                               Site Visit Report

Scattergood Generating Station
12700 Vista Del Mar
Playa Del Rey, CA 90203
August 31, 2009 (revised August 16, 2013)
Background and Objectives
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is in the process of developing 316(b) cooling water intake structure requirements that reflect the best technology available (BTA) for minimizing adverse environmental impact for all existing power plants and manufacturing facilities.  As part of this process, EPA staff is visiting electric generators and manufacturers to better understand the cooling water intake structure (CWIS) technologies in use at facilities, including the site-specific characteristics of each facility and how these affect the selection and performance of CWIS technologies.  EPA is also visiting facilities to better understand cooling water use and specific issues or technologies that can affect 316(b) compliance.  EPA selected Scattergood Generating Station (SGS) for a site visit due to its location on the Pacific Ocean and its use of an offshore intake structure fitted with a velocity cap.
Facility Description
SGS is a natural gas - fired steam electric generating facility located in the Playa del Rey section of the City of Los Angeles and owned and operated by the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP).  The facility occupies approximately 56 acres of an industrially zoned site opposite Dockweiler State Beach and Santa Monica Bay.  The city's Hyperion Wastewater Treatment Plant lies adjacent to the facility's northern property line, with Grand Avenue bordering to the south (industrial area).  Residential neighborhoods in the City of El Segundo and Los Angeles abut the eastern and northeastern boundaries (see Attachment B).  In addition, SGS is located approximately one mile south of the southern-most runway at Los Angeles Airport.
Elevations at the site vary significantly.  The three generating units are situated at approximately 35 ft above sea level (asl) along the facility's western boundary with Vista del Mar.  Water treatment ponds and tanks, parking areas, and smaller maintenance buildings are also located at this level.  Immediately east of the generating units, the property rises sharply to approximately 100 ft asl, then gradually rises to 155 feet at the eastern property line.  This upper portion is occupied by the switchyard, storage tanks, and two small cooling towers that provide bearing cooling water using potable water.
Wastewater discharges to and water withdrawals from Santa Monica Bay (Pacific Ocean) are covered under NPDES Permit No. CA0000370, which is administered at the state level by a regional water board.  Order No. 00-083, issued by the Los Angeles Regional Water Board, expired on May 10, 2005 but has been administratively continued to the present.  The facility had been previously notified that a reissued permit was delayed pending the outcome of the State Water Board's ongoing once-through cooling policy development.  At the time of EPA's site visit it was unclear when the NPDES permit would be reissued.
Power generation began in 1958 with the commissioning of Unit 1.  Unit 2 followed in 1959 while Unit 3 was commissioned in 1974.  All units remain available for service.
SGS has a single two to three week outage annually and an eight to ten week outage every few years for major projects.
Electricity Generation and Transmission
SGS currently operates three conventional steam turbine units (Unit 1, Unit 2, and Unit 3) with a combined boilerplate generating capacity of 820 MW (Table 1). Facility representatives noted that the capacity utilization rate (CUR) at SGS has consistently trended downward over recent years as more modern and efficient sources have come online in the region, including an expanded renewable portfolio to meet state greenhouse gas objectives.  However, depending upon federal and state climate legislation, greater dependence on these local plants for base load energy supply and the balancing of new intermittent renewable resources may be necessary if LADWP is required to undertake an early divestiture of its coal resources.
                        Table 1  -  SGS Rated Capacity
Unit
Rated capacity
(MW)
2008 CUR
Unit 1
                                      180
                                      31%
Unit 2
                                      180
                                      15%
Unit 3
                                      460
                                      18%
SGS total
                                      820
                                      20%

Units 1 and 2 are conventional natural gas while Unit 3 is a supercritical natural gas unit.  Energy efficiencies for SGS's three natural-gas fired units are typical for units of this type and age.  Under peak conditions, Units 1 and 2 can operate at approximate efficiencies of 33% (9,500 BTU/kWh) while Unit 3 is slightly more efficient at 37% (9,200 BTU/kWh).
LADWP representatives noted that capacity utilization rates are an inexact metric for determining a particular facility's importance to the overall system.  Although SGS's CUR is relatively low, it occupies a critical position in LADWP's overall generation and transmission plans during peak periods.  The existing transmission system is limited in its ability to move electricity between the northern and southern sections of LADWP's service areas during high demand periods.  The physical location of SGS, along with LADWP's other coastal units, enables LADWP to maintain a proper balance in the system without compromising service.  This is particularly notable since LADWP is its own balancing authority and as mentioned in Section 10 of this report, as a vertically integrated utility responsible for its own generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity, does not rely on the energy market for power purchases to supply its energy needs.  Therefore, the role of its coastal plants, serve a critical function in providing local resource adequacy, reliability, and system stability.
Cooling Water System and Intake Structure
Units 1-3 use ocean water for condenser cooling in a single-pass configuration ("once-through cooling").  SGS operates a single combined intake structure to serve all three units; water is divided after secondary screening to dedicated tunnels to each unit's condenser.  Water is withdrawn from Santa Monica Bay through an intake located approximately 1,600 feet from shoreline, terminating at a depth of approximately 29 feet.  The intake pipe rises 13 feet above the sea floor and is fitted with a circular concrete velocity cap 32 feet in diameter (Figure 1).  There is a 5 foot vertical gap between the top of the intake pipe and the bottom of the velocity cap.  In February 2009, SGS installed vertical exclusion bars spaced 9 inches apart on the velocity cap to reduce entrapment of large organisms (sea lions, sea turtles, etc.).  Facility representatives indicated that the modification has noticeably reduced entrapment between the intake riser and the forebay.

Figure 1  -  Offshore Intake and Velocity Cap
The intake structure's onshore portion consists of 8 screen bays arranged in a 60° arc that draw water from a common forebay.  Unit 3 is served by four of the screen bays, with 2 each dedicated to Units 1&2.  Primary screening is achieved with vertical bar racks spaced 5 inches apart (4-5/8 inch opening) to remove large debris.  Secondary screens for smaller debris consist of vertical traveling screens with 3/8-inch by 3/4-inch mesh openings (Figure 2).  Screens are rotated once every 8 hours, at a minimum, and washed with a high pressure spray to remove collected debris, which is deposited in collection baskets for disposal in a landfill.

Figure 2  -  Onshore Intake Structure
Estimated intake velocities were calculated using the maximum intake flow and total screen area at MLLW:
         * 1.5 fps at velocity cap opening
         * 6.8 fps in the intake pipe
         * 0.6 fps approach to screens for Units 1&2
         * 0.7 fps approach to screens for Unit 3
Four circulating water pumps, each rated at 39,000 gpm (56 mgd), serve Units 1&2.  Four additional pumps serve Unit 3, with each pump rated at 47,000 gpm (68 mgd).  The SGS design intake flow (DIF) is 344,000 gpm, or 495 mgd, although the peak intake capacity is used infrequently throughout the year.  Data provided by SGS representatives shows the average daily intake flows from 2005 through 2008 (Table 2).
Table 2  -  Average Annual Intake Flows
Year
Average Annual Intake Flow (mgd)
Percentage of DIF
2005
                                      294
                                      59
2006
                                      316
                                      64
2007
                                      271
                                      55
2008
                                      315
                                      64

A direct correlation between flow and generating capacity utilization cannot be easily made since generating CUR do not account for startup/shutdown periods, nor do they account for "hot standby" periods during which units are held in a near-ready state without generating electricity but still require cooling water withdrawals.
SGS conducts periodic heat treatments (approx. every 8 weeks) to control biofouling (e.g., mussel growth) in the cooling water system.  During heat treatment control gates on the intake and discharge tunnels are closed while a bypass gate is opened allowing all water to recirculate through the system until the temperature has reached 115° F and has circulated for 100 minutes.
Biofouling is also controlled through periodic chlorine (sodium hypochlorite) injections to the intake flow.  Chlorination for each unit occurs for 40 minutes once for each shift (3 times per day).
Impingement and Entrainment Information
Following the adoption of the Phase II rule, SGS initiated compliance activities by submitting a Proposal for Information Collection (PIC) in October 2005 that outlined plans to conduct a source water characterization study.  Impingement and entrainment technologies would also be evaluated for their potential use at the site.  The PIC identified fine-mesh traveling screens, cylindrical wedgewire screens, operational measures, and restoration as technologies that might offer some benefit to SGS.  These evaluations were not completed, however, due to the suspension of the Phase II rule.
Facility representatives noted that LADWP evaluated the feasibility of using treated wastewater from the Hyperion facility as a replacement for ocean water at SGS, but concluded this water source was insufficient to meet cooling water needs.  In addition, this alternate water source may be limited in the future because the state is advocating water reclamation, thereby reducing opportunities for reclaimed water from POTWs.  Secondary issues included the elevated wastewater temperature coming from the Hyperion facility an the presence of ammonia which would be detrimental to the copper/nickel alloy condenser tubes.
At the direction of the Regional Water Board, SGS conducted a source water baseline characterization study during 2006 to determine the composition and abundance of all life stages of fish and shellfish that might be influenced by the intake structure.  The study documented entrainable organisms in the vicinity of the intake and near the shoreline, but did not attempt to quantify any entrainment reductions.  SGS collected monthly sampling every six hours in a 24 hour period at from ten source water stations located up and down the coast.  SGS also conducted impingement and entrainment sampling as part of this study.  They collected weekly (four in a 24 hour period) impingement samples at the traveling screens and entrainment samples from a single entrainment station in the immediate proximity of the CWIS (within 50-100 meters).  The study was published in November 2007.
SGS has twice evaluated the effectiveness of the intake structure's velocity cap in reducing impingement.  Following a major storm in 1970 that destroyed the velocity cap, SGS operated for 4 years without the cap.  Comparisons between the protected and unprotected system showed significant impingement reductions with the velocity cap in place.
More recently, SGS conducted a study over four months during the winter of 2007-08.  During the study period, intake and discharge flows were reversed (i.e., the intake became the discharge and vice versa) such that the new "intake" was unprotected.  Apart from the velocity cap, the principal difference between the intake and discharge is the distance from shore (1,600 vs 1,200 feet).  At this location, however, the sea floor slopes gently away from shoreline and translates to a depth disparity of only a few feet.  Thus, the species composition and abundance are substantially similar at each location.  The study reported impingement reductions of more than 97 percent based on abundance, and 95 percent based on biomass.  A single species, pacific sardines, accounted for over 94% of fish abundance.
Entrainment has not been studied in detail at SGS.  The velocity cap study did not evaluate any potential entrainment reduction that might be achieved by the intake structure's location at a point offshore.
Cooling Tower Feasibility
Facility representatives noted that the feasibility of cooling towers at the SGS location as been considered at different points, whether as part of a repowering project or to retrofit one or all three of the existing units.  SGS has not conducted a formal cost and engineering feasibility analysis, however.
A report prepared for the California Ocean Protection Council (OPC) and State Water Board in 2008 identified several obstacles that would influence the feasibility of cooling towers at the SGS location.  Available space at the facility is limited and cooling tower placement would be complicated by the disparity in elevations.  Siting cooling towers to either side of the generating units at the 30 foot elevation would be difficult given the limited space, the presence of other structures (treatment ponds/tank) and potential air circulation interference due to a tower's proximity to the steep slope east and south of the generating units.
A more likely scenario would place cooling towers on the upper portion of the facility at the 100 foot elevation where the current, but significantly smaller cooling towers for just the bearing cooling water, are located.  Multiple towers could be configured in this area, although the elevation difference between the towers and condensers would require larger capacity circulating water pumps and might require modifications to the condensers to withstand higher pressures.  Towers at this location would present a greater visible impact and might contribute to drift deposition on the adjacent switchyard.
The potential for a large visible plume would likely require mitigation for at least a portion of the year.  SGS's proximity to the southernmost runway at LAX and to residential neighborhoods in El Segundo would seem to indicate that plume abatement technologies would be required.  Noise abatement measures, such as low-noise fans or fan deck barriers would also be required to comply with local ordinances.  The 2008 OPC study considered these obstacles but was able to configure cooling towers for all three units on the upper portion with plume and noise abatement technologies included.  The initial capital cost for these towers was estimated at $160.4 million, excluding long-term costs such as operation and maintenance and energy penalty costs.
During the site visit, facility representatives cited many of the same obstacles as potential reasons why cooling towers were infeasible at the site.  Space limitations and conflicts with local ordinances were the primary reasons why SGS does not consider cooling towers a practical alternative.  Representatives noted that likely local opposition to cooling towers is not reflected in local building and noise ordinances and would be a major concern.  Other concerns that were not reflected in the OPC study were: (1) while the report suggests relocation of critical, integral site equipment (e.g. ammonia storage tanks for NOx compliance, or the switch yard) their costs and the associated outage time (e.g. replacement power costs) were not captured; (2) OPC concluded relocation of the switch yard was feasible, but is considered infeasible by LADWP for all sites evaluated; (3) the suggested siting location for the cooling towers was characterized as sufficiently large (with equipment relocations), however, it resulted in a less than desirable configuration (roughly perpendicular to prevailing winds); and (4) the study assumes that the new towers could replace the need for the existing cooling towers for cooling the bearing (which would be required to be demolished to make room), but recognized that it was unknown whether the use of salt water for these systems could be tolerated.  Most significantly, however, representatives noted that retrofitting the existing once-through cooling systems with cooling towers made little economic sense given the age and capacity utilization of each unit.  In addition, because SGS is a municipal utility, retrofit funds would require a rate increase and bond issuance that would have to be approved by the Los Angeles City Council.  See Section 10.0.
Debris Handling
Debris is not a significant issue at SGS due to the intake's deep offshore location.  Any debris captured on the bar racks or traveling screens is disposed of in a landfill.
Repowering/Future Uses
LADWP is considering the possibility of repowering Units 1 and 2 or Unit 3 by 2015.  The state's final once-through cooling policy will likely influence the options selected for any repower project.
Cooling Ponds
SGS does not use cooling ponds for condenser cooling.
Ownership
LADWP is the largest municipally owned utility in the country with a service population of approximately 4 million people.  LADWP maintains a total generating capacity of approximately 7,200 MW from diverse portfolio of fossil, hydroelectric, renewable, and nuclear units.  SGS is one of three LADWP-owned facilities on the California coast that continues to use once-through cooling (together with the Harbor and Haynes Generating Stations).
As a vertically integrated utility, LADWP owns and operates the generating, transmission and distribution systems that provide electricity to a dedicated customer base.  This transmission system is not limited to the City of Los Angeles, but extends into Nevada, Utah, and Arizona.  The system is used to import power to all locations (LADWP owned and power exchanges with other utilities).  This differs from many investor owned utilities, such as Pacific Gas & Electric or Southern California Edison, which must rely on the open market to procure a significant portion of their electricity needs.
LADWP must obtain approval from the Los Angeles City Council to implement any electricity rate increases.  LADWP is in the process of developing a new IRP and is currently soliciting input from the public on this new guidance document.  This new 2010 IRP will help set the course that LADWP will take in determining the best path to take for repowering the existing OTC facilities.
316(a)
Thermal discharges to surface waters are governed by the state's Thermal Plan (1972), which creates separate requirements for new and existing thermal discharges to ocean waters.  As an existing thermal discharger, SGS is subject to the Thermal Plan's narrative requirement that any thermal discharge must ensure protection of identified beneficial uses.  This requirement is incorporated into the existing permit as a temperature limitation of no more than 100° F during normal operation and 135° F during heat treatments.  The facility does not have a 316(a) variance for thermal discharges and has complied with the existing limitation during its most recent permit cycle.
Ash Handling
SGS does not generate any ash.
Air Emissions Controls
Each unit at SGS employs selective catalytic reduction to minimize NOx emissions.
Additional Information
Facility representatives noted that an ongoing legal battle over the availability of emission credits within the South Coast Air Quality Management District have raised the possibility that no new projects would be able to obtain the necessary air permits.  This would include facilities retrofitted with wet cooling towers.
SGS's current NPDES permit, adopted in 2000, does not contain any numeric or narrative limitations regarding impingement or entrainment due to cooling water withdrawals.  The permit carries over findings from previous permits that essentially concluded the SGS cooling water system represented the "best technology available" for compliance with 316(b).  Although these determinations were made prior to the adoption of the state policy on once-through cooling, future studies will determine whether this statement is still accurate or whether other technologies are available that would represent "best technology available" with costs that can be borne by industry.  SGS is required to conduct semi-annual impingement monitoring coinciding with scheduled heat treatments.
In addition to once-through cooling water, SGS discharges a small volume of wastewater from several low volume waste streams.  These low volume wastes consist of cooling tower blowdown, boiler blowdown, floor drains, and settling basin discharges, and are commingled with once-through cooling water prior to discharge through the main outfall.  All wastewater is discharged to Santa Monica Bay through a submerged conduit terminating at a point 1,200 from shore.
Metal cleaning wastes (chemical and non-chemical) are typically captured in portable Baker tanks and treated offsite.
SGS must comply with both water quality-based and technology-based effluent limitations for its wastewater discharge to Santa Monica Bay.  In 1988, the State Water Board granted a variance to the total residual chlorine water quality standard for biofouling control in the cooling system.  EPA granted a similar variance for the total residual chlorine effluent limitation applicable to steam electric facilities.  It is not clear if these variances will be revisited in any future permit reissuance.

Attachments

Attachment A		List of Attendees
Attachment B		Aerial Photos
Attachment C		Facility Flows
Attachment D		Alden Report for Phase II Compliance (December 2003)
Attachment E		Addendum to Alden Report for Phase II Compliance (May 2007)
Attachment F	Impingement Mortality and Entrainment Study (November 2007)
Attachment G	Impingement Mortality and Entrainment Study Appendices (November 2007)
Attachment H	Revisions Requested by LADWP

Attachment A--List of Attendees

Paul Shriner, EPA
Jan Matuszko, EPA
John Kemmerer, EPA Region IX
Tim Havey, Tetra Tech
Kelly Meadows, Tetra Tech
Michael Hanson, LADWP
Hamid Nejad, LADWP
Peter Rudd, LADWP
Kim Burmahln, LADWP
Susan Damron, LADWP
Dipak Patel, LADWP
Dawson Dong, LADWP
Ian Guthrie, LADWP
Katherine Rubin, LADWP

See also Attachment A (DCN 10-6545A accompanying this document) for the sign-in sheet.

Attachment B -- Aerial Photos
See also DCN 10-6545B accompanying this document.

                           Aerial View Looking West

                           Ground View Looking North

                         Aerial View Looking Northeast

Attachment C--Facility Flows

Please see DCN 10-6545C accompanying this document.

Attachment D--Alden Report for Phase II Compliance (December 2003)

Please see DCN 10-6545D accompanying this document.

Attachment E--Addendum to Alden Report for Phase II Compliance (May 2007)

Please see DCN 10-6545E accompanying this document.

Attachment F--Impingement Mortality and Entrainment Study (November 2007, Revised)

Please see DCN 10-6545F accompanying this document.

Attachment G--Impingement Mortality and Entrainment Study Appendices (November 2007, Revised)

Please see DCN 10-6545G accompanying this document.

Attachment H -- Revisions Requested by LADWP

In their comment letter on the proposed rule, LADWP requested that EPA make certain revisions to the Scattergood site visit report in addition to their previous comments. These revisions are below.

1) Replacement for the first paragraph of section 14.0 (Additional Information).

Instead of
"Facility representatives noted that an ongoing legal battle over the availability of emission credits within the South Coast Air Quality Management District have raised the possibility that no new projects would be able to obtain the necessary air permits.  This would include facilities retrofitted with wet cooling towers."
the text should read

      "Permits from the AQMD for repowers of the existing units are viable since emission offsets are available on a megawatt for megawatt replacement of existing boilers with new, advanced gas turbine units."

2) Edits to the last paragraph of section 2.0 (Facility Description)

Instead of

"SGS has a single two to three week outage annually and an eight to ten week outage every few years for major projects."

the text should read

"SGS has a single two to three week outage for each unit annually and an eight to ten week outage for each unit every five to seven years for major projects."

3) Edits to the first sentence of section 3.0 (Electricity Generation and Transmission)

Instead of

      "SGS currently operates three conventional steam turbine units (Unit 1, Unit 2, and Unit 3) with a combined boilerplate generating capacity of 820 MW (Table 1)."

The text should read

      "SGS currently operates three conventional steam turbine units (Unit 1, Unit 2, and Unit 3) with a combined generating capacity of 820 MW (Table 1)."

4) Revisions to the first sentence of second paragraph of section 3.0 (Electricity Generation and Transmission)

Instead of

      "Units 1 and 2 are conventional natural gas while Unit 3 is a supercritical natural gas unit."

The text should read

      "Units 1 and 2 use a conventional natural gas-fired boiler while Unit 3 uses a supercritical natural gas-fired boiler."


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 212 (Wednesday, November 2, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76344-76345]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26443]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP17-53-000.
    Applicants: National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Settlement Rates 11/01/16 to
be effective 11/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 10/25/16.
    Accession Number: 20161025-5012.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/7/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-54-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Agreement
Update (Conoco 2016) to be effective 11/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 10/25/16.
    Accession Number: 20161025-5054.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/7/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-55-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 10/25/16 Negotiated Rates--
Freepoint Commodities LLC (RTS) 7250-16 to be effective 11/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 10/25/16.
    Accession Number: 20161025-5058.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/7/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-56-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 10/25/16 Negotiated Rates--
Freepoint Commodities LLC (RTS) 7250-17 to be effective 11/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 10/25/16.
    Accession Number: 20161025-5059.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/7/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-57-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 10/25/16 Negotiated Rates--
Freepoint Commodities LLC (RTS) 7250-18 to be effective 11/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 10/25/16.
    Accession Number: 20161025-5061.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/7/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-58-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: ConocoPhillips Negotiated Rate
to be effective 11/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 10/25/16.
    Accession Number: 20161025-5094.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/7/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-59-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Non-Conforming Negotiated Rate
Agreement Filing (GIGO) to be effective 11/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 10/25/16.
    Accession Number: 20161025-5106.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/7/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-60-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 10/25/16 Negotiated Rates--
Consolidated Edison Energy Inc. (HUB) 2275-89 to be effective 11/1/
2016.
    Filed Date: 10/25/16.
    Accession Number: 20161025-5108.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/7/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-61-000.

    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Tenaska Marketing Negotiated
Rate to be effective 11/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 10/25/16.
    Accession Number: 20161025-5109.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/7/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-62-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 10/25/16 Negotiated Rates--
Mercuria Energy America, Inc. (HUB) 7450-89 to be effective 11/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 10/25/16.
    Accession Number: 20161025-5110.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/7/16.

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

    Dated: October 26, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-26443 Filed 11-1-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 192)]
[Notices]
[Page 57375-57376]
[DOCID:fr02oc08-97]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1795-DR]

Indiana; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Indiana (FEMA-1795-DR), dated September 23,
2008, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: September 23, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated September 23, 2008, the President declared a major disaster under
the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Indiana resulting from severe storms and flooding beginning on
September 12, 2008, and continuing, is of sufficient severity and
magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C.
5121-5207 (the Stafford Act). Therefore, I declare that such a major
disaster exists in the State of Indiana.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance in the
designated areas, Hazard Mitigation throughout the State, and any
other forms of assistance under the Stafford Act that you deem
appropriate. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance
be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act
for Hazard Mitigation

and Other Needs Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the
total eligible costs. If Public Assistance is later requested and
warranted, Federal funds provided under that program also will be
limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, except for any
particular projects that are eligible for a higher Federal cost-
sharing percentage under the FEMA Public Assistance Pilot Program
instituted pursuant to 6 U.S.C. 777.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.

    The time period prescribed for the implementation of section
310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public
Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed
six months after the date of this declaration.
    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Stephen M. DeBlasio Sr., of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Indiana have been designated as
adversely affected by this declared major disaster:

    Lake, LaPorte, and Porter Counties for Individual Assistance.
    All counties within the State of Indiana are eligible to apply
for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036;
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
 [FR Doc. E8-23255 Filed 10-1-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 44 (Friday, March 6, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12082-12083]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05233]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2015-0065]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Harlem River, New York City, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the operation of the Metro-North (Park
Avenue) Bridge across the Harlem River, mile 2.1, at New York City, New
York. This deviation is necessary to allow the bridge owner to perform
electrical repairs at the bridge. This deviation allows the bridge to
remain closed from March 13, 2015 through May 21, 2015.

DATES: This deviation is effective from March 13, 2015 through May 21,
2015.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0065] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140, on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Joe M. Arca, Project Officer,
First Coast Guard District, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the docket, call
Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202)
366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Metro-North (Park Avenue) Bridge across
the Harlem River, mile 2.1, at New York City, New York, has a vertical
clearance in the closed position of 25 feet at mean high water and 30
feet at mean low water. The existing bridge operating regulations are
found at 33 CFR 117.789(c).
    The waterway is transited by commercial vessels.
    The bridge owner, Metro-North, requested a temporary deviation from
the normal operating schedule to facilitate electrical repairs as a
result of damage incurred from Hurricane Sandy.
    Under this temporary deviation, the Metro-North (Park Avenue)
Bridge may remain in the closed position from March 13, 2015 through
May 21, 2015.
    The habitual users can transit under the bridge without requesting
bridge openings due to the high vertical clearance under the bridge.
    There are no alternate routes for vessel traffic; however, vessels
that can pass under the closed draw during this closure may do so at
all times. The bridge may not be opened in the event of an emergency.
    The Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterways through our
Local and Broadcast Notice to Mariners of the change in operating
schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to
minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: February 23, 2015.
C.J. Bisignano,
Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2015-05233 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 24, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53563-53567]
[FR Doc No: 2018-23031]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 206 / Wednesday, October 24, 2018 /
Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0160; Product Identifier 2017-NM-139-AD; Amendment
39-19476; AD 2018-22-03]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2016-24-03,
which applied to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-400 series
airplanes. AD 2016-24-03 required repetitive detailed inspections of
barrel nuts and cradles, a check of the bolt torque of the preload
indicating (PLI) washers, and corrective actions if necessary. This AD
retains the requirements of AD 2016-24-03 and requires modifying the
airplane by installing a sealing disk to a certain location and
replacing certain barrel nuts. This AD was prompted by reports of
cracked and corroded barrel nuts found at the mid-spar location of the
horizontal-stabilizer-to-vertical-stabilizer attachment joint, and the
issuance of new service information that includes a terminal
modification. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on
these products.

DATES: This AD is effective November 28, 2018.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of November 28,
2018.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of January
12, 2017 (81 FR 88623, December 8, 2016).

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt
Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected]; internet
http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th
St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the
internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2018-0160.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0160; 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, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-
5527) 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: Aziz Ahmed, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Propulsion Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart
Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 516-
794-5531; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to supersede AD 2016-24-03, Amendment 39-18720 (81 FR 88623,
December 8, 2016) (``AD 2016-24-03''). AD 2016-24-03 applied to certain
Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. The NPRM published
in the Federal Register on March 9, 2018 (83 FR 10408). The NPRM was
prompted by reports of cracked and corroded barrel nuts found at the
mid-spar location of the horizontal-stabilizer-to-vertical-stabilizer
attachment joint, and the issuance of new service information that
includes a terminal modification. The NPRM proposed to continue to
require repetitive detailed inspections of each barrel nut and cradle,
a check of the bolt torque of the PLI washers, and corrective action if
necessary. The NPRM also proposed to require modifying the airplane by
installing a sealing disk to a certain location and replacing certain
barrel nuts. We are issuing this AD to address cracked and corroded
barrel nuts, which could compromise the structural integrity of the
vertical-stabilizer attachment joints and lead to loss of control of
the airplane.
    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2015-13R1, dated June
26, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-400 series
airplanes. The MCAI states:

    There has been one in-service report of a cracked and corroded
barrel nut, part number (P/N) DSC228-12, found at the mid-spar
location of the horizontal stabilizer to vertical stabilizer
attachment joint. There have also been two other reports of corroded
barrel nuts found at mid-spar locations.
    Preliminary investigation determined that the cracking is
initiated by corrosion. Further investigation confirmed that the
corrosion was caused by inadequate cadmium plating on the barrel
nuts. Failure of the barrel nuts could compromise the structural
integrity of the joint and could lead to loss of control of the
aeroplane.
    The original version of this [Canadian] AD was issued to mandate
the initial and repetitive inspections of the barrel nuts [and
cradles for cracks and corrosion] at each of the horizontal
stabilizer to vertical stabilizer attachment joints.
    Revision 1 of this [Canadian] AD is issued to terminate the
repetitive inspection requirement by requiring the incorporation of
a modification to install a sealing disc at the middle spar location
of the horizontal stabilizer to vertical stabilizer attachment
joint, and the replacement of the DSC228 series barrel nuts with
B0203073 series barrel nuts that are more resistant to corrosion.
The applicability has been changed to account for the introduction
of the modifications in production.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0160.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this final rule. The following presents the comment received on the
NPRM and the FAA's response.

Request To Refer to New Repair Drawing (RD)

    Horizon Air requested that we revise paragraph (h)(1)(i) of the
proposed AD to refer to Bombardier RD 8/4-55-1143, Issue 2, dated May
25, 2015 (we referred to Bombardier RD 8/4-55-1143, Issue 1, dated May
21, 2015, as the appropriate source of service information for the
repair specified in paragraph (h)(1)(i) of the proposed AD). Horizon
Air noted that Bombardier RD 8/4-55-1143, Issue 2, dated May 25, 2015,
adds nominal bore diameters to sheets 1-4.
    We agree with the commenter's request. Bombardier RD 8/4-55-1143,
Issue 2, dated May 25, 2015, clarifies the bore hole diameters for
repair but does not otherwise change the substantive requirements of
this AD. No additional work is necessary for airplanes on which
Bombardier RD 8/4-55-1143, Issue 1, dated May 21, 2015, has already
been done. We have revised paragraph (h)(1)(i) of this AD to include
Bombardier RD 8/4-55-1143, Issue 2, dated May 25, 2015, as the
appropriate service information for repairing corrosion and damage of
the bore of the fitting.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and
determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this final rule with the change described previously and minor
editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final
rule.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier has issued the following service information.
     Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A84-55-04, Revision C,
dated May 3, 2016. This service information describes procedures for a
detailed inspection and repair for cracks and corrosion of the barrel
nuts and cradles; a bolt preload check of the PLI washers and
applicable corrective actions; a detailed inspection and repair for
corrosion and damage of the bore of the fitting; and replacement of the
barrel nuts.
     Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-55-06, dated January 31,
2017. This service information describes procedures for installing an
aluminum sealing disk at the mid-spar location of the vertical
stabilizer.
     Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-55-08, Revision A, dated
August 2, 2017. This service information describes procedures for an
inspection for part number and damage of the barrel nuts at the
horizontal-stabilizer-to-vertical-stabilizer attachment joints, and
replacement of discrepant parts.
     Bombardier Repair Drawing (RD) 8/4-55-1143, Issue 2, dated
May 25, 2015. This service information describes procedures for
repairing corrosion and damage of the fitting bore.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 54 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspections (retained actions from AD   8 work-hours x $85 per                $0            $680         $36,720
 2016-24-03).                            hour = $680.
Sealing disk installation (new action)  4 work-hours x $85 per               781           1,121          60,534
                                         hour = $340.
Replacement of DSC228 series barrel     2 work-hours x $85 per             2,236           2,406         129,924
 nuts (new action).                      hour = $170.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements
that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have
no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these
replacements:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement (retained action from AD 2016-24-   2 work-hours x $85 per hour =             $8,881          $9,051
 03).                                            $170.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the other on-condition actions specified in this AD.

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.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C.

In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function
of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this
transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority
to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated
appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; 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 removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2016-24-03, Amendment 39-18720 (81 FR 88623, December 8, 2016), and
adding the following new AD:

2018-22-03 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-19476; Docket No. FAA-
2018-0160; Product Identifier 2017-NM-139-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective November 28, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2016-24-03, Amendment 39-18720 (81 FR 88623,
December 8, 2016) (``AD 2016-24-03'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-400, -401 and -
402 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 4001 and
subsequent.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 55, Stabilizers.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracked and corroded barrel
nuts found at the mid-spar location of the horizontal-stabilizer-to-
vertical-stabilizer attachment joint, and the issuance of new
service information that includes a terminal modification. We are
issuing this AD to address cracked and corroded barrel nuts, which
could compromise the structural integrity of the vertical-stabilizer
attachment joints and lead to loss of control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Detailed Inspection of Barrel Nuts for Cracks and
Corrosion, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraphs (g)(1)
and (g)(2) of AD 2016-24-03, with no changes.
    (1) For airplanes that have accumulated 5,400 flight hours or
more, or have been in service 32 months or more since the date of
issuance of the original certificate of airworthiness or the date of
issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness, as of
January 12, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2016-24-03): Within 600
flight hours or 4 months, whichever occurs first after January 12,
2017, do a detailed visual inspection for signs of cracks and
corrosion of the barrel nut and cradle, in accordance with paragraph
3.B., ``Procedure,'' of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A84-55-04, Revision C, dated May
3, 2016.
    (2) For airplanes that have less than 5,400 flight hours, and
have been in-service for less than 32 months since the date of
issuance of the original certificate of airworthiness or the date of
issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness, as of
January 12, 2017: Before the accumulation of 6,000 total flight
hours or 36 months since the date of issuance of the original
certificate of airworthiness or the date of issuance of the original
export certificate of airworthiness, whichever occurs first, do a
detailed visual inspection of the barrel nut for signs of cracks and
corrosion of the barrel nut and cradle, in accordance with paragraph
3.B., ``Procedure,'' of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A84-55-04, Revision C, dated May
3, 2016.

(h) Retained Corrective Actions, Detailed Inspection, and Repetitive
Inspections, With New Service Information, Reference to Terminating
Action, and Reference to Corrective Actions

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD
2016-24-03, with new service information and terminating action.
Depending on the findings of any inspection required by paragraphs
(g) and (j) of this AD, do the applicable actions in paragraphs
(h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(3), and (h)(4) of this AD. Accomplishment of the
actions required by paragraphs (l) and (m) of this AD, as
applicable, terminates the requirements of this paragraph.
    (1) If any barrel nut or cradle is found cracked or broken,
before further flight, replace the barrel nut and associated
hardware, in accordance with paragraph 3.B., ``Procedure,'' of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-55-08,
Revision A, dated August 2, 2017.
    (i) Concurrently with the replacement of any barrel nut, do a
detailed inspection for corrosion and damage of the bore of the
fitting, in accordance with paragraph 3.B., ``Procedure,'' of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-55-08,
Revision A, dated August 2, 2017, and, before further flight, repair
all corrosion and damage, in accordance with Bombardier Repair
Drawing (RD) 8/4-55-1143, Issue 1, dated May 21, 2015; or Bombardier
RD 8/4-55-1143, Issue 2, dated May 25, 2015. If the bore of the
fitting cannot be repaired in accordance with Bombardier RD 8/4-55-
1143, Issue 1, dated May 21, 2015; or Bombardier RD 8/4-55-1143,
Issue 2, dated May 25, 2015; accomplish corrective actions in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (q)(2) of this
AD. As of the effective date of this AD, use Bombardier RD 8/4-55-
1143, Issue 2, dated May 25, 2015, for the repair required by this
paragraph.
    (ii) Within 600 flight hours or 4 months, whichever occurs
first, after the replacement of a cracked barrel nut, replace the
remaining barrel nuts and their associated hardware at the
horizontal-stabilizer-to-vertical-stabilizer attachment joints, in
accordance with paragraph 3.B., ``Procedure,'' of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-55-08, Revision A,
dated August 2, 2017.
    (2) If any corrosion is found on any barrel nut on the front or
rear-spar joints, before further flight, replace the barrel nut in
accordance with paragraph 3.B., ``Procedure,'' of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-55-08, Revision A,
dated August 2, 2017, or accomplish corrective actions in accordance
with the procedures specified in paragraph (q)(2) of this AD.
    (3) If any corrosion above level 1, as defined in Bombardier
Alert Service Bulletin A84-55-04, Revision C, dated May 3, 2016, is
found on a barrel nut at the mid-spar joint, before further flight,
replace the barrel nut and accomplish corrective actions in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (q)(2) of this
AD.
    (4) If all corrosion found is at level 1 or below, as defined in
Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A84-55-04, Revision C,

dated May 3, 2016, on a barrel nut at the mid-spar joint, repeat the
inspection specified in paragraph (g) of this AD at intervals not to
exceed 600 flight hours or 4 months, whichever occurs first, until
completion of the actions required by paragraph (k) of this AD.

(i) Retained Preload Indicating (PLI) Washer Check, With New
Terminating Action

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD
2016-24-03, with new terminating action. For airplanes with PLI
washers installed at the front and rear-spar joints, before further
flight after accomplishing any inspection required by paragraph (g)
of this AD and all applicable corrective actions required by
paragraph (h) of this AD, check the bolt preload, and do all
applicable corrective actions, in accordance with paragraph 3.B.,
``Procedure,'' of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier
Alert Service Bulletin A84-55-04, Revision C, dated May 3, 2016. Do
all applicable corrective actions before further flight.
Accomplishment of the actions required by paragraphs (l) and (m) of
this AD, as applicable, terminates the requirements of this
paragraph.

(j) Retained Repetitive Inspection Interval, With New Terminating
Action

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (j) of AD
2016-24-03, with new terminating action. Repeat the inspection and
preload check required by paragraphs (g) and (i) of this AD at
intervals not to exceed 3,600 flight hours or 18 months, whichever
occurs first, except as provided by paragraph (k) of this AD.
Accomplishment of the actions required by paragraphs (l) and (m) of
this AD, as applicable, terminates the requirements of this
paragraph.

(k) Retained Optional Barrel Nut Replacement, With New Service
Information

    This paragraph restates the provisions of paragraph (k) of AD
2016-24-03, with new service information. Inspection and replacement
of all barrel nuts at the horizontal-stabilizer-to-vertical-
stabilizer attachment joints, in accordance with paragraph 3.B.,
``Procedure,'' of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier
Service Bulletin 84-55-08, Revision A, dated August 2, 2017, extends
the next inspection required by paragraph (j) of this AD to within
6,000 flight hours or 36 months, whichever occurs first, after
accomplishing the replacement.

(l) New Requirement of This AD: Sealing Disk Installation

    Within 8,000 flight hours or 48 months, whichever occurs first,
after the effective date of this AD, install a sealing disk at the
mid-spar location of the vertical stabilizer in accordance with
paragraph 3.B., ``Procedure,'' of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-55-06, dated January 31, 2017.
Accomplishment of the actions required by paragraphs (l) and (m) of
this AD, as applicable, terminates the requirements of paragraphs
(h), (i), and (j) of this AD.

(m) New Requirement of This AD: Replacement of DSC228 Series Barrel
Nuts

    For Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-400, -401 and -402 airplanes,
serial numbers 4001 through 4524 inclusive: Within 8,000 flight
hours or 48 months, whichever occurs first, after the effective date
of this AD, replace all DSC228 series barrel nuts at the horizontal-
stabilizer-to-vertical-stabilizer attachment joints with B0203073
series barrel nuts in accordance with paragraph 3.B., ``Procedure,''
of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin
84-55-08, Revision A, dated August 2, 2017. Accomplishment of the
actions required by paragraphs (l) and (m) of this AD, as
applicable, terminates the requirements of paragraphs (h), (i), and
(j) of this AD.

(n) Parts Installation Prohibition

    After modification of an airplane as required by paragraphs (l)
and (m) of this AD, no person may install a DSC228 series barrel nut
at the horizontal-stabilizer-to-vertical-stabilizer attachment joint
on the modified airplane.

(o) Terminating Actions for Paragraphs (h), (i), and (j) of This AD

    Accomplishment of the actions required by paragraphs (l) and (m)
of this AD, as applicable, terminates the requirements of paragraphs
(h), (i), and (j) of this AD.

(p) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), (h)(1), (h)(1)(i), (h)(1)(ii), (h)(2),
(h)(3), (h)(4), (i), and (k) of this AD, if those actions were
performed before the effective date of this AD using the service
information identified in paragraphs (p)(1)(i) through (p)(1)(iii)
of this AD.
    (i) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A84-55-04, dated May 21,
2015, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (ii) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A84-55-04, Revision A,
dated June 2, 2015, which is not incorporated by reference in this
AD.
    (iii) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A84-55-04, Revision B,
dated July 30, 2015, which is not incorporated by reference in this
AD.
    (2) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(1)(i), (h)(1)(ii), (h)(2), and (k) of this
AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of
this AD using the service information identified in paragraphs
(p)(2)(i) and (p)(2)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-55-08, dated January 27,
2017, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (ii) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A84-55-04, Revision C,
dated May 3, 2016, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2016-
24-03.

(q) Other FAA AD Provisions

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York ACO 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 local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate.
If sending information directly to the manager of the certification
office, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational
Safety, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (i) 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.
    (ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2016-24-03 are approved as
AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO
Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or
Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If
approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized
signature.

(r) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Canadian AD CF-2015-13R1, dated June 26, 2017, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet
at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2018-0160.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Aziz Ahmed,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Section, FAA, New York
ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].
    (3) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (s)(5) and (s)(6) of this AD.

(s) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
November 28, 2018.
    (i) Bombardier Repair Drawing (RD) 8/4-55-1143, Issue 2, dated
May 25, 2015.
    (ii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-55-06, dated January 31,
2017.
    (iii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-55-08, Revision A, dated
August 2, 2017.
    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on
January 12, 2017 (81 FR 88623, December 8, 2016).
    (i) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A84-55-04, Revision C,
dated May 3, 2016.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (5) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt
Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected]; internet
http://www.bombardier.com.

    (6) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195.
    (7) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on October 12, 2018.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-23031 Filed 10-23-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P