[Federal Register: April 13, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 70)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 18757-18760]
[DOCID:fr13ap10-4]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0118; FRL-9124-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Indiana; Alternate Monitoring Requirements for Indianapolis Power and
Light--Harding Street Station

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Indiana requested on December 31, 2008, that EPA approve as

a revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP) alternative
monitoring requirements for the Indianapolis Power and Light Company
(IPL) at its Harding Street Generating Station. The alternative
monitoring requirements allow the use of a particulate matter (PM)
continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) in place of a continuous
opacity monitor system (COMS).

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective June 14, 2010, unless
EPA receives adverse comments by May 13, 2010. If adverse comments are
received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule
in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not
take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2009-0118, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Genevieve Damico, Acting Chief, Criteria Pollutant
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
     Hand Delivery: Genevieve Damico, Acting Chief, Criteria
Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2009-0118. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This Facility is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal
holidays. We recommend that you telephone Matt Rau, Environmental
Engineer, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer,
Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. What Is the Background for This Action?
II. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Revision?
III. What Are the Environmental Effects of This Action?
IV. What Action Is EPA Taking?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Is the Background for This Action?

    Indiana has requested a revision to its SIP that would authorize an
alternative monitoring plan contained in a State Commissioner's Order
for Unit 7 at IPL's Harding Street Station, located in Indianapolis
(Marion County), Indiana. Indiana submitted its request to EPA on
December 31, 2008. The alternative monitoring plan allows IPL to use a
particulate matter CEMS in place of a COMS to demonstrate compliance
with applicable PM limits.
    IPL has installed a wet scrubber control device to control sulfur
dioxide at its Harding Street Station Unit 7. The scrubber adds
moisture to the exhaust gas, which condenses as the gas stream cools.
According to Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM), the
condensation causes unreliable readings from the COMS on Unit 7. COMS
measures opacity optically, so it cannot distinguish between light
impairment caused by particulate and light impairment caused by
moisture. The scrubber also removes some PM, so that placing the COMS
prior to the exhaust entering the scrubber would also incorrectly
measure those emissions from Unit 7.
    IDEM has requested EPA approval of the alternative monitoring
requirements under 326 IAC 3-5-1(c)(2)(A)(iii) of the SIP, which EPA
approved on December 28, 2009 (74 FR 68541). This provision authorizes
IDEM to approve an alternative monitoring requirement for fossil fuel-
fired steam generators when IDEM determines that ``installation of an
opacity monitoring system would not provide accurate determinations of
emissions as a result of interference from condensed uncombined
water.'' The PM CEMS will be placed after the scrubber. A PM CEMS with
proper calibration should provide accurate PM emission readings, even
with moisture from the scrubber in the exhaust stream. Indiana
certified the Harding Street Station's PM CEMS on June 22, 2009.
    The alternative monitoring plan for the Harding Street Station was
adopted by Indiana on October 31, 2008, in Commissioner's Order
2008-02. It is not effective, however, until EPA approves the
plan as a SIP revision. See 326 IAC 3-5-1(c)(2)(A)(iv).
    Indiana notified the public of an opportunity to request a public
hearing on this action on November 12, 2008. It did not receive any
comments or requests for a public hearing.

II. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Revision?

    Under the alternative monitoring plan approved by Indiana in
Commissioner's Order 2008-02, IPL will continuously monitor PM
emissions in place of opacity. The visible emissions exiting the stack
are primarily composed of PM. Visible emissions observations under 40
CFR Part 60, Appendix A, Method 9 may be taken in the atmosphere after

any moisture has condensed and left the plume. A COMS, like the one at
the Harding Street Station, reads the opacity in the stack. The
addition of a wet scrubber will remove pollutants from the exhaust, but
will add moisture. This moisture condenses as the exhaust cools in the
stack causing a higher opacity reading from the COMS. Installing the
COMS to read the opacity before the scrubber would also not give an
accurate measurement of the facility's emissions because the COMS would
not reflect any emission reductions from the scrubber.
    The PM CEMS will be calibrated to provide accurate measurements
even with moisture in the stack. The PM CEMS provides the particulate
emissions from the facility. Knowing the emissions from the facility,
IPL will be able to make adjustments or control device repairs should
the emissions rise too high. This facility will average the PM CEMS
data at time intervals specified in its Title V permit. IPL is also
required to monitor other pollutants and their operating parameters.
The alternate monitoring requirement removes the need to operate the
COMS, but does not remove the opacity limits at the facility under SIP
rules 326 IAC 5-1. Visible emissions observations in accordance with
Method 9 can still be made to determine whether the opacity limits are
being met.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Commissioner's Order also contains a section granting a
variance to IPL for the period of time between the completion of the
CEMS certification and EPA's approval of the alternative opacity
monitoring plan. As noted in the variance provision: ``This is a
variance from State law only and does not change Federally approved
SIP requirements.'' Order at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What Are the Environmental Effects of This Action?

    PM interferes with lung function when inhaled. Exposure to PM can
cause heart and lung disease. It also aggravates asthma. Airborne
particulate is also a source of haze, which reduces visibility. PM
deposited on the ground and in the water harms the environment by
changing the nutrient and chemical balance.
    This action only changes the PM monitoring requirements for Unit 7
at the Harding Street Station. All other applicable air pollution
control requirements remain in place. No changes in any emissions from
the Harding Street Station are expected as a result of this action.

IV. What Action Is EPA Taking?

    EPA is approving the alternative monitoring plan in Commissioner's
Order 2008-02 into the Indiana SIP. The alternative monitoring
plan for IPL's Harding Street Station is to use a PM CEMS on Unit 7 in
place of a COMS. This action is consistent with Indiana SIP rule 326
IAC 3-5-1(c)(2)(A)(iii) because moisture in the facility's exhaust
stream could cause inaccurate opacity readings from a COMS.
    We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we
view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the State plan if relevant adverse
written comments are filed. This rule will be effective June 14, 2010
without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written
comments by May 13, 2010. If we receive such comments, we will withdraw
this action before the effective date by publishing a subsequent
document that will withdraw the final action. All public comments
received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the
proposed action. The EPA will not institute a second comment period.
Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at
this time. If we do not receive any comments, this action will be
effective June 14, 2010.

V. 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 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 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, 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.
    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).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 14, 2010. 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. Parties with objections to this
direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the
parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the
proposed rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an
immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so
that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in
the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: February 25, 2010.
Walter W. Kovalick Jr.,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

0
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 P--Indiana

0
2. Section 52.770 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(194) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.770  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (194) On December 31, 2008, Indiana submitted a Commissioner's
Order that provided an alternative monitoring plan for Indianapolis
Power and Light--Harding Street Generating Station in Marion County
that is being incorporated into its SIP. The alternative monitoring
requirements allow the use of a particulate matter continuous emissions
monitoring system in place of a continuous opacity monitor.
    (i) Incorporation by reference. Commissioner's Order 2008-
02 for Indianapolis Power and Light as issued by the Indiana Department
of Environmental Management on October 31, 2008.

[FR Doc. 2010-8295 Filed 4-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 89 (Wednesday, May 10, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21706-21708]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09390]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0430; FRL-9961-89-Region 4]

Air Quality Plans; Tennessee; Infrastructure Requirements for the
2012 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission,
submitted by the State of Tennessee, through the Tennessee Department
of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), on December 16, 2015, to
demonstrate that the State meets the infrastructure requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2012 annual fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). The
CAA requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP for the
implementation, maintenance and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated
by EPA, which is commonly referred to as an ``infrastructure SIP
submission.'' TDEC certified that the Tennessee SIP contains provisions
that ensure the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS is implemented,
enforced, and maintained in Tennessee. EPA is finalizing its
determination that Tennessee's infrastructure SIP submission, provided
to EPA on December 16, 2015, satisfies certain required infrastructure
elements for the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

DATES: This rule will be effective June 9, 2017.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0430. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential
Business Information 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 at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tiereny Bell, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Ms. Bell can be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Overview

    On December 14, 2012, EPA promulgated a revised primary annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. The standard was strengthened from 15.0
micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) to 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\. See 78 FR
3086 (January 15, 2013). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA,
states are required to submit SIPs meeting the applicable requirements
of section 110(a)(2) within three years after promulgation of a new or
revised NAAQS or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe.
Section 110(a)(2) requires states to address basic SIP elements such as
requirements for monitoring, basic program requirements and legal
authority that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS. States were required to submit such SIPs for the 2012 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS to EPA no later than December 14, 2015.
    In a proposed rulemaking published on January 9, 2017 (82 FR 2295),
EPA proposed to approve portions of Tennessee's December 16, 2015, SIP
submission for the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The details of
Tennessee's

submission and the rationale for EPA's actions for this final rule are
explained in the January 9, 2017 proposed rulemaking. Comments on the
proposed rulemaking were due on or before February 8, 2017. EPA
received no comments.

II. Final Action

    EPA is taking final action to approve Tennessee's infrastructure
submissions submitted on December 16, 2015, for the 2012 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS for the infrastructure SIP requirements, with
the exception of the interstate transport requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (I) (prongs 1, 2 and 4). EPA notes that the
Agency is not approving any specific rule, but rather approving that
Tennessee's already approved SIP meets certain CAA requirements. With
respect to the interstate transport requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (I) (prongs 1, 2 and 4), EPA will consider these
requirements in relation to Tennessee's 2012 Annual PM2.5
NAAQS infrastructure submission in a separate rulemaking. EPA is taking
final action to approve all other elements of Tennessee's
infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2012 Annual PM2.5
NAAQS because the submission is consistent with section 110 of the CAA.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. See 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 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 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, 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 as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law.
    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).
    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 July 10, 2017. 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 may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: April 17, 2017.
V. Anne Heard,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart RR--Tennessee

0
2. Section 52.2220(e), is amended by adding entry ``110(a)(1) and (2)
Infrastructure Requirements for the 2012 Annual PM2.5
NAAQS'' at the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                EPA-Approved Tennessee Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Applicable
   Name of non-regulatory SIP         geographic or          State       EPA  approval date      Explanation
            provision              nonattainment area   effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure  Tennessee...........      11/19/2015  5/10/2017, [Insert   With the exception
 Requirements for the 2012                                               citation of          of interstate
 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.                                                     publication].        transport
                                                                                requirements of
                                                                                section
                                                                                110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
                                                                                and (II) (prongs
                                                                                1, 2 and 4).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2017-09390 Filed 5-9-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 20, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16143-16145]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6116]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0566; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-271-AD;
Amendment 39-16975; AD 2012-05-03]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B,
747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and
747SP series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a design review
following a ground fire incident and reports of flammable fluid leaks
from the wing leading edge area onto the engine exhaust area. This AD
requires modifying the fluid drain path in the leading edge area of the
wing. We are issuing this AD to prevent flammable fluid from leaking
onto the engine exhaust nozzle, which could result in a fire.

DATES: This AD is effective April 24, 2012.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of April 24,
2012.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; phone: 206-
544-5000, extension 1; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet: https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Document Management Facility,
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: Tung Tran, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone:
425-917-6505; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 14, 2011 (76 FR
34625). That NPRM proposed to require modifying the fluid drain path in
the leading edge area of the wing.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal
(76 FR 34625, June 14, 2011) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Withdraw NPRM (76 FR 34625, June 14, 2011)

    KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (KLM) requested we reassess the necessity
for Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-57-2332, dated
November 9, 2010; the NPRM (76 FR 34625, June 14, 2011); and the future
AD. KLM stated the Model 747-400 world fleet (as reported by Boeing),
as well as the KLM fleet, has had no problems with the issue described
by the NPRM; and Model 747-400 airplanes have no slat cans or
comparable mechanical construction and are therefore not subject to the
unsafe condition. KLM also stated that modifying the drain path away
from the pylon on the outboard side of the pylon will not result in an
improvement, since the wing leading edge is installed at an angle, so
the fuel still can flow towards the engine by gravity after it exits
the drain hole (during ground time). KLM also stated that the costs,
manpower, and additional downtime associated with the actions in the
NPRM are too high for KLM, and it is not convinced the actions will
contribute to any additional safety.
    We infer the commenter wants the NPRM (76 FR 34625, June 14, 2011)
withdrawn. We disagree. The NPRM

addresses drain holes of the wing leading edge that are located close
to the engine nozzle such that a fuel leak from any cause, not just
from a slat housing leak, is drained directly on the engine exhaust
nozzle, which could cause a fuel fire. Therefore, we consider that a
risk for a fire exists even on the airplane models that do not have the
slat cans. We also disagree with the commenter that the modification
does not provide an improvement to the fuel drainage system. The
service information provides instructions to modify and redirect the
leading edge drainage away from the drain hole that directly impinges
on the engine exhaust nozzle, which reduces the risk of a fire during a
fuel leak event. We have taken the cost of labor and parts into
consideration and have found that the actions required by this final
rule are needed to address the unsafe condition. We have not changed
the final rule in this regard.

Request To Include Service Information Revision

    Boeing requested the NPRM (76 FR 34625, June 14, 2011) include
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-57-2332, Revision 1,
dated July 25, 2011, as an option to Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 747-57-2332, dated November 9, 2010 (which was referenced in
the proposed AD as the appropriate source of service information for
the modification). Boeing justified its request by stating that
Revision 1 of this service information adds clarification, but has no
new requirements.
    We agree. Since the NPRM (76 FR 34625, June 14, 2011) was issued,
Boeing has issued Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-57-
2332, Revision 1, dated July 25, 2011, which clarifies certain
information and provides optional materials. We have changed paragraphs
(c) and (g) of this AD to refer to Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 747-57-2332, Revision 1, dated July 25, 2011; added paragraph
(h) of the AD to give credit for actions already accomplished in
accordance with Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-57-2332,
dated November 9, 2010; and revised subsequent paragraph lettering.

Request To Delegate Approval of Structures-Related Alternative Methods
of Compliance (AMOCs)

    Boeing requested the final rule be changed to allow Boeing
authority to approve AMOCs under Boeing Commercial Airplanes
Organization Designation Authorization (ODA). Boeing stated it
anticipates repairs will be required to panels and ribs, etc., and that
when the service information is embodied, it would be beneficial if the
Boeing ODA was authorized to approve these repairs.
    We agree with the request to delegate structural AMOC approval to
the Boeing ODA because using the Boeing ODA is an appropriate process
for making those findings. Accordingly, we have added paragraph (i)(3)
to this final rule.

Additional Change Made to This Final Rule

    We have revised the heading and marking of paragraph (h) of this
AD. This change has not changed the intent of the paragraph.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     [Agr]re consistent with the intent that was proposed in
the NPRM (76 FR 34625, June 14, 2011) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (76 FR 34625, June 14, 2011).
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD.

 Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 258 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
               Action                         Labor cost            Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fluid drainage modification (Groups  95 work-hours x $85 per             $33,609         $41,684      $5,960,812
 1-6) (143 airplanes).                hour = $8,075.
Fluid drainage modification (Groups  90 work-hours x $85 per              29,304          36,954       4,249,710
 7-10) (115 airplanes).               hour = $7,650.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be
covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected
individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2012-05-03 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-16975; Docket No. FAA-
2011-0566; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-271-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective April 24, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B,
747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-
400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes, certificated in
any category, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 747-57-2332, Revision 1, dated July 25, 2011.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a design review following a ground fire
incident and reports of flammable fluid leaks from the wing leading
edge area onto the engine exhaust area. We are issuing this AD to
prevent flammable fluid from leaking onto the engine exhaust nozzle,
which could result in a fire.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Leading Edge Installation

    Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the
fluid drain path in the leading edge area of the wing, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 747-57-2332, Revision 1, dated July 25, 2011.

(h) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for modifications of the fluid
drain path required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if the modification
was performed before the effective date of this AD, using Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-57-2332, dated November 9,
2010.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for structural repairs required by this AD if it is approved by
the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation
Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle
ACO to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the
repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane and the
approval must specifically refer to this AD.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Tung Tran, Aerospace
Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) You must use the following service information to do the
actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The
Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference (IBR) of the following under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR
part 51:
    (i) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-57-2332,
Revision 1, dated July 25, 2011.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; phone: 206-
544-5000, extension 1; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 27, 2012.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Acting Manager. Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-6116 Filed 3-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 30, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31842-31843]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13000]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OR12-18-000]

Thrifty Propane, Inc. v. Enterprise TE Products Pipeline Co.,
LLC; Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on May 22, 2012, pursuant to section 15(7) of the
Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. app 15(7) and section 206 of the
Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission), 18 CFR 385.206, Thrifty Propane, Inc.
(Complainant) filed a formal complaint against Enterprise TE Products
Pipeline Co., LLC (Respondent) alleging that the Respondent intends to
make material changes to the operation of its pipeline (proposed
closure of the Eagle Terminal) without seeking the authorization of the
Commission.
    The Complainant certifies that copies of the complaint were served
on the contacts for the Respondent as listed on the Commission's list
of Corporate Officials.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC

Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call (866)
208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 31, 2012.

    Dated: May 22, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-13000 Filed 5-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 189 (Friday, September 30, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59495-59496]
[FR Doc No: 2022-21270]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[Docket No. OST-2022-0110]

Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records

AGENCY: Office of the Departmental Chief Information Office, Office of
the Secretary of Transportation, DOT.

ACTION: Rescindment of a System of Records notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration proposes to rescind the
Department of Transportation system of records titled, ``Department of
Transportation/Federal Aviation Administration (DOT/FAA) 822--Aviation
Medical Examiner System.''

DATES: Applicable date: September 30, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number OST-
2022-0110 by any of the following methods:

     Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday
through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Instructions: You must include the agency name and docket
number OST-2022-0110. All comments received will be posted without
change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received in any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or to the street
address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general questions, please contact:
Barbara Stance, FAA Chief Privacy Officer,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Federal
Aviation Administration, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, DC 20024.
For privacy issues, please contact: Karyn Gorman, Acting Departmental
Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Department of Transportation,
Washington, DC 20590; [email protected]; or<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the
Department of Transportation (DOT)/Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) proposes to rescind DOT system of records titled, ``DOT/FAA 822--
Aviation Medical Examiner System,'' 65 FR 19522 (April 11, 2000). This
system of records was established to determine professional
qualifications and designation authorization (initial and subsequent)
of Aviation Medical Examiners (AME). The categories of records included
records necessary to determine professional qualifications of
physicians designated (initially and subsequently) as AMEs; identify
the type and location of AMEs within the AME program; monitor AMEs
performance in support of the Medical Certification Program; and
monitor AMEs compliance with mandatory training (initial and periodic)
and other AME designation requirements. The authority for maintenance
of the system was 49 U.S.C. 44702. Records previously covered by DOT/
FAA 822 will be managed according to the updated DOT/FAA 830,
Representatives of the Administrator. Consolidation of the Notices
ensures consistency in the Privacy Act management of all designee
records. Consequently, rescinding SORN 822 will have no adverse impact
on individuals. Rescindment will promote the overall streamlining and
management of DOT Privacy Act systems of records.

SYSTEM NAME AND NUMBER:
    Department of Transportation/Federal Aviation Administration (DOT/
FAA) 822--Aviation Medical Examiner System.

HISTORY:
    A full notice of this system of records, DOT/FAA 822--Aviation
Medical Examiner System was published in the Federal Register on April
11, 2000, at 65 FR 19522

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Karyn Gorman,
Acting Departmental Chief Privacy Officer.
[FR Doc. 2022-21270 Filed 9-29-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P