[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 125 (Monday, June 30, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 36797]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15184]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

June 13, 2014.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filing Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP14-1045-000.
    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Negotiated Rate Agreements Cleanup Jun2014 to be
effective 7/12/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/12/14.
    Accession Number: 20140612-5048.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/24/14.
    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.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    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>.

 Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
 Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-15184 Filed 6-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 225 (Friday, November 26, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67377-67379]
[FR Doc No: 2021-25608]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR 71

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0994; Airspace Docket No. 21-AGL-14]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of VOR Federal Airways V-7, V-341, and V-493;
in the vicinity of Menominee, MI

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to amend VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR)
Federal airways V-7, V-341, and V-493, in the vicinity of Menominee,
MI. The airway amendments are necessary due to the planned
decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Menominee, MI, VOR/Distance
Measuring Equipment (DME) which these airways utilize for navigation
guidance. The Menominee VOR is being decommissioned as part of the
FAA's VOR Minimum Operational Network (VOR MON) program.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 10, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone:
(800) 647-5527, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2021-0994; Airspace Docket No. 21-AGL-14 at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Rules and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is also available for inspection at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on
the availability of FAA Order JO 7400.11F at NARA, email:
[email protected] or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jesse Acevedo, Rules and Regulations
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This
rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle
VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is
charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace
necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of
airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it
would modify the airway structure as necessary to preserve the safe and
efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2021-0994; Airspace Docket No. 21-AGL-14) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to FAA Docket No. FAA-2021-0994; Airspace Docket No. 21-AGL-14.'' The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified comment
closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the comment
closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the Operations Support Group, Central
Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood
Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021 and effective
September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F
lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service
routes, and reporting points.

Background

    The FAA is planning decommissioning activities for the VOR portion
of the Menominee VOR/DME with a proposed effected date of September 8,
2022. The Menominee VOR was one of the candidate VORs identified for
discontinuance by the FAA's VOR MON program and listed in the Final
policy statement notice, ``Provision of Navigation Services for the
NextGen Transition to Performance-Based Navigation (PBN) (Plan for
Establishing a VOR MON),'' published in the Federal Register of July
26, 2016 (81 FR 48694), Docket No. FAA-2011-1082. Although the VOR
portion of the Menominee VOR/DME is planned for decommissioning, the
co-located Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) of the navigational aid
is being retained.
    The airways affected by the Menominee VOR are V-7, V-341, and V-
493. With the planned decommissioning of the Menominee VOR, the
remaining ground-based navigational aid coverage in the area is
insufficient to enable the continuity of these affected airways. As
such, the proposal would result in airway segments being removed for V-
7 and V-493, and the creation of an airway gap in V-341. To overcome
the removed airway segments and the gap in the airway, instrument
flight rules (IFR) traffic may use adjacent VOR Federal airways V-78,
V-133, V-217, and V-271, or receive air traffic control radar vectors
to navigate through or around the affected area. Additionally, IFR
pilots equipped with Area Navigation capabilities may also file point
to point through the affected area using fixes that will remain in
place. Visual flight rules pilots, who elect to navigate through the
affected area, may utilize the ATC services listed previously.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to amend three
VOR Federal airways. The proposed airway amendments are described
below.
    V-7: V-7 extends between the Dolphin, FL, VOR/Tactical Air
Navigation (VORTAC) and the Muscle Shoals, AL, VORTAC; between the
Pocket City, IN, VORTAC and the intersection of the Chicago Heights,
IL, VORTAC 358[deg] radial and the Badger, WI, VOR/DME 117[deg] radial;
and between the Green Bay, WI, VORTAC and the Sawyer, MI, VOR/DME. The
airspace below 2,000 feet MSL outside the United States is excluded and
the portion outside the United States has no upper limit. The FAA
proposes to remove the segment of the airway that extends between the
Green Bay, WI, VORTAC and Sawyer, MI, VOR/DME. Additionally, upon
review of the V-7 airway, the FAA has determined that the airway lies
wholly within the United States; therefore, the FAA also proposes to
remove the below 2,000 MSL exclusionary language and no upper limit
language for the portion outside the United States. The unaffected
portions of the existing airway would remain as charted.
    V-341: V-341 extends between the Cedar Rapids, IA, VOR/DME and the
Houghton, MI, VOR/DME. The FAA proposes to remove the segment of the
airway between the Green Bay, WI, VORTAC and the Iron Mountain, MI,
VOR/DME. The resulting airway would extend between the Cedar Rapids,
IA, VOR/DME and the Green Bay, WI, VORTAC; and between the Iron
Mountain, MI, VOR/DME and the Houghton, MI, VOR/DME.
    V-493: V-493 extends between the Livingston, TN, VOR/DME and the
Appleton, OH, VORTAC; and between the Menominee, MI, VOR/DME and the
Rhinelander, WI, VOR/DME. The FAA proposes to remove the segment of the
airway from the Menominee, MI, VOR/DME and the Rhinelander, WI, VOR/
DME. The resulting airway would extend between the Livingston, TN,

VOR/DME and the Appleton, OH, VORTAC.
    All of the navigational aid radials in the airway descriptions
below are stated in True degrees.
    Domestic VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of
FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September
15, 2021, which are incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR
Federal airways listed in this document would be published subsequently
in FAA JO 7400.11.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed 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
Department of Transportation (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.
Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic
procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule,
when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10,
2021, and effective September 15, 2021, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6010(a), Domestic VOR Federal airways.

* * * * *

V-7 [Amended]

    From Dolphin, FL; INT Dolphin 299[deg] and Lee County, FL,
120[deg] radials; Lee County; Lakeland, FL; Cross City, FL;
Seminole, FL; Wiregrass, AL; INT Wiregrass 333[deg] and Montgomery,
AL, 129[deg] radials; Montgomery; Vulcan, AL; to Muscle Shoals, AL.
From Pocket City, IN; INT Pocket City 016[deg] and Terre Haute, IN,
191[deg] radials; Terre Haute; Boiler, IN; Chicago Heights, IL; to
INT Chicago Heights 358[deg] and Badger, WI, 117[deg] radials.
* * * * *

V-341 [Amended]

    From Cedar Rapids, IA; Dubuque, IA; Madison, WI; Oshkosh, WI; to
Green Bay, WI. From Iron Mountain, MI; Sawyer, MI; to Houghton, MI.
* * * * *

V-493 [Amended]

    From Livingston, TN; Lexington, KY; York, KY; INT York 030[deg]
and Appleton, OH, 183[deg] radials; to Appleton.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Michael R. Beckles,
Acting Manager, Rules and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2021-25608 Filed 11-24-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 45 (Thursday, March 7, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 8324]
[FR Doc No: 2019-04150]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 77-285]

Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Notice Soliciting Applications

    On April 6, 2017, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), licensee
for the Potter Valley Project No. 77, filed a pre-application document
(PAD) and notice of its intent (NOI) to file an application for a new
license for the 9.4-megawatt project pursuant to section 15(b)(1) of
the Federal Power Act (FPA). On January 25, 2019, PG&E filed notice of
the withdrawal of its NOI and PAD, indicating it is no longer seeking a
new license for the project.
    The project is located on the Eel and East Fork Russian Rivers in
Lake and Mendocino Counties, California, about 15 miles northeast of
the city of Ukiah. Project features include Lake Pillsbury, a 2,300-
acre storage reservoir impounded by Scott Dam; 106-acre Van Arsdale
Reservoir, impounded by the Cape Horn Diversion Dam; and a tunnel and
penstock across a natural divide to the project's powerhouse located in
the headwaters of the Russian River Basin. PG&E estimates the average
annual generation of the project to be 19,900 megawatt-hours.
    Pursuant to Rule 216(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure,\1\ a withdrawal of a pleading is effective at the end of 15
days from the date of filing the notice of withdrawal. No motion in
opposition to the notice of withdrawal has been filed, and the
Commission has taken no action to disallow the withdrawal; thus, the
withdrawal became effective on February 11, 2019.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 385.216(b) (2018).
    \2\ The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure provide
that if the last day of any time period falls on a Saturday, Sunday,
holiday, or other day when the Commission is closed for business,
the period does not end until the close of business on the next
business day. 18 CFR 385.2007(a)(2) (2018). Because the 15-day time
period fell on a Saturday (February 9, 2019), the period was
extended until the close of business on Monday, February 11, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any party interested in filing a license application for a new
license for a project must first file a NOI and PAD.\3\ Although the
Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) is the default pre-filing process,
section 5.3(b) of the Commission's regulations allows a potential
license applicant to request to use alternative licensing procedures
when it files its NOI.\4\ A potential applicant may also include a
proposal to complete the ILP pre-filing process that PG&E has already
begun. As part of the pre-filing process, the Commission issued a Study
Plan Determination for the project on February 15, 2018, approving 21
study plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 18 CFR 5.5 (2018).
    \4\ 18 CFR 5.3(b) (2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice sets a deadline of 120 days from the date of this
notice for interested applicants, other than the existing licensee, to
file NOIs, PADs, and requests to complete the pre-filing stages of the
licensing process as discussed above.
    In the event that no other applicant files an application for a
license by April 14, 2020, the current licensee will be provided with
written notice that no timely application for the project has been
filed.\5\ Within 90 days of such written notice, the current licensee
must file a schedule for the filing of a surrender application for the
project.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 18 CFR 16.26(a) (2018).
    \6\ 18 CFR 16.26(b) (2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Questions concerning this notice should be directed to Alan
Mitchnick,<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: March 1, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-04150 Filed 3-6-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 15, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38598-38600]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17215]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2017-0710]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation; Mobile River, Mobile, AL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary special local
regulation on the Mobile River, Mobile, AL. The special local
regulation is needed to protect the persons participating in the Rubber
Ducky Regatta marine event. This rule restricts transit into, through,
and within the regulated area unless specifically authorized by the
Captain of the Port Mobile.

DATES: This rule is effective from 9 a.m. until 1 p.m. on August 26,
2017.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2017-0710 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LT Kyle D. Berry, Sector Mobile, Waterways Management
Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port Mobile
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
PATCOM Patrol Commander
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. We did not
receive notice of the event until July 13, 2017. After a thorough
review of the details for this event, including the number of
anticipated spectators, the Coast Guard determined that a special local
regulation was needed to protect persons and property in the vicinity
of the area from potential hazards present with the Rubber Ducky
Regatta marine event on this navigable waterway. This special local
regulation must be established by August 26, 2017 and we lack
sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then
consider those comments before issuing the rule.
    We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast
Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30
days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective
date of this rule would be contrary to public interest because
immediate action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards
associated with this event.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1233. The Captain of the Port Mobile (COTP) has determined that
potential hazards associated with the marine event on August 26, 2017
will be a safety concern for anyone within the area of the Mobile
River, Mobile, AL encompassing a half-mile radius of a point near
30[deg]41'24.8'' N., 88[deg]2'12.9'' W. This rule is needed to protect
participants, spectators, and other persons and vessels during the
marine event on navigable waters.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a special local regulation on August 26,
2017, which will be enforced between the hours of 9 a.m. and 1 p.m. The
special local regulation takes place on the Mobile River, Mobile AL,
encompassing a half-mile radius of a point at approximate location
30[deg]41'24.8'' N., 88[deg]2'12.9'' W.

The regulation is intended to protect participants, spectators, and
other persons and vessels before, during, and after the marine event.
No vessel or person will be permitted to enter, transit within or
through, or exit the regulated area without obtaining permission from
the COTP or a designated representative. Spectator vessels desiring to
enter, transit through or within, or exit the regulated area may
request permission to do so from the Patrol Commander (PATCOM). When
permitted to transit the area vessels must follow restrictions within
the regulated area as directed by the Coast Guard, and must operate at
a minimum safe navigation speed in a manner which will not endanger
participants in the regulated area or any other vessels.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-year of the regulation. The special
local regulation will take place on a mile stretch of navigable
waterway, during a short duration of four hours on one day on the
Mobile River, Mobile, AL encompassing a half-mile radius of a point at
approximate location 30[deg]41'24.8'' N., 88[deg]2'12.9'' W. Moreover,
the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notices to Mariners via VHF-FM
marine channel 16 about the regulation so that waterway users may plan
accordingly for transits during this restriction. The rule also allows
vessels to seek permission from the COTP or a designated representative
to enter the regulated area.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
regulated area may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule involves a special local regulation lasting for four hours on one
day on the Mobile River, Mobile, AL encompassing a half-mile radius of
a point at approximate location 30[deg]41'24.8'' N., 88[deg]2'12.9'' W.
It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h)
of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A Record of Environmental
Consideration (REC) supporting this determination will be made
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.

Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1233

0
2. Add Sec.  100.35T08-0710 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.35T08-0710  Special Local Regulation; Mobile River, Mobile,
AL.

    (a) Regulated area. All navigable waters of the Mobile River,
Mobile, AL encompassing a half-mile radius of a point at approximate
location 30[deg]41'24.8'' N., 88[deg]2'12.9'' W.
    (b) Period of enforcement. This rule will be enforced from 9 a.m.
until 1 p.m. on August 26, 2017.
    (c) Special local regulations. (1) Entry into, transit within or
through, or exit from this area is prohibited unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port Mobile (COTP) or the designated Patrol Commander.
The Coast Guard will patrol the regulated area under the direction of a
designated Coast Guard Patrol Commander. The Patrol Commander may be
contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) by the call sign ``PATCOM''.
    (2) All persons and vessels not registered with the sponsor as
participants or official patrol vessels are considered spectators. The
``official patrol vessels'' consist of any Coast Guard, state, or local
law enforcement and sponsor provided vessels assigned or approved by
the COTP to patrol the regulated area.
    (3) Spectator vessels desiring to transit the regulated area may do
so only with prior approval of the Patrol Commander and when so
directed by that officer will be operated at a minimum safe navigation
speed in a manner which will not endanger participants in the regulated
area or any other vessels.
    (4) No spectator vessel shall anchor, block, loiter, or impede the
through transit of participants or official patrol vessels in the
regulated area during the effective dates and times, unless cleared for
entry by or through an official patrol vessel.
    (5) The patrol commander may forbid and control the movement of all
vessels in the regulated area. When hailed or signaled by an official
patrol vessel, a vessel shall come to an immediate stop and comply with
the directions given. Failure to do so may result in expulsion from the
area, citation for failure to comply, or both.
    (6) Any spectator vessel may anchor outside the regulated area, but
may not anchor in, block, or loiter in a navigable channel. Spectator
vessels may be moored to a waterfront facility within the regulated
area in such a way that they shall not interfere with the progress of
the event. Such mooring must be complete at least 30 minutes prior to
the establishment of the regulated area and remain moored through the
duration of the event.
    (7) The Patrol Commander may terminate the event or the operation
of any vessel at any time it is deemed necessary for the protection of
life or property.
    (8) The Patrol Commander will terminate enforcement of the special
local regulations at the conclusion of the event.
    (d) Informational broadcasts. The COTP or a designated
representative will inform the public through broadcast notices to
mariners of the enforcement period for the regulated area as well as
any changes in the date and times of enforcement.

    Dated: July 25, 2017.
M.R. McLellan,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Mobile.
[FR Doc. 2017-17215 Filed 8-14-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


Results of EPA's Section 610 Review of the Final Rule for Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from Nonroad Diesel Engines and Fuel                                                          EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality                                 September, 2014

	On June 29, 2004, (69 FR 38958), EPA published emission standards for nonroad diesel engines to reduce tailpipe emissions.  EPA implemented this rule primarily to significantly reduce emissions of diesel particulate matter (PM) emissions and of nitrogen oxides (NOx), a contributor to ozone formation.  The rulemaking also required refiners to very significantly reduce the sulfur content of the nonroad diesel fuel they produce, to minimize the damaging effects of diesel sulfur content on the new catalytic systems manufacturers would be using to meet the stringent emission standards.

       Pursuant to Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), EPA has completed a review of this rule to determine whether the provisions that could affect small entities should be continued without change, or should be rescinded or amended to minimize adverse economic impacts on small entities.  As discussed below, we have concluded that no changes in the rule are warranted.     Background               As EPA began to develop the rule, we formally evaluated the potential impacts of the program on small businesses according to the requirements of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), which is part of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.  During this process, we assessed the potential impact of the rule on the  types of small companies that would be directly affected by the rule  -  nonroad diesel engine manufacturers, nonroad diesel equipment manufacturers, and the diesel fuel production and distribution industry (including diesel fuel refiners, importers, distributors, and marketers).  EPA determined that several companies in these categories met the SBA criteria as small entities, and we took the additional steps specified by SBREFA to identify and address concerns of these small entities.   A federal interagency Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel convened and considered the available information from small entities and other sources.  The Panel made several recommendations for EPA to consider in the rule, and we proposed and took comment on these recommendations.                In the final rule, EPA adopted most of the recommendations of the Panel, finalizing special provisions for manufacturers of each horsepower category of nonroad engines and transition and hardship provisions for small manufacturers of nonroad equipment.  In addition, EPA also finalized transition provisions for small diesel fuel refiners and importers, and hardship provisions for all diesel fuel refiners and importers.  Although we did not conclude that special provisions were warranted for small diesel fuel distributors and marketers, we did finalize general provisions to relieve the compliance burden.           Discussion of the Five Statutory Factors              As discussed below, EPA has reviewed the 2004 Nonroad Diesel Engines and Fuel Rule with respect to the five factors set forth in Section 610 of the RFA.                1.  Continued Need for the Rule              One of the factors that must be considered in a Section 610 review is the continued need for the rule under review.  Emissions from nonroad diesel vehicles and their fuel contribute to ambient levels of ozone and PM, pollutants for which EPA has established health-based National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).  These pollutants are linked with respiratory and/or cardiovascular problems and other adverse health impacts leading to increased medication use, hospital admissions, emergency department visits, and premature mortality.  Over 149 million people currently live in areas designated nonattainment for one or more of the current NAAQS.  Pollutant reductions from this rule are very large and continue to protect public health, improve air quality, and help states meet national air quality standards.  Specifically, we projected that by 2030, when the fleet will have largely turned over, the rule will reduce NOx annually by over 738,000 tons and PM by 129,000 tons.              The provisions of the rule applying to all nonroad engine manufacturers and diesel fuel refiners and their related industries have proven to be feasible and effective.  EPA concludes that the rule continues to be necessary, feasible, and effective.              2.  Nature of Complaints or Comments Received Concerning the Rule              EPA did not receive any comments during the public comment period for this Section 610 review.   	       3.  Complexity of the Rule              The Agency must also consider the complexity of the rule under review.  Although cost-effectively achieving the air pollution improvements of the program required us to establish a number of regulatory provisions, we carefully coordinated the various requirements and worked with industry participants, large and small, to facilitate implementation.  The rule also included a number of provisions aimed at easing the burden of compliance for all affected nonroad engine and equipment manufacturers and nonroad diesel fuel refiners, including small refiners.               4.  Extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with other Federal, State, or local government rules              The Agency must also consider the extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with other Federal, State, or local government rules.  As with previous diesel engine and fuel regulations, we specifically designed the requirements and phase-in schedule for the nonroad diesel engine and fuel program to build on the existing Federal programs and to mesh with and complement diesel engine-related programs in California and other states.  Similarly, we designed the phase-in for the diesel fuel sulfur requirements and the small refiner provisions to transition smoothly and to coexist with the earlier Tier 2 gasoline sulfur and highway diesel fuel sulfur requirements, so that refiners could integrate the implementation of both programs.  We are not aware of any overlap, duplication, or conflict with other similar programs administered by EPA or other agencies.              5.  Relevant Changes to Technology, Economic Conditions, or Other Factors              Finally, the Agency must consider the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors have changed in the area affected by the rule under review.  Refinery diesel sulfur reduction technology has continued to evolve over the past decade.   In addition, heavy-duty engine manufacturers have continuously improved their engine technologies, including emission-related technologies, over the years.  EPA does not believe that these changes, or the general economic fluctuations that the refining and engine/vehicle manufacturing industries have faced, have introduced any significant additional burdens on small entities subject to this rule.        Conclusion              Based on EPA's Section 610 review of the 2004 Nonroad Diesel Engine and Diesel Fuel Sulfur final rule, as discussed in this document, EPA is not making any amendments to the rule.  As part of any future rulemakings related to these industries, EPA will continue to work with small-entity representatives to minimize any potential unfavorable impacts on these companies while meeting the need for emission reductions.


[Federal Register: March 11, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 48)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 12912-12915]
[DOCID:fr11mr08-21]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0266; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-013-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model DHC-8-102, DHC-8-103,
DHC-8-106, DHC-8-201, DHC-8-202, DHC-8-301, DHC-8-311, and DHC-8-315
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed

AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and
correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes
the unsafe condition as:

    Bombardier Aerospace has completed a system safety review of the
aircraft fuel system against fuel tank safety standards introduced
in Chapter 525 of the Airworthiness Manual through Notice of
Proposed Amendment (NPA) 2002-043. The identified non-compliances
were then assessed using Transport Canada Policy Letter No. 525-001,
to determine if mandatory corrective action is required.

    The assessment showed that it is necessary to introduce Critical
Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL), in order to
preserve critical fuel tank system ignition source prevention
features during configuration changes such as modifications and
repairs, or during maintenance actions. Failure to preserve critical
fuel tank system ignition source prevention features could result in
a fuel tank explosion. * * *

The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the
unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 10, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mazdak Hobbi, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New
York 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2008-0266;
Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-013-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2008-03, dated January 3, 2008 (referred to after this as ``the
MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The
MCAI states:

Bombardier Aerospace has completed a system safety review of the
aircraft fuel system against fuel tank safety standards introduced
in Chapter 525 of the Airworthiness Manual through Notice of
Proposed Amendment (NPA) 2002-043. The identified non-compliances
were then assessed using Transport Canada Policy Letter No. 525-001,
to determine if mandatory corrective action is required.

The assessment showed that it is necessary to introduce Critical
Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL), in order to
preserve critical fuel tank system ignition source prevention
features during configuration changes such as modifications and
repairs, or during maintenance actions. Failure to preserve critical
fuel tank system ignition source prevention features could result in
a fuel tank explosion. Revisions have been made to Part 2
``Airworthiness Limitations List'' of the Maintenance Program
Manuals of the affected models to introduce the required CDCCL.

The corrective action is revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section
of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to include the CDCCL
data. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the
AD docket.
    The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel
tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the
adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes
subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for
fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a
regulation titled ``Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review,
Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements''
(66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards
for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule
included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (``SFAR 88,''
Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83).
    Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (i.e.,
type certificate (TC) and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders
to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition
sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design
holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for
subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to
perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance
procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety
standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to
adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary
to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews.
    In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four
criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel
tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of
operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable
conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address
the failure types under evaluation: single failures, single failures in
combination with a latent condition(s), and in-service failure
experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included
consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for
further action.
    We have determined that the actions identified in this AD are
necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel
tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result
in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

Relevant Service Information

    Bombardier has issued de Havilland temporary revisions (TRs) to
Part 2

``Airworthiness Limitations List'' (AWL) of the de Havilland Dash 8
Series Maintenance Program Manuals (MPMs). The TRs are listed in the
following table titled ``TRs to the DHC-8 MPMs.''

                          TRs to the DHC-8 MPMs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        de Havilland TR              TR date          de Havilland MPM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AWL-98........................  April 12, 2006...  Dash 8 Series 100
                                                    MPM, Product Support
                                                    Manual (PSM) 1-8-7.
AWL 2-35......................  April 12, 2006...  Dash 8 Series 200
                                                    MPM, PSM 1-82-7.
AWL 3-103.....................  April 12, 2006...  Dash 8 Series 300
                                                    MPM, PSM 1-83-7.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The actions described in this service information are intended to
correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.
    This proposed AD would allow revising the Airworthiness Limitations
Section (ALS) of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness in
accordance with later revisions of the MPM as an acceptable method of
compliance if the CDCCL is part of a later approved MPM revision, or if
the CDCCL is approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this
proposed AD.
    In most ADs, we adopt a compliance time allowing a specified amount
of time after the AD's effective date. In this case, however, the FAA
has already issued regulations that require operators to revise their
maintenance/inspection programs to address fuel tank safety issues. The
compliance date for these regulations is December 16, 2008. To provide
for coordinated implementation of these regulations and this proposed
AD, we are using this same compliance date in this proposed AD.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 118 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per
work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed
AD on U.S. operators to be $9,440, or $80 per product.

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

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    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]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly de Havilland, Inc.): Docket No. FAA-2008-
0266; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-013-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by April 10, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all Bombardier Model DHC-8-102, DHC-8-
103, DHC-8-106, DHC-8-201, DHC-8-202, DHC-8-301, DHC-8-311, and DHC-
8-315 airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28: Fuel.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
Bombardier Aerospace has completed a system safety review of the
aircraft fuel system against fuel tank safety standards introduced
in Chapter 525 of the Airworthiness Manual through Notice of
Proposed Amendment (NPA) 2002-043. The identified non-compliances
were then assessed using Transport Canada Policy Letter No. 525-001,
to determine if mandatory corrective action is required.

The assessment showed that it is necessary to introduce Critical
Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL), in order to
preserve critical fuel tank system ignition source prevention
features during configuration changes such as modifications and
repairs, or during maintenance actions. Failure to preserve critical
fuel tank system ignition source prevention features could result in
a fuel tank explosion. Revisions have been made to Part 2
``Airworthiness Limitations List'' of the Maintenance Program
Manuals of the affected models to introduce the required CDCCL.

The corrective action is revising the Airworthiness Limitations
Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to include
the CDCCL data.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) For all airplanes: Within 60 days after the effective date
of this AD, or before December 16, 2008, whichever occurs first,
revise the Airworthiness Limitations section of the Instructions for
Continued Airworthiness to incorporate the CDCCL data specified in
the applicable temporary revision (TR) to the applicable maintenance
program manual (MPM). The TRs are listed in Table 1 of this AD.

                      Table 1.--Temporary Revisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Maintenance program
             Model               de Havilland TR           manual
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHC-8-102, DHC-8-103, and DHC-  AWL-98, dated      Part 2,
 8-106 airplanes.                April 12, 2006.    ``Airworthiness
                                                    Limitations List,''
                                                    of de Havilland Dash
                                                    8 Series 100 MPM,
                                                    Product Support
                                                    Manual (PSM) 1-8-7.
DHC-8-201, and DHC-8-202        AWL 2-35, dated    Part 2,
 airplanes.                      April 12, 2006.    ``Airworthiness
                                                    Limitations List,''
                                                    of de Havilland Dash
                                                    8 Series 200 MPM,
                                                    PSM 1-82-7.
DHC-8-301, DHC-8-311, and DHC-  AWL 3-103, dated   Part 2,
 8-315 airplanes.                April 12, 2006.    ``Airworthiness
                                                    Limitations List,''
                                                    of de Havilland Dash
                                                    8 Series 300 MPM,
                                                    PSM 1-83-7.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Note 1: The revisions required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD
may be done by inserting a copy of the applicable TR into the
applicable maintenance program manual. When the TR has been included
in the general revision of the maintenance program, the general
revision may be inserted into the maintenance program manual,
provided the relevant information in the general revision is
identical to that in the applicable TR, and the temporary revision
may be removed.

    (2) After accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph
(f)(1) of this AD, no alternative CDCCLs may be used unless the
CDCCLs are part of a later revision of Part 2, ``Airworthiness
Limitations List,'' of the applicable de Havilland Dash 8 Series MPM
listed in Table 2 of this AD, that is approved by the Manager, New
York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, or Transport Canada
Civil Aviation (or its delegated agent); or unless the CDCCLs are
approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance
with the procedures specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.

                             Table 2.--MPMs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Model                                 MPM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHC-8-102, DHC-8-103, and DHC- Part 2, ``Airworthiness Limitations
 8-106 airplanes.               List,'' of de Havilland Dash 8 Series
                                100 MPM, PSM 1-8-7, Revision 17, dated
                                April 19, 2005.
DHC-8-201, and DHC-8-202       Part 2, ``Airworthiness Limitations
 airplanes.                     List,'' of de Havilland Dash 8 Series
                                200 MPM, PSM 1-82-7, Revision 5, dated
                                August 15, 2001.
DHC-8-301, DHC-8-311, and DHC- Part 2, ``Airworthiness Limitations
 8-315 airplanes.               List,'' of de Havilland Dash 8 Series
                                300 MPM, PSM 1-83-7, Revision 16, dated
                                August 15, 2001.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAA AD Differences

    Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Mazdak Hobbi, Aerospace
Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York
Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, New York 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (516) 794-
5531. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the
AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in
the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI,
your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2008-03,
dated January 3, 2008, and the TRs specified in Table 1 of this AD,
for related information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 5, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-4772 Filed 3-10-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


AGENDA

FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL (SAP)

	OPEN MEETING

December 1 – 3, 2009

FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/

OPP Docket Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Docket Number: EPA-HQ- OPP-2009-0687

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Conference Center - Lobby Level

One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.)

2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202

Scientific Issues Associated with Field Volatilization of Conventional
Pesticides

Please note that all times are approximate

(See note at the end of the Agenda)

		Tuesday, December 1, 2009

9:00 A.M.	Opening of Meeting and Administrative Procedures by Designated
Federal Official – Sharlene Matten, Ph.D., Designated Federal
Official, Office of Science Coordination and Policy, EPA

9:05 A.M.	Introduction and Identification of Panel Members –

		Kenneth Portier, Ph.D., Session Chair, FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel

9:15 A.M.	Welcome and Opening Remarks – Steven Bradbury, Ph.D., Deputy
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA

9:25 A.M.	Goals and Objectives – Tina Levine, Ph.D., Director, Health
Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA

9:35 A.M	Introduction: Assessment of Semi-Volatile Pesticides – Jeff
Evans, Health Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA

10:10 A.M.	BREAK

10:25 A.M.	Overview of Available Pesticide Air Monitoring Data –
Charles Smith, Health Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs,
EPA

11:10 A.M.	Exposure Estimation for Semi-Volatile Pesticides – Faruque
Khan, Ph.D, Chuck Peck, Gabe Rothman, Environmental Fate and Effects
Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA

12:15 P.M.	LUNCH

1:30 P.M. 	Introduction: Hazard Assessment of Semi-Volatile Pesticides
– Judy Facey, Ph.D, Health Effects Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs, EPA

2:00 P.M.	Overview of Reference Concentration (RfC) Methodology –
Annie Jarabek, Ph.D, National Center for Environmental Assessment,
Office of Research and Development, EPA

3:00 P.M.	BREAK

3:15 P.M.	Hazard Assessment of Semi-Volatile Pesticides – Elizabeth
Mendez, Ph.D, Health Effects Division, Office of Research and
Development, EPA

4:15 P.M.	Risk Assessment of Semi-Volatile Pesticides – Charles Smith,
Health Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA

5:30 P.M.	Adjourn

AGENDA

FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL (SAP)

	OPEN MEETING

December 1 – 3, 2009

FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/

OPP Docket Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Docket Number: EPA-HQ- OPP-2009-0687

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Conference Center - Lobby Level

One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.)

2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202

Scientific Issues Associated with Field Volatilization of Conventional
Pesticides

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

9:00 A.M.	Opening of Meeting - Administrative Procedures by Designated
Federal Official - Sharlene Matten, Ph.D., Designated Federal Official,
Office of Science Coordination and Policy, EPA

9:05 A.M.	Introduction and Identification of Panel Members – Kenneth
Portier, Ph.D., Session Chair, FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel

9:10 A.M.	Follow-up from Previous Day’s Discussion – TBD, Health
Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA

9:30 A.M.	Public Comments

10:30 A.M. 	BREAK

10:45 A.M.   	Public Comments cont’d

12:00 P.M.	LUNCH

1:00 P.M.	Charge to the Panel – TOPIC A:  Exposure Assessment Issue

Traditionally, the Agency’s assessment of bystander inhalation
exposure to volatile pesticides has relied extensively on the use of air
monitoring data.  However, for the fumigants, an exposure assessment
methodology was developed that combined the use of air models and air
monitoring data.  The Agency has taken the exposure assessment
methodologies developed for the fumigants and further adapted them by
utilizing soil models to predict field volatilization of conventional
pesticides from plant and soil surfaces.  Based on this premise, the
Agency has identified several key factors for consideration by the
Panel.  They include the evaluation of the approaches and data sources
used in the tiered exposure estimation methodology and use of soil
models for predicting flux of conventional pesticides.  Specifically,
the Agency identified the following issues for the Panel to consider:

Tier I Approach for Identifying Volatile Chemicals of Concern for Risk
Assessment, Air Concentration. The Tier I approach incorporates the use
of vapor pressure alone to arrive at a saturated concentration in air.
The estimated air concentration can be compared with available toxicity
data to evaluate inhalation exposure concerns to human and other
terrestrial organisms.

Please comment on the Agency’s approach for using the Tier I air
concentration estimation method as a screening procedure.  Please
discuss the strengths and limitations of the screening approach.  Please
identify any alternative methods and/or physical-chemical properties, if
any, which may be utilized as a screening procedure to identify
chemicals with potential inhalation exposure concerns.

Tier II Approach for Identifying Volatile Chemicals of Concern for Risk
Assessment, Volatility and Flux Models.  Two options are being
considered to refine the Tier I estimation method. Option A incorporates
the use of physical-chemical properties including application rate,
vapor pressure, solubility, and Koc in an empirically-derived function
to estimate flux rates.  This option has less constraints and requires
fewer input parameters to generate flux rates as compared to Option B
described below.

a. Given the state of the science, please comment on the applicability
of using the Option A model to predict flux rates.  Please discuss the
strengths and limitations of this approach and how these impact the
results.   Please identify any alternative methods, if any, which may be
utilized to identify chemicals with potential inhalation exposure
concerns.

Tier II, Option B is a refined process which utilizes fate and transport
models to predict flux rates of applied pesticides which off-gas from
treated fields.  Optimum fate and transport models consider mechanisms
related to volatilization, biodegradation, abiotic degradation,
physical-chemical properties, runoff, crop uptake, and leaching to
account for the transformation and movement of the entire initially
applied material.  Volatilization mechanisms from bare soil and crop
canopy surfaces are also important processes which the Agency believes
ought to be considered to fully account for volatilization and diffusion
from the vadose zone and canopy into the atmosphere.  The Agency has
utilized two models, the Pesticide Root Zone Model (PRZM) and the
Pesticide Emission Assessment at Regional and Local Scales (PEARL) which
incorporate these mechanisms and have the utility for the prediction of
flux rates from treated fields. Option B requires extensive knowledge on
environmental fate properties, as well as information related to
application site, crop management and meteorology.

b. Please comment on the applicability of using fate and transport
models to predict flux rates given the state of the science.  Please
discuss the strengths and limitations of both models and how these
impact the results.  Please identify any fate and transport model(s)
which the Agency has not considered in this analysis which would be
applicable for pesticide applications and crop management scenarios.

3:00 P.M.	BREAK

3:15 P.M.	Charge to the Panel – TOPIC B:  Toxicological Assessment
Issues

As the Agency’s understanding of the state-of the science in
inhalation toxicology has evolved so has the Agency’s approach to
conducting inhalation hazard and risk assessments.  This evolution has
seen the Agency move from converting oral doses to inhalation
concentrations to using the RfC methodology and/or physiologically-based
pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models.  As OPP continues to work on refining the
risk assessment paradigm, the Agency is seeking the SAP’s input on a
number of key factors.  They include the use of oral toxicity studies
when inhalation studies are not available and the use of aerosol
inhalation toxicity studies to represent toxicity to vapors of the same
chemical.  Specifically, the Agency identified the following issues for
the Panel to consider:

The analysis conducted by the Agency indicates that, in general, oral
toxicity studies may not accurately represent the full spectrum of toxic
effects that may occur as a result of inhalation exposure.  The analysis
also indicates that - unless the same endpoints are identified through
both routes of exposure - oral toxicity studies frequently underestimate
toxicity by the inhalation route.  The Agency has not been able to
discern any patterns in this under/over estimation.  Please comment on
any potential patterns that the Agency has not identified.

For a significant number of conventional pesticides, inhalation toxicity
studies are not available.  Please comment on the scientific strengths
and weaknesses of available approaches that may be used in the interim
to assess inhalation hazard in the absence of inhalation toxicity
studies.

For inhalation toxicity studies the test material is typically
aerosolized.  After volatilization, however, the Agency anticipates
exposures to vapors rather than the aerosolized particles.  Please
comment on the predictive capabilities of aerosol studies to identify
potential toxic effects and/or quantify the dose-response resulting from
exposure to vapors.  Is the Panel aware of any studies that
quantitatively compare inhalation toxicity after exposure to vapors and
aerosols?  In the absence of such data, can the Panel recommend an
approach to account for the potential differences between vapors and
aerosols?

5:30 P.M.	Adjourn

AGENDA

FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL (SAP)

	OPEN MEETING

December 1 – 3, 2009

FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/

OPP Docket Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Docket Number: EPA-HQ- OPP-2009-0687

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Conference Center - Lobby Level

One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.)

2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202

Scientific Issues Associated with Field Volatilization of Conventional
Pesticides

Thursday, December 3, 2009

9:00 A.M.	Opening of Meeting - Administrative Procedures by Designated
Federal Official – Sharlene Matten, Ph.D., Designated Federal
Official, Office of Science Coordination and Policy, EPA

9:05 A.M.	Introduction and Identification of Panel Members – Kenneth
Portier, Ph.D., Session Chair, FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel

9:10 A.M.	Follow-up from Previous Day’s Discussion – TBD, Health
Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA

9:40 A.M.	Charge to the Panel – TOPIC C:  Risk Assessment Issues

The Agency discussed its methodology for combining the exposure
estimation methodologies and inhalation toxicological approaches to
estimate postapplication bystander inhalation risks resulting from field
volatilization of conventional pesticides.  In estimating
postapplication bystander inhalation risks, there a few principles that
should be followed: (1) It is important to properly match the duration
of the exposure with a proper toxicity study of comparable duration.
(2) Both dissipation of air concentrations around a treated field as
well as when retreatment of the field may occur need to be considered.
(3) Clearly define the uncertainties and limitations of this type of
assessment.  The Agency has identified the following issues for the
Panel to consider with respect to estimating postapplication bystander
inhalation risks:

Please comment on the strengths and limitations of the Agency’s use of
the empirical and modeled air concentrations in the provided risk
assessment case study.  Does the Panel agree that the postapplication
bystander inhalation risk estimate case study appropriately matches the
duration of the exposure with the proper toxicological study of the same
duration?  Please comment on the scientific strengths and weaknesses of
conclusions and characterization regarding the estimated risks presented
in the case study.

10:30A.M.	BREAK

10:45 A.M.  	Charge to Panel –Discussion cont’d (as needed)

12:00 P.M.	Adjourn

Please be advised that agenda times are approximate; when the discussion
for one topic is completed, discussions for the next topic will begin.
For further information, please contact the Designated Federal Official
for this meeting, Dr. Sharlene Matten, via telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
`

 PAGE

 PAGE   7


Subject:  Technical Support Document  -  Oldcastle Trident Federal Implementation Plan Revision
Date:  March 8, 2017
From:  Aaron Worstell, Environmental Engineer
To:  Docket EPA-RO8-OAR-2017-0851
      In 2012, EPA finalized the Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for the State of Montana.  Among other things, the FIP established a Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) NOx emission limit for the kiln at the Trident cement plant (previously owned by owned by Holcim, Inc.). The BART emission limit for the Trident kiln of 6.5 lb NOx/ton clinker (as a 30-day rolling average) reflected installation of Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR).  Based on information available at the time, the emission limit was derived using a 50% reduction in the baseline NOx emissions.
      In September of 2016, the new owner of the Trident facility, Oldcastle Materials Cement Holding, Inc., requested that EPA revise the emission limit due to their concerns that the emission limit could not be met on a continuous basis without unacceptable levels of ammonia slip, that may in turn negatively impact operations, unduly increase reagent costs, and create a localized detached  plume.  Accordingly, the purpose of this technical support document (TSD) is to evaluate the NOx control effectiveness, and thereby emission limit, of SNCR when applied to long kilns.  In particular, in this TSD, EPA considers new information concerning SNCR performance that was not available at the time the 2012 FIP was promulgated.
      As an initial matter, EPA recognizes that it is difficult to predict the control effectiveness of SNCR for long cement kilns for a few reasons.  First, whereas SNCR has been applied to a many industrial sources, and in particular to coal-fired utility and industrial boilers, the number of long cement kilns that have been retrofitted with SNCR is relatively small.  In fact, until recently SNCR was not considered technically feasible for long kilns because the appropriate temperature window is in the middle of the kiln, requiring that the reagent be injected into the rotating kiln.  Second, and particularly in comparison to pre-heater/pre-calciner kilns, there is inherent variability in the operation of long kilns that make injection of reagent at the optimal temperature window difficult.  Third, the SNCR performance data for long kilns that is available does not reflect a contemporaneous measurement of uncontrolled and controlled NOx emission rates because it is not possible to measure the uncontrolled NOx emission rate inside the kiln.  Instead, the uncontrolled NOx emission rate, measured at the kiln exhaust, is taken from a baseline period prior to the installation of SNCR.  Thus, it is difficult to prospectively estimate the control effectiveness of one long kiln from the operation of another long kiln already equipped with SNCR.  Collectively, these factors introduce uncertainty when predicting the control effectiveness of SNCR when applied to long kilns, which is a necessary step in setting the NOx emission limit. This uncertainty has been the impetus for the use of post-installation control technology demonstrations to set emission limits in association with consent decree enforcement actions for long kilns (as discussed below). Also, in this TSD, we evaluate the baseline emission rate from which the SNCR-based emission limit is calculated for the Trident kiln.
      As stated in their submittals to EPA, Oldcastle is committed to installing and operating the SNCR on its Trident kiln.   The construction of the SNCR is underway and will likely be integrated into plant operations beginning during a shutdown scheduled for April of 2017.   As such, EPA's consideration of Oldcastle's concerns and the resulting proposed FIP revision for the Trident kiln address only the appropriate emission limit associated with the operation of SNCR. Because EPA is not revisiting the question of what control technology represents BART, this TSD does not include an updated five-factor BART analysis.
 EPA's Evaluation of SNCR Control Effectiveness in the 2012 FIP
In the 2012 FIP, EPA determined that a 50% control effectiveness was an appropriate estimate for SNCR at long kilns, such as the Trident kiln.  This was largely based on the SNCR performance observed on the three Ash Grove Cement long wet kilns located in Midlothian, Texas.  Emissions data submitted by Ash Grove to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) showed that the Midlothian kilns achieved emission rates in the range of 1.6 to 2.9 lb NOx/ton of clinker from June through August 2008 when using SNCR.  EPA compared this to baseline emissions data for the same three-month period in 2006.  Table 1 summarizes the 2006 and 2008 emissions rates, and associated percent reductions, that EPA used in support of the 2012 FIP.
  Table 1.  Ash Grove Midlothian Monthly NOx Emissions, June through August, 2006-2008

            June through August 2006 Emission Rate (lb/ton clinker)
            June through August 2008 Emission Rate (lb/ton clinker)
                                  Percentage
                                  Reduction
                                     (%)

June
July
August
Average
June
July
August
Average

Kiln 1
                                     5.2
                                     5.0
                                     4.5
                                     4.9
                                     1.7
                                     1.6
                                     2.2
                                     1.8
                                     62.5
Kiln 2
                                     5.0
                                     4.1
                                     3.9
                                     4.4
                                     2.7
                                     2.6
                                     2.8
                                     2.7
                                     37.7
Kiln 3
                                     5.0
                                     4.4
                                     4.2
                                     4.5
                                     2.9
                                     2.6
                                     2.5
                                     2.7
                                     40.5

When the control effectiveness values (percent reduction) on all three kilns were averaged together, EPA found that SNCR achieved a 47.5% reduction in NOx.
		During the public comment period for the 2012 FIP, commenters questioned the usefulness of the Midlothian data in setting emission limits for other long kilns.  Oldcastle has repeated some of those concerns in its recent submittals to EPA that request a less stringent emission limit.  In particular, the previous commenters, and now Oldcastle, pointed to the fact the Midlothian NOx emission rates (in lb/ton clinker) in subsequent years (2009 and 2010) were much higher than in 2008.  In response to comments on the 2012 FIP, we suggested that these higher NOx emission rates indicated that SNCR was not utilized to the fullest extent in 2009 and 2010 and thus were not representative of the potential control efficiency of SNCR.  Based on information recently obtained from Ash Grove Cement, we have been able to confirm that SNCR was underutilized.in those two years.  In 2008, while the Midlothian kilns were not yet subject to a NOx emission limit associated with the operation of SNCR, Ash Grove operated SNCR on the three kilns in order to understand how the control technology would work in preparation for upcoming emission requirements.  Then, beginning in 2009, the Midlothian facility was required to comply with a facility-wide SIP emission limit of 4.41 tons NOx/day during the ozone season. Also, demand for cement was low during 2009 and 2010.  As a result, Ash Grove was often able to meet the facility-wide emission limit with limited use of SNCR because one or more of the kilns was idle.  For example, in 2009, SNCR was only operated for 131, 1,051, and 142 hours, respectively on Kilns 1, 2, and 3.   Subsequently, starting in March 2011, in accordance with a settlement agreement, the Midlothian kilns were individually required to comply with a 30-day rolling average emission limit of 3.6 lb/ton clinker at all times throughout the year.  Consequently, and despite higher demand for cement, NOx emissions (in lb/ton clinker) dropped significantly when compared to 2009 and 2010.  Therefore, the SNCR performance data for Midlothian considered by EPA during the 2012 FIP development (2006 - 2008 data) was reliable and remains informative in setting a BART emission limit for the Trident kiln.  Regardless, as noted below, the EPA is now in possession of additional SNCR performance data for long kilns obtained through consent decree control technology demonstrations.  This more recent SNCR performance data, along with earlier data from the Midlothian kilns, has been used to inform the SNCR performance expectations for the Trident kiln.
 Recent Control Effectiveness Data for Long Kilns Obtained through Consent Decree Control Technology Demonstrations
      Next we consider recent information regarding control effectiveness for long kilns obtained through consent decree control technology demonstrations. Since promulgation of our 2012 FIP, SNCR has been installed on a number of wet or dry long kilns in association with consent decree enforcement actions. SNCR has been installed on six long kilns (two wet, four dry) owned by LaFarge North America Inc., and on an additional long wet kiln owned by the Ash Grove Cement Company.  The Ash Grove kiln is the Montana City kiln for which EPA had earlier established a BART emission limit of 8.0 lb NOx/ton clinker (30-day rolling average) in our 2012 FIP.
		Each of the kilns subject to a consent decree was required to establish an SNCR-based emission limit through a control technology demonstration. The demonstrations were designed to establish the optimal performance of SNCR, and were carried out through a number of steps, including design report, baseline period, optimization period, and demonstration period.  The control effectiveness data for these kilns, along with the data from the 2012 FIP for the three Midlothian kilns, is summarized in the attachment to this TSD.  See Attachment 1, Summary of SNCR Performance Data for Long Cement Kilns.  The control effectiveness shown for the kilns subject to consent decrees is highly variable and ranges from 29% to 47%, with a mean of 40%.  This control effectiveness reflects the percent reduction in the NOx emissions between the baseline and demonstration periods.  As noted earlier, it does not reflect contemporaneous NOx measurements.  These values compare favorably to the range of reductions (3-month average) observed for three Midlothian kilns of 37.7% to 62.5%, although the latter are somewhat higher.
		The kiln that is most comparable to the Oldcastle Trident kiln is the Ash Grove Montana City kiln because both are long wet kilns and operate in similar environments.  As such, it is reasonable to conclude that the Montana City kiln and the Oldcastle Trident kiln should be able to achieve comparable levels of NOx reduction per mole of uncontrolled NOx to injected reagent, i.e., at a given molar ratio (NOx:NH3).  During the baseline period of the control technology demonstration for Ash Grove Montana City, lasting approximately 6 months between March and August 2014, the kiln emitted NOx at a rate of 11.6 lb /ton clinker.  Following optimization of the SNCR system, the kiln emitted NOx at a rate of 7.0 lb/ton clinker over a period of approximately 10 months between July 2015 and April 2016.  Again, this reflects an emission reduction between the two periods of roughly 40% based on the use of SNCR.  Subsequently, as required by the consent decree, Ash Grove proposed, and EPA approved, a 30-day rolling average emission limit of 7.5 lb NOx/ton clinker, which is lower than the BART emission limit of 8.0 lb NOx/ton clinker. The 7.5 lb NOx/ton clinker emission limit was approved by the EPA on December 29, 2016.
	 	It is of particular importance that the SNCR installed at the Montana City kiln was ultimately optimized around ammonia slip.  The ammonia slip is the concentration of unreacted ammonia as measured at the kiln exhaust that is above the background concentration established during the baseline period. Initially, the optimization of the kiln proceeded "by injecting [increasing] set amounts of ammonia based on the estimated molar ratio of ammonia to the NOx emission rate identified during the baseline period."  However, this approach at times resulted in high levels of ammonia slip and an objectionable detached plume that was visible in the immediate vicinity of the facility.   In response, the optimization was then conducted based on an ammonia slip at the kiln exhaust of 10 ppm.  This too at times resulted in a detached plume.  Therefore, Ash Grove ultimately optimized the operation of SNCR around an ammonia slip of 5 ppm.  Ash Grove observed that "[r]educing ammonia slip from 10 ppm to 5 ppm did not significantly reduce the effectiveness of the SNCR system, as the average daily NOx emission rate during the 14-day period of 5 ppm ammonia slip was 6.4 lb/ton clinker and the maximum daily NOx emission rate was 7.3 lb/ton clinker."  The ammonia slip during the demonstration period that followed was then set to a target of 5 ppm, and Ash Grove demonstrated the ability to meet an emission limit of 7.5 lb/ton clinker (30-day rolling average) with this amount of ammonia slip.  This approach to optimization established that a control effectiveness of 40% can be reached while addressing the same concerns about excess ammonia that Oldcastle raised in relation to the Trident kiln.
		In consideration of the entirety of the SNCR performance results for long kilns now available to EPA, and in particular that for the similar Ash Grove Montana City kiln, it is appropriate that the emission limit for the Trident kiln reflect a control effectiveness of 40%.
 Baseline Emissions
In our 2012 FIP, EPA described the process of setting the BART emission limit for the Trident kiln as follows:
   In recalculating our proposed BART emission limit for NOx, we continue to rely on the estimate of baseline NOx emissions in lb/ton clinker provided in Holcim's 2012 submittal, cited in our proposal at 77 FR 24018, footnote 93.  That submittal listed a 99th percentile 30-day rolling average NOx emission rate of 12.6 lb/ton clinker, for the period 2008 - 2011. Applying a 50% reduction to the 99[th] percentile figure yields 6.3 lb/ton clinker. To allow for a sufficient margin of compliance for a 30-day rolling average limit that would apply at all times, including startup, shutdown and malfunction (as explained in our proposal at 77 FR 24018), we are setting the BART limit at 6.5 lb/ton clinker in our 2012 FIP.
At the request of EPA, Oldcastle submitted updated 30-day rolling average emissions data for the period of 2008 through 2016.  EPA has evaluated this data in order to determine whether the baseline value of 12.6 lb NOx/ton clinker used in our 2012 FIP remains a reasonable baseline for the purpose of setting the BART emission limit.  The 99[th] percentile 30-day rolling average from the 9-year period is 13.9 lb NOx/ton clinker.  In their, February 13, 2017 submittal to EPA, Oldcastle (through Bison Engineering, Inc.) proposed that this baseline value be used to calculate the BART emission limit.  However, this baseline value is the result of a short period of unusually high daily NOx emissions that occurred on various days between September and November of 2012.  Oldcastle stated that one likely cause of the high NOx emissions during this time period was the result of ash ring buildup inside the kiln. Oldcastle also noted that "ash ring build-up is a well-known problem that can develop in cement and lime kilns," and it can "disrupt normal kiln mixing and heat transfer and can degrade fuel efficiency, effects that would tend to increase NOx emissions on a per-ton of production basis."  Oldcastle also advocated that the high NOx emissions in late 2012 should be included when calculating the 99[th] percentile 30-day rolling average baseline emission rate because, though the emissions are atypical, they nonetheless represent operating conditions that may be anticipated in the future.  However, when compared to the emissions for the 9-year period as a whole, the emissions during late 2012 appear to reflect exceptional circumstances.  This is depicted graphically in the chart included in Attachment 2 to this TSD, showing that the emissions in late 2012 were far higher than any other period.  Indeed, in the 4-year period that followed, 2013-2016, the 99[th] percentile 30-day rolling average was been identical to that used in the 2012 FIP (i.e., 12.6 lb NOx/ton clinker).   In essence, the emissions in late 2012 represent an upset condition that should not be considered when calculating the baseline emissions.  Moreover, the original emissions data from 2008-2011, together with that for 2013-2016, yields 8 years of data; this is more than sufficient for establishing the baseline.  Thus, EPA concludes that an emission rate of 13.9 lb NOx/ton clinker does not represent a realistic emissions baseline.
Moreover, immediately after the ash ring buildup, the daily emissions data shows that Oldcastle did not operate the kiln between November 27[th] and December 1[st] 2012.  Presumably, during this 5-day shutdown period, Oldcastle took corrective measures to remove the ash rings from the kiln, thereby returning the kiln to normal operation.  Emissions levels returned to typical levels immediately following the shutdown.  Also, background information shared by Oldcastle indicates that proper kiln operation and maintenance can help to prevent ash ring formation.  Thus, it is within Oldcastle's control to prevent ash ring formation, or at the very least, to promptly take corrective action when it does occur.  Given that compliance with the BART emission limit is assessed over a 30-day rolling period, Oldcastle is able to anticipate whether high short-term NOx emissions due to ash ring deposits may lead to non-compliance with the BART emission limit.  In such case, Oldcastle is able to take the appropriate operation and maintenance measures, and if necessary, shut down the kiln to remove the ash deposits  -  an action that they must inevitably take in any case to return to the kiln to efficient operation.
      Finally, we note that the Oldcastle Trident and Ash Grove Montana City kilns have very similar NOx baseline emissions (pre-SNCR) when viewed as the 99[th] percentile 30-day rolling average. Baseline data collected for the Montana City kiln between March and August 2014 in association with the control technology demonstration shows that the 99[th] percentile 30-day rolling average emission rate was 12.8 lb NOx/ton clinker.  Though this baseline data was collected over a much shorter time than that for the Trident kiln, it is nearly equal to the value for Trident of 12.6 lb NOx/ton clinker. This is another indication that the two kilns should be able to achieve similar levels of controlled NOx emissions with SNCR.
 Conclusion
   In consideration of the entirety of the SNCR performance results for long kilns now available to EPA, and in particular, that for the similar Ash Grove Montana City kiln, it is appropriate that the emission limit for the Trident kiln reflect a control effectiveness of 40%.  In addition, in consideration of the 9-years of baseline data from 2008 through 2016, it is appropriate to retain the original baseline used in the 2012 FIP of 12.6 lb NOx/ton clinker (99[th] percentile 30-day rolling average).  Applying the 40% control effectiveness to this baseline emission rate yields a value of 7.6 lb NOx/ton clinker.  This compares very favorably to the emission limit of 7.5 lb NOx/ton clinker set through a control technology demonstration for Ash Grove Montana City, particularly given that two kilns have very similar baseline emissions (as 99[th] percentile 30-day rolling averages).  Accordingly, a revised emission limit of 7.6 lb NOx/ton clinker is recommended for the Trident kiln.