[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 110 (Tuesday, June 9, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32441-32445]
[FR Doc No: 2015-13325]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0227; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-211-AD;
Amendment 39-18165; AD 2015-11-02]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed
Martin Aeronautics Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 95-26-11 for
all Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company
Model L-1011 series airplanes. AD 95-26-11 required repetitive
inspections to detect cracking of the fittings that attach the aft
pressure bulkhead to the fuselage stringers, repetitive inspections to
detect cracking of the fittings and of the splice tab of the aft
pressure bulkhead, and corrective actions if necessary. This new AD
requires repetitive inspections to detect cracking of the fittings that
attach the aft pressure bulkhead to the fuselage stringers, repetitive
inspections to detect cracking of the fittings and of the splice tab of
the aft pressure bulkhead, repetitive inspections for cracking of

certain aft fuselage skin panels, a structural modification, a post-
modification inspection program, and corrective actions if necessary.
This AD was prompted by a determination that the fittings at stringer
attachments to the upper region of the aft pressure bulkhead are
subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). We are issuing this AD to
prevent simultaneous failure of multiple stringer end fittings through
fatigue cracking at the aft pressure bulkhead, which could lead to
rapid decompression of the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective July 14, 2015.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of July 14,
2015.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of
January 11, 1996 (60 FR 668702, December 27, 1995).

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, L1011
Technical Support Center, Dept. 6A4M, Zone 0579, 86 South Cobb Drive,
Marietta, GA 30063-0579; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.lockheedmartin.com/ams/tools/TechPubs.html. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, 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-2014-0227.

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-2014-
0227; 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: 800-647-
5527) is Docket 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: Carl Gray, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ACE-117A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone: 404-474-
5554; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to
amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 95-26-11, Amendment 39-9469 (60 FR
66870, December 27, 1995). AD 95-26-11 applied to all Lockheed Martin
Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Model L-1011 series
airplanes. The SNPRM published in the Federal Register on November 17,
2014 (79 FR 68377). We preceded the SNPRM with a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) that published in the Federal Register on April 14,
2014 (79 FR 20819). The NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections
to detect cracking of the fittings that attach the aft pressure
bulkhead to the fuselage stringers, repetitive inspections to detect
cracking of the fittings and of the splice tab of the aft pressure
bulkhead, repetitive inspections for cracking of certain aft fuselage
skin panels, a structural modification, a post-modification inspection
program, and corrective actions if necessary. The NPRM was prompted by
a determination that the fittings at stringer attachments to the upper
region of the aft pressure bulkhead are subject to WFD. The SNPRM
proposed to reduce the post-structural modification repetitive
inspection interval. We are issuing this AD to prevent simultaneous
failure of multiple stringer end fittings through fatigue cracking at
the aft pressure bulkhead, which could lead to rapid decompression of
the airplane.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the SNPRM (79 FR 68377, November
17, 2014) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for
minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
SNPRM (79 FR 68377, November 17, 2014) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the SNPRM (79 FR 68377, November 17, 2014).
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-53-105, Revision 3, dated
May 31, 2013. The service information describes procedures for
inspections for cracking of the stringer end fittings at the aft
pressure bulkhead, corrective actions, and a modification that includes
replacement of the stringer end fittings of certain stringers with new
fittings. 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 of this
AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 26 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
             Action                    Labor cost          Parts cost      Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspections [actions retained     23 work-hours x $85                 $0  $1,955 per          $50,830 per
 from AD 95-26-11, Amendment 39-   per hour = $1,955                       inspection cycle.   inspection cycle.
 9469 (60 FR 66870, December 27,   per inspection
 1995)].                           cycle.
Inspections and modification      185 work[dash]hours              6,750  $22,475...........  $584,350.
 [new action].                     x $85 per hour =
                                   $15,725.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Action                             Labor cost               Parts cost       Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement of one fitting................  16 work-hour x $85 per hour                $250              $1,610
                                             = $1,360.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

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 removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
95-26-11, Amendment 39-9469 (60 FR 66870, December 27, 1995), and
adding the following new AD:

2015-11-02 Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics
Company: Amendment 39-18165 ; Docket No. FAA-2014-0227; Directorate
Identifier 2013-NM-211-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective July 14, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 95-26-11, Amendment 39-9469 (60 FR 66870,
December 27, 1995).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed
Martin Aeronautics Company Model L-1011-385-1, L-1011-385-1-14, L-
1011-385-1-15, and L-1011-385-3 airplanes, certificated in any
category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a determination that the fittings at
stringer attachments to the upper region of the aft pressure
bulkhead are subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). We are
issuing this AD to prevent simultaneous failure of multiple stringer
end fittings through fatigue cracking at the aft pressure bulkhead,
which could lead to rapid decompression of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Detailed Visual Inspection

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (a) of AD
95-26-11, Amendment 39-9469 (60 FR 66870, December 27, 1995), with
no changes. Perform a detailed visual inspection to detect cracking
of the fittings that attach the aft pressure bulkhead to the
fuselage stringers (hereinafter referred to as ``fittings'') at
stringers 1 through 10 (right side) and at stringers 56 through 64
(left side), at the later of the times specified in either paragraph
(g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Prior to the accumulation of 20,000 total flight cycles; or
    (2) Within the next 25 flight cycles or 10 days after September
28, 1995 (the effective date of AD 95-18-52, Amendment 39-9366 (60
FR 47465, September 13, 1995)), whichever occurs earlier.

(h) Retained Corrective Action for Cracked Fitting

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (c) of AD
95-26-11, Amendment 39-9469 (60 FR 66870, December 27, 1995), with
no changes. If any cracked fitting is detected during the inspection
required by paragraph (g) of this AD: Before further flight,
accomplish the requirements of paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this
AD.
    (1) Replace the cracked fitting with a new fitting, or with a
serviceable fitting on which a detailed visual inspection has been
performed previously to detect cracking and that has been found to
be free of cracks.
    (2) Perform a detailed visual inspection to detect cracking in
the radius at the lower end of the vertical leg of the bulkhead T-
shaped frame between the stringer locations on either side of the
stringer having the cracked fitting. If any cracked T-shaped frame
is detected: Before further flight, repair in accordance with a
method approved by the Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), FAA.

(i) Retained Repetitive Fitting Inspections

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (d) of AD
95-26-11, Amendment 39-9469 (60 FR 66870, December 27, 1995), with
no changes. Repeat the inspections and other necessary actions
required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD at intervals not to
exceed 1,800 flight cycles or 3,000 flight hours, whichever occurs
earlier, until paragraph (j) of this AD is accomplished.

(j) Retained Eddy Current Surface Scan (ECSS) Inspections, and Related
Investigative and Corrective Actions

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (e) of AD
95-26-11, Amendment 39-9469 (60 FR 66870, December 27, 1995), with
revised compliance times specified in paragraph (k) of this AD,
exclusion of an ECSS inspection for certain airplanes, and new
service information. Except as provided by paragraph (l) of this AD:
At the applicable time specified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD,
accomplish the requirements of paragraphs

(j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD. Repeat the ECSS inspections thereafter
at the compliance time specified in paragraph (k)(2) of this AD.
Accomplishment of the ECSS inspection constitutes terminating action
for the repetitive inspection requirements of paragraph (i) of this
AD.
    (1) Perform an ECSS inspection to detect cracking of the
fittings at stringers 1 through 14 (right side) and at stringers 52
through 64 (left side), in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Lockheed L-1011 Service Bulletin 093-53-105,
Revision 1, dated November 17, 1995; or Lockheed Service Bulletin
093-53-105, Revision 3, dated May 31, 2013; except for airplanes
with a large (47-inch-wide) aft passenger door, an ECSS inspection
of stringers 12, 13, 53, and 54 is not required by this paragraph.
Except as provided by paragraph (m) of this AD, if any cracking is
detected, prior to further flight, replace the fitting with a new
fitting without pilot holes, rework the fitting, and perform various
follow-on actions (i.e., bolt hole eddy current (BHEC), ECSS, and
borescope inspections; and repair) of the inner and outer tee caps,
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Lockheed L-
1011 Service Bulletin 093-53-105, Revision 1, dated November 17,
1995; or Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-53-105, Revision 3, dated May
31, 2013, except as required by paragraph (p) of this AD. As of the
effective date of this AD, use only Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-
53-105, Revision 3, dated May 31, 2013, for accomplishing the
actions required by this paragraph.
    (2) Perform an ECSS inspection to detect cracking of the lower
(or inner) surface of the upper bonded splice tab of the bulkhead
assembly at stringers 1 through 14 (right side) and at stringers 52
through 64 (left side), in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Lockheed L-1011 Service Bulletin 093-53-105,
Revision 1, dated November 17, 1995; or Lockheed Service Bulletin
093-53-105, Revision 3, dated May 31, 2013. As of the effective date
of this AD, use only Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-53-105, Revision
3, dated May 31, 2013, for accomplishing the actions required by
this paragraph.
    (i) Except as provided by paragraph (m) of this AD, if any
cracking is detected at the upper bonded splice tab, repair in
accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Atlanta ACO, FAA.
    (ii) Except as provided by paragraph (m) of this AD, if any
cracking is detected at a fastener, prior to further flight, perform
a BHEC inspection to detect cracking of the forward flange of the
inner tee cap, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Lockheed L-1011 Service Bulletin 093-53-105, Revision 1, dated
November 17, 1995; or Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-53-105, Revision
3, dated May 31, 2013. If any cracking is detected, prior to further
flight, repair in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Lockheed L-1011 Service Bulletin 093-53-105, Revision 1, dated
November 17, 1995; or Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-53-105, Revision
3, dated May 31, 2013, except as required by paragraph (p) of this
AD. As of the effective date of this AD, use only Lockheed Service
Bulletin 093-53-105, Revision 3, dated May 31, 2013, for
accomplishing the actions required by this paragraph.

(k) New Revised Compliance Times for Paragraph (j) of This AD

    (1) Do the initial inspections required by paragraph (j) of this
AD at the earlier of the times specified in paragraphs (k)(1)(i) and
(k)(1)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) Prior to the accumulation of 20,000 total flight cycles, or
within 30 days after January 11, 1996 (the effective date of date of
AD 95-26-11, Amendment 39-9469 (60 FR 66870, December 27, 1995)),
whichever occurs later.
    (ii) At the later of the times specified in paragraphs
(k)(1)(ii)(A) and (k)(1)(ii)(B) of this AD.
    (A) Before the accumulation of 13,875 total flight cycles.
    (B) Within 365 days or 1,000 flight cycles after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
    (2) Repeat the inspections specified in paragraph (j) of this AD
within 2,500 flight cycles after accomplishing the most recent
inspection required by paragraph (j) of this AD, and repeat the
inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,750 flight
cycles.

(l) Retained Inspection Deferral for Paragraph (j) of This AD

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (f) of AD
95-26-11, Amendment 39-9469 (60 FR 66870, December 27, 1995).
Accomplishment of the initial ECSS inspections required by paragraph
(j) of this AD may be deferred to a date within 120 days after
January 11, 1996 (the effective date of date of AD 95-26-11),
provided that, in the interim, a visual inspection as specified in
paragraph (g) of this AD is accomplished within 30 days after
January 11, 1996 (the effective date of date of AD 95-26-11), and
repeated thereafter at intervals not to exceed 50 flight cycles.
Once the ECSS inspections begin, the visual inspections may be
terminated.

(m) Retained Inspection Deferral With Revised Compliance Time and New
Deferral

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD
95-26-11, Amendment 39-9469 (60 FR 66870, December 27, 1995), with a
revised compliance time, service information, and a new deferred
action. As of the effective date of this AD, the deferral specified
in paragraphs (m)(1) and (m)(2) of this AD cannot be done. If
cracking was found before the effective date of this AD, the
deferral specified in paragraphs (m)(1) and (m)(2) of this AD may be
done. (1) If two or more adjacent fittings on both sides of the
cracked fittings or bonded splice tabs/fasteners are determined to
be free of cracks by the ECSS inspection required by paragraphs
(j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD, repeat the ECSS inspection of the
adjacent fittings thereafter at intervals not to exceed 600 flight
cycles until the cracked fittings or splice tabs/fasteners are
replaced or repaired, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Lockheed L-1011 Service Bulletin 093-53-105,
Revision 1, dated November 17, 1995; or Lockheed Service Bulletin
093-53-105, Revision 3, dated May 31, 2013. At the applicable time
specified in paragraphs (m)(1)(i) and (m)(1)(ii) of this AD: Replace
the cracked fitting and/or splice tab/fasteners, in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Lockheed L-1011 Service Bulletin
093-53-105, Revision 1, dated November 17, 1995; or Lockheed Service
Bulletin 093-53-105, Revision 3, dated May 31, 2013. As of the
effective date of this AD, use only Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-
53-105, Revision 3, dated May 31, 2013, for accomplishing the
actions required by this paragraph.
    (i) For any crack found before the effective date of this AD:
Within 2,500 flight cycles after finding the crack.
    (ii) For any crack found on or after the effective date of this
AD: Before further flight after finding the crack.
    (2) If two or more adjacent fittings on both sides of the
cracked fittings or bonded splice tabs/fasteners are determined to
be free of cracks by the ECSS inspection required by paragraphs
(j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD, the follow-on inspection (i.e., BHEC,
ECSS, and borescope inspections) of the inner and outer tee caps
required by paragraph (j)(1) of this AD may also be deferred until
the cracked fittings are replaced as required by paragraph (m)(1) of
this AD, but no later than before the accumulation of 20,800 total
flight cycles.

(n) New Repetitive Borescope Inspections of Certain End Fittings and
Corrective Actions

    For airplanes with a large (47-inch-wide) aft passenger door: At
the later of the times specified in paragraphs (n)(1) and (n)(2) of
this AD, do a borescope inspection for cracking of the stringer end
fittings at stringer locations 12, 13, 53, and 54; and do all
applicable related investigative and corrective actions; in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Lockheed Service
Bulletin 093-53-105, Revision 3, dated May 31, 2013, except as
specified in paragraph (p) of this AD. Do all applicable related
investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Repeat
the inspection of the stringer end fittings thereafter at intervals
not to exceed 1,750 flight cycles until the actions required by
paragraph (q) of this AD have been done.
    (1) Before the accumulation of 13,875 total flight cycles.
    (2) Within 365 days or 1,000 flight cycles after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs earlier.

(o) New Repetitive Borescope Inspections of Fuselage Skin Panels

    For airplanes with a large (47-inch-wide) aft passenger door: At
the later of the times specified in paragraphs (o)(1) and (o)(2) of
this AD, do an ECSS inspection for cracking of the left and right
aft fuselage skin panels; and do all applicable related
investigative and corrective actions; in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-53-105,
Revision 3, dated May 31, 2013, except as specified in paragraph (p)
of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective
actions before further flight. Repeat the inspection of the aft
fuselage skin panels thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,750
flight cycles until the modification required by paragraph (q) of
this AD is done.

    (1) Before the accumulation of 13,875 total flight cycles.
    (2) Within 365 days or 1,000 flight cycles after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs first.

(p) New Service Information Exception

    If any cracking is found during any inspection required by this
AD, and Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-53-105, Revision 3, dated May
31, 2013, specifies contacting Lockheed for appropriate action:
Before further flight, repair the cracking in accordance with a
method approved by the Manager, Atlanta ACO, FAA. As of the
effective date of this AD, for a repair method to be approved by the
Manager, Atlanta ACO, as required by this paragraph, the Manager's
approval letter must specifically refer to this AD.

(q) New Pre-Structural Modification Inspections and Structural
Modification

    Before the accumulation of 20,800 total flight cycles: Do the
applicable actions specified in paragraphs (q)(1) and (q)(2) of this
AD.
    (1) Perform pre-structural modification inspections by doing the
actions required by paragraphs (j), (n), and (o) of this AD.
    (2) Perform a structural modification of the aft pressure
bulkhead by removing and replacing all stringer end fittings with
new or refurbished fittings at stringers 1 through 14, and 52
through 64, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-53-105, Revision 3, dated May 31,
2013.

(r) New Post-Structural Modification Repetitive Inspections

    Within 13,875 flight cycles after performing the actions
required by paragraph (q)(2) of this AD: Do the actions specified in
paragraphs (j), (n), and (o) of this AD, and repeat thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 1,750 flight cycles.

(s) No Reporting Requirement

    Although Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-53-105, Revision 3, dated
May 31, 2013, referenced in this AD specifies to submit certain
information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that
requirement.

(t) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Atlanta 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 paragraph
(u) of this AD.
    (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.

 (u) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Carl Gray, Aerospace
Engineer, Airframe Branch, ACE-117A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA
30337; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(v) 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 the AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
July 14, 2015.
    (i) Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-53-105, Revision 3, dated May
31, 2013 (The date of May 15, 2013, on page 1 of Lockheed Service
Bulletin 093-53-105, Revision 3, dated May 31, 2013, is incorrect
and should be May 31, 2013).
    (ii) Reserved.
    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on
January 11, 1996 (60 FR 66870, December 27, 1995).
    (i) Lockheed L-1011 Service Bulletin 093-53-105, Revision 1,
dated November 17, 1995.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (5) For Lockheed service information identified in this AD,
contact Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics
Company, L1011 Technical Support Center, Dept. 6A4M, Zone 0579, 86
South Cobb Drive, Marietta, GA 30063-0579; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.lockheedmartin.com/ams/tools/TechPubs.html.
    (6) You may view this service information at FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (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 Renton, Washington, on May 18, 2015.
John P. Piccola, Jr.,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-13325 Filed 6-8-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


4March 3, 2004 Honorable Mitt Romney Governor of Massachusetts State House Boston, MA 02133 Dear Governor Romney:

Thank you for your letter forwarding Massachusetts= recommendations on air quality designations for the national health based standards for fine particles. We received your letter on February 17, 2004.

Your letter is an important step toward providing citizens in your state with critical information about air pollution levels in their community. We intend to carefully review the recommendations and work with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection in determining final designations. The EPA must make its final official designation decisions for fine particles by December 31, 2004.

We look forward to working with Massachusetts in the coming months on designations for the fine particle standards. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me or Tim Williamson, Acting Manager of the Air Quality Planning Unit, at 617 918 1099.

Sincerely,

Robert W. Varney Regional Administrator cc: Ellen Roy Herzfelder, Secretary, EOEA Robert W. Golledge Jr., Commissioner, DEP Barbara Kwetz, DEP


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 102 (Tuesday, May 30, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24529-24531]
[FR Doc No: 2017-10911]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[DE104-1104; FRL-9961-26-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Delaware; Update to Materials Incorporated by Reference

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; administrative change.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is updating the
materials that are incorporated by reference (IBR) into the Delaware
state implementation plan (SIP). The regulations affected by this
update have been previously submitted by the Delaware Department of
Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) and approved by
EPA. This update affects the SIP materials that are available for
public inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA) and the EPA Regional Office.

DATES: This action is effective May 30, 2017.

ADDRESSES: SIP materials which are incorporated by reference into 40
CFR part 52 are available for inspection at the following locations:
Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; or NARA. For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gavin Huang,<PHONE_NUMBER> or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The SIP is a living document which a state revises as necessary to
address its unique air pollution problems. Therefore, EPA, from time to
time, must take action on SIP revisions containing new and/or revised
regulations as being part of the SIP. On May 22, 1997 (62 FR 27968),
EPA revised the procedures for incorporating by reference federally-
approved SIPs, as a result of consultations between EPA and the Office
of the Federal Register (OFR). The description of the revised SIP
document, IBR procedures and ``Identification of plan'' format are
discussed in further detail in the May 22, 1997 Federal Register
document. On December 7, 1998 (63 FR 67407), EPA published a document
in the Federal Register beginning the new IBR procedure for Delaware.
On June 21, 2004 (69 FR 34285), April 3, 2007 (72 FR 15839), April 17,
2009 (74 FR 17771), and May 2, 2011 (76 FR 24372), September 24, 2013
(78 FR 58465), EPA published updates to the IBR material for Delaware.
Since the publication of the last IBR update, EPA has approved
regulatory changes to the following Delaware revised regulations:
    1. 7 DNREC regulation 1103 (Ambient Air Quality Standards),
sections 1.0 (General Provisions), 4.0 (Sulfur Dioxide), 6.0 (Ozone),
8.0 (Nitrogen Dioxide), 10.0 (Lead), and 11.0 (PM10 and
PM2.5 Particulates).
    2. 7 DNREC regulation 1140 (Delaware Low Emission Vehicle Program),
sections 1.0 (Purpose), 2.0 (Applicability), 3.0 (Definitions), 4.0
(Emission Certification Standards), 5.0 (New Vehicle Emission
Requirements), 6.0 (Manufacturer Fleet Requirements), 7.0 (Warranty),
8.0 (Reporting and Record-Keeping Requirements), 9.0 (Enforcement),
10.0 (Incorporation by Reference), 11.0 (Document Availability), and
12.0 (Severability).

II. EPA Action

    In this action, EPA is announcing the update to the IBR material as
of July 1, 2016 and revising the text within 40 CFR 52.420(b). EPA is
revising our 40 CFR part 52 ``Identification of Plan'' for the State of
Delaware regarding incorporation by reference, section 52.420(b). EPA
is revising section 52.420(b)(1) to clarify that all SIP revisions
listed in paragraphs (c) and (d), regardless of inclusion in the most
recent ``update to the SIP compilation,'' are fully federally
enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective
date of the final rulemaking in which EPA approved the SIP revision,
consistent with following our ``Approval and Promulgations of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Revised Format of 40 CFR part 52 for
Materials Being Incorporated by Reference,'' effective May 22, 1997 (62
FR 27968). EPA is revising section 52.420(b)(2) to clarify references
to other portions of paragraph (b) with subparagraph (b)(2). EPA is
revising section (b)(3) to update address and contact information.

III. Good Cause Exemption

    EPA has determined that this rule falls under the ``good cause''
exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedures Act
(APA) which, upon finding ``good cause,'' authorizes agencies to
dispense with public participation and section 553(d)(3) which allows
an agency to make a rule effective immediately (thereby avoiding the
30-day delayed effective date otherwise provided for in the APA). This
rule simply codifies provisions which are already in effect as a matter
of law in federal and approved state programs. Under section 553 of the
APA, an agency may find good cause where procedures are ``impractical,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.'' Public comment is
``unnecessary'' and ``contrary to the public interest'' since the
codification only reflects existing law. Immediate notice in the CFR
benefits the public by removing outdated citations and incorrect table
entries.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of previously
EPA approved regulations promulgated by the State of Delaware and
federally effective prior to July 1, 2016. Therefore, these materials
have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been

incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally
enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective
date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be
incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in
the next update to the SIP compilation.\1\ EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these materials generally available through
www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region III Office (please contact
the person identified in the ``For Further Information Contact''
section of this preamble for more information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

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

    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule 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. This rule is not a
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    EPA has also determined that the provisions of section 307(b)(1) of
the CAA pertaining to petitions for judicial review are not applicable
to this action. Prior EPA rulemaking actions for each individual
component of the Delaware SIP compilations had previously afforded
interested parties the opportunity to file a petition for judicial
review in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit within 60 days of such rulemaking action. Thus, EPA sees no
need in this action to reopen the 60-day period for filing such
petitions for judicial review for this ``Identification of Plan''
update action for Delaware.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: March 23, 2017.
Cecil Rodrigues,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
    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 I--Delaware

0
2. Section 52.420 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.420  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (b) Incorporation by reference. (1) Material listed in in
paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section with an EPA approval date prior
to July 1, 2016, was approved for incorporation by reference by the
Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and
1 CFR part 51. Entries in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section with
the EPA approval dates after July 1, 2016 for the State of Delaware
have been approved by EPA for the inclusion in the SIP and for
incorporation by reference into the plan as it is contained in this
section, and will be considered by the Director of the Federal Register
for approval in the next update to the SIP compilation.
    (2) EPA Region III certifies that the materials provided by EPA at
the addresses in paragraph (b)(3) of this section are an exact
duplicate of the officially promulgated state rules/regulations which
have been approved as part of the SIP as of the dates referenced in
paragraph (b)(1). No additional revisions were made to paragraph (d)
between the last incorporation by reference date of July 1, 2013 and
July 1, 2016.
    (3) Copies of the materials incorporated by reference into the
state implementation plan may be inspected at the Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103. To obtain the material, please call the Regional
Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>. You may also inspect the material with an EPA
approval date prior to July 1, 2016 for the State of Delaware at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on
the availability of this material at NARA, go

to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-10911 Filed 5-26-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 224 (Tuesday, November 20, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58473-58474]
[FR Doc No: 2018-24962]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 31223; Amdt. No. 3826]

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These
regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised
criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace
System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities,
adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These
changes are designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the
navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under
instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES: This rule is effective November 20, 2018. The compliance date
for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of November 20, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:

For Examination

    1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
    2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the
affected airport is located;
    3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South
MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
    For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call
202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

Availability

    All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free
of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center online at nfdc.faa.gov
to register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP
copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service
Area in which the affected airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedures
and Airspace Group, Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight
Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration. Mailing Address:
FAA Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Flight Procedures and Airspace
Group, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Registry Bldg. 29 Room 104, Oklahoma
City, OK 73125. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs.
The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the
appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data
Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated
by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20.
The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a
special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register
expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory
text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts
printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages
of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the
complete description of each SIAP contained on FAA form documents is
unnecessary.
    This amendment provides the affected CFR sections, and specifies
the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective
dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the
procedure and the amendment number.

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

    The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section.
    The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97
of this final rule.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the
transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this
amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP
and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.
    The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC
permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the
criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument
Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific
conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in
this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an
emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to
published aeronautical charts.
    The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff
Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than
30 days.
    Because of the close and immediate relationship between these
SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find
that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are
impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where
applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these
SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(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);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 2, 2018.
Rick Domingo,
Executive Director, Flight Standards Service.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14,
Code of Federal regulations, Part 97, (14 CFR part 97), is amended by
amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums
and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114,
40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

0
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:
    By amending: Sec.  97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or
TACAN; Sec.  97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; Sec.
97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; Sec.  97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV;
Sec.  97.31 RADAR SIAPs; Sec.  97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and Sec.  97.35 COPTER
SIAPs, Identified as follows:

* * * Effective Upon Publication

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    AIRAC Date         State           City             Airport         FDC No.      FDC Date        Subject
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6-Dec-18..........  NJ          Newark...........  Newark Liberty          8/1634     10/15/18  RNAV (RNP) Z RWY
                                                    Intl.                                        29, Orig-E.
6-Dec-18..........  NJ          Newark...........  Newark Liberty          8/1636     10/15/18  RNAV (RNP) Y RWY
                                                    Intl.                                        29, Amdt 1C.
6-Dec-18..........  MT          Glendive.........  Dawson Community.       8/1795     10/17/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY
                                                                                30, Orig-A.
6-Dec-18..........  MT          Glendive.........  Dawson Community.       8/1861     10/17/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY
                                                                                12, Orig-A.
6-Dec-18..........  NY          Albany...........  Albany Intl......       8/3214     10/29/18  VOR RWY 28, Orig-
                                                                                C.
6-Dec-18..........  TX          Albany...........  Albany Muni......       8/3862     10/17/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY
                                                                                35, Amdt 1A.
6-Dec-18..........  TX          Albany...........  Albany Muni......       8/3873     10/17/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY
                                                                                17, Amdt 1A.
6-Dec-18..........  NY          Albany...........  Albany Intl......       8/6757     10/29/18  RNAV (RNP) Z RWY
                                                                                19, Orig-A.
6-Dec-18..........  PA          Pottstown........  Heritage Field...       8/8210     10/25/18  Takeoff Minimums
                                                                                and Obstacle
                                                                                DP, Amdt 2A.
6-Dec-18..........  NY          Albany...........  Albany Intl......       8/8629     10/29/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY
                                                                                28, Orig-B.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2018-24962 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Technical Support Document for the Rule to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone ( Clean Air Interstate Rule): Final Notice of Action on the Reconsideration Waste Coal Fired Units in the CAIR and CAIR FIP EPA Docket number: OAR 2003 0053 March 2006 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air and Radiation Technical Support Document: Waste Coal Fired Units in the CAIR and CAIR FIP 2 Introduction This technical support document ( TSD) presents analysis the United States Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) performed to support its response to commenters' request for an exemption for waste coal fired units from the CAIR SO2 annual program. ( The complete response maybe found in the Response to Comment document for the Clean Air Interstate Rules Federal Implementation Plan ( CAIR FIP) and preamble to today's rule.) This TSD examines the potential financial impacts of CAIR on waste coal fired units in CAIR SO2 annual program when they ( 1) have power purchase agreements in place and ( 2) once the power purchase agreement expire. The first two analyses ( in section 1) pertain to when waste coal fired units have a power purchase agreement ( PPA) in place and, because they are exempt from title IV, can take advantage of the title IV opt in provisions. The third analysis ( in section 2) evaluates the potential financial impacts to waste coal fired units for the period beginning when their power purchase agreements have expired and they are free to participate in the electricity markets.

The analysis presented in this TSD demonstrates that the commenters have not shown that, as a category, the CAIR SO2 program would make waste coal fired units economically unviable. In fact, EPA analysis presented in this TSD shows that a typical waste coal fired unit would remain viable. The analysis presented in this TSD support EPA's response to commenters request for an exemption from the CAIR SO2 annual program only because waste coal fired units have not indicated any difficulty in complying with the CAIR NOx annual and ozone season programs.

Background The CAIR model trading rules regulate waste coal fired units. While commenters have not expressed concern that these units will be part of the CAIR NOx annual and ozone season programs, they have requested that they be exempt from the CAIR SO2 annual program. This is, in part, related to the fact that the CAIR SO2 annual program builds upon the successful title IV SO2 cap and trade program and relies upon the existing trading program infrastructure and emission allowance allocations. The title IV allowance allocation system is permanent with some portion being auctioned each year. Waste coal fired facilities have not received a title IV SO2 allowance allocation because they have been exempt from title IV under the IPP exemption. Title IV's IPP exemption applies to units that had power purchase agreements with fixed prices in place on November 15, 1990 and includes units other than waste coal fired facilities. The purpose of the exemption is to protect IPP facilities subject to contract prices that were set before passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 ( including the Acid Rain Program in title IV) and that did not allow pass through of the costs of Acid Rain Program compliance. However, EPA believes that this exemption was aimed at easing the transition of such facilities into the Acid Rain.

While waste coal fired units have a valid power purchase agreement ( and, subsequently, an exemption from title IV), they may choose to opt in to the title IV program and receive SO2 allowances. The title IV opt in provisions provide units with SO2 allowances based Technical Support Document: Waste Coal Fired Units in the CAIR and CAIR FIP 3 upon their heat input ( i. e., the average of their annual heat input for the years 1985 through 1987 or, for facilities that commenced operation after January 1, 1985, their first three whole years of operation) and their emission rate ( i. e., the lesser of their actual emission rate during the first baseline year or their lowest permitted emission limit in year they apply that will be effective that year or any time after).

When the waste coal fired units' power purchase agreements expire, the units lose their title IV exemption. As title IV affected units, they lose their title IV opt in status and can no longer receive title IV allowances under the title IV opt in provisions. These units are no longer locked into their power purchase contracts and are free to participate in the wholesale electricity markets.

Under CAIR, waste coal fired units meet the applicability requirements that define which units are affected as electricity generating units ( EGUs). EPA has not extended the title IV exemption for units with power purchase agreements. As explained in the preamble and response to comment document that are supported by this TSD, EPA believes that waste coal fired units should not be exempt from the requirements to comply with CAIR that control emissions from the power sector.

1. Waste Coal Fired Units under CAIR with Title IV Opt In As mentioned above, waste coal fired units may choose to opt in to the title IV program and receive SO2 allowances while they have a valid power purchase agreement in effect. Commenters believe that even with SO2 allowances from the opting into title IV, they would not be economically viable. To evaluate this claim, EPA conducted the two analyses presented in this section. The first examines the limited analysis that commenter submitted on the ratio of the cost of CAIR compliance for SO2 emissions to electric generation revenues. The second analysis examines, based on the limited data that commenters provided, the potential allocations that waste coal fired units may receive under the title IV opt in provisions.

Evaluation of Commenters' Cost to Revenue Ratio Analysis Some limited analysis of the ratio of the cost of CAIR compliance for SO2 emissions to electric generation revenues was provided by commenters to support their claim that CAIR would make their units economically unviable. Presented below in Table 1 is EPA's evaluation of the commenter provided analysis. The commenters developed their estimate of the cost of compliance under CAIR using their own estimate of their SO2 emissions and what they believed to be EPA's projected allowance price. However, inaccuracies in the commenters' assumptions about EPA's projected cost per ton resulted in an overestimation of their cost of compliance estimates. One specific assumption made by the commenters is that the projected cost per ton were allowance prices. As a result, they multiplied the projected cost per ton by the CAIR SO2 programs retirement ratios ( i. e., 2 to 1 in 2010 and 2.86 to 1 in 2015). In fact, EPA modeling has projected the cost of emitting one ton of SO2 under the CAIR to be $ 616/ ton and $ 892/ ton in 2010 Technical Support Document: Waste Coal Fired Units in the CAIR and CAIR FIP 4 and 2015, respectively. 1 ( The modeling, and resulting cost per ton, already incorporates the CAIR SO2 retirement ratios.) Based upon the same revenue and emissions reported by the commenters, EPA recalculated the cost to revenue ratios using the appropriate cost per ton for CAIR compliance.

Table 1: EPA Evaluation of Commenters' Cost to Revenue Ratios Commenter Estimated Compliance Cost/ Revenue EPA Estimated Cost/ Revenue* Percent Commenter Estimate Is Greater Than EPA Estimate Waste Coal Power Plants 2010 2015 2010 2015 2010 2015 Cambria CoGen 12% 15% 2% 4% 556% 325% Colver 8% 10% 1% 2% 636% 377% Ebensburg 11% 14% 2% 4% 461% 270% Gilberton 7% 9% 1% 2% 487% 291% NEPCO 6% 7% 1% 2% 453% 234% Northampton 2% 2% < 1% 1% 578% 251% Panther Creek 2% 3% < 1% 1% 357% 255% Piney Creek 10% 12% 2% 4% 437% 234% Schuykill 7% 9% 1% 3% 423% 248% Scrubgrass 6% 8% 1% 2% 650% 418% Westwood 4% 5% 1% 1% 418% 235%

Wheelabrator 4% 4% 1% 1% 456% 188% Average 7% 8% 1% 2% 493% 277% * Estimate is based upon EPA recalculation of CAIR compliance cost and commenterprovided estimates of emissions and revenue. CAIR compliance cost was calculated by multiplying the commenter's reported SO2 emissions by the cost of emitting one SO2 ton under CAIR ( i. e., $ 616/ ton and $ 892/ ton in 2010 and 2015, respectively). The cost of emitting one ton of SO2 is based upon IPM modeling. The EPA recalculated CAIR compliance cost does not include the cost of complying with title IV. As a result, the incremental cost associated with CAIR ( that is, additional to the cost that would have been borne for title IV compliance) is roughly 1/ 2 and 2/ 3 of the total reported emissions. For facilities with PPAs in effect, this can reflect a unit that receives title IV opt in allowances equal to all of its current emissions. For facilities with expired PPAs that can not receive title IV opt in allowances, this represents the incremental cost of CAIR ( i. e., the cost beyond that the facility would already incurred from title IV compliance).

These recalculated ratios range from under 1% to 4%. The commenter overestimated the ratio for their units by an average of close to 500% and 300% in 2010 and 2015, respectively. As a result, the commenters have not shown that the cost to revenue ratios, especially when recalculated to appropriately account for costs, would result in their units being, as they claim, " economically unviable."

EPA Evaluation of Title IV Potential Opt In Allocation Levels While under a power purchase agreement, waste coal fired units can opt in to title IV program and receive allowances through the title IV individual unit opt in provisions. However, commenters expressed concern that their allocation of title IV opt in 1 EPA modeling run " IPM Run CAIR/ CAMR/ CAVR" that can be found at http:// www. epa. gov/ airmarkets/ mp/. Technical Support Document: Waste Coal Fired Units in the CAIR and CAIR FIP 5 allowances would be less than their current emissions, because they may operate more in the future than they did during the baseline years. As mentioned earlier, the title IV optin provisions provide units with SO2 allowances based upon their heat input and their emission rate. More specifically, the heat input used for this determination is the average of their heat input during the years 1985 through 1987 or, for facilities commencing operation after January 1, 1985, the average of their first 3 full years of operation. The commenters believe that, as a result, EPA estimates based upon these units receiving title IV opt in allowances equal to their current emission levels and, potentially, sufficient to offset one allowance needed under CAIR for each ton emitted ( e. g., under Phase I sources would have to buy only one additional allowance), are inaccurate. Again, according to commenters, this would vary greatly from plant to plant.

To evaluate the commenters concern, EPA examined some limited information on the potential financial impacts of CAIR and the title IV opt in provisions. While this information was limited to only 4 facilities, EPA examined whether the commenterprovided estimates of their title IV opt in allocations would compare to their current emissions. Table 2 shows that, even by the commenter reported estimates, these facilities would likely receive title IV SO2 allowances that are 88 percent or greater of their current emissions, with one facility having coverage of 46 percent.

Table 2: EPA Evaluation of Commenters Potential Title IV Opt In Allocations Commenter Provided S02 Emissions ( 2001 2005 Ave)** Commenter Provided Estimate of Allocation from Title IV Opt in** % Current Emissions Covered by Title IV Opt in Allocations Facility 1* 543 480 88% Facility 2* 3,668 1,688 46% Facility 3* 1,171 1,142 98% Facility 4* 2,163 1,900 88% * Facility names have not been provided to comply with commenters request that information be considered confidential. ** Data provided in letters from Steven Shimberg ( March 1, 2006) and Lisa Jaeger ( March 8, 2006). Source of data was not specified.

As a result, the limited data that the commenters submitted to support their claim that EPA had overestimated the amount of title IV opt in allowances they would receive ( i. e., the title IV opt in provisions would not provide sufficient SO2 allowances to account for their current emission levels) has shown that some, if not many, of the facilities would receive title IV opt in allocations very similar to their current emission levels. This data further illustrates that, because the terms of the contracts can vary greatly, the potential impacts of title IV and the CAIR on waste coal fired facilities will also vary. This supports EPAs point that the commenters have not demonstrated that, as a category of sources, CAIR would make them economically unviable and justify exempting the entire group.

EPA also notes that, as with the commenters' analysis of the cost to revenue ratios ( discussed earlier in this document), the commenters developed their estimate of the cost of compliance under CAIR using their own estimate of their SO2 emissions and what they believed to be EPA's projected allowance price. The limited material submitted as part of the title IV opt in allocation analysis ( presented in this section) included the same Technical Support Document: Waste Coal Fired Units in the CAIR and CAIR FIP 6 inaccuracies in the commenters' assumptions about EPA's projected cost per ton. Again, the commenters assumed that the projected cost per ton were allowance prices multiplied the projected cost per ton by the CAIR SO2 programs retirement ratios ( i. e., 2 to 1 in 2010 and 2.86 to 1 in 2015).

2. Waste Coal Fired Units Under CAIR without Title IV Opt in EPA also analyzed the potential impacts to waste coal fired units when their PPAs have expired ( i. e., the units have lost the exemption from title IV and can not receive title IV opt in allowances) and the units are free to participate in the electricity. The analysis presented in this section assumes that the waste coal fired units do not receive any title IV SO2 allowances and must purchase SO2 allowances to account for all of their emissions.

EPA Evaluation of Title IV Potential Opt In Allocation Levels Because the unit specific information and analysis provided by the commenters was limited, EPA conducted an analysis using generally available information to evaluate the potential impact of the cost of complying with CAIR for a typical circulating fluidized bed ( CFB) combusting waste coal. This analysis examined how the potential cost to operate a typical waste coal fired CFB unit ( including the cost of complying with CAIR) compares to the potential price it would receive on the electricity market in the MAAC region, where most of the waste coal units operate.

As shown in Table 3, the estimated cost of producing electricity for a typical waste coalfired CFB would be significantly less than the EPA projected wholesale price and the forecasted price of electricity. Specifically, the analysis estimated the potential cost of producing electricity for a waste coal fired CFB to be approximately $ 17.00/ MWh and $ 17.74/ MWh in 2010 and 2015, respectively. Even with the cost of complying with CAIR factored in, the EPA estimated cost of production is significantly less than the EPA projected wholesale price, which is a good indicator of the price that waste coal fired units would receive for their electricity on the market. Specifically, the waste coal fired facilities are projected have a profit margin of $ 10.10/ MWh and $ 18.29/ MWh in 2010 and 2015, respectively. This is 37% and 50% of the projected wholesale electricity price in 2010 and 2015, respectively. This analysis shows that the waste coal fired facilities will continue to operate and be profitable, even when factoring in the cost of complying with CAIR.

Table 3: Costs of Operating a Typical CFB Plant Burning Waste Coal Components of Operating Costs Cost to Operate 2010 ($/ MWh) Cost to Operate 2015 ($/ MWh) Variable O& M $ 2.11 $ 2.11 Fixed O& M $ 5.31 $ 5.31 Fuel Cost $ 7.28 $ 7.20 SO2 Allowance Cost $ 1.53 $ 2.17 NOx Allowance Cost $ 0.77 $ 0.95 Total Operating Cost* $ 17.00 $ 17.74 Technical Support Document: Waste Coal Fired Units in the CAIR and CAIR FIP 7 Base Case Wholesale Electricity Price** $ 25.43 $ 33.46 CAIR Wholesale Electricity Price** $ 27.10 $ 36.06 * The total operating cost estimate, as well as component costs, are based on analysis presented in ICF memorandum ( Attachment A to this TSD). ** IPM projected wholesale electricity prices in the under the Base Case and CAIR ( EPA 2006). Technical Support Document: Waste Coal Fired Units in the CAIR and CAIR FIP 8 Attachment 1 MEMORANDUM To: Sam Waltzer, CAMD, EPA From: Barry Galef and Jason Lee, ICF Date: March 1, 2006 Subject: Economic Viability of ARIPPA Plants Under CAIR In response to your request, we have made a brief assessment of the impacts of CAIR on the ARIPPA plants located in Pennsylvania. Since these plants consume waste coal as fuel, we looked into the operating cost structure of plants in Pennsylvania consuming waste coal. We estimated total operating ( or " avoidable") cost, including fixed and variable O& M costs, fuel costs, and the cost of purchasing SO2 and NOx allowances, in terms of $/ MWh, and compared it to the electricity revenue that can be earned under the CAIR regime. We found that, even with the cost of SO2 and NOx allowances, the plants will still earn net revenues over their operating cost, in part because the wholesale electricity price increases under the CAIR regime. Thus, there is no reason to expect them to be shut down.

OPERATING COSTS FOR PLANTS USING WASTE COAL In general, much of the " all in" cost of coal fired generation is in the capital investment, which is a " sunk" cost which cannot be avoided by closing down. The costs of continuing to operate, on the other hand, are relatively low. Thus, small changes in their costs will generally not drive their variable costs above their revenues, and so they will stay open. Exhibit 1 shows cost components of running plants burning waste coal in Pennsylvania. The dollar values in this exhibit, and in the rest of this memo, are presented in terms of 1999 dollars.

Exhibit 1 Cost Structure for Plants Using Waste Coal in Pennsylvania Variable O& M, $/ MWh $ 2.11 Fixed O& M, $/ kW yr $ 39.55 Source: " Economic Impact of Renewable Energy in Pennsylvania, Black and Veatch, F. Analysis of the Advanced Energy Portfolio Standards," Table F 3, p. F 7, November 19, 2004, available at http:// www. cfalleghenies. org/ images/ Energy_ Study_ 11 04. pdf converted to 1999$ from 2003$. Technical Support Document: Waste Coal Fired Units in the CAIR and CAIR FIP 9 Assuming the plants' capacity factor is 85%, the fixed O& M cost translates to $ 5.31/ MWh. Combining the fixed and variable O& M costs yields a total of $ 7.42/ MWh.

In addition to these operating and maintenance costs, the plants also incur fuel costs. The ARIPPA plants in Pennsylvania should have particularly low fuel costs because they run on waste coal. We have EIA estimates for cost of waste coal per ton in 2010 and 20154, and a heat content estimate of 8,000 Btu/ lb from Black and Veatch ( p. F 31). Translating the fuel cost into $/ MMBtu yields about $ 0.714/ MMBtu and $ 0.706/ MMBtu in 2010 and 1015 respectively, which is less than cost of bituminous coal for conventional coal plants. Using a heat rate of 10.2 MMBtu/ MWh ( again, from Table F 3 of Black and Veatch), the fuel cost becomes $ 7.28/ MWh in 2010 and $ 7.20/ MWh in 2015. ( Note also that these fuel costs are probably flexible in the long run   because the waste coal has no other economically viable use, if the power plants could not operate competitively at existing prices, we would be more likely to see a drop in the price of the waste coal than a power plant closure.)

Another component of operating cost is the cost of allowances. Since waste coal plants are typically circulating fluidized bed plants, we can assume that most of the sulfur in the coal is removed, with an SO2 control efficiency of about 90%. Using the SO2 allowance cost of $ 700/ ton in 2010 and the heat rate for the waste coal, the per unit SO2 allowance cost becomes $ 1.53/ MWh. We use the NOx allowance cost of $ 1206 in 20105 and the heat rate to estimate the per unit NOx allowance cost to be $ 0.77/ MWh.

Summing these cost components, we estimated the total operating cost of running waste coal plants to be $ 17.00/ MWh in 2010. In 2015, IPM projects increase in the SO2 allowance cost to $ 1,000/ ton and the NOx allowance cost to $ 1481/ ton raising the total operating cost to $ 17.74/ MWh.

Exhibit 2 Cost Components of Running a CFB Plant Burning Waste Coal Cost Components $/ MWh in 2010 $/ MWh in 2015 Variable O& M $ 2.11 $ 2.11 Fixed O& M $ 5.31 $ 5.31 Fuel Cost $ 7.28 $ 7.20 SO2 Allowance Cost $ 1.53 $ 2.17 NOx Allowance Cost $ 0.77 $ 0.95 Total Operating Cost $ 17.00 $ 17.74 WHOLESALE ELECTRICITY PRICE UNDER CAIR Tightening a cap in a trading program for EGUs drives up the price of electricity by increasing the marginal cost of generation. The increase in the electricity price helps 4 http:// www. eia. doe. gov/ oiaf/ aeo/ supplement/ pdf/ suptab_ 112. pdf 5 The NOx allowance costs are based on IPM Run BART 13. Technical Support Document: Waste Coal Fired Units in the CAIR and CAIR FIP 10 EGUs by increasing their electricity revenues. Thus, CAIR should raise electricity prices at the same time it increases costs for the ARIPPA units. In earlier analysis for CAIR, we projected that the MACW region's wholesale electricity prices would rise on the order of $ 1.50/ MWh in 2010 and $ 2.00/ MWh in 2015 compared to the base case. This increase suggests that requiring the waste coal plants to buy allowances is merely leveling the playing field, not imposing a burden that will cause them to shut down. Specifically, we projected the electricity prices under CAIR to be $ 27.06/ MWh and $ 35.74/ MWh in 2010 and 2015 respectively. 6 Thus, expected revenue from electricity sales is well above the anticipated operating cost, including waste coal prices, fixed and variable O& M, and the costs of SO2 emissions allowances, leaving the ARIPPA plants economically viable under the CAIR regime. 7 Furthermore, even if, due to unfavorable contracts, the plants had to declare bankruptcy, we can expect that the new owners or receivers will prefer to operate these plants and reduce their losses rather than close them, given that their costs are lower than the expected value of their outputs.

6 The value of the capacity these plants provide to the system would add still more to these estimated revenues. 7 This result is, apparently, supported by ICF's most recent IPM base case runs, which show the plants running under CAIR even under the assumption that they had to use standard bituminous coal rather than waste coal.