international
transportation" as defined by the Warsaw Convention, except that all
States shall be considered to be High Contracting Parties for the
purpose of this definition;

(8)  Except as specifically authorized by the Department, originate or
terminate all flights to/from the United States in its homeland;

(9)  Comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 217, concerning the
reporting of scheduled, nonscheduled, and charter data;

(10) If charter operations are authorized, except as otherwise provided
in the applicable aviation agreement, comply with the Department's rules
governing charters (including 14 CFR Parts 212 and 380); and

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

This authority shall not be effective during any period when the holder
is not in compliance with the conditions imposed above.  Moreover, this
authority cannot be sold or otherwise transferred without explicit
Department approval under Title 49 of the U.S. Code.

 By Order 81-5-44, the Department required VARIG, a foreign air carrier
of Brazil, to obtain a statement of authorization under Part 212 of the
Department’s rules prior to operating any Brazil-U.S. charter flights.
 This requirement remains in effect and has been extended to all foreign
carriers of Brazil holding Department authority to conduct charter
services.

05/2004


Recommendations Toward Measurement of Roadload Forces for Heavy Duty Automotive Applications

for the Office of Transportation & Air Quality

United States Environmental Protection Agency

April 2010

Peter Z. Janosi

Table of Contents

Background………………………..…………………….…Page 3

Objective……………………………………………..….…Pag e 3

Overview of Analyses…………………………..……….…Page 4

Analysis a)… Support for J2263, conversion from J1263………….…Page 5

Analysis b)…A simulation using J2263 principles……………...…Page 5

Analysis c)…Effects of anemometer placement………………..…Page 6

Analysis d)…Anemometer calibration……………………….…Page 7

Analysis e)…A discussion of recently acquired data………………Page 10

Overall Recommendations……………………………....…Page 12

Appendix A……………………………………..……….…Page 14

Appendix B……………………………………..……….…Page 17

Appendix D…………………………..………………….…Page 19

Appendix E……………………………………..……….…Page 21

Background

The US EPA has regulated Light Duty vehicle emissions and fuel economy since the 1970’s with verification procedures in place requiring methods of road force measurements in order to set the emissions dynamometer absorber loading. The practical approach adopted to initialize the dynamometer load determination was the track coastdown method, which relies on vehicle deceleration as the primary indicator of road force resistance. Over the years various improvements in the coastdown procedure and analyses have evolved, particularly thanks to F. T. Buckley, who introduced on-board anemometry with inventive instrument calibration and data reduction methods (ABCD- An Improved Coast Down Test and Analysis Method, SAE paper 950626). With the advent of Heavy Duty vehicle emissions regulations consideration of state-of-the-art road force procedures unique to Heavy Duty operation is now desirable.

Objective

Our purpose will be to institute a coast down procedure able to meaningfully assess aerodynamic and mechanical drag associated with Heavy Duty tractor/trailer configurations and design feature devices.  Ultimately these assessments encourage technical efficiency improvements by quantification of fuel economy and emissions impact in determined driving cycles.  In particular the procedure requires capability in…

…measuring road force (agents which impede vehicle forward motion) at varying speeds

…separation of aerodynamic and mechanical losses (desirable, may not be essential)

…provision of relevant statistics to establish the levels of measurement capability

The procedure must be deployable for…

…extensive and/or massive Heavy Duty tractor/trailer combinations

…varying wind/temperature conditions

…public road operation in the presence of same-way and opposing traffic

Overview…of Analyses

Based on theoretical simulations and utilizing concepts and assumptions contained within SAE procedure J2263 it is demonstrable that road force measurements can be reliably obtained in a restrictive environment because…

…J2263 is the accepted credible methodology for determining road force

…the voluminous data being obtained may be filtered/omitted for any concern of validity (e.g. environmental or instrumentation anomalies)

…the positioning of instrumentation is not critical within reasonable limits

…a robust “on-the-fly” instrument calibration technique is being proposed which results in progressive improvement to the calibration factors with subsequent data collection, or may use carry-forward factors during future tests, if the instrumentation has not been disturbed.

…Heavy Duty Class 6 data obtained by EPA in second half of 2009 utilizing GPS and ultrasonic anemometer technology is valid and useable for the determination of baseline forces on several configurations. Class 8 results obtained by EPA are more problematic and are discussed for resolution.

Analysis a)…Support for J2263, conversion from J1263

Appendix A supports the J2263 method conceptually by demonstration of a “least squares” solution example, as well as derivation of a formula which converts J2263 to equivalent J1263 results.

Recommendations:

a1)	J2263 methods should be used as the rational approach for neutral coastdown data reduction.

a2)	J1263 offers no advantage over J2263, (even from a testing convenience standpoint), although evidence suggests the two-term force characterization is sufficient for Heavy Duty vehicles.

Analysis b)…A simulation using J2263 principles

Appendix B demonstrates that in theory valid results may be obtained from J2263 data over any speed range, any direction of travel, and for any inclusion/omission of data that is discretionary to the analyst.  The least-squares solution does not require continuous sampling, even spacing or fixed data size.

Recommendations:

b1)	Preliminary screening (visual plotting) of observed force versus velocity is desirable to view unexpected force trends.  These may be caused by traffic interference, instrument signal failure, sudden wind change, or may result from unexpected drag due to brakes or neutral transmission operation.

b2)	The examples above justify omission of the raw data applying to the speed range of the anomaly in question.  In the event of unexpected but consistent behavior at the same road speed run after run, the data should be retained, in order not to compromise dynamometer coastdown results, if those are necessary to finalize the process.

If the test plan uses several passes to accumulate the dataset then results will not be compromised by discretionary data elimination.

Recommendations:

c1)	Placement of the anemometer should be approximately at the centroid of the frontal area between 2 and 4 meters in front.  The location is not extremely critical to the quality of results obtained.

c2)	To prevent unnecessary recalibration of the anemometer it is best to leave it in one undisturbed installation until all tests are complete.  Re-installation will require recalibration, as discussed in the next section.

Analysis d)…Anemometer calibration

Appendix D demonstrates that the anemometer can be calibrated without need for steady speed passes (as directed by J2263).  The calculated calibration values for speed sensitivity and yaw offset angle may be in fact more accurate than by using the steady speed method.

As shown in Analysis c) corrections are required for observed (measured) air speed and yaw angles because the vehicle is generally slowing the apparent air speed more in its direction of travel and less in the perpendicular direction.  The vector diagrams below are shown to illustrate a proposed “on-the-fly” calibration model which determines the sensitivity of the anemometer measurement to true air speed, and to a lesser extent measures true wind speed and direction:

wind sin (attack)

	yaw true

Definitions for Model

Va:    Air speed (measured)

Vr:    Road speed (measured assumed true)

NOTE: Road speed values must be assigned negative when the opposing direction data is used

Wind attack angle (to be solved)

w:     Wind speed (to be solved)

NOTE: Wind speed and attack angle values will retain their same sign regardless of the direction

Air speed calibration factor (to be solved)

mYaw angle (measured)

t  Yaw angle (true)

Yaw angle offset (to be solved)

Model Equations

2 Va2  =  (Vr2 + 2 w cos()*Vr + w2)		Cal eq 1

tan(t ) = w sin() /[Vr + w cos()]		Cal eq 2

0 = t - m					Cal eq 3

Using the method of least squares a solution matrix can be constructed to solve for the calibration and conditions’ unknowns in Cal eq 1:  A complete derivation of the solution matrix follows:

The summation of incremental errors squared for “i” observations is

 [2 Vai2  -  (Vri2 + 2 w cos()*Vri + w2)]2

Setting the partial derivatives of the error-squared to zeros…

 2 [2 Vai2  -  (Vri2 + 2 w cos()*Vri + w2)]1 * Vai2  = 0

 2 [2 Vai2  -  (Vri2 + 2 w cos()*Vri + w2)]1 * Vri  = 0

 2 [2 Vai2  -  (Vri2 + 2 w cos()*Vri + w2)]1 * 1 = 0

In matrix form this appears as…

 Vr2

 Vr	3

  Va2 Vr2

…and reduces to:

1		0		0		2  		=	X1

0		1		0		-2 w cos()	=	        X2

0		0		1		-w2		= 	         X3

where X1,2,3 are the values for the unknowns as determined by the matrix reduction.

From solution of the wind factors above, the yaw offset portion can be solved by Cal eq 2 and Cal eq3 i.e.

  w sin() /[Vri + w cos()]

  [1 + tan(t )i tan(m )i ]

Application of the calibration factors…

The values of  and 0 are then used to correct ALL measured air speed and measured yaw angle data for subsequent use in the J2263 analysis.

True air speed = Measured air speed measured * 

True yaw angle = Measured yaw angle + 0

Appendix D contains numerical solutions of the form above by trying various subsets of real data obtained from runs “CD4” and “CD5” on an EPA Class 6 vehicle.  The corresponding J2263-like solutions for the force coefficients are also provided.

Recommendations

d1)	Anemometer calibration i.e. scaling to true air speed and using a yaw angle offset correction is essential to obtain useful force coefficients.

d2)	In the absence of a steady-speed warmup the “on-the-fly” calibration technique is proposed.  Conceptually it may be superior to the “steady” method in that the air speed as it varies with road speed brings in data over a wider speed domain which is more conducive for good calibration.  The method will work for any combination of coastdown, acceleration or cruise data.

d3)	The underlying assumption in any calibration scheme is that the wind direction and speed do not vary significantly during the data sampling.  More data is usually desirable but a sampling session extended over time may introduce wind conditions’ changes that may confound the calibration results.  More research is required to conclude an optimum sampling scheme, but this should not delay any current coastdown test plans, as all available data will be reviewable for useful calibrations.

d4)	When the calibration factors have been determined and the instrument installation has not been disturbed, it is possible to apply the calibration factors to any tests commencing or retroactively to any prior tests deemed to require “better” cals.  Averaging cal factors from several (undisturbed!) sessions may be appropriate, although a closer look at the mathematics of averaging is prudent.

Analysis e)…A discussion of recently acquired data

This is analysis of data obtained from (5) pairs of coastdowns performed on a Class 8 vehicle. The focus is a comparative evaluation of several calibration and force models described below.

Method “pg1”

uses a scaling technique to determine the anemometer speed calibration i.e. the average ratio of road speed to the longitudinally indicated air speed is used to correct the air speed.

the anemometer center line yaw offset, and use of yaw measurements was ignored because higher speed yaw readings did not indicate a significant change to the longitudinal air component.

the force model determines two coefficients:  Force = Am + Ca Vair2

Method “pg2” is same as “pg1” except for the force model:

Force = Am + Bm Vroad + Ca Vair2

Method “pg3” is same as “pg1” except for the force model:

Force = Am + Bm Vroad + Cm Vroad 2 + Ca Vair2

Method “pj1”

uses the calibration method as described in Analysis d)

the force model used is

Force = Am  + Ca Vair2  (1 + P yaw2) cos (yaw)

	this includes an additional parameter to account for cross wind effects

Method “pj2” is same as “pj1” except for the force model:

Force = Am  +  Bm Vroad  + Ca Vair2  (1 + P yaw2) cos (yaw)

Method “pj3” is same as “pj1” except for the force model:

Force = Am  +  Bm Vroad   + Cm Vroad 2 + Ca Vair2  (1 + P yaw2) cos (yaw)

Method “pj4” is same as “pj3” except the force model does not use the yaw coefficient “P”:

Force = Am  +  Bm Vroad   + Cm Vroad 2 + Ca Vair2   cos (yaw)

Method “pj5” is same as “pj4” except the force model does not use any yaw correction:

Force = Am  +  Bm Vroad   + Cm Vroad 2 + Ca Vair2

All eight methods were applied against various subsets of data used in the calibration calculation and subsets (usually different) for the force calculation.

Numerical results and data subset descriptions are found in Appendix e).

Summary of results:

coefficient determinations show that models in pg1 and pj1 contain sufficient coefficients to describe the vehicle motion. Models  pg2 and pj2, although producing the lowest R-squared statistics also produced the most unexpected values for coefficients due to a large negative Bm term.  When the models are supplemented with inclusion of a Cm term (e.g. pg3), they produces similar results as pg1 and pj1. Summary items below will address only models pg1 and pj1.

R-squared statistics are generally low due to high scatter in the raw data.  The worst R-squared were produced from data in the mid-speed range (45-35 mph).For consideration:  Additional filtering may be applied to the raw data.

pg always produces a lower speed calibration factor “Beta” than pj. The EPA Class 6 evaluations demonstrated a promising value for Beta at 1.06. Prior experience with many smaller vehicles typically show Beta around 1.05.  The Class 8 “pg” models are producing considerably less than that value, and “pj” models produce higher.  At best, when certain subsets of cal data are considered, pj is 2% higher than pg, producing a 5% difference in total force at high speed, or about 9% difference in the drag coefficient interpretation. On the other hand pg produces more realistic drag if Class 8 can be characterized at about .7 Cd with 100 sq ft frontal area.

Confidence interval statistics show both pg and pj models very similar, despite the large force difference mentioned above.  The statistic (and the R-squared) partly relies on the observed force data as compared to the predicted force data.  The “observed” force data is regressed for different two interpretations of Vair (different between pg and pj.) This leaves the significance of the confidence interval somewhat dubious for judging the true difference in the models.

Experiments using increased speeds produced higher Beta values for any model. pg produced Beta as high as 1.08 at 60 to 50 mph, and as low as 1.01 at 30 to 20 mph.	For consideration:  A calibration model using a higher order polynomial fit with road speed.  Also a theoretical Beta calculated from first principles using speed and proximity of the anemometer installation would be useful.

Using some cal data subsets the pj method was unable to produce cal coefficients.  The solution matrix becomes unresolved when computing wind^2 as negative, or cosine values greater than 1.  The probable cause for this is that significant wind speed and direction changes occur when opposite direction data is considered together. (Another words the assumption for similar opposing direction conditions is weak.)

It should be noted that the Class 8 vehicle is significantly larger than the Class 6 which produced more expected results. The size of Class 8 and the predominance of cross winds during the test session may be cause(s) of the difficulty in a definitive characterization of the Class 8 results.	For consideration:  Additional data obtained with the same installation in the presence of predominantly head/tail winds.

Overall Recommendations

Given that to date some difficulty persists with the Class 8 analysis the recommendations below include follow up for resolution as well as general procedural recommendations. Some of these may be deemed as beyond the current practical scope of this project, but are worthy of consideration, especially a new comprehensive calibration model that is reliable in all wind conditions.

If possible the Class 8 vehicle should be run again in the presence of predominantly head/tail winds, with as close to as possible the same anemometer installation.  Positioning of a second anemometer may enhance evaluation of the anemometer(s) calibration with respect to road speeds and proximity to the vehicle. This data combined with first principles models may provide a definitive calibration procedure.

Relatively high head/tail winds are desirable for test sessions, unless a better comprehensive calibration model is developed.

An on-the-fly calibration technique is preferred, which reduces data gathering during warm-up, provided a credible calculation is used.  Quickly collecting data in two directions is desirable to maintain the underlying assumption that the winds have not changed significantly in opposing directions. The use of existing software is encouraged to aid in selection of data subsets used in the calibration determination.  Each pair of runs used will generate a unique Beta and Yaw offset (as well as wind speed and direction averages.)  The calibrations coefficients can be averaged, one for Beta, one for offset, to be used as universal factors applied to the measured air speed data.

Preview all raw data and remove suspect data points affected by possible traffic or instrumentation hick-ups.

Filter the data to at least 1 Hz or less.

Discard adjacent pairs of runs, if anomalies are found over significant speed ranges in one or both directions.

Find the regression coefficients for the model Force = Am + Ca Vair2  .  The yaw model is not required during principally head/tail wind conditions.

Find the confidence intervals for all data points, by which 3-sigma data outliers may be identified and removed.

Determine the new regression coefficients and correct the coefficients to mechanical and air density standards as prescribed in J2263.

Further investigation for a better calibration model is required to accommodate all wind speeds and directions comprehensively.  (One experimental model should investigate the introduction of a yaw measurement correction, and possibly anemometer instrument threshold parameters, similar to the existing J2263 practice.

APPENDIX A

Applications Using Least Squares Techniques

Many data reduction analyses (e.g. SAE J1263 and J2263) use a least squares method to solve regression coefficients for a desired model.  For simplicity the first example below illustrates solution to a “contrived” problem:

In this case we will assume that our vehicle decelerates (demonstrates a force “F” acting on it against direction of motion, which is directly measurable by an accelerometer) and we suspect it has a mechanical loss coefficient constant “a” and an aerodynamic coefficient “c” which acts with the air speed squared.  Air speed is road speed “V” plus a head wind “w”.  A special test track only points into the wind, and the wind is always a constant, but we do not know the intensity of this constant wind or the drag coefficients that characterize the vehicle.

The model to describe the test is written as:

Fi = a + c (Vi + w) 2	i referring to the ith observation; Fi ,Vi are known; a, c, w unknown

Expanded

a + c Vi2 + 2cwVi + cw2 - Fi = 0

 i for n data points.

 - (a + c Vi2 + 2cwVi + cw2) ] 2

The unknowns can take the form of “c” which correlates with Vi2 , “2cw” which correlates with Vi  and a lump “a + cw2” which shows up “n” times. Taking the partials of the error squared with respect to these unknowns and setting them to zero provides these 3 solution equations.

 FiVi2 – c Vi4 -2cwVi3 -(a+ cw2) Vi2 = 0

 FiVi – c Vi3 -2cwVi2 -(a+ cw2) Vi = 0

 Fi – c Vi2 -2cwVi -(a+ cw2)  = 0

The same equations are shown below with the V and F summations that are linear coefficients of the unknowns in the top row.

[c		2cw		(a+ cw2) ]

 Fi

 FiVi

 FiVi2

Normalizing each row and adding or subtracting rows from each other eventually leads to…

1		0		0		= c

0		1		0		= 2 c w

0		0		1		= a+ cw2

All three unknowns have been solved by “least squares”.

The next example demonstrates how J1263 coefficients can be directly calculated from J2263 coefficients.

Another Application…

  (as if infinite and perfect data sampling existed) then it is possible to quantify the true relationship between EPA AC55B direction (using SAE J1263 methodology)

i.e.	Force = A + C V2,   to force described by

Force = a + bV +cV2 (SAE J2263 or even higher order models)

So if the small abc’s are more accurate depictions of motion coefficients then we might ask what are the less accurate capital A and C values you expect from a test?

Least squares described by a continuous integral error gives you the exact answers.

 [ (A + C V2 ) – (a + bV + c V2) ]2 dV

Taking the partials of the error squared with respect to A (=1) and C (=V2) and then integrating gives two equations.  Notice that initial velocity Vi and final velocity Vf influences the answer (and that makes sense).  This convention of notation is  Vj = (Vij – Vfj) / j  to describe the quantity from integration expressions with limits.

Jumping ahead:

A V1 + C V3 = a V1 + b V2 + c V3

A V3 + C V5 = a V3 + b V4 + c V5

and this solves for A and C, for comparison where it crosses the abc curve, where they are the most different, etc, in case that might be relevant in a dyno cycle or for manufacturers’/ independent laboratory audit reasons.

In the case of J1263 construction, usually tested between 60 and 20 mph, using units of lbf and mph the values are:

A = a + 18.69 b

C = c + 0.0123 b

APPENDIX B

This Appendix demonstrates that valid results may be obtained from J2263 data over any speed range, any direction of travel, and for any  inclusion/omission of data that is discretionary to the analyst.

Method:

An imaginary “test” vehicle of know mechanical and aerodynamic behavior is constructed and obeys the laws of motion as solved by the exact differential equation.  Various wind speeds are imposed on it, as well as random selection of data ranges.  Discrete “data” is generated and subjected to the least-squares statistical approach inherent to J2263 to solve for the vehicle’s motion coefficients to be compared.

Constructed data (one direction) with analysis is shown below:

Model:	Force=	mass * dV/dt=	A +C*(V+w)2

	Solution for the differential equation of motion:

	t= mass / sqrt( AC) * {arctan[sqrt(C/A)*(v0+w)]-arctan[sqrt(C/A)*(v+w)}]

C=	0.02	w (wind speed)=	10	v0 (initial road speed)=	60	>>These are given

A=	30	m (mass)=	100

	>>These are given

t	v	mid v	m dvdt	(mid v + w)2	(mid v + w)4	(mid v + w)2*m dvdt

time	road speed	avg spd t to t+2	force

	0	60.00	58.75	-124.52	4727.22	22346589.76	-588648.83

2	57.51	56.33	-117.97	4399.64	19356840.82	-519045.10

4	55.15	54.03	-111.98	4099.87	16808939.49	-459108.82

6	52.91	51.85	-106.48	3824.88	14629680.12	-407285.74

8	50.78	49.77	-101.43	3572.03	12759405.45	-362304.53

10	48.75	47.78	-96.77	3339.05	11149236.27	-323119.46

12	46.82	45.89	-92.47	3123.93	9758919.91	-288865.90

14	44.97	44.08	-88.49	2924.92	8555147.93	-258825.41

16	43.20	42.35	-84.80	2740.48	7510232.44	-232398.24

18	41.50	40.69	-81.38	2569.25	6601058.20	-209081.44

…	…	…	…	…	…	…

…	…	…	…	…	…	…

72	11.55	11.16	-38.95	447.70	200432.90	-17439.61

74	10.77	10.39	-38.31	415.60	172720.94	-15922.39

76	10.00	9.63	-37.70	385.18	148364.74	-14522.80

78	9.25	8.88	-37.13	356.37	126998.53	-13231.10

80	8.51	8.14	-36.58	329.08	108295.29	-12038.46

82	7.77

	sums>

	-2611	69072	177547648	-5622542

count>	41

	The Solution Matrix:

41.00	69071.60	-2611.26

69071.60	177547647.96	-5622542.40

1	1684.67	-63.69

1	2570.49	-81.40

0.00	885.81	-17.71

0	1	-0.02000	=-C	Matches the assumption

	1	0	-30.00316	=-A	Matches the assumption

A summary of experiments that use subsets of the data above (and in the opposing direction of travel) is shown below.

Wind	Any	-10	10	combined	10	-10

Count	Any	41	41	82	25	17

Data speed selection:

	Range 1 from	Any	60	60	60	60	40

Range 1 to	Any	21	8	combined	40	20

Range 2 from	---

20

	Range 2 to	---

8

	C=	-0.02000	-0.02000	-0.02000	-0.02	-0.02000	-0.02000

A=	-30	-30.00124	-30.00316	-30.0025	-30.00258	-30.00251

Conclusion:

Very similar coefficients are reproduced regardless of the sample size, direction of travel or the speed range.

This is an important realization allowing for omission of data for situations such as traffic pass-by or instrument signal anomalies.

APPENDIX D

The method described in Analysis produced the following results for the anemometer calibration factors for different subsets of data acquired from a pair of coastdowns as well as the resulting force coefficients when the various cals are applied.

An abbreviated form of the J2263 coastdown force equation was used for simplicity:

		Force = A + B V + Cm V2 + Ca Va2 (1 + P yaw2)

Note:  Reference to “Both” indicates data was combined bor both directions.

Cal strategy>	Used all 4 & 5 data for cal	Ignore<20mph

Wind	6.093293	mph

7.928648

Attack	115.7914	deg

101.4327

Beta	1.062205

	1.066991

Offset	-1.19148	deg

-3.24974

	Run 4.1	Run 5.1	Both.1	Run 4.2	Run 5.2	Both.2

A	436.3463	379.5714	394.7492	410.5905	367.7773	374.815

B	1.200654	1.772625	3.880628	1.427175	2.457135	4.159128

C	0.15293	0.134544	0.115162	0.157856	0.12189	0.117002

Cm	-0.23486	-0.72589	-0.22715	-0.20561	-0.73221	-0.29913

Ca	0.387793	0.860432	0.342309	0.363468	0.854105	0.416136

P	27.86152	5.14759	19.10935	66.84297	14.70565	53.4537

	Forces>	>	>	>	>	>

Velocity	Run 4.1	Run 5.1	Both.1	Run 4.2	Run 5.2	Both.2

10	463.6459	410.7521	445.0716	440.6478	404.5377	428.1064

20	521.5314	468.8416	518.4263	502.2763	465.6759	504.7982

30	610.003	553.8398	614.8134	595.4758	551.1922	604.8903

40	729.0605	665.7469	734.2327	720.2465	661.0864	728.3827

50	878.7041	804.5628	876.6844	876.5882	795.3585	875.2754

60	1058.934	970.2875	1042.168	1064.501	954.0086	1045.568

70	1269.749	1162.921	1230.685	1283.985	1137.037	1239.262

Cal strategy>	Use end of run 4, beginning of 5	Only use 40-60 mph

	-0.11041

Wind	4.800524

	3.217302

Attack	101.8186

	2.020941

Beta	1.055687

	1.038228

Offset	-4.57364

	-6.30057

	Run 4.3	Run 5.3	Both.3	Run 4.4	Run 5.4	Both.4

A	438.3461	380.6439	394.235	445.261	386.2523	400.4836

B	0.38259	1.514545	3.423691	0.222481	1.271014	3.371765

C	0.174886	0.156469	0.136984	0.187549	0.196747	0.153646

Cm	-0.20821	-0.81113	-0.36523	-0.21247	-0.77227	-0.33229

Ca	0.383092	0.967599	0.502215	0.40002	0.969017	0.485933

P	16.79252	0.841667	11.39115	5.858074	-2.1287	1.583424

	Forces>	>	>	>	>	>

Velocity	Run 4.3	Run 5.3	Both.3	Run 5.1	Run 5.2	Both.5

10	459.6606	411.4363	442.1703	466.2408	418.6371	449.5659

20	515.9523	473.5224	517.5023	524.7304	490.3714	529.3773

30	607.2211	566.9023	620.231	620.73	601.4551	639.9179

40	733.467	691.5759	750.3565	754.2394	751.8882	781.1877

50	894.6902	847.5434	907.8787	925.2588	941.6708	953.1867

60	1090.89	1034.805	1092.798	1133.788	1170.803	1155.915

70	1322.068	1253.36	1305.113	1379.827	1439.284	1389.372

APPENDIX E

A comparison of the results for a Class 8 vehicle using various calibration methods, force models and selections of data follows:

#2 Same as #1 for cal, fewer runs for force

Run #	For Cal	From	To	For Data	From	To	Direction

	1

1	60	20	1

	2	1	40	20

1

	3	1	60	40	1	60	20	-1

	4	1	40	20

-1

	5	1	60	40

1

	6	1	40	20

1

	7	1	60	40

-1

	8	1	40	20

-1

	9	1	60	40

1

	10

	-1

pg-1	pg-2	pg-3	pj-1	pj-2	pj-3	pj-4	pj-5

Beta	1.04128	1.04128	1.04128	1.10346	1.10346	1.10346	1.10346	1.10346

Attack deg	------------	----------	----------	80.5525	80.5525	80.5525 80.5525	80.5525

Wind speed	------------	------------	------------	13.2519	13.2519 13.2519	13.2519	13.2519

Yaw offset deg	-1.391	-1.391	-1.391	-3.83178	-3.83178	-3.83178	-3.83178 ------------

Am	266.602	439.255	266.603	249.197	309.605	249.139	266.831	266.603

Bm	------------	-10.3182	-4.8E-05	------------	-3.46713	0.00335	0.00126 -4.8E-05

Cm	------------	----------	-1.4E-06	----------	----------	-3.3E-07 -1.4E-06	-1.4E-06

Ca	0.16352	0.30472	0.16352	0.12456	0.1697	0.12452	0.14568	0.14561

P	------------	----------	----------	78.6957	50.0059	78.731	----------- ----------

R-sqrd	0.4048	0.41868	0.4048	0.43093	0.432	0.43092	0.40479	0.4048

Speed	pg-1	pg-2	pg-3	pj-1	pj-2	pj-3	pj-4	pj-5

20	332.011	354.781	332.011	299.022	308.144	299.014	325.13	324.847

25	368.803	371.752	368.803	327.048	328.992	327.047	357.915	357.61

30	413.772	403.96	413.772	361.302	358.325	361.306	397.984	397.653

35	466.917	451.404	466.917	401.785	396.143	401.791	445.337	444.977

40	528.238	514.084	528.238	448.495	442.447	448.502	499.975	499.582

45	597.735	591.999	597.735	501.434	497.236	501.439	561.897	561.467

50	675.408	685.151	675.408	560.601	560.51	560.602	631.102	630.633

55	761.257	793.54	761.257	625.995	632.269	625.991	707.593	707.08

60	855.282	917.164	855.283	697.618	712.514	697.606	791.367	790.807

J1263 Am	266.602	247.441	266.602	249.197	245.151	249.202	266.855	266.602

J1263 Ca	0.16352	0.17781	0.16352	0.12456	0.12706	0.12456	0.1457	0.14561

	Confidence Intervals given Road Speed alpha at 90%

	pg-1	pg-2	pg-3	pj-1	pj-2	pj-3	pj-4	pj-5

20	20.1067	19.8707	20.1067	19.6603	19.6418	19.6604	20.1068	20.1067

25	14.2471	14.0799	14.2471	13.9308	13.9177	13.9309	14.2472	14.2471

30	8.38753	8.28911	8.38752	8.20134	8.19359	8.20135	8.38757	8.38752

35	2.52795	2.49829	2.52795	2.47184	2.4695	2.47184	2.52797	2.52795

40	3.33162	3.29253	3.33162	3.25766	3.25459	3.25767	3.33164	3.33162

45	9.19119	9.08334	9.19119	8.98717	8.97868	8.98718	9.19125	9.19119

50	15.0508	14.8742	15.0508	14.7167	14.7028	14.7167	15.0509	15.0508

55	20.9103	20.665	20.9103	20.4462	20.4269	20.4462	20.9105	20.9103

60	26.7699	26.4558	26.7699	26.1757	26.151	26.1757	26.7701	26.7699

#4 Same Cal pair measured over full speed

Run #	For Cal	From	To	For Data	From	To	Direction

	1

1	60	20	1

	2	1	60	20

1

	3	1	60	20	1	60	20	-1

	4

	-1

	5

	1

	6

	1

	7

	-1

	8

	-1

	9

	1

	10

	-1

pg-1	pg-2	pg-3	pj-1	pj-2	pj-3	pj-4	pj-5

Beta	1.03509	1.03509	1.03509	1.0894	1.0894	1.0894	1.0894	1.0894

Attack deg	------------	----------	----------	79.8673	79.8673	79.8673 79.8673	79.8673

Wind speed	------------	----------	----------	12.5395	12.5395	12.5395 12.5395	12.5395

Yaw offset deg	-1.391	-1.391	-1.391	-3.32547	-3.32547	-3.32547	-3.32547 ----------

Am	266.602	439.255	266.603	267.223	302.463	267.18	266.67	266.603

Bm	------------	-10.3182	-4.8E-05	----------	-2.11032	0.0026	0.00111 -4.8E-05

Cm	------------	----------	-1.4E-06	----------	----------	-1.5E-07 -1.4E-06	-1.4E-06

Ca	0.16548	0.30838	0.16549	0.12716	0.15611	0.12712	0.14948	0.1494

P	------------	----------	----------	88.1641	63.6724	88.2001	----------- ----------

R-sqrd	0.4048	0.41868	0.4048	0.42694	0.42723	0.42694	0.40479	0.4048

Speed	pg-1	pg-2	pg-3	pj-1	pj-2	pj-3	pj-4	pj-5

20	332.796	356.243	332.796	318.086	322.699	318.08	326.483	326.361

25	370.03	374.038	370.03	346.696	347.271	346.695	360.121	359.975

30	415.538	407.251	415.538	381.664	379.649	381.667	401.232	401.059

35	469.321	455.883	469.32	422.99	419.832	422.994	449.818	449.613

40	531.377	519.934	531.377	470.674	467.82	470.678	505.877	505.636

45	601.708	599.404	601.708	524.716	523.613	524.717	569.41	569.13

50	680.313	694.293	680.314	585.115	587.212	585.113	640.417	640.094

55	767.193	804.601	767.193	651.872	658.616	651.865	718.897	718.527

60	862.347	930.328	862.347	724.987	737.825	724.972	804.852	804.43

J1263 Am	266.602	247.441	266.602	267.223	263.232	267.228	266.691	266.602

J1263 Ca	0.16548	0.18147	0.16548	0.12716	0.13015	0.12715	0.14949	0.1494

	Confidence Intervals given Road Speed alpha at 90%

	pg-1	pg-2	pg-3	pj-1	pj-2	pj-3	pj-4	pj-5

20	20.1067	19.8707	20.1067	19.7291	19.7242	19.7291	20.1067	20.1067

25	14.2471	14.0799	14.2471	13.9796	13.9761	13.9796	14.2471	14.2471

30	8.38753	8.28911	8.38752	8.23002	8.22797	8.23003	8.38756	8.38752

35	2.52795	2.49829	2.52795	2.48048	2.47986	2.48048	2.52796	2.52795

40	3.33162	3.29253	3.33162	3.26906	3.26824	3.26906	3.33163	3.33162

45	9.19119	9.08334	9.19119	9.0186	9.01634	9.0186	9.19123	9.19119

50	15.0508	14.8742	15.0508	14.7681	14.7644	14.7681	15.0508	15.0508

55	20.9103	20.665	20.9103	20.5177	20.5126	20.5177	20.9104	20.9103

60	26.7699	26.4558	26.7699	26.2672	26.2607	26.2672	26.77	26.7699

#5 All cals over full speed with all force data

Run #	For Cal	From	To	For Data	From	To	Direction

	1	1	60	20	1	60	20	1

	2	1	60	20	1	60	20	1

	3	1	60	20	1	60	20	-1

	4	1	60	20	1	60	20	-1

	5	1	60	20	1	60	20	1

	6	1	60	20	1	60	20	1

	7	1	60	20	1	60	20	-1

	8	1	60	20	1	60	20	-1

	9	1	60	20	1	60	20	1

	10	1	60	20	1	60	20	-1

pg-1	pg-2	pg-3	pj-1	pj-2	pj-3	pj-4	pj-5

Beta	1.04381	1.04381	1.04381	1.08704	1.08704	1.08704	1.08704	1.08704

Attack deg	------------	----------	----------	79.3688	79.3688	79.3688 79.3688	79.3688

Wind speed	------------	----------	----------	10.9443	10.9443	10.9443 10.9443	10.9443

Yaw offset deg	-1.391	-1.391	-1.391	-3.00512	-3.00512	-3.00512	-3.00512 ----------

Am	317.284	465.943	317.285	318.351	465.946	318.341	317.417	317.285

Bm	------------	-8.58774	-5.5E-05	----------	-8.59097	0.0007	0.00073 -5.5E-05

Cm	------------	----------	-1.3E-06	----------	----------	-1.3E-06 -1.3E-06	-1.3E-06

Ca	0.13703	0.25157	0.13703	0.12641	0.23199	0.1264	0.12635	0.12635

P	------------	----------	----------	-3.05696	0.59965	-3.06015 -----------	----------

R-sqrd	0.32504	0.33701	0.32504	0.32512	0.33701	0.32512	0.32504	0.32504

Speed	pg-1	pg-2	pg-3	pj-1	pj-2	pj-3	pj-4	pj-5

20	372.097	394.815	372.097	368.915	386.924	368.915	367.972	367.824

25	402.929	408.479	402.929	397.357	396.168	397.358	396.405	396.253

30	440.613	434.721	440.613	432.12	417.011	432.122	431.156	430.999

35	485.148	473.541	485.148	473.203	449.454	473.205	472.224	472.063

40	536.535	524.94	536.535	520.606	493.497	520.609	519.61	519.445

45	594.773	588.917	594.773	574.33	549.14	574.333	573.314	573.144

50	659.863	665.472	659.863	634.374	616.382	634.376	633.335	633.16

55	731.805	754.606	731.805	700.739	695.225	700.74	699.674	699.494

60	810.598	856.318	810.598	773.424	785.666	773.423	772.331	772.146

J1263 Am	317.284	306.297	317.284	318.351	306.239	318.354	317.43	317.284

J1263 Ca	0.13703	0.14594	0.13703	0.12641	0.12633	0.12641	0.12636	0.12635

	Confidence Intervals given Road Speed alpha at 90%

	pg-1	pg-2	pg-3	pj-1	pj-2	pj-3	pj-4	pj-5

20	9.58755	9.50219	9.58754	9.58698	9.50218	9.58699	9.58756	9.58754

25	6.87269	6.8115	6.87269	6.87229	6.81149	6.87229	6.8727	6.87269

30	4.15783	4.12082	4.15783	4.15759	4.12081	4.15759	4.15784	4.15783

35	1.44298	1.43013	1.44298	1.44289	1.43013	1.4429	1.44298	1.44298

40	1.27188	1.26055	1.27188	1.2718	1.26055	1.2718	1.27188	1.27188

45	3.98673	3.95124	3.98673	3.9865	3.95123	3.9865	3.98674	3.98673

50	6.70159	6.64192	6.70159	6.7012	6.64192	6.7012	6.7016	6.70159

55	9.41645	9.33261	9.41644	9.41589	9.3326	9.4159	9.41646	9.41644

60	12.1313	12.0233	12.1313	12.1306	12.0233	12.1306	12.1313	12.1313

#6 All cals in mid speed range with all force data

Run #	For Cal	From	To	For Data	From	To	Direction

	1	1	45	35	1	60	20	1

	2	1	45	35	1	60	20	1

	3	1	45	35	1	60	20	-1

	4	1	45	35	1	60	20	-1

	5	1	45	35	1	60	20	1

	6	1	45	35	1	60	20	1

	7	1	45	35	1	60	20	-1

	8	1	45	35	1	60	20	-1

	9	1	45	35	1	60	20	1

	10	1	45	35	1	60	20	-1

pg-1	pg-2	pg-3	pj-1	pj-2	pj-3	pj-4	pj-5

Beta	1.0484	1.0484	1.0484	1.0723	1.0723	1.0723	1.0723	1.0723

Attack deg	------------	----------	----------	78.6881	78.6881	78.6881 78.6881	78.6881

Wind speed	------------	----------	----------	10.0863	10.0863	10.0863 10.0863	10.0863

Yaw offset deg	-1.391	-1.391	-1.391	-3.04787	-3.04787	-3.04787	-3.04787 ------------

Am	317.284	465.943	317.285	318.04	465.457	318.026	317.266	317.285

Bm	------------	-8.58774	-5.5E-05	----------	-8.52458	0.0008	0.00039 -5.5E-05

Cm	------------	----------	-1.3E-06	----------	----------	-1.3E-06 -1.3E-06	-1.3E-06

Ca	0.13583	0.24937	0.13584	0.12395	0.23284	0.12395	0.13001	0.12985

P	------------	----------	----------	18.2297	8.07942	18.2127	----------- ----------

R-sqrd	0.32504	0.33701	0.32504	0.3256	0.33736	0.32559	0.32504	0.32504

Speed	pg-1	pg-2	pg-3	pj-1	pj-2	pj-3	pj-4	pj-5

20	371.618	393.936	371.618	367.62	388.103	367.619	369.279	369.224

25	402.181	407.105	402.181	395.508	397.87	395.511	398.533	398.44

30	439.535	432.743	439.535	429.594	419.279	429.599	434.288	434.148

35	483.681	470.849	483.681	469.877	452.33	469.885	476.544	476.349

40	534.619	521.424	534.619	516.358	497.023	516.368	525.3	525.042

45	592.349	584.467	592.349	569.036	553.359	569.049	580.557	580.228

50	656.87	659.978	656.87	627.912	621.337	627.926	642.314	641.906

55	728.183	747.958	728.184	692.985	700.957	693.001	710.572	710.076

60	806.288	848.406	806.289	764.255	792.219	764.272	785.331	784.739

J1263 Am	317.284	306.297	317.284	318.04	306.985	318.041	317.274	317.284

J1263 Ca	0.13583	0.14374	0.13583	0.12395	0.12799	0.12395	0.13002	0.12985

	Confidence Intervals given Road Speed alpha at 90%

	pg-1	pg-2	pg-3	pj-1	pj-2	pj-3	pj-4	pj-5

20	9.58755	9.50219	9.58754	9.58363	9.49964	9.58364	9.58757	9.58754

25	6.87269	6.8115	6.87269	6.86988	6.80968	6.86989	6.87271	6.87269

30	4.15783	4.12082	4.15783	4.15613	4.11971	4.15614	4.15784	4.15783

35	1.44298	1.43013	1.44298	1.44239	1.42975	1.44239	1.44298	1.44298

40	1.27188	1.26055	1.27188	1.27136	1.26022	1.27136	1.27188	1.27188

45	3.98673	3.95124	3.98673	3.9851	3.95018	3.98511	3.98674	3.98673

50	6.70159	6.64192	6.70159	6.69885	6.64014	6.69886	6.7016	6.70159

55	9.41645	9.33261	9.41644	9.4126	9.33011	9.41261	9.41647	9.41644

60	12.1313	12.0233	12.1313	12.1263	12.0201	12.1264	12.1313	12.1313

hs

0

1

Æ

#

.

/

0

:

;

>

G

V

W

X

b

c

j

s

}

€

‚

„

†

“

ú

/

0

w

…

Œ

ô

h„r

hs

51

X

Y

€

‚

ƒ

„

…

†

‡

’

“

ᤀô

ÿ

he

h°

h°

h°

옍

Æ

Æ

&

Æ

옍

'Ô

h‘O

	ƒ

h+X

h+X

h+X

h+X

a$gd+X

a$gd+X

a$gd+X

a$gd+X

h+X

h+X

a$gd+X

Ff

a$gd+X

h+X

 h+X

h+X

h+X

h+X

h+X

a$gd+X

a$gd+X

h+X

h+X

 h+X

h+X

h+X

h+X

a$gd+X

a$gd+X

a$gd+X

a$gd+X

h+X

h+X

Ff‹

a$gd+X

h+X

 h+X

h+X

h+X

h+X

h+X

a$gd+X

a$gd+X

a$gd+X

h+X

h+X

 h+X

h+X

h+X

h+X

a$gd+X

a$gd+X

a$gd+X

a$gd+X

h+X

h+X

h+X

h+X

h+X

 h+X

h+X

h+X

Ff

FfÇ

Ff

h+X

h+X

h+X

 PAGE

 PAGE   2

As the anemometer is positioned closer to the front of the vehicle, vehicle air “blockage” effects will

Diminish the observed air speed measurement

Exaggerate the observed yaw angle measurement

Anemometer placement far from the front of the vehicle will indicate

True air speed vector at this location

True yaw angle at this location

These are conditions that may not be true at the vehicle

Analysis c)…         Effects of Anemometer Placement

Road Speed

Observed Air Speed Vectors

Pressure profiles from vehicle air blockage

Observed Yaw Angles

Vector Relationships Against the Wind

Vector Relationships With the Wind


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 132 (Friday, July 10, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39768-39769]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16881]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC15-161-000.
    Applicants: 65HK 8me LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act, Request for Expedited Consideration and Confidential
Treatment of 65HK 8me LLC.
    Filed Date: 6/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150630-5451.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/21/15.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1276-004; ER10-1292-003; ER10-1287-003; ER10-
1303-003; ER10-1319-005; ER10-1353-005.
    Applicants: Consumers Energy Company, CMS Energy Resource
Management Company, Grayling Generation Station Limited Partnership,
Genesee Power Station Limited Partnership, CMS Generation Michigan
Power, LLC, Dearborn Industrial Generation, L.L.C.
    Description: Updated Market Power Analysis for the Central Region
of Consumer Energy Company, et al.
    Filed Date: 6/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150630-5450.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/31/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2042-019; ER10-1938-014; ER10-1934-013; ER10-
1893-013; ER10-1874-003; ER10-1863-004; ER10-1862-013; ER10-1933-003.
    Applicants: Calpine Energy Services, L.P., Calpine Power America--
CA, LLC, CES Marketing IX, LLC, CES Marketing X, LLC, Mankato Energy
Center, LLC, Power Contract Financing, L.L.C., RockGen Energy, LLC,
Pine Bluff Energy, LLC.
    Description: Updated Market Power Analysis for Central Region of
the Calpine Central MBR Sellers.
    Filed Date: 6/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150630-5441.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/31/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2130-012.
    Applicants: Forward Energy LLC.
    Description: Triennial Report for Central Region of Forward Energy
LLC.
    Filed Date: 6/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150630-5439.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/31/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2136-010.
    Applicants: Invenergy Cannon Falls LLC.
    Description: Triennial Report for Central Region of Invenergy
Cannon Falls LLC.
    Filed Date: 6/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150630-5405.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/31/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2172-025; ER14-2144-004; ER12-2311-012; ER10-
1048-022; ER10-2192-024;

ER15-1537-001; ER15-1539-001; ER10-2178-024; ER13-1536-008; ER12-2201-
012; ER11-2011-021; ER11-2009-021; ER11-3989-017; ER10-1143-021.
    Applicants: Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, Beebe 1B Renewable
Energy, LLC, Beebe Renewable Energy, LLC, Commonwealth Edison Company,
Constellation Energy Commodities Group Maine, LLC, Constellation Energy
Services, Inc., Constellation NewEnergy, Inc., Exelon Generation
Company, LLC, Harvest II Wind Farm, LLC, Harvest Windfarm, LLC,
Michigan Wind 1, LLC, Michigan Wind 2, LLC, PECO Energy Company,
Constellation Energy Services of New York, Inc.
    Description: Updated Market Power Analysis for the Central Region
of the Exelon Central MBRA Entities.
    Filed Date: 6/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150630-5358.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/31/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2738-003.
    Applicants: The Empire District Electric Company.
    Description: Updated Market Power Analysis of The Empire District
Electric Company.
    Filed Date: 6/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150630-5348.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/31/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-3069-006; ER10-3070-006.
    Applicants: Alcoa Power Generating, Inc., Alcoa Power Marketing
LLC.
    Description: Updated Market Power Analysis for Central Region of
Alcoa Power Generating, Inc. and Alcoa Power Marketing LLC.
    Filed Date: 6/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150630-5377.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/31/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-3097-004.
    Applicants: Bruce Power Inc.
    Description: Updated Market Power Analysis for the Central Region
of Bruce Power Inc.
    Filed Date: 6/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150630-5434.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/31/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2105-001.
    Applicants: Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Updated Market Power Analysis for Southwest Power
Pool, Inc. Balancing Area Authority of Oklahoma Gas and Electric
Company.
    Filed Date: 6/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150630-5447.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/31/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2159-005; ER10-2602-012; ER10-2609-011; ER10-
2606-011.
    Applicants: Verso Maine Energy LLC, NewPage Energy Services LLC,
Escanaba Paper Company, Consolidated Water Power Company.
    Description: Updated Market Power Analysis for the Central Region
of Verso MBR Entities.
    Filed Date: 6/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150630-5442.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/31/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4044-013.
    Applicants: Gratiot County Wind LLC.
    Description: Triennial Report for Central Region of Gratiot County
Wind LLC.
    Filed Date: 6/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150630-5440.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/31/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4046-012.
    Applicants: Gratiot County Wind II LLC.
    Description: Triennial Report for Central Region of Gratiot County
Wind II LLC.
    Filed Date: 6/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150630-5415.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/31/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-164-011.
    Applicants: Bishop Hill Energy III LLC.
    Description: Triennial Report for Central Region of Bishop Hill
Energy III LLC.
    Filed Date: 6/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150630-5438.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/31/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-645-013.
    Applicants: California Ridge Wind Energy LLC.
    Description: Triennial Report of California Ridge Wind Energy LLC.
    Filed Date: 6/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150630-5437.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/31/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2085-000.
    Applicants: Dow Pipeline Company.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to Market-Based
Rate Tariff to be effective 8/29/2015.
    Filed Date: 6/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150630-5297.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2086-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-06-30 CCSF OA--Rate
Schedule No. 64 to be effective 7/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 6/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150630-5339.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2087-000.
    Applicants: Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: PASNY Standby Amendment to
be effective 7/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 6/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150630-5343.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2088-000.
    Applicants: New England Power Pool Participants Committee.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: June 30 2015 Membership
Filing to be effective 7/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 6/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150630-5345.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/21/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
reliability filings:

    Docket Numbers: RR15-13-000.
    Applicants: North American Electric Reliability Corporation.
    Description: Petition of North American Electric Reliability
Corporation for Approval of Amendments to the Bylaws of Southwest Power
Pool, Inc.
    Filed Date: 6/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150630-5356.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/21/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 1, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-16881 Filed 7-9-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 115 (Wednesday, June 15, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38999-39001]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14100]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2015-0238, FRL-9947-68-Region 1]

Air Plan Approval; CT; NOX Emission Trading Orders as
Single Source SIP Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Connecticut. This revision continues to allow facilities to
create and/or use emission credits using NOX Emission
Trading and Agreement Orders (TAOs) to comply with the NOX
emission limits required by Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies
(RCSA) section 22a-174-22 (Control of Nitrogen Oxides). The intended
effect of this action is to propose approval of the individual trading
orders to allow facilities to determine the most cost-effective way to
comply with the state regulation. This action is being taken in
accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 15, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R01-OAR-2015-0238 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald Dahl, Air Permits, Toxics, and
Indoor Programs Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5
Post Office Square, Suite 100, (OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, phone
number<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background and Purpose.
II. Analysis of State Submission
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On November 15, 2011, the Connecticut Department of Energy and
Environmental Protection (CT DEEP) submitted a formal revision to its
State Implementation Plan (SIP). This SIP revision consists of eighty-
nine source-specific Trading Agreement and Orders (TAOs) that allow
twenty-four individual stationary sources of nitrogen oxide
(NOX) emissions to create and/or trade NOX
emission credits in order to ensure more effective compliance with EPA
SIP-approved state regulations for reducing NOX emissions.
We previously approved source-specific TAOs of the same kind issued by
CT DEEP under this program for these same sources on September 28, 1999
(64 FR 52233), March 23, 2001 (66 FR 16135), and September 9, 2013 (78
FR 54962). The SIP submittal also includes Consent Order 8029A issued
to Hamilton Sundstrand which addresses Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)
emissions.
    In our September 9, 2013 approval, EPA acted on most of the TAOs
contained in CT DEEP's July 1, 2004 SIP revision submission to EPA. At
that time, EPA did not act on (1) TAO 8021 issued to Pfizer; (2) TAO
8246 issued to Sikorsky Aircraft; (3) TAO 8110A issued to Yale
University; and (4) Consent Order 7019A issued to Hamilton Sundstrand
Corporation. On May 29, 2015, CT DEEP revised its July 1, 2004 SIP
revision submittal to EPA by modifying TAO 8110A. Today we are acting
on the modified version of TAO 8110A. EPA will take action on TAOs 8246
and 8021 at a future date. Lastly, on April 22, 2014 the CT DEEP
withdrew Consent Order 7019A from the 2004 SIP submittal.
    The CAA requires states to develop Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) regulations for all major stationary sources of
NOX in areas which have been classified as ``moderate,''
``serious,'' ``severe,'' and ``extreme'' as well as in all areas of the
Ozone Transport Region (OTR). EPA has defined RACT as the lowest
emission limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by
the application of control technology that is reasonably available
considering technological and economic feasibility (44 FR 53762;
September 17, 1979). This requirement is established by sections
182(b)(2), 182(f), and 184(b) of the CAA.
    Connecticut, as part of the OTR as well as being designated
nonattainment for ozone, established NOX emission limits for
existing major sources in order to meet the RACT requirement. The
NOX emission limits are codified in Regulations of
Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA) section 22a-174-22 (Control of
Nitrogen Oxides). These state regulations were last approved by EPA
into the Connecticut SIP on October 6, 1997. (See 62 FR 52016).
    As stated above, when determining what constitutes RACT for a
source, a state and EPA need to consider both technology and economic
feasibility. For example, it is technically possible for a source to
install pollution control devices in series to further reduce
emissions. However, if a state and EPA

determined that such an installation would be economically infeasible
in relation to the additional emissions reductions achieved, then the
RACT emission limit under Connecticut's regulations could legitimately
be established at a higher rate than would be achieved by installing
control devices in series.
    RCSA 22a-174-22 establishes NOX emission limits for
several types of fossil-fuel firing emission units. RCSA 22a-174-38
establishes NOX emission limits for municipal waste
combustors. Since RACT is determined on a source-by-source basis, a
fossil-fuel firing source may under Connecticut's regulations request a
higher emission limit by making a demonstration to the CT DEEP that it
is either technologically or economically infeasible, or both, to meet
the NOX RACT limit in RCSA 22a-174-22. CT DEEP's use of the
NOX TAOs has rendered the need for higher source-specific
emission rates, based on demonstrations of technological and/or
economic feasibility, less frequent, thus having the effect of reducing
overall NOX emissions to a greater degree than would be the
case without the TAO trading mechanism. For example, in its RACT
Analysis for the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standard
(NAAQS) submitted to EPA on July 18, 2014 (2014 RACT Analysis), CT DEEP
stated that ``[t]he traditional cost effectiveness ($/ton of
NOX emitted) evaluation of controlling NOX
emissions from the load-following boilers and uncontrolled turbines
will not address high electric demand day (HEDD) emissions because the
addition of controls on existing units that operate infrequently will
nearly always result in a cost of control that is not reasonable.''
    Accordingly, as an alternative to these potential single source SIP
determinations, which can lead to higher levels of NOX
emissions, Connecticut established an emission trading program in RCSA
22a-174-22(j) for fossil-fuel firing emission units and RSCA 22a-174-
38(d) for municipal waste combustors. These two SIP-approved
regulations allow a source to participate in Connecticut's
NOX emission trading program using two different mechanisms.
RSCA 22a-174-22(j) requires a source that wants to participate in the
program to enter into a TAO with the CT DEEP. RSCA 22a-174-38(d) does
not require a municipal waste combustor (MWC) to enter into a TAO and
instead contains specific requirements that an MWC must meet in order
to create a NOX emission reduction credit that can be used
in Connecticut's trading program. These emission trading programs
provide incentives for some facilities subject to the NOX
emission limits in either RSCA 22a-174-22 or RSCA 22a-174-38 to reduce
their NOX emissions beyond what is required to meet RACT by
allowing them to create discrete emission reduction credits (DERCs).\1\
The DERCs may then be purchased by other sources which otherwise may
have needed a higher source-specific NOX emission limit due
to technological and/or economic infeasibility. DERCs are created when
a facility installs and operates a control device which reduces
emissions beyond what is required to meet the NOX emission
limitations in RSCA 22a-174-22 or in RSCA 22a-174-38(d). Once a DERC is
created, it can then be sold to another source that is unable to meet
the NOX limit in RSCA 22a-174-22 .\2\ The incentive to over
control leads to a greater NOX emission reduction than the
reduction that would have occurred if Connecticut had to establish a
higher NOX emission limit for those sources which
demonstrated that they would be unable to meet the NOX
limits in RSCA 22a-174-22 due to cost or technological infeasibility,
or both.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The NOX emission credits created pursuant to RSCA
22a-174-38(d) are referred to as emission reduction credits.
    \2\ RSCA 22a-174-38(d)(1) also allows a municipal waste
combustor that commenced construction prior to December 20, 1989 to
use emission credits created under RSCA 22a-174-38 to comply with
the NOX emission limits contained in RSCA 22a-174-
38(c)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the time Connecticut instituted the NOX emission
trading program in 1995, the sources generating NOX emission
credits in Connecticut were reducing their emissions to levels below
those required by Connecticut's RACT regulations. Since that time, in
more recent years, other states have established NOX RACT
emission limits for emission units similar to those in Connecticut, at
levels lower than the emission limits in RSCA 22a-174-22 which are
currently approved in the Connecticut SIP as meeting RACT for the 1997
ozone standard. CT DEEP is now required by the CAA to recertify that
its regulations meet RACT for the 2008 ozone standard. During this
recertification process, CT DEEP recognized the fact the NOX
emission limits contained in RSCA 22a-174-22 may not be stringent
enough for the 2008 ozone standard by stating in its 2014 RACT Analysis
that ``[w]hile the combination of emissions limits and trading
initially led (sic) to significant system-wide emission reductions
throughout Connecticut in 1995, the efforts to ``over-control'' to
generate credits are now merely RACT in many other states. DEEP must
therefore consider elimination of the single source emissions trading
program, as well as more stringent emission limits, to meet current
RACT levels and realize additional reductions in Connecticut
emissions.'' In other words, CT DEEP's NOX emission trading
program, as presently structured in RSCA 22a-174-22, may no longer be
viable in the future to meet today's standards for RACT, as emission
limits in RSCA 22a-174-22 may need to be revised in order for CT DEEP
to demonstrate attainment with the 2008 ozone standard. In fact, CT
DEEP's July 1, 2014 RACT submittal states, ``DEEP commits to perform
further evaluation of Connecticut's municipal waste combustor and fuel-
burning source NOX requirements and to seek any regulatory
revisions necessary to revise the control requirements to a RACT level
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS,'' and also states, ``DEEP commits to begin a
review of NOX emissions and emissions controls for the
sources now subject to RCSA section 22a-174-22 with the goal of
developing changes to RCSA section 22a-174-22 sufficient to satisfy
RACT under the 2008 ozone NAAQS.'' \3\ Therefore, EPA is not deciding
if the NOX trading program allowed by RSCA 22a-174-22 is
sufficient to meet RACT for the 2008 ozone standard and is not taking
any action on Connecticut's July 1, 2014 RACT SIP revision in this
action. Rather, EPA will address those issues in a future rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Furthermore, CT DEEP is currently working with a RACT
stakeholder workgroup on draft regulations. See www.ct.gov/deep/cwp/view.asp?a=2684&q=546804&deepNav_GID=1619.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Banked emission reduction credits must be correctly accounted for
in attainment plans in order to prevent unplanned future emissions. On
February 1, 2008, Connecticut submitted its 2002 to 2008 reasonable
further progress (RFP) plan and 2002 base year inventory to EPA as part
of its attainment demonstration SIP submittal for the 1997 8-hr ozone
standard. On October 14, 2009, Connecticut submitted a revision to the
RFP plan. EPA approved Connecticut's RFP plan, as revised, on August
22, 2012 (77 FR 50595). In the October 14, 2009 revision, Connecticut
explained that any DERCs that existed in the base year 2002 will have
expired by the end of the RFP period in 2008. This is based on the fact
that under Connecticut's NOX emission trading program, DERCs
expire within five years of creation. Since any DERCs existing in 2002
would not be available for use in 2008, banked DERCs need not be
accounted for in a state's RFP

analysis, and Connecticut has properly done that. Therefore, EPA is
concluding the TAO's that we are proposing to approve into the SIP
today have been properly accounted for in Connecticut's attainment
plan.
    With respect to the 2008 ozone standard, both Connecticut
nonattainment areas were initially designated ``marginal''
nonattainment for this standard on May 21, 2012. (See 77 FR 30088).
However, on May 4, 2016, EPA re-classified or ``bumped-up'' these areas
to moderate nonattainment. (See 81 FR 26697). Connecticut will need to
account for DERCs in its new RFP and attainment plans for this standard
which must be submitted as expeditiously as practicable, but no later
than January 1, 2017.

II. Analysis of State Submission

    EPA issued a guidance document ``Improving Air Quality with
Economic Incentive Programs'' (EIP Guidance) .\4\ This guidance applies
to discretionary economic incentive programs (EIPs). EPA's final action
on these discretionary economic incentive programs occurs when EPA acts
on a state's request to revise the SIP. EPA reviewed the source-
specific TAOs with respect to the expectations of the EIP Guidance. EPA
has concluded, after review and analysis of the source-specific TAOs,
that they are consistent with the EIP Guidance. See the Technical
Support Document in the docket for this action for EPA's analysis of
why the TAO's are consistent with the EIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See EPA-452/R-01-001, January 2001 at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/eipfin.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When EPA designated areas for the 2008 ozone standard, Connecticut
was divided into two separate areas, the Greater Connecticut Area and
the New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island NY-NJ-CT area. CT DEEP and EPA
analyzed emission trading data for the period of time the TAOs were in
effect to determine if more emission reduction credits were being used
for compliance than were generated or created in any of Connecticut's
two nonattainment areas. EPA has determined the TAOs have resulted in
RACT equivalent emission reductions in each of the two nonattainment
areas. See the Technical Support Document in the docket for this action
for an explicit accounting of the emissions from each facility in each
nonattainment area.
    The TAOs being approved into Connecticut's SIP today are limited to
facilities which have already been authorized in the past by the State
to operate under a TAO and those TAOs continue to authorize the sources
until May 31, 2014 to create and/or use NOX emission credits
and allow for unused NOX allowances to be converted into
NOX emission credits. The TAOs previously issued by
Connecticut to these facilities were approved by EPA into the
Connecticut SIP on September 28, 1999 (64 FR 52233), March 23, 2001 (66
FR 16135), and September 9, 2013 (78 FR 54962). The reason the TAOs
must be approved at this time for these same facilities is that the
TAOs previously approved had all expired by May 1, 2007.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve Connecticut's submitted SIP revision
for the NOX TAOs submitted on November 15, 2011. EPA is not
taking action on Consent Order 8029A issued to Hamilton Sundstrand
Corporation. EPA will take action on this Consent Order at a later
date. EPA is also proposing to approve TAO 8110A, submitted on July 1,
2004 and amended on May 29, 2015. EPA is soliciting public comments on
the issues discussed in this document or on other relevant matters.
These comments will be considered before taking final action.
Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure
by submitting written comments to the EPA New England Regional Office
listed in the ADDRESSES section of this Federal Register.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: May 31, 2016.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 2016-14100 Filed 6-14-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P