DRAFT

QUALITY ASSURANCE

and QUALITY CONTROL

DATA STANDARD

Standard No.: EX000012.2

July 10, 2009

This standard has been produced through the

Exchange Network Leadership Council (ENLC).

The Exchange Network Leadership Council (ENLC) is a partnership among US
EPA, States and Tribal partners to promote the efficient sharing of
environmental information through the efficient management of the
Exchange Network development and adoption of data standards. More
information about is available at www.exchangenetwork.net/standards
HYPERLINK "http://"   .

Foreword

The Exchange Network Leadership Council (ENLC) is a partnership among US
EPA, States and Tribal partners to develop and agree upon data standards
for environmental information collection and exchange.  The Council
seeks to promote efficient sharing of environmental information between
State, US EPA and Tribal partners through the development of data
standards.  More information about data standards is available at
http://www.exchangenetwork.net/standards.

1.0	INTRODUCTION

Environmental information is a key tool in the effective management of
our environmental resources and human health conditions.  As a result,
much effort goes into data acquisition, management, maintenance,
exchange, and oversight.  Greater access is the goal of many data
consumers, and data managers. Providers invest significant resources
meeting their requirements. In response, many data providers are
improving access as they post usable copies of their environmental
information on the web.  These efforts are a vast improvement over
previous conditions; however, there is a growing desire and need to both
provide and receive data in a clearly defined and a uniform way.  Data
from multiple sources can then be aggregated and used without the
inherent variations that exist between data sets across agencies.

1.1	Scope

This standard provides data elements and describes quantitative
statistics and qualitative descriptors that are used to interpret the
degree of acceptability or utility of data to the user.

1.2	Revision History

Date	Version	Description

January 6, 2006	EX000012.1	Initial Environmental Data Standards Council
Adoption

July 22, 2008	EX000012.2	Modification of data standard to incorporate
additional water quality and biological related data elements.

1.3	References to Other Data Standards

None.

1.4	Terms and Definitions

For the purposes of this document, the following terms and definitions
apply.

Term	Definition

Quality Assurance (QA)	The system implemented by an organization which
assures outside bodies that the data generated is of proven and known
quality and meets the needs of the end user.  This assurance relies
heavily on documentation of processes, procedures, capabilities, and
monitoring of such.

Quality Control (QC)	Those operations undertaken in the laboratory or
field to ensure that the data produced are within known measures of
accuracy and precision.  These operations may include calibration,
method blanks, matrix spikes, blank spikes, surrogates, duplicates,
system checks, as well as others.

1.5	Implementation

Users are encouraged to use the XML registry housed on the Exchange
Network Web site to download schema components for the construction of
XML schema flows (  HYPERLINK "http://www.exchangenetwork.net"
http://www.exchangenetwork.net ).

1.6	Document Structure

The structure of this document is briefly described below:

Section 2.0 Quality Assurance and Quality Control Diagram, illustrates
the principal data groupings contained within this standard.

Section 3.0 Quality Assurance and Quality Control Data Standard Table,
provides information on the high level, intermediate and elemental
Quality Control and Quality Assurance data groupings.  Where applicable,
for each level of this data standard a definition, XML tag, note(s),
example list of values and format are provided. The format column may
include the number of characters for the associated data element, where
“A” specifies alphanumeric, “N” designates numeric, and “G”
and “D” are used for grouping and date respectively.

Data Element Numbering. For purposes of clarity and to enhance
understanding of data standard hierarchy and relationships, each data
group is numerically classified from the primary to the elemental level.

Code and Identifier Metadata: Metadata, defined here as data about data
or data elements, includes their descriptions and/or any needed context
setting information required to identify the origin, conditions of use,
interpretation, or understanding  the information being exchanged or
transferred.  (Adapted from ISO/IEC 2382-17:1999 Information Technology
Vocabulary—Part 17: Databases 17.06.05 metadata).  Based on the
business need, additional metadata may be required to sufficiently
describe an identifier or a code. A note regarding this additional
metadata is included in the notes column for identifier and code
elements. Additional metadata for identifiers may include:

Code List Identifier, which is a standardized reference to the context
or source of the set of codes

Additional metadata for codes may include:

Code List Identifier, which is a standardized reference to the context
or source of the set of codes

Code List Version Identifier, which identifies the particular version of
the set of codes.

Code List Version Agency Identifier, which identifies the agency
responsible for maintaining the set of codes

Code List Name, which describes the corresponding name for which the
code represents

Appendix A, Quality Assurance and Quality Control Data Standard
Structure Diagram illustrates the hierarchical classification of the
QA/QC data standard. This diagram enables business and technical users
of this standard to quickly understand its general content and
complexity. Appendix B, lists the references for the Quality Assurance
and Quality Control Data Standard.

2.0	QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL DATA STANDARD DIAGRAM

This diagram specifies the major data groups that may be used to
identify the characteristics and/or to catalog quality assurance and
quality control.

	  3.0 	QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTOL DATA STANDARD TABLE

1.0	Data Quality Indicator

Definition: 	The quantitative statistics and qualitative descriptors
that are used to interpret the degree of acceptability or utility of
data to the user.

	Relationships:  None.

Notes:		None.

XML Tag: 	DataQualityIndicator

Data Element Name	Data Element Definitions	Notes	Format 	XML Tags

1.1 Precision Value	A measure of mutual agreement among individual
measurements of the same property usually under prescribed similar
conditions.  	Note: This measure is the random component of error.

Example: Relative Percent Difference (RPD or di), where X is the primary
value and Y is the duplicate:

 	N	PrecisionValue

1.2 Precision Type Text	Classifies the type of precision measurement as
either intratest or intertest.	Permissible Values List:

Intratest

Intertest	A	PrecisionTypeText

1.3 Bias Value	The systematic or persistent distortion of a measurement
process which causes error in one direction. 	Note: Bias will be
determined by estimating the positive and negative deviation from the
true value as a percentage of the true value.

Example: Percent Difference, where X is the known or spiked amount, and
Y is the measured concentration:

 	N	BiasValue

1.4 Confidence Interval Value	A range of values constructed so that this
range has a specified probability of including the true population mean.
 	Note: This range is symmetric about the sample mean, the specified
probability is called the confidence level, and the end points of the
confidence interval are called the upper and lower confidence limits.

Confidence limit may be calculated as:

	N	ConfidenceIntervalValue

1.5 Upper Confidence Limit Value	Value of the upper end of the
confidence interval.	See 1.3 Confidence Interval	N
UpperConfidenceLimitValue

1.6 Lower Confidence Limit Value 	Value of the lower end of the
confidence interval.	See 1.3 Confidence Interval	N
LowerConfidenceLimitValue

Appendix A

Quality Assurance and Quality Control Data Standard Structure Diagram

Appendix B

References

ISO/IEC 2382-17:1999 Information Technology Vocabulary—Part 17:
Databases 17.06.

 PAGE

	Quality Assurance and Quality Control Data Standard

Std No.: 1-XXX

Version 1.0 – Final Draft

June 7, 2005		Page   PAGE  1

Quality Assurance and Quality Control Data Standard

Std No.: EX000012.2

July 22, 2008	Page   PAGE  4

June 21, 2005	         Page   PAGE  5

July 22, 2008	Page   PAGE  7

June 21, 2005	Page   PAGE  7

July 22, 2008	Page   PAGE  8 	Page   PAGE  8

Quality Assurance and Quality Control              Data standard

Data Standard

Data Quality

Indicator

Quality Assurance and Quality Control Data Standard

Data Quality Indicator

1.1	Precision Value

1.2    Precision Type Text

1.3    Bias Value

1.4    Confidence Interval Value

1.5    Upper Confidence Limit Value

1.6    Lower Confidence Limit Value


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 130 (Friday, July 6, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39938-39943]
[FR Doc No: 2012-16417]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0144; FRL-9695-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a revision to the Maryland State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Maryland, through
the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE), on February 13, 2012.
This action is being taken in accordance with the requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's rules for states to prevent any future
and remedy any existing anthropogenic impairment of visibility in
mandatory Class I areas through a regional haze program. EPA is also
approving this revision as meeting the infrastructure requirements
relating to visibility protection for the 1997 8-hour ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and the 1997 and 2006 fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS.

DATES: This final rule is effective on August 6, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0144. All documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic
docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III,
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the state
submittal are

available at the Maryland Department of the Environment, 1800
Washington Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, Maryland 21230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline Lewis,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Throughout this document, whenever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is
used, we mean EPA. On February 28, 2012 (77 FR 11839), EPA published a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Maryland. The NPR
proposed approval of Maryland's Regional Haze Plan for the first
implementation period through 2018. The formal SIP revision (MDE SIP
Number 12-01) was submitted by the State of Maryland on February 13,
2012. EPA proposed to approve this revision since it assures reasonable
progress toward the national goal of achieving natural visibility
conditions in Class I areas for the first implementation period. EPA
also proposed to approve this SIP revision as meeting the
infrastructure requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and
(a)(2)(J) of the CAA, relating to visibility protection for the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    The revision includes a long term strategy with enforceable
measures ensuring reasonable progress towards meeting the reasonable
progress goals for the first planning period through 2018. Maryland's
Regional Haze Plan contains the emission reductions needed to achieve
Maryland's share of emission reductions agreed upon through the
regional planning process. Other specific requirements of the CAA and
EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR) \1\ and the rationale for EPA's proposed
action are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. Timely
adverse comments were submitted on EPA's February 28, 2012 NPR. A
summary of the comments and EPA's responses are provided in Section III
of this document. As discussed more fully in the Response to Comments
below, EPA is also clarifying herein its approval of the BART
determinations for sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides
(NOX), and particulate matter (PM) for Unit 25 at the
NewPage Luke Pulp and Paper Mill located in Allegany County in Luke,
Maryland (NewPage Luke Mill) which we are approving into the Maryland
SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA promulgated the RHR to address regional haze on July 1,
1999 (64 FR 35714). The RHR revised existing visibility regulations
to integrate into the regulation provisions addressing regional haze
impairment and established a comprehensive visibility protection
program for Class I areas. The requirements for regional haze, found
at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included in EPA's visibility
protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-51.309.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Public Comments and EPA Response

    EPA received a number of comments on our proposal to approve
Maryland's Regional Haze SIP submittal. Comments were received from the
Luke Paper Company and the U.S. Forest Service. A joint letter from the
Sierra Club and the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) was
also received. The U.S. Forest Service acknowledged the work that the
State of Maryland has accomplished and encouraged the State of Maryland
to continue to reduce regional haze. The complete comments submitted by
all of the aforementioned entities (hereafter referred to as ``the
Commenter'') are provided in the docket (EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0144) for
today's final action. A summary of the comments and EPA's responses are
provided below.
    Comment 1: The Commenter recommended that emission controls for a
coal cleaning facility and three electric generating units (EGUs) which
are not BART subject sources in Maryland should be evaluated under the
reasonable progress provisions of the RHR as was done in Wyoming and
North Dakota. The Commenter stated that initially the coal cleaning
facility was identified as BART-eligible and modeling for this source
demonstrated that it may impact visibility at one or more Class I areas
located in West Virginia (e.g., Dolly Sods Wilderness Area and Otter
Creek Wilderness Area.) This source was subsequently found not to be
subject-to-BART.
    Response 1: EPA finds Maryland's decision not to further evaluate
controls at the coal cleaning facility and the three EGUs under the
reasonable progress provisions of the RHR to be reasonable. First, as
discussed in the NPR, two of the EGUs are subject to Maryland's Healthy
Air Act (HAA) \2\ which requires significant emission reductions at
those EGUs. More generally, as explained below, Maryland followed a
specific strategy for addressing reasonable progress. Pursuant to EPA's
Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals under the Regional Haze
Program (Reasonable Progress Guidance), states may identify key
pollutants and source categories for the first planning period.\3\ The
regional planning organizations VISTAS and MANE-VU and the State of
Maryland determined that the key pollutant which contributes to
visibility impairment in the VISTAS and MANE-VU Class I areas is
sulfate. Therefore, in accordance with EPA's Reasonable Progress
Guidance,\4\ VISTAS, MANE-VU and Maryland focused on SO2 for
the first planning period. To ensure reasonable progress for the first
planning period, MANE-VU recommended and Maryland agreed to pursue the
following emission reductions: Timely implementation of BART; 90
percent reduction in SO2 emissions from the 167 highest
visibility impacting EGUs; a reduction in the sulfur content of
distillate and residual oil; and continued evaluation of other emission
reduction strategies. Section III.B.4. of the NPR discusses how
Maryland met the 90 percent reduction in SO2 emissions from
the 167 highest visibility impacting EGUs and the equivalent reduction
to account for the reduced sulfur content of distillate and residual
oil. During the consultation process, Maryland provided West Virginia
with the intended emission reductions resulting from their long term
strategy for sources that are in the Area of Influence for Dolly Sods
which included emission reductions projected to be achieved by the HAA.
After review, West Virginia did not request additional emission
reductions from neighboring states for the first planning period other
than what has already been planned. Therefore, EPA does not agree that
additional controls beyond BART and the HAA should be evaluated for
these particular sources for reasonable progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Md. Code Ann., Environment Title 2, Ambient Air Quality
Control, Subtitle 10 Healthy Air Act, Section 2-1001-2-1005 (2012).
See also COMAR 26.11.27.
    \3\ See Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the
Regional Haze Program, p. 3-1 (June 1, 2007). EPA's Reasonable
Progress Guidance is also available at www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/reasonable_progress_guid071307.pdf.
    \4\ ``In deciding what amount of emission reductions is
appropriate in setting the RPG, you (the State) should take into
account that the long-term goal of no manmade impairment encompasses
several planning periods. It is reasonable for you to defer
reductions to later planning periods in order to maintain a
consistent glidepath toward the long-term goals.'' Reasonable
Progress Guidance at p. 1-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 2: The Commenter questioned the BART-eligibility of a coal
cleaning facility in Maryland because Maryland originally identified
this source as BART-eligible. The Commenter further noted that control
technologies available in 1977 differ from those available today, so a
BART analysis would be beneficial. In addition, the Commenter suggested
that

a permit condition to shut down the coal cleaning facility by the end
of 2014 would address the Commenter's concerns because the facility
indicated that it did not plan to operate beyond 2014.
    Response 2: EPA disagrees with the Commenter's assertions that the
identified Maryland coal cleaning facility should be subject to BART.
EPA agrees with Maryland that the source was not in existence by August
7, 1977 because this source did not meet EPA's definition of ``in
existence'' at 40 CFR 51.301. EPA did not grant approval of the coal
cleaning construction application until February 23, 1978. Therefore,
the coal cleaning facility was not in existence prior to 1977 and is
not a BART-eligible source. Additionally, EPA disagrees that any permit
requirements for shutdown are necessary or required for this particular
source. The Federal regional haze program does not require existing
sources to shutdown. While the facility may intend to cease operations
in the near future, Maryland was not required to make such a shutdown
enforceable in its Regional Haze SIP.
    Comment 3: The Commenter further stated that Maryland's discussion
on achievement of reasonable progress goals focused on the contribution
to emission reductions of sulfur only and not NOX.
    Response 3: EPA disagrees with the Commenter's assertion that
Maryland was required to focus on the contribution to emission
reductions of NOX in its Regional Haze SIP. As discussed in
EPA's Response to Comment 2, VISTAS, MANE-VU, and Maryland determined
that the key pollutant contributing to visibility impairment in the
MANE-VU and VISTAS Class I areas is sulfate. Maryland accordingly
focused on SO2 emission reductions for the first planning
period, an approach that EPA believes was appropriate given the
technical analyses done by VISTAS and MANE-VU. As discussed in the NPR,
the State of Maryland does not have a Class 1 area and is not required
to establish reasonable progress goals such as NOX emission
reductions.
    Comment 4: The Commenter recommended two different control
technologies for Unit 26 at the NewPage Luke Mill that combined would
reduce NOX emissions at the Mill by 60 to 90 percent.
    Response 4: Although Unit 26 at the NewPage Luke Mill is mentioned
in the BART analysis done by the facility, Unit 26 is not a BART-
eligible source. The owner of the NewPage Luke Mill correctly provided
a BART analysis for the BART-eligible Unit 25, and Maryland determined
BART for Unit 25. As discussed more fully in EPA's Response to Comments
2 and 3 above, EPA does not agree that any further controls for
NOX are needed for reasonable progress at any source at the
NewPage Luke Mill at this time.
    Comment 5: The Commenter stated that EPA mischaracterized the Luke
Paper Company's commitment in the letter dated October 31, 2007 for
BART controls at the NewPage Luke Mill. The Commenter stated that EPA
noted in its NPR that Luke Paper Company committed to installing either
a spray dryer absorber or a circulating dry scrubber resulting in
approximately 90 percent emission reductions in SO2 and to
year round operation of the existing selective non-catalytic reduction
(SNCR) control at Unit 25 for NOX control as BART for the
BART subject Unit 25 at the NewPage Luke Mill. The Commenter asserted
that its October 31, 2007 letter committed to reduce emissions by 90
percent for SO2 without specifying controls, to reduce
NOX emissions to 0.4 pounds per million British thermal
units (lb/MMbtu), and to control PM emissions to 0.07 lb/MMbtu for Unit
25 at the NewPage Luke Mill on a yearly basis.
    Response 5: EPA agrees with the Commenter that Maryland's Regional
Haze SIP submittal and our approval of the submittal requires the
NewPage Luke Mill at Unit 25 to meet BART limits of 0.44 lb/MMbtu for
SO2, a rolling 30-day emission rate of 0.40 lb/MMbtu for
NOX, and 0.07 lb/MMbtu for PM. Although Maryland's BART
determination was based on the use of certain controls, BART is an
emission limit. 40 CFR 51.301. In our NPR, we inadvertently suggested
that the Maryland Regional Haze SIP required the use of specific
controls. We agree with the Commenter that the Maryland Regional Haze
SIP requires the NewPage Luke Mill to meet the BART emission limits
noted above but does not require the facility to install specific
controls at Unit 25 to meet these limits.
    Comment 6: The Commenter stated that Maryland failed to meet the
requisite demonstration that the distribution of emission reductions
will be similar to that under the source-specific BART and failed to
conduct dispersion modeling to show that the Maryland HAA results in
greater reasonable progress toward achieving natural baseline
visibility conditions in the areas protected by the RHR.
    Response 6: EPA disagrees with the Commenter. EPA discussed in the
NPR how Maryland's HAA was an acceptable alternative to BART for EGUs
and discussed how the HAA met the requirements for a BART alternative
program in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). EPA finds that the distribution of
emission reductions in Maryland at EGUs from the HAA is comparable to
and not substantially different from emission reductions under BART at
EGUs. The emission reductions from the HAA are discussed in detail in
the NPR. Maryland's HAA covers all of the BART-subject EGU sources and
also includes two EGUs which are not BART-subject sources. With the
exception of a single unit at one EGU, the Maryland HAA covers more
units at each source than just BART-eligible units as illustrated in
Table 5 of Section III.B.5 of the NPR.\5\ The HAA does not allow
facilities to obtain out-of-state emission allowances in lieu of adding
pollution controls locally. All of the emission reductions pursuant to
the HAA are at EGUs in Maryland which are located in the eastern
portion of Maryland around Baltimore and Washington, DC in the same
physical location as BART-eligible EGUs. Table 5 of Section III.B.5 of
the NPR supports the conclusion that the distribution of emissions is
not substantially different under the HAA than under BART because the
HAA includes all of the BART sources and all of the BART-eligible units
with the exception of Chalk Point Unit 3. Because the Maryland HAA
includes all the BART-subject EGU sources, the distance from HAA
sources to Class I areas is identical to the distance from BART-subject
EGU sources to Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Chalk Point Unit 3 is the sole unit at an EGU which is a
BART-eligible unit not covered by the HAA because it is not a coal-
fired EGU. However, Chalk Point Unit 3 is required to operate on
natural gas during 75% of its annual heat input and is required to
operate on natural gas during 95% of the ozone season heat input
pursuant to a consent decree with MDE which was effective on March
10, 2011 and which has been submitted to EPA for approval into the
Maryland SIP. See 77 FR 26438 (May 4, 2012) (providing direct final
rulemaking to approve consent decree limits for Chalk Point Unit 3
into Maryland SIP). EPA expects significant reductions of
NOX, SO2, and PM from the required combustion
of natural gas instead of combustion of fuel oil at Chalk Point Unit
3. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA provided an analysis supporting emission reductions from the
HAA exceeding presumptive BART in the NPR. The factors used by Maryland
to develop the HAA emission limitations incorporate criteria used in
the RHR as discussed in the NPR in greater detail. As discussed in
Section III.B.5 of the NPR, Maryland did a comparison of HAA emission
limits for 13 of the 15 units subject to the HAA which resulted in a
surplus of SO2 and NOX reductions compared to
presumptive BART because the HAA applies to more units

than BART. Because the BART-subject sources are all HAA-subject
sources, the distribution of emission reductions is not substantially
different than under BART. As discussed in the NPR and in Maryland's
Regional Haze SIP submittal, the alternative measure (i.e., the HAA)
results in greater emission reductions than BART and therefore achieves
greater reasonable progress. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3). Because the
distribution of emissions is not substantially different, dispersion
modeling is not required in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3).
    Comment 7: The Commenter stated that Maryland has not demonstrated
how the emissions reductions resulting from the Maryland HAA are
surplus to those reductions resulting from measures adopted to meet
other requirements of the CAA as of the baseline date of this SIP, as
required by EPA's RHR and the infrastructure requirements related to
visibility protection for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS and the 1997 and
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Response 7: Because Maryland is using the HAA as an alternative to
BART for its EGU BART-eligible sources as permitted by the RHR and as
discussed in the NPR, EPA agrees with Maryland's analysis that emission
reductions from the 13 HAA units will result in emission reductions
that are surplus to the baseline date of the SIP. In promulgating the
RHR in 1999, EPA explained that the ``baseline date of the SIP'' in
this context means ``the date of the emissions inventories on which the
SIP relies,'' which is ``defined as 2002 for regional haze purposes.''
See 64 FR 35742, July 1, 1999, and 70 FR 39143, July 6, 2005. Any
measure adopted after 2002 is accordingly ``surplus'' under 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(iv). As discussed in the NPR, Maryland's use of the HAA
(which was adopted after 2002) as an alternative to BART for EGUs is in
accordance with and satisfies the requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)
for BART alternatives, including the requirement that the emission
reductions be surplus to the baseline date of the SIP. The NPR also
discusses how Maryland developed the emission reductions required by
the HAA. EPA is not restating that analysis here.
    Also, EPA's final approval of Maryland's Regional Haze SIP herein
will satisfy the infrastructure requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and (a)(2)(J) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS and
the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA disagrees with the
Commenter's suggestion that the emission reductions from the HAA are
not surplus solely because the reductions are part of Maryland's
Regional Haze SIP which satisfies CAA infrastructure elements in
section 110(a)(2)(D) and (J) of the CAA. Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA
does not impose specific requirements on particular sources, and
therefore surplus reduction is not at issue.
    Comment 8: The Commenter stated that the BART analyses submitted by
Constellation Energy for Wagner Unit 3 and Crane Unit 2 are deeply
flawed and failed to identify correctly BART technology and BART limits
for those units. The Commenter also stated that Maryland improperly
compared HAA emissions to those under presumptive BART and that
Maryland must redo its analysis and compare emissions reductions under
the HAA to those produced by full source-specific BART analyses.
    Response 8: The primary requirement, as specified in CAA section
169A, is for sources to procure, install, and operate BART. In some
cases this requirement is met with an analysis of potential controls
considering five factors given in EPA's RHR. EPA has interpreted this
requirement to be met if an alternative set of emission limits are
established which mandate greater reasonable progress toward visibility
improvement than direct application of BART on a source-by-source
basis. In promulgating the RHR, EPA stated that to demonstrate that
emission reductions of an alternative program would result in greater
emission reductions, ``the State must estimate the emission reductions
that would result from the use of BART-level controls. To do this, the
State could undertake a source-specific review of the sources in the
State subject to BART, or it could use a modified approach that
simplifies the analysis.'' 64 FR 35742 (July 1, 1999).
    In guidance published October 13, 2006, EPA offered further
clarification for states for assessing alternative strategies, in
particular regarding the benchmark definition of BART to use in judging
whether the alternative is better. See 71 FR 60619. In this rulemaking,
EPA stated in the preamble that the presumptive BART levels given in
the BART guidelines would be a suitable baseline against which to
compare alternative strategies where the alternative has been designed
to meet a requirement other than BART. 71 FR at 60619; see also 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(i)(C). Maryland's analysis is fully consistent with EPA's
conclusions in this rulemaking.
    While EPA recognizes that a case-by-case BART analysis may result
in emission limits more stringent than the presumptive limits, the
presumptive limits are reasonable and appropriate for use in assessing
an alternative emissions reductions scenario such as the HAA when
comparing it to the BART scenario. See 71 FR 60619 (stating ``the
presumptions represent a reasonable estimate of a stringent case BART *
* * because * * * they would be applied across the board to a wide
variety of units with varying impacts on visibility, at power plants of
varying size and distance from Class I areas'').
    Maryland's HAA was developed to bring Maryland into attainment with
the NAAQS for ozone and PM2.5 by CAA deadlines and to reduce
atmospheric deposition of nitrogen to the Chesapeake Bay and other
Maryland waters. The HAA imposes limitations on SO2,
NOX, and mercury emissions from coal-fired EGUs in Maryland.
Although Maryland is also now using the HAA as an alternative to BART
for its EGU BART-eligible sources as permitted pursuant to EPA's RHR
(40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)), the use of presumptive limits is appropriate.
EPA agrees with Maryland's analysis that emission reductions from the
thirteen HAA units will result in emission reductions that will provide
greater reasonable progress than would BART alone as described more
fully in the NPR.
    Regarding the units at H.A. Wagner and C.P. Crane, EPA notes that
H.A. Wagner Units 2 and 3 and C.P. Crane Units 1 and 2 are subject to
the HAA (Maryland's alternative BART program) while only C.P. Crane
Unit 2 and H.A. Wagner Unit 3 are BART-eligible units. Because these
additional units (as well as units at Brandon Shores and Dickerson) are
covered under the HAA, significantly more emission reductions are
achieved by the HAA than through application of presumptive BART as
discussed in Section III.B.5 in the NPR.
    Comment 9: The Commenter stated that Maryland must ensure that
reasonable progress goals are set so as to put the state on the
glidepath to attainment of baseline natural visibility conditions in
all affected Class I areas by 2064. For at least the Dolly Sods
Wilderness, the Commenter stated that it did not appear that Maryland
has done so and questioned what date the Class I areas would attain.
    Response 9: EPA disagrees with the Commenter. As stated in the NPR,
because Maryland does not have a Class I area, it is not required to
establish reasonable progress goals. However, Maryland participated in
conference calls and a meeting with West Virginia during the
consultation process. They discussed the sources and emissions
reductions expected within the area of

influence for Dolly Sods. Subsequently, based on the planned measures
in neighboring states, West Virginia decided for the first planning
period not to ask neighboring states for additional emissions
reductions. Previously, EPA approved West Virginia's reasonable
progress goals for the Dolly Sods Class I area. See 77 FR 16932 (March
23, 2012). Therefore, EPA disagrees with the Commenter and confirms
that no such further analysis regarding the glidepath to attainment is
needed.
    Comment 10: The Commenter stated that EPA lacked CAA statutory
authority to allow Maryland to use the HAA as an alternative to source-
specific BART.
    Response 10: EPA disagrees with the Commenter regarding EPA's clear
statutory authority. EPA's authority to establish non-BART alternatives
in the regional haze program and the specific methodology in 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2) for assessing such alternatives have been previously
challenged and upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit. In the first case challenging the
provisions in the RHR allowing for states to adopt alternative programs
in lieu of BART, the court affirmed our interpretation of section
169A(b)(2) of the CAA as allowing for alternatives to BART where those
alternatives will result in greater reasonable progress than BART.
Center for Energy and Economic Development v. EPA, 398 F.3d 653, 660
(DC Cir. 2005) (finding reasonable EPA's interpretation of CAA section
169(a)(2) as requiring BART only as necessary to make reasonable
progress). In the second case, Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 471
F.3d 1333 (DC Cir. 2006), the court specifically upheld our
determination that states could rely on the Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR) as an alternative program to BART for EGUs in the CAIR-affected
states. The court concluded that EPA's two-pronged test for determining
whether an alternative program achieves greater reasonable progress was
a reasonable one and also agreed with EPA that nothing in the CAA
required EPA to ``impose a separate technology mandate for sources
whose emissions affect Class I areas, rather than piggy-backing on
solutions devised under other statutory categories, where such
solutions meet the statutory requirements.'' Id. at 1340. We do not
agree, therefore, that EPA lacks statutory authority for 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2) which permits states to include in a SIP an alternative
trading program that provides for greater reasonable progress than BART
in place of source-specific BART.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving a revision to the Maryland SIP submitted on
February 13, 2012 by the State of Maryland through MDE that addresses
regional haze for the first implementation period. In submitting the
plan, Maryland also stated that the Regional Haze SIP submission meets
the relevant and applicable obligations related to visibility pursuant
to section 110(a)(2) of the CAA, including, but not limited to, section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and (a)(2)(J) of the CAA, for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone
NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for Maryland. EPA
has determined that the Maryland Regional Haze SIP contains the
emission reductions needed to achieve Maryland's share of emission
reductions agreed upon through the regional planning process.
Furthermore, Maryland's Regional Haze Plan ensures that emissions from
the state will not interfere with the reasonable progress goals for
neighboring states' Class I areas consistent with the requirements of
the visibility prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA. EPA is
approving this SIP revision as meeting the requirements of the regional
haze program, CAA section 110(a)(2)(J),\6\ and the infrastructure SIP
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) relating to visibility
protection for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) states that the plan must meet the
applicable requirements for visibility protection. EPA would not
expect the establishment of a new primary NAAQS to change the
applicable visibility protection and regional haze program
requirements under Part C of Title I of the CAA. Thus, EPA does not
consider there to be new applicable visibility protection
obligations under CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) as a result of the 1997
ozone NAAQS revision or the 1997 and 2006 p.m.2.5 NAAQS revisions.
We do agree, however, that Maryland has met the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(J) by submitting an approvable regional haze SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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 CAA. Accordingly, this
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 action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     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 CAA; 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, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A
major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in
the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by
5 U.S.C. 804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by September 4, 2012. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action pertaining to Maryland's Regional Haze Plan for the
first implementation period, through 2018 may not be challenged later
in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2) of
the CAA.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: June 13, 2012.
 W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    Therefore, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart V--Maryland

0
2. In Sec.  52.1070, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding
the entry for the Maryland Regional Haze Plan at the end of the table
to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1070  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Name of non-regulatory SIP      Applicable geographic       State                               Additional
             revision                        area          submittal date    EPA approval date      explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Maryland Regional Haze Plan.......  Statewide............         2/13/12  7/6/2012 [Insert page
                                                                            number where the
                                                                            document begins].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2012-16417 Filed 7-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 21, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40058-40065]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13153]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-0672; Project Identifier AD-2022-01429-T;
Amendment 39-22470; AD 2023-12-12]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2022-04-
05, which applied to all The Boeing Company Model 757 and 767
airplanes. AD 2022-04-05 required revising the limitations and
operating procedures sections of the existing airplane flight manual
(AFM) to incorporate specific operating procedures for landing distance
calculations, instrument landing system (ILS) approaches, non-precision
approaches, speedbrake deployment, and go-around and missed approaches,
when in the presence of interference from wireless broadband operations
in the 3.7-3.98 GHz frequency band (5G C-Band) as identified by Notices
to Air Missions (NOTAMs). Since the FAA issued AD 2022-04-05, the FAA
determined that additional limitations are needed due to the continued
deployment of new 5G C-Band base stations whose signals are expected to
cover most of the contiguous United States at transmission frequencies
between 3.7-3.98 GHz. This AD requires revising the limitations and
operating procedures sections of the existing AFM to incorporate
specific operating procedures for landing distance calculations, ILS
approaches, non-precision approaches, speedbrake deployment, and go-
around and missed approaches, due to the presence of 5G C-Band
interference. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective June 21, 2023.

ADDRESSES: AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov
under Docket No. FAA-2023-0672; 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 final rule, any comments
received, and other information. The address for Docket Operations is
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room

W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brett Portwood, Continued Operational
Safety Technical Advisor, COS Program Management Section, Operational
Safety Branch, FAA, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2022-04-05, Amendment 39-21947 (87 FR 8152,
February 14, 2022) (AD 2022-04-05). AD 2022-04-05 applied to all The
Boeing Company (Boeing) Model 757 and 767 airplanes. The NPRM published
in the Federal Register on May 3, 2023 (88 FR 27742). The NPRM was
prompted by a determination that radio altimeters cannot be relied upon
to perform their intended function if they experience 5G C-Band
interference, and a determination that, during approach, landings, and
go-arounds, as a result of this interference, certain airplane systems
may not properly function, resulting in increased flightcrew workload
while on approach with the flight director, autothrottle, or autopilot
engaged.
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to retain the AFM revisions required
by AD 2022-04-05 until June 30, 2023. On or before June 30, 2023, the
FAA proposed to require replacing those AFM revisions with limitations
requiring the same procedures for dispatch or release to airports, and
approach, landing, and go-around on runways, at all airports for non-
radio altimeter tolerant airplanes. For radio altimeter tolerant
airplanes, the FAA proposed that the procedures would not be required
at 5G C-Band mitigated airports (5G CMAs) as identified in an FAA
Domestic Notice. The FAA proposed this AD to address 5G C-Band
interference that could result in increased flightcrew workload and
could lead to reduced ability of the flightcrew to maintain safe flight
and landing of the airplane.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA provided the public with an opportunity to comment on the
proposed AD and received comments from five commenters. The following
presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to
each comment.

Support for NPRM

    Boeing and the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA),
supported the NPRM without change.
    The supportive comments from ALPA included additional viewpoints
without a suggestion specific to the AD or a request the FAA can act
on. These comments are outside the scope of this final rule.

Request To Revise AFM Limitations

    Comment summary: Northern Air Cargo, LLC, requested the FAA revise
the proposed AD to allow the flight directors, autothrottle, and
autopilot to remain engaged during a CAT I ILS approach until an
anomaly is detected, at which time the pilot would immediately
disconnect the flight directors, autothrottle, and autopilot and
execute a go-around. The commenter stated this would reduce flightcrew
workload during normal operations and not handicap every ILS approach
based on a very remote possibility of 5G interference.
    FAA response: The FAA disagrees. Boeing has not submitted any
substantiating safety risk assessment data to show that the flight
directors, autothrottle, and autopilot can remain safely engaged during
a CAT I ILS approach.

Request To Extend Compliance Time

    Comment summary: American Airlines expressed concern regarding the
compliance time for the proposed actions and requested the FAA revise
the AD to provide a minimum of 30 days from the effective date of the
AD.
    FAA response: The FAA understands the commenter's concern and made
every effort to publish this AD as soon as possible. After refraining
from operating at their FCC-authorized levels for a year and a half,
wireless companies are now able to operate at higher levels, yet still
not at the levels authorized. Specifically, wireless companies expect
to operate their networks in urban areas with minimal restrictions due
to the completion of retrofits. Additionally, the FAA anticipates 19
additional telecommunication companies will begin transmitting in the
C-Band after June 30, 2023. Although the FAA continues to work with the
companies that intend to transmit in the 3.7-3.98-GHz band near 5G
CMAs, the FAA has no agreement with those companies to provide the FAA
with tower locations and other information necessary to support the
current NOTAM/AMOC process. Therefore, the FAA will not be able to
extend the June 30, 2023, date.

Effect of Winglets on Accomplishment of the Proposed Actions

    Comment summary: Aviation Partners Boeing stated that installing
winglets under supplemental type certificate (STC) ST01518SE and STC
ST01920SE on applicable Boeing models does not affect accomplishment of
the actions specified in the proposed AD.
    FAA response: The FAA agrees. The FAA has not changed this AD in
this regard.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments
received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as
proposed Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products. This AD is adopted as proposed in the
NPRM.

Interim Action

    The FAA considers this AD to be an interim action. Once the
Technical Standard Order (TSO) standard for radio altimeters is
established, which will follow the existing international technical
consensus on the establishment of the minimum operational performance
standards (MOPS), the FAA anticipates that the MOPS will be
incorporated into the TSO. Once a new radio altimeter TSO is developed,
approved, and available, the FAA might consider additional rulemaking.

Effective Date

    Section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C.
551 et seq.) requires publication of a rule not less than 30 days
before its effective date. However, section 553(d) authorizes agencies
to make rules effective in less than 30 days when the agency finds
``good cause.'' Radio altimeters cannot be relied upon to perform their
intended function if they experience interference from wireless
broadband operations in the 5G C-Band. This interference can cause
other airplane systems to not properly function, resulting in increased
flightcrew workload while on approach with the flight director,
autothrottle, or autopilot engaged. To address this unsafe condition,
the actions required by this AD must be accomplished before the
compliance date of June 30, 2023. The FAA based this date on the
changes to the 5G C-Band environment beginning on July 1, 2023. These
changes include increased wireless broadband deployment and
transmissions closer to the parameters authorized by the FCC. The
earlier operators learn of the requirements in

this AD, the earlier they can take action to ensure compliance. An
effective date less than 30 days would ensure the AD is codified
earlier, thereby increasing awareness of its requirements. Therefore,
the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for
making this amendment immediately effective.

Costs of Compliance

    The cost information below describes the costs to change the AFM.
Although this AD largely maintains the AFM limitations currently
required by AD 2022-04-05, the FAA acknowledges that this AD may also
impose costs on some aircraft operators from having to change their
conduct to comply with the amended AFM. However, the FAA lacks the data
necessary to quantify the costs associated with aircraft operators
changing their conduct.
    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 1,108 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFM revision (retained actions from AD  1 work-hour x $85 per                 $0             $85         $94,180
 2022-04-05).                            hour \1\ = $85.
New AFM revisions (new action)........  1 work-hour x $85 per                  0              85      \2\ 94,180
                                         hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The labor rate of $85 per hour is the average wage rate for an aviation mechanic.
\2\ The estimated cost for this revision would not constitute a significant economic impact (even for small
  entities) because $85 is a minimal cost compared to the regular costs of maintaining and operating a Model 757
  or 767 transport category airplane.

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

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2022-04-05, Amendment 39-21947
(87 FR 8152, February 14, 2022), and
0
b. Adding the following new AD:

2023-12-12 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-22470; Docket No. FAA-
2023-0672; Project Identifier AD-2022-01429-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective June 21, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2022-04-05, Amendment 39-21947 (87 FR 8152,
February 14, 2022) (AD 2022-04-05).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company airplanes identified
in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this AD, certificated in any
category.
    (1) Model 757-200, -200PF, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes.
    (2) Model 767-200, -300, -300F, -400ER, and -2C series
airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 34, Navigation.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a determination that radio altimeters
cannot be relied upon to perform their intended function if they
experience interference from wireless broadband operations in the
3.7-3.98 GHz frequency band (5G C-Band), and a determination that,
during approach, landings, and go-arounds, as a result of this
interference, certain airplane systems may not properly function,
resulting in increased flightcrew workload while on approach with
the flight director, autothrottle, or autopilot engaged. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address 5G C-Band interference that could result
in increased flightcrew workload and could lead to reduced ability
of the flightcrew to maintain safe flight and landing of the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Definitions

    (1) For purposes of this AD, a ``5G C-Band mitigated airport''
(5G CMA) is an airport at which the telecommunications companies
have agreed to voluntarily limit their 5G deployment at the request
of the FAA, as identified by an FAA Domestic Notice.
    (2) For purposes of this AD, a ``radio altimeter tolerant
airplane'' is one for which the radio altimeter, as installed,
demonstrates the tolerances specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and
(ii) of this AD, using a method approved by the FAA.
    (i) Tolerance to radio altimeter interference, for the
fundamental emissions (3.7-3.98 GHz), at or above the power spectral
density (PSD) curve threshold specified in figure 1 to paragraph
(g)(2)(i) of this AD.
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

Figure 1 to paragraph (g)(2)(i)--Fundamental Effective Isotropic PSD
at Outside Interface of Aircraft Antenna
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21JN23.101

    (ii) Tolerance to radio altimeter interference, for the spurious
emissions (3.7-3.98 GHz), at or above the PSD curve threshold
specified in figure 2 to paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of this AD.

Figure 2 to paragraph (g)(2)(ii)--Spurious Effective Isotropic PSD
at Outside Interface of Aircraft Antenna
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21JN23.102

    (3) For purposes of this AD, a ``non-radio altimeter tolerant
airplane'' is one for which the radio altimeter, as installed, does
not demonstrate the tolerances specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and
(ii) of this AD.

(h) Retained Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) Revision

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD
2022-04-05.
    (1) Within 2 days after February 14, 2022 (the effective date of
AD 2022-04-05): Revise the Limitations Section of the existing AFM
to include the information specified in figure 3 to paragraph (h)(1)
of this AD. This may be done by inserting a copy of figure 3 to
paragraph (h)(1) of this AD into the existing AFM.

Figure 3 to paragraph (h)(1)--AFM Limitations Revisions
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21JN23.103

    (2) Within 2 days after February 14, 2022 (the effective date of
AD 2022-04-05): Revise the Operating Procedures Section of the
existing AFM to include the information specified in figure 4 to
paragraph (h)(2) of this AD. This may be done by inserting a copy of
figure 4 to paragraph (h)(2) of this AD into the Operating
Procedures Section of the existing AFM.

Figure 4 to paragraph (h)(2)--AFM Operating Procedures Revision
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21JN23.104

(i) New Requirement: AFM Limitations Revision for Non-Radio Altimeter
Tolerant Airplanes

    For non-radio altimeter tolerant airplanes, do the actions
specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (2) of this AD.
    (1) On or before June 30, 2023, revise the Limitations Section
of the existing AFM to include the information specified in figure 5
to paragraph (i) of this AD. This may be done by inserting a copy of
figure 5 to paragraph (i) of this AD into the existing AFM.
Incorporating the AFM revision required by this paragraph terminates
the AFM revision required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD.
    (2) Before further flight after incorporating the limitations
specified in figure 5 to paragraph (i) of this AD, remove the AFM
revision required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD.

Figure 5 to paragraph (i)--AFM Limitations Revision for Non-Radio
Altimeter Tolerant Airplanes
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21JN23.105

(j) New Requirement: AFM Limitations Revision for Radio Altimeter
Tolerant Airplanes

    For radio altimeter tolerant airplanes, do the actions specified
in paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) of this AD.
    (1) On or before June 30, 2023, revise the Limitations Section
of the existing AFM to include the information specified in figure 6
to paragraph (j) of this AD. This may be done by inserting a copy of
figure 6 to paragraph (j) of this AD into the existing AFM.
Incorporating the AFM revision required by this paragraph terminates
the AFM revision required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD.
    (2) Before further flight after incorporating the limitations
specified in figure 6 to paragraph (j) of this AD, remove the AFM
revision required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD.

Figure 6 to paragraph (j)--AFM Limitations Revision for Radio
Altimeter Tolerant Airplanes
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21JN23.106

(k) New Requirement: AFM Operating Procedures Revision

    For all airplanes, do the actions specified in paragraphs (k)(1)
and (2) of this AD.
    (1) On or before June 30, 2023, revise the Operating Procedures
Section of the existing AFM to include the information specified in
figure 7 to paragraph (k) of this AD. This may be done by inserting
a copy of figure 7 to paragraph (k) of this AD into the existing
AFM. Incorporating the AFM revision required by this paragraph
terminates the AFM revision required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD.
    (2) Before further flight after incorporating the operating
procedures specified in figure 7 to paragraph (k) of this AD, remove
the AFM revision required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD.

Figure 7 to paragraph (k)--AFM Operating Procedures Revision
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21JN23.107

(l) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Operational Safety 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 manager of the Operational Safety Branch, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (m) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (3) AMOCs approved for AD 2021-23-12, Amendment 39-21810 (86 FR
69984, December 9, 2021) providing relief for specific radio
altimeter installations are approved as AMOCs for the requirements
specified in paragraph (h) of this AD until June 30, 2023.

(m) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Brett Portwood,
Continued Operational Safety Technical Advisor, COS Program
Management Section, Operational Safety Branch, FAA, 3960 Paramount
Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

(n) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued on June 9, 2023.
Michael Linegang,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-13153 Filed 6-16-23; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-C


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 24, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11293-11294]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03793]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0347; FRL-10020-74-OMS]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Epoxy Resin and Non-Nylon
Polyamide Production (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), NESHAP for Epoxy Resin and Non-
Nylon Polyamide Production (EPA ICR Number 1681.10, OMB Control Number
2060-0290), 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
April 30, 2021. Public comments were previously requested, via the
Federal Register, on May 12, 2020 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 March 26,
2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2013-0347, to EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method), or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA Docket
Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
    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: Patrick Yellin, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 564-0050; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that EPA will be collecting, are available in
the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov, or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
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: Owners and operators of affected facilities are required
to comply with reporting and recordkeeping requirements for the General
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), as well as the applicable
standards at 40 CFR part 63, subpart W. This includes submitting
initial notifications, performance tests and periodic reports and
results, and maintaining records of the occurrence and duration of any
startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected
facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is
inoperative. These reports are used by EPA to determine compliance with
these standards.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Epoxy resin and non-nylon polyamide
resin production facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart W).
    Estimated number of respondents: 7 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially, quarterly, and semiannually.
    Total estimated burden: 3,940 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $476,000 (per year), which includes $14,000
in annualized capital/startup and/or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is no increase in burden from the
most recently approved ICR as currently identified in the OMB Inventory
of Approved Burdens. This is due to two considerations: (1) The
regulations have not changed over the past three years, and they are
not anticipated to change over the next three years; (2) the growth
rate for this industry is either very low or non-existent, so there is
no significant change in the overall burden. However, there is a slight
increase in costs. The operation and maintenance (O&M) costs have been
updated from 1998 dollars to 2019 dollars using the CEPCI CE Index.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2021-03793 Filed 2-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 187 (Wednesday, September 28, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 58729]
[FR Doc No: 2022-21036]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2022-0736]

Safety Zones; Fireworks Displays in the Fifth Coast Guard
District

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notification of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the Delaware River, Philadelphia,
PA; Safety Zone from 8:30 p.m. through 9:15 p.m. on September 30, 2022,
to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during the
Cooper Foundation Gala fireworks display. Our regulation for fireworks
displays in the Fifth Coast Guard District identifies the regulated
area for this event in Philadelphia, PA. During the enforcement period,
the operator of any vessel in the regulated area must comply with
directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol displaying
a Coast Guard ensign.

DATES: The regulation 33 CFR 165.506 will be enforced for the location
identified in entry 10 of table 1 to paragraph (h)(1) from 8:30 p.m.
through 9:15 p.m. on September 30, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notification of enforcement, call or email Petty Officer Dylan
Caikowski, U.S. Coast Guard, Sector Delaware Bay, Waterways Management
Division, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone
in table 1 to paragraph (h)(1) to 33 CFR 165.506, entry 10 for the
Cooper Foundation Gala fireworks display from 8:30 p.m. through 9:15
p.m. on September 30, 2022. This action is necessary to ensure safety
of life on the navigable waters of the United States immediately prior
to, during, and immediately after the fireworks display. Our regulation
for safety zones of fireworks displays in the Fifth Coast Guard
District, table 1 to paragraph (h)(1) to 33 CFR 165.506, entry 10
specifies the location of the regulated area as all waters of Delaware
River, adjacent to Penn's Landing, Philadelphia, PA, within a 500-yard
radius of the fireworks barge position. The approximate position for
the fireworks barge is latitude 39[deg]56'53'' N, longitude
075[deg]08'03'' W. During the enforcement period, as reflected in Sec.
165.506(d), vessels may not enter, remain in, or transit through the
safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or designated
Coast Guard patrol personnel on-scene.
    In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register,
the Coast Guard will provide notification of this enforcement period
via broadcast notice to mariners.

    Dated: September 23, 2022.
Kate F. Higgins-Bloom,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port Delaware Bay.
[FR Doc. 2022-21036 Filed 9-27-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: March 5, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 44)]
[Notices]
[Page 11909-11910]
[DOCID:fr05mr08-57]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP08-68-000]

Trunkline LNG Company, LLC; Notice of Intent to Prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Pipeline Compressor Addition
Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

February 28, 2008.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the proposed Pipeline Compressor
Addition Project (Project) involving the construction and operation of
facilities by Trunkline LNG Company, LLC (Trunkline LNG) in Calcasieu
Parish, Louisiana.\1\ The EA will be used by the Commission in its
decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the
public convenience and necessity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On February 1, 2008, Trunkline LNG filed its application
with the Commission under section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act, 15
United States Code Sec.  717(b)(a), and Parts 157 and 284 of the
Commission's regulations. The Commission issued its Notice of
Application on February 12, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A brochure prepared by the FERC entitled ``A Guide to LNG--What All
Citizens Should Know'' is available for viewing on the FERC Internet
Web site (http://www.ferc.gov). This brochure addresses a number of
typically asked questions, including what is LNG and how is it
transported.

Summary of the Proposed Project

    Trunkline LNG seeks authority to construct, install and operate on
land owned by Trunkline LNG:
     One new 1,500 horsepower electric motor-driven compressor
in parallel with the existing pipeline compressor;
     Related piping; and
     Associated electrical connections and instrumentation.
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in Appendix
1.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies of all appendices are
available on the Commission's Web site at the ``eLibrary'' link or
from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>. For instructions on
connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.
Copies of the appendices were sent to all those receiving this
notice in the mail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the project would occur entirely within the
existing 125 acre Trunkline LNG terminal site. The temporary and
permanent footprints of the project area would not exceed more than 0.1
acre of previously disturbed land currently covered with concrete.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals.
This process is referred to as ``scoping.'' The main goal of the
scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this Notice of Intent, the Commission staff
requests public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the
EA. All comments received are considered during the preparation of the
EA. State and local government representatives are encouraged to notify
their constituents of this proposed action and encourage them to
comment on their areas of concern.
    In the EA, we \3\ will discuss impacts that could occur as a result
of the construction and operation of the proposed project under these
general headings:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``We'', ``us'', and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Office of Energy Projects (OEP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Geology and Soils.
     Land Use.
     Water Resources, Fisheries, and Wetlands.
     Cultural Resources.
     Vegetation and Wildlife.
     Threatened and Endangered Species.
     Air Quality and Noise.
    We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed
project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to
lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    Our independent analysis of the issues will be in the EA. Depending
on the comments received during the scoping process, the EA may be
published and mailed to Federal, State, and local agencies, public
interest groups, interested individuals, affected landowners,
newspapers, libraries, and the Commission's official service list for
this proceeding. A comment period will be allotted for review if the EA
is published. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make
our recommendations to the Commission.
    To ensure your comments are considered, please carefully follow the
instructions in the public participation section below.

Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    We have already identified the following issues that we think
deserve attention based on a preliminary review of the proposed
facilities and the environmental information provided by Trunkline LNG.
This preliminary list of issues may be changed based on your comments
and our analysis.
     The operation of the proposed compressor would contribute
to noise generated by the existing Trunkline LNG facility.
     No impacts would occur to water resources, fisheries,
wetlands, vegetation or wildlife. Other than air quality and noise, all
impacts would occur within existing Trunkline LNG property.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the project. By becoming a commenter, your
concerns will be addressed in the EA and considered by the Commission.
You should focus on the potential environmental effects of the
proposal, alternatives to the proposal (including alternative
locations), and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impact. The
more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. Please
carefully follow these instructions to ensure that your comments are
received in time and properly recorded:
     Send an original and two copies of your letter to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First St., NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
     Label one copy of the comments for the attention of OEP/
DG2E, Gas Branch 3.
     Reference Docket No. CP08-68-000.
     Mail your comments so that they will be received in
Washington, DC on or before March 31, 2008.
    We will include all comments that we receive within a reasonable
time frame in our environmental analysis of this project. However, the
Commission strongly encourages electronic filing of any comments or
interventions or protests to this proceeding. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
at http:// www.ferc.gov under the ``e-Filing'' link and the link to the
User's Guide. Before you can file comments you will need to create a
free account which can be created on-line.

    We may mail the EA for comment. If you are interested in receiving
it, please return the Information Request (Appendix 3). If you do not
return the Information Request, you will be taken off the mailing list.

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want
to become an official party to the proceeding, or ``intervenor''. To
become an intervenor you must file a motion to intervene according to
Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR
385.214). Intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the
Commission's decision. Motions to Intervene should be electronically
submitted using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov.
Persons without Internet access should send an original and 14 copies
of their motion to the Secretary of the Commission at the address
indicated previously. Persons filing Motions to Intervene on or before
the comment deadline indicated above must send a copy of the motion to
the Applicant. All filings, including late interventions, submitted
after the comment deadline must be served on the Applicant and all
other intervenors identified on the Commission's service list for this
proceeding. Persons on the service list with email addresses may be
served electronically; others must be served a hard copy of the filing.
    Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be
granted intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they
have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which would not be
adequately represented by any other parties. You do not need intervenor
status to have your environmental comments considered.

Environmental Mailing List

    An effort is being made to send this notice to all individuals,
organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially
affected by the proposed project. This includes all landowners who own
land within distances defined in the Commission's regulations of
certain aboveground facilities. By this notice we are also asking
governmental agencies, especially those in Appendix 2, to express their
interest in becoming cooperating agencies for the preparation of the
EA.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC or on the
FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link.
Click on the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the
docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number
field. Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries and direct links to
the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.
    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/
EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-4219 Filed 3-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P