[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 7, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36496-36501]
[FR Doc No: 2016-13493]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0464; FRL-9947-36-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Louisiana; Interstate Transport of Air Pollution for the 2008 Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to
disapprove the portion of a Louisiana State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submittal pertaining to interstate transport of air pollution which
will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) in other states. Disapproval will establish a 2-year deadline
for the EPA to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for
Louisiana to address the Clean Air Act (CAA) interstate transport
requirements pertaining to significant contribution to nonattainment
and interference with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other
states, unless we approve a SIP that meets these requirements.
Disapproval does not start a mandatory sanctions clock for Louisiana.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 7, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2013-0464, at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public

docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact Sherry Fuerst 214-665-
6454<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region 6,
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all documents in the
docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material),
and some may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sherry Fuerst<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To inspect the hard copy materials, please
schedule an appointment with Ms. Fuerst or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-665-
7253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' means the EPA.

I. Background

    On March 12, 2008, the EPA revised the levels of the primary and
secondary 8-hour ozone NAAQS from 0.08 parts per million (ppm) to 0.075
ppm (73 FR 16436). The CAA requires states to submit, within three
years after promulgation of a new or revised standard, SIPs meeting the
applicable ``infrastructure'' elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2).
One of these applicable infrastructure elements, CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i), requires SIPs to contain ``good neighbor'' provisions
to prohibit certain adverse air quality effects on neighboring states
due to interstate transport of pollution. There are four sub-elements
within CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). This action reviews how the first
two sub-elements of the good neighbor provisions, at CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) were addressed in an infrastructure SIP submission
from Louisiana for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. These sub-elements require
that each SIP for a new or revised standard contain adequate provisions
to prohibit any emissions activity within the State from emitting air
pollutants that will ``contribute significantly to nonattainment'' or
``interfere with maintenance'' of the applicable air quality standard
in any other state.
    Ozone is not emitted directly into the air, but is created by
chemical reactions between oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the presence of sunlight.
Emissions from electric utilities and industrial facilities, motor
vehicles, gasoline vapors, and chemical solvents are some of the major
sources of NOX and VOCs. Because ground-level ozone
formation increases with temperature and sunlight, ozone levels are
generally higher during the summer. Increased temperature also
increases emissions of VOCs and can indirectly increase NOX
emissions.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Update for the 2008
Ozone NAAQS, 80 FR 75706, 75711 (December 3, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have addressed the interstate transport requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to ozone in several past
regulatory actions. The NOX SIP Call, promulgated in 1998,
addressed the good neighbor provision for the 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS
and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\2\ The rule required 22 states and the
District of Columbia to amend their SIPs and limit NOX
emissions that contribute to ozone nonattainment. The Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR), promulgated in 2005, addressed both the 1997
fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone standards under
the good neighbor provision and required SIP revisions in 28 states and
the District of Columbia to limit NOX and SO2
emissions that contribute to nonattainment of those standards.\3\ CAIR
was remanded to us by the D.C. Circuit in North Carolina v. EPA, 531
F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), modified on reh'g, 550 F.3d 1176. In
response to the remand of CAIR, we promulgated the Cross State Air
Pollution Rule (CSAPR) on July 6, 2011, to address CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in the eastern \4\ portion of the United States.\5\
With respect to ozone, CSAPR limited ozone season NOX
emissions from electric generating units (EGUs). CSAPR addressed
interstate transport as to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, but
did not address the 2008 8-hour ozone standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 1998).
    \3\ Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25172 (May 12,
2005).
    \4\ When we discuss the eastern United States we mean the
contiguous U.S. states excluding the 11 western states of Arizona,
California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon,
Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
    \5\ Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), 76 FR 48208 (August
8, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Louisiana SIP Revision Addressing Interstate Transport of Air
Pollution for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS

    On June 4, 2013, Louisiana provided us with a SIP submittal
addressing CAA section 110(a)(2) ``infrastructure'' requirements for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. This action concerns the portion of the SIP
submittal pertaining to the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement
to address the interstate transport of air pollution which will
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interference with
maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states. We proposed
approval on other portions of the State's submittal relating to CAA
section 110(a)(2) elements A, B, C, D(i)(II), D(ii), E, F, G, H, J, K,
L, and M in a separate action signed on May 18, 2016.
    In its SIP submittal, Louisiana provided an ``Infrastructure
Checklist'' for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and stated that the submittal
substantiates that the State has adequate provisions to prohibit air
pollutant emissions from within the State that significantly contribute
to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in another
state. The checklist states that the Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality (LDEQ) submitted and we approved CAIR SIPs for
both sulfur dioxide and NOX emissions, citing 72 FR 39741
(July 20, 2007) and 72 FR 55064 (September 28, 2007).\6\ The checklist
also notes that the controls installed to comply with CAIR are required
by State law at Louisiana Administrative Code (LAC) 33:III.905 to be
``used and diligently maintained.'' The checklist also provided
narrative on the D.C. Circuit's 2012 decision in EME Homer City
Generation, L.P. v. EPA which vacated CSAPR and the November 19, 2012,
memorandum explaining the continued implementation of CAIR until a
replacement rule could be implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ CAIR found that sulfur dioxide and NOX emission
limits were needed in Louisiana to address interstate transport of
air pollution for the 1997 PM2.5 and 1997 ozone NAAQS (70
FR 25162, May 12, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Louisiana's SIP submittal included a response to comments document
which, among other things, summarized and responded to February 15,
2013, comments from us on what was then the State's proposed SIP
revision. In our comments on the proposed SIP revision, we noted that
the information LDEQ

provided was based upon the old 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS requirements
and was therefore not sufficient to support a conclusion that the
State's ozone emissions do not contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. In its response, Louisiana
disagreed, and accordingly chose not to revise its proposed SIP
revision or provide any additional support for its conclusions.
Instead, Louisiana contended in its response to comments that, ``the
information based on the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS requirements is
relevant . . . through the CAIR NOX program in that it
demonstrates the state's most recent efforts in maintaining the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS and to alleviate transport pollutants.'' A copy of the
Louisiana SIP submittal, which includes our February 15, 2013, comment
letter and the State's response to comments, may be accessed online at
http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0464.

III. The EPA's Evaluation

    As noted above, we informed Louisiana in our February 15, 2013,
comment letter that the information provided in the SIP submittal would
not itself be sufficient to conclude that the State has adequate
provisions to prohibit air pollutant emissions from within the State
that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states. However, the SIP
submittal provided by Louisiana cited the State's approved CAIR SIP as
support for its conclusion that the State satisfied its section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligation with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    First, CAIR was invalidated by the D.C. Circuit in North Carolina
v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (2008). The D.C. Circuit held, among other things,
that the CAIR rule did not ``achieve[] something measureable toward the
goal of prohibiting sources within the State from contributing to
nonattainment or interfering with maintenance in any other State.'' Id.
at 908; see also, e.g., id. at 916 (EPA is not exercising its authority
to make measureable progress towards the goals of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) because the emission budgets were insufficiently
related to the statutory mandate). In promulgating CSAPR, we corrected
our prior approvals of states' CAIR SIPs, including Louisiana's
approved CAIR SIPs, ``to rescind any statements that the SIP
submissions either satisfy or relieve the state of the obligation to
submit a SIP to satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
with respect to the 1997 ozone and/or 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS or
any statements that EPA's approval of the SIP submissions either
relieve EPA of the obligation to promulgate a FIP or remove EPA's
authority to promulgate a FIP.'' 76 FR 48208, 48220. In reviewing
CSAPR, the D.C. Circuit concluded that our correction of the prior CAIR
approvals was appropriate, explaining ``when our decision in North
Carolina deemed CAIR to be an invalid effort to implement the
requirements of the good neighbor provision, that ruling meant that the
initial approval of the CAIR SIPs was in error at the time it was
done.'' EME Homer City Generation, L.P v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 133 (D.C.
Cir. 2015). Therefore, the D.C. Circuit has clearly concluded that
states cannot rely on CAIR or previously approved CAIR SIPs to satisfy
the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
    Even if Louisiana could rely on its CAIR SIPs, as we stated in our
comment letter, the modeling and rulemaking conducted for both CAIR and
CSAPR addressed the 1997 ozone NAAQS, not the more stringent 2008 ozone
NAAQS at issue in this action. EPA-approved rules implementing a prior,
less stringent NAAQS are not adequate on their own to support a
demonstration regarding the impacts of in-state emissions on air
quality in other states with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\7\
Additionally, although we approved the Louisiana abbreviated SIP
implementing the CAIR NOX trading program, neither the
states nor the EPA are currently implementing the ozone-season
NOX trading program promulgated in CAIR, as it has been
replaced by CSAPR. Moreover, although the State cites to a State
regulation requiring that already-installed controls be ``used'' and
``maintained,'' the State does not provide any explanation as to
whether the sources are subject to specific emissions limitations or
how the use of the controls will impact downwind air quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Louisiana's citation to our July 20, 2007 action approving
Louisiana's CAIR sulfur dioxide SIP revision is particularly
inapplicable. 72 FR 39741. Sulfur dioxide is not a precursor or
pollutant that contributes to ozone formation, and therefore, the
implementation of any control requirements to address sulfur dioxide
emissions is irrelevant to our analysis of the State's control
requirements to address the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, it is no longer appropriate for Louisiana to rely on the
D.C. Circuit decision vacating CSAPR as a basis for concluding that its
SIP is adequate. Although the D.C. Circuit initially held that states
did not have an obligation to make a SIP submission addressing section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) until we first quantified a state's emission
reduction obligation, see EME Homer City, 696 F.3d 7, on April 29,
2014, the Supreme Court reversed this decision and remanded the case to
the D.C. Circuit for further proceedings. EPA v. EME Homer City
Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). The Supreme Court explained
that ``nothing in the statute places EPA under an obligation to provide
specific metrics to States before they undertake to fulfill their good
neighbor obligations.'' Id. at 1601.
    Because the Louisiana submittal addressed by this action concerns
states' interstate transport obligations for a different and more
stringent standard (the 2008 ozone NAAQS), it is not sufficient to
merely cite as evidence of compliance that these older programs have
been implemented by the states or the EPA.\8\ The submittal lacks any
technical analysis evaluating or demonstrating whether emissions in
each state impact air quality in other states with respect to the 2008
ozone NAAQS. As such, the submittal does not provide us with a basis to
agree with the conclusion that the State already has adequate
provisions in the SIP to address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Thus, we propose to find that
the Louisiana submittal is not adequate as it did not evaluate whether
emissions from the State significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ This is particularly true where, as here, Louisiana has
failed to include any analysis of the downwind impacts of emissions
originating within their borders. See, e.g., Westar Energy Inc. v.
EPA, 608 Fed. Appx. 1, 3-4 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the Louisiana submittal contains no data or analysis to
support their conclusion with respect to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for
the 2008 8-hour ozone standard, we recently shared new technical
information with states to facilitate efforts to address interstate
transport requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Such technical
information provides further support to our determination that
Louisiana is projected to significantly contribute to nonattainment and
interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states. We
developed this technical information following the same approach used
to evaluate interstate transport in CSAPR in order to support the
recently proposed Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008
Ozone NAAQS, (80 FR 75706, December 3, 2015) (``CSAPR Update Rule'').
    In CSAPR, we used detailed air quality analyses to determine
whether an eastern state's contribution to

downwind air quality problems was at or above specific thresholds. If a
state's contribution did not exceed the specified air quality screening
threshold, the state was not considered ``linked'' to identified
downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors and was, therefore,
not considered to significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the standard in those downwind areas. If
a state exceeded that threshold, the state's emissions were further
evaluated, taking into account both air quality and cost
considerations, to determine what, if any, emissions reductions might
be necessary. For the reasons stated below, we believe it is
appropriate to use the same approach we used in CSAPR to establish an
air quality screening threshold for the evaluation of interstate
transport requirements for the 2008 ozone standard.
    In CSAPR, we proposed an air quality screening threshold of one
percent of the applicable NAAQS and requested comment on whether one
percent was appropriate. We evaluated the comments received and
ultimately determined that one percent was an appropriately low
threshold because there were important, even if relatively small,
contributions to identified nonattainment and maintenance receptors
from multiple upwind states. In response to commenters who advocated a
higher or lower threshold than one percent, we compiled the
contribution modeling results for CSAPR to analyze the impact of
different possible thresholds for the eastern United States. Our
analysis showed that the one percent threshold captures a high
percentage of the total pollution transport affecting downwind states,
while the use of higher thresholds would exclude increasingly larger
percentages of total transport. For example, at a five percent
threshold, the majority of interstate pollution transport affecting
downwind receptors would be excluded. In addition, we determined that
it was important to use a relatively lower one percent threshold
because there are adverse health impacts associated with ambient ozone
even at low levels. We also determined that a lower threshold such as
0.5 percent would result in relatively modest increases in the overall
percentages of fine particulate matter and ozone pollution transport
captured relative to the amounts captured at the one-percent level. We
determined that a ``0.5 percent threshold could lead to emission
reduction responsibilities in additional states that individually have
a very small impact on those receptors--an indicator that emission
controls in those states are likely to have a smaller air quality
impact at the downwind receptor. We are not convinced that selecting a
threshold below one percent is necessary or desirable.''
    In the final CSAPR, we determined that one percent was a reasonable
choice considering the combined downwind impact of multiple upwind
states in the eastern United States, the health effects of low levels
of fine particulate matter and ozone pollution, and the previous use of
a one percent threshold in CAIR. We used a single ``bright line'' air
quality threshold equal to one percent of the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard, or 0.08 ppm. The projected contribution from each state was
averaged over multiple days with projected high modeled ozone, and then
compared to the one percent threshold. We concluded that this approach
for setting and applying the air quality threshold for ozone was
appropriate because it provided a robust metric, was consistent with
the approach for fine particulate matter used in CSAPR, and because it
took into account, and would be applicable to, any future ozone
standards below 0.08 ppm. We have subsequently proposed to use the same
threshold for purposes of evaluating interstate transport with respect
to the 2008 ozone standard in the CSAPR Update Rule.
    In 2015 we (1) provided notice of data availability (NODA) for the
updated ozone transport modeling for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for public
review and comment (80 FR 46271, August 4, 2015), and (2) proposed the
CSAPR Update Rule to address interstate transport with respect to the
2008 ozone NAAQS (80 FR 75706, December 3, 2015). The proposed CSAPR
Update Rule would further restrict ozone season NOX
emissions from EGUs in 23 states, including Louisiana, beginning in the
2017 ozone season.
    The modeling data released in this NODA was also used to support
the proposed CSAPR Update Rule. The moderate area attainment date for
the 2008 ozone standard is July 11, 2018. In order to demonstrate
attainment by this attainment deadline, states will use 2015 through
2017 ambient ozone data. Therefore, we proposed that 2017 is an
appropriate future year to model for the purpose of examining
interstate transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. We used photochemical
air quality modeling to project ozone concentrations at air quality
monitoring sites to 2017 and estimated state-by-state ozone
contributions to those 2017 concentrations. This modeling used the
Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx version 6.11) to
model the 2011 base year, and the 2017 future base case emissions
scenarios to identify projected nonattainment and maintenance sites
with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 2017. We used nationwide state-
level ozone source apportionment modeling (CAMx Ozone Source
Apportionment Technology/Anthropogenic Precursor Culpability Analysis
technique) to quantify the contribution of 2017 base case
NOX and VOC emissions from all sources in each state to the
2017 projected receptors. The air quality model runs were performed for
a modeling domain that covers the 48 contiguous United States and
adjacent portions of Canada and Mexico. The NODA and the supporting
technical support documents have been included in the docket for this
SIP action.
    The modeling data released in the NODA and the CSAPR Update Rule
are the most up-to-date information we have developed to inform our
analysis of upwind state linkages to downwind air quality problems. As
discussed in the CSAPR Update Rule proposal, the air quality modeling
(1) identified locations in the U.S. where we expect nonattainment or
maintenance problems in 2017 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (i.e.,
nonattainment or maintenance receptors), and (2) quantified the
projected contributions of emissions from upwind states to downwind
ozone concentrations at those receptors in 2017 (80 FR 75706, 75720-30,
December 3, 2015). Consistent with CSAPR, we proposed to use a
threshold of one percent of the 2008 ozone NAAQS (0.75 parts per
billion) to identify linkages between upwind states and downwind
nonattainment or maintenance receptors. We proposed that eastern states
with contributions to a specific receptor that meet or exceed this
screening threshold are considered ``linked'' to that receptor and were
analyzed further to quantify available emissions reductions necessary
to address interstate transport to these receptors.
    Table 1 is a summary of the air quality modeling results for
Louisiana from Tables V.D-1, V.D-2 and V.D-3 of the proposed CSAPR
Update Rule.\9\ As the State's downwind contribution to proposed
nonattainment and maintenance receptors exceeded the threshold, the
analysis for the proposal concluded that Louisiana's emissions
significantly contribute to nonattainment and interfere with
maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS

in other states. Louisiana's emissions were linked (1) to eastern
nonattainment receptors in Sheboygan, Wisconsin, and the Dallas/Fort
Worth and Houston areas of Texas, and (2) to eastern maintenance
receptors in the Dallas/Fort Worth and Houston areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 80 FR 75706, 75727-28.

                                Table 1--Louisiana's Largest Contribution to Downwind Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas
                                                              [Proposed CSAPR Update Rule]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Largest downwind       Largest downwind    Downwind nonattainment   Downwind maintenance
          2008 Ozone NAAQS            Air quality threshold     contribution to        contribution to      receptors located in    receptors located in
                                                                 nonattainment           maintenance               states                  states
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.075 ppm (75 parts per billion or   0.75 ppb..............  3.09 ppb.............  4.23 ppb.............  Wisconsin, Texas......  Texas
 ppb).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the most recent technical analysis available to us
contradicts Louisiana's conclusion that the SIP contains adequate
provisions to address interstate transport as to the 2008 ozone
standard.
    We are thus proposing to disapprove the portion of the Louisiana
SIP submittal pertaining to interstate transport of air pollution which
will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states--i.e., element
(D)(i)(I). As explained above, the Louisiana submittal did not provide
an adequate technical analysis demonstrating that the SIP contains
adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that will significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008
ozone NAAQS in any other state. Moreover, our most recent modeling
indicates that emissions from Louisiana are in fact projected to
significantly contribute to nonattainment and interfere with
maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states.

IV. Proposed Action

    We propose to disapprove the portion of a June 4, 2013 Louisiana
SIP submittal pertaining to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), the
interstate transport of air pollution which will significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008
ozone NAAQS in other states.
    Pursuant to CAA section 110(c)(1), disapproval will establish a 2-
year deadline for the EPA to promulgate a FIP for Louisiana to address
the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to the
2008 ozone NAAQS unless Louisiana submits and we approve a SIP that
meets these requirements. Disapproval does not start a mandatory
sanctions clock for Louisiana pursuant to CAA section 179 because this
action does not pertain to a part D plan for nonattainment areas
required under CAA section 110(a)(2)(I) or a SIP call pursuant to CAA
section 110(k)(5).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This proposed action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for
review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This proposed action does not impose an information collection
burden under the PRA because it does not contain any information
collection activities.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this proposed action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
RFA. This action merely proposes to disapprove a SIP submission as not
meeting the CAA.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This proposed action does not contain any unfunded mandate as
described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable
duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This proposed action does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects 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.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This proposed action does not have tribal implications as specified
in Executive Order 13175. This action does not apply on any Indian
reservation land, any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, or non-reservation areas of
Indian country. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    We interpret Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that we have reason to believe may disproportionately affect children,
per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in section 2-202 of
the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order
13045 because it merely proposes to disapprove a SIP submission as not
meeting the CAA.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution or Use

    This proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13211,
because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order
12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    We believe the human health or environmental risk addressed by this
action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or
indigenous populations. This action merely proposes to disapprove a SIP
submission as not meeting the CAA.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Nitrogen dioxide,
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: May 26, 2016.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2016-13493 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 22 (Thursday, February 2, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5195-5201]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2301]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 22 / Thursday, February 2, 2012 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0607; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-024-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of
comment period.

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

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive
(AD) for all Model 747-100B SUD, 747-300, 747-400, and 747-400D series
airplanes; and Model 747-200B series airplanes having a stretched upper
deck. The original NPRM would have superseded an existing AD that
currently requires repetitively inspecting for cracking or
discrepancies of the fasteners in the tension ties, shear webs, and
frames at body stations 1120 through 1220; and related investigative
and corrective actions if necessary. The original NPRM proposed to
require modifying the frame-to-tension-tie joints at body stations 1120
through 1220 (including related investigative actions and corrective
actions if necessary), which would provide a terminating action for the
repetitive inspections. The original NPRM also proposed to require new
repetitive inspections after the modification, corrective actions if
necessary, and additional modification requirements at a specified time
after the first modification. The original NPRM also proposed to remove
certain airplanes from the applicability. The original NPRM was
prompted by reports of cracked and severed tension ties, broken
fasteners, and cracks in the frame, shear web, and shear ties adjacent
to tension ties for the upper deck. This action revises the original
NPRM by adding repetitive open hole high frequency eddy current (HFEC)
inspections for cracking in the forward and aft tension tie channels,
and repair if necessary. For certain airplanes, this supplemental NPRM
also requires a one-time angle inspection to determine if the angle is
installed correctly, and re-installation if necessary; and a one-time
open hole HFEC inspection at the fastener locations where the tension
tie previously attached to the frame prior to certain modifications,
and repair if necessary. This supplemental NPRM also, for the Stage 2
inspections, reduces the initial compliance times for those
inspections. We are proposing this supplemental NPRM to detect and
correct cracking of the tension ties, shear webs, and frames of the
upper deck, which could result in rapid decompression and reduced
structural integrity of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this supplemental NPRM by March 19,
2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, 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 W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone
(206) 544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may
review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nathan Weigand, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
917-6428; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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-2009-0607;
Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-024-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 because of 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

    We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD (the
``original NPRM'') to supersede AD 2007-23-18, amendment 39-15266 (72
FR 65655, November 23, 2007). The original NPRM applied to all Boeing
Model 747-100B SUD, 747-300, 747-400, and 747-400D series airplanes;
and Model 747-200B series airplanes having a stretched upper deck. The
original NPRM was published in the Federal Register on July 13, 2009
(74 FR 33377). The

original NPRM proposed to supersede an existing AD that currently
requires repetitively inspecting for cracking or discrepancies of the
fasteners in the tension ties, shear webs, and frames at body stations
1120 through 1220; and related investigative and corrective actions if
necessary. The original NPRM proposed to require modifying the frame-
to-tension-tie joints at body stations (STA) 1120 through 1220
(including related investigative actions and corrective actions if
necessary), which would provide a terminating action for the repetitive
inspections. The original NPRM also proposed to require new repetitive
inspections after the modification, corrective actions if necessary,
and additional modification requirements at a specified time after the
first modification. The original NPRM also proposed to remove certain
airplanes from the applicability.

Actions Since Previous NPRM was Issued

    Since we issued the original NPRM (74 FR 33377, July 13, 2009), we
have received reports from one operator that three adjacent tension
ties were found severed on a Model 747-300 series airplane with
approximately 18,400 flight cycles. Another operator reported that two
adjacent tension ties were found cracked or severed on a 747-300 series
airplane with approximately 14,000 flight cycles. In addition,
operators have reported finding cracks in the tension ties and frames
during the inspection required by the existing AD and done in
accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2507, dated April
21, 2005. We have received revised service information, as described
below, and included it in the supplemental NPRM as the appropriate
source of service information for accomplishing certain actions.

Relevant Service Information

    We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2507,
Revision 1, dated January 14, 2010. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2507, dated April 21, 2005, was referred to as the appropriate
source of service information for accomplishing certain actions
specified in the original NPRM (74 FR 33377, July 13, 2009). Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2507, Revision 1, dated January 14, 2010,
adds procedures for the following inspections:
     For all airplanes: Repetitive open hole HFEC inspections
for cracking in the forward and aft tension tie channels at 12 fastener
locations inboard of the aluminum straps at STA 1140, and repair if
necessary by doing an oversize hole repair or repairing the tension
tie.
     For certain airplanes: A one-time detailed inspection to
determine if the angle is installed correctly, and re-install if
necessary.
     A one-time open-hole HFEC inspection for cracks at the
fastener locations (STA 1120, 1160, 1200, and 1220) where the tension
tie previously attached to the frame, before modification to the Boeing
special freighter or Boeing converted freighter configuration, and
repair if necessary by doing an oversize hole repair or repairing the
frame.
    The initial compliance times specified in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-53A2507, Revision 1, dated January 14, 2010, for the new
inspections at STA 1140 is before the accumulation of 10,000 total
flight cycles or within 3,000 flight cycles after the issue date of
Revision 1 of the service bulletin, whichever is later; with a
repetitive interval not to exceed 3,000 flight cycles.
    The compliance time for the new one-time inspection for mislocated
angles is within 3,000 flight cycles after the issue date of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2507, Revision 1, dated January 14, 2010.
    The compliance time for the new one-time inspection for tie frames
at previous tension tie locations is within 3,000 flight cycles after
the issue date of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2507, Revision
1, dated January 14, 2010.
    We have also reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2559, Revision
1, dated August 4, 2011. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2559,
dated January 8, 2009, was referred to as the appropriate source of
service information for accomplishing the actions in the original NPRM
(74 FR 33377, July 13, 2009). No more work is necessary for airplanes
on which Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2559, dated January 8,
2009, was used to accomplish the actions. Certain procedures specified
in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2559, Revision 1, dated August 4,
2011, have been clarified to provide additional instructions. We have
revised paragraph (k) of this AD to refer to Boeing Service Bulletin
747-53A2559, Revision 1, dated August 4, 2011, and added a new
paragraph to give credit for actions done before the effective date of
the AD in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2559,
dated January 8, 2009.

Comments

    We have considered the following comments on the original NPRM (74
FR 33377, July 13, 2009).

Support for Proposed Actions

    United Parcel Service Co. (UPS) supports mandating the Stage 2
inspections specified in the original NPRM (74 FR 33377, July 13,
2009).

Requests To Extend the Modification Compliance Time

    Lufthansa and KLM requested that we revise the original NPRM (74 FR
33377, July 13, 2009) to extend the compliance time for the proposed
modification.
    Lufthansa requested a detailed explanation about the decision
making that resulted in the compliance threshold of 17,000 flight
cycles (damage tolerance analysis, calculations, findings) for the
proposed modification, which seems inconsistent in light of the Stage 2
inspection threshold of 16,000 flight cycles. Lufthansa requested that
the FAA revise the compliance threshold for the proposed modification
to 20,000 total flight cycles.
    KLM also stated that AD 2007-23-18, Amendment 39-15266 (72 FR
65655, November 23, 2007), mandates Stage 2 inspections at 16,000 total
flight cycles, while the original NPRM (74 FR 33377, July 13, 2009)
mandates the modification at 17,000 total flight cycles, and it does
not change the Stage 2 total flight cycles. KLM stated it believes many
other operators (in addition to KLM) have started the AD 2007-23-18
Stage 2 inspections before the 16,000 total flight cycles. KLM stated
that even though defects were found with the Stage 2 inspections, most
of the defects have not propagated to such an extent where they would
have been found with Stage 1 inspections. Furthermore, KLM stated that
the repair methods/procedures used to repair defects found during the
Stage 2 inspections have the same intent (partial frame/tension tie
replacement) as the modification, and that the only difference is that
the design of the modification is more durable, given the fact that it
has an 8,000 total flight cycle threshold.
    KLM stated that the Stage 2 inspection in AD 2007-23-18 amendment
39-15266 (72 FR 65655, November 23, 2007) provides an acceptable level
of safety to at least 20,000 flight cycles, and therefore proposes that
the modification be an optional terminating action for the Stage 1 and
Stage 2 inspection in AD 2007-23-18. KLM stated that if the FAA still

wants to mandate the modification, it would like the FAA to consider
re-evaluating the modification threshold to a more realistic threshold
given the fact that the Stage 2 inspection threshold is 16,000 flight
cycles.
    We agree with Lufthansa and KLM that it seems inconsistent to have
a modification threshold of 17,000 total flight cycles, which is just
1,000 cycles more than the inspection threshold. However, after
issuance of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2507, dated April 21,
2005, the manufacturer completed additional analysis and determined the
new inspection threshold should be lowered to 10,000 total flight
cycles. The new inspection threshold can be found in Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2507, Revision 1, dated January 14, 2010. We
have determined this reduced compliance time is necessary to address
the identified unsafe condition and added it to paragraph (i)(2) of
this AD.
    Since the issuance of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2507,
dated April 21, 2005, further cracking in the fleet has occurred
resulting in thresholds being further reduced in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-53A2507, Revision 1, dated January 14, 2010. The
modification threshold and new inspection threshold are appropriate
given the quantity and nature of cracks found on Model 747 airplanes,
which are based on extensive analysis. Due in part to the reporting
requirement of AD 2007-23-18, Amendment 39-15266 (72 FR 65655, November
23, 2007), the manufacturer received a significant number of inspection
findings. The findings include numerous cases of single or dual tension
tie failure and one airplane with three adjacent severed tension ties.
Because the findings constituted multiple site damage, a damage
tolerance analysis alone was no longer appropriate. Rather, a
widespread fatigue damage analysis had to be employed to properly
analyze the risk of cracked and severed tension ties, and to set
inspection and modification thresholds appropriately. The manufacturer
performed widespread fatigue analysis and the FAA accepted its
findings.
    The analysis, combined with the empirical data, supported an
inspection threshold of 10,000 total flight cycles, as reflected in
Revision 1 of the Stage 2 inspection, and a modification threshold of
17,000 total flight cycles. Therefore, based upon crack reports
received, material analysis completed, and widespread fatigue damage
analysis performed, the inspection and modification thresholds
contained in this supplemental NPRM are appropriate.

Request for an Optional Modification

    UPS agreed that the modification will strengthen the area and
protect against widespread fatigue damage. UPS stated that the current
Stage 2 inspections and repetitive timeline are effectively locating
and repairing the discrepant areas prior to any damages reaching a
critical length. Therefore, UPS proposed the modification specified in
paragraph (m) of the original NPRM (74 FR 33377, July 13, 2009) not be
mandated. UPS instead recommended that paragraph (m) be offered as an
alternative to the existing Stage 2 inspections assigned per paragraph
(j). UPS stated it supports the modification of the frames and tension
ties for the upper deck as proposed in the original NPRM, but suggested
that the current Stage 2 inspections be allowed to continue as an
alternative to performing the modification.
    Airlines for America (A4A), formerly known as the Air Transport
Association of America (ATA), on behalf of its member United Airlines
(UAL), and Japan Airlines (JAL) both stated that the modification is
expensive. JAL noted the expense is due to kit cost, labor cost and the
lack of warranty coverage. We infer the commenters are requesting that
the modification be made optional due to its cost. UAL also noted that
even after accomplishing the modification, the original NPRM (74 FR
33377, July 13, 2009) would still require post modification
inspections.
    We disagree with the requests to make the required modification
optional. As we stated previously, the crack finding data and analysis
performed support the inspection and modification thresholds in this
supplemental NPRM. We have not changed the supplemental NPRM in this
regard.

Request for Alternative Terminating Modification

    Lufthansa requested we allow alternative terminating modifications.
Lufthansa stated that it is seeking alternative solutions and intervals
for relief in view of the huge design deficiency driven modification
work necessary for its Model 747 airplanes. Lufthansa asked that an
alternative modification be allowed using new parts with existing part
numbers, instead of mandating a modification using new parts and new
part numbers. KLM noted that no alternative to the proposed
modification has been considered.
    We disagree with the request for an alternative modification of the
frame-to-tension-tie joints proposed in this supplemental NPRM. An
alternative method of compliance approving a modification using new
parts with existing part numbers does not remove all of the unsafe
condition. The modification in this supplemental NPRM includes
reinforcing the fuselage frames; therefore ``* * * using new parts with
existing part numbers instead of mandating a modification using new
parts and new part numbers'' does not reinforce the fuselage tension
ties or frames, and would not address the identified unsafe condition.
We are mandating the overall reinforcement modification to achieve a
long-term acceptable level of safety. We have not changed the
supplemental NPRM in this regard.

Request To Correct Errors in Service Information

    All Nippon Airways (ANA) and JAL noted that Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-53A2559, dated January 8, 2009, contains typographical
errors. JAL asks that these errors be corrected before an AD is issued.
ANA stated that Boeing issued Service Bulletin Information Notice 747-
53A2559 IN 01, to correct the typographical errors in Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2559, dated January 8, 2009. ANA asks that
Boeing Service Bulletin Information Notice 747-53A2559 IN 01 be
included in this supplemental NPRM.
    Paragraph (m) of the original NPRM (74 FR 33377, July 13, 2009)
refers to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2559, dated January 8,
2009, as the appropriate source of service information for the proposed
requirements. Boeing corrected the errors in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-53A2559, dated January 8, 2009, by issuing Boeing Service
Bulletin 747-53A2559, Revision 1, dated August 4, 2011. We have
replaced all references to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2559,
dated January 8, 2009, with Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2559,
Revision 1, dated August 4, 2011, in this supplemental NPRM.
    JAL stated that there are also errors in the effectivity section of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2559, dated January 8, 2009, and
added that Model 747-400 Boeing Converted Freighter (BCF) airplanes are
not identified correctly. Boeing added that the effectivity should
exclude airplane RT743, which was converted to a Large Cargo Freighter
(LCF) airplane on which the subject tension ties were removed. Boeing
stated that the airplane is therefore not subject to the unsafe
condition. Boeing also noted that there are currently no plans to
revise this

service bulletin to remove that airplane from the effectivity.
    We do not agree to reidentify Model 747-400 BCF airplanes in the
applicability of this supplemental NPRM. BCF airplanes continue to be
modified and as such, the applicability in this supplemental NPRM
follows the group categorization of airplanes using the Group/
Configuration/Description table in paragraph 1.A., ``Effectivity'' of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2559, dated January 8, 2009. We
have not changed the supplemental NPRM in this regard.
    We agree to exclude airplanes that have been converted to a Model
747-400 LCF configuration from the applicability of this supplemental
NPRM. That airplane configuration no longer has the subject tension
ties to inspect or modify, so is not subject to the unsafe condition.
We have changed paragraph (c) of this supplemental NPRM to exclude
those airplanes.

Request To Clarify Additional Modification

    ANA stated that paragraph (m) of the original NPRM (74 FR 33377,
July 13, 2009), proposed to require modification and post-modification
inspections in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2559, dated January 8, 2009. ANA noted that the additional
modification as specified in this service bulletin is an open-hole HFEC
inspection, not a modification. ANA asked that we revise paragraph
(m)(2) of the NPRM to clarify the term ``additional modification'' as
an open-hole inspection.
    We disagree that the additional modification is an open-hole HFEC
inspection. Paragraph (m)(2) of the supplemental NPRM (also paragraph
(m)(2) of the original NPRM (74 FR 33377, July 13, 2009)) requires
doing an additional modification using a method approved in accordance
with the procedures in the alternative methods of compliance (AMOC)
paragraph. At this time, we have not approved a method that meets the
conditions for the additional modification. However, under the
provisions of paragraph (s)(1) of this AD, we will consider requests
for accomplishing a modification if data are submitted to substantiate
that it would provide an acceptable level of safety.

Request To Change Cost Information

    ANA stated that its work hour estimate, based on the time it took
to do a modification identical to that in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-53A2559, dated January 8, 2009, exceeded 2,000 work hours. ANA
added that the estimated costs in the original NPRM (74 FR 33377, July
13, 2009) are based on the work hours addressed in this service
bulletin. ANA asked that the actual work hours be considered to
estimate the costs.
    We disagree with the request. The cost information in this
supplemental NPRM describes only the direct costs of the specific
required actions. Based on the best data available, the manufacturer
provided the number of work hours necessary to do the required actions.
This number represents the time necessary to perform only the actions
actually required by this supplemental NPRM. We recognize that, in
doing the actions required by an AD, operators might incur incidental
costs in addition to the direct costs. But the cost analysis in AD
rulemaking actions typically does not include incidental costs such as
the time necessary for planning, airplane down time, or time
necessitated by other administrative actions. Those incidental costs,
which might vary significantly among operators, are almost impossible
to calculate. We have not changed the supplemental NPRM regarding this
issue.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this supplemental NPRM because we evaluated all
the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described
previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of these
same type designs. Certain changes described above expand the scope of
the original NPRM. As a result, we have determined that it is necessary
to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for the
public to comment on this supplemental NPRM.

Proposed Requirements of the Supplemental NPRM

    This supplemental NPRM would require accomplishing the actions
specified in the service information described previously.

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 561 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet, which includes 67 U.S.-registered airplanes. The
following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to
comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work
hour.

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Action                   Work hours             Parts          Cost per airplane      Fleet cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stage 1 inspections (required    19.................  $0.................  $1,615 per          $108,205 per
 by AD 2007-23-18, Amendment 39-                                            inspection cycle.   inspection
 15266 (72 FR 65655, November                                                                   cycle.
 23, 2007)).
Stage 2 inspections (required    83.................  $0.................  $7,055............  $472,685 per
 by AD 2007-23-18, Amendment 39-                                                                inspection
 15266 (72 FR 65655, November                                                                   cycle.
 23, 2007)).
Modification (new proposed       257 to 263.........  $341,334 to          $363,179 to         $24,332,993 to
 action).                                              $345,490.            $367,845.           $24,645,615.\1\
Post-modification inspections    6..................  $0.................  $510 per            $34,170 per
 (new proposed action).                                                     inspection cycle.   inspection
                                                                                cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Depending on airplane configuration.

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),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

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 removing amendment 39-15266 (72 FR
65655, November 23, 2007) and adding the following new AD:

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2009-0607; Directorate Identifier
2009-NM-024-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by March 19, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2007-23-18, Amendment 39-15266 (72 FR
65655, November 23, 2007).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 747-100B SUD,
747-300, 747-400, and 747-400D series airplanes; and Model 747-200B
series airplanes having a stretched upper deck; certificated in any
category; excluding airplanes that have been converted to a large
cargo freighter configuration.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD results from reports of cracked and severed tension
ties, broken fasteners, and cracks in the frame, shear web, and
shear ties adjacent to tension ties for the upper deck. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the tension ties,
shear webs, and frames of the upper deck, which could result in
rapid decompression and reduced structural integrity of the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Restatement of Requirements of AD 2007-23-18, Amendment 39-15266
(72 FR 65655, November 23, 2007), With Revised Compliance Times and New
Service Information: Repetitive Stage 1 Inspections With Reduced
Repetitive Interval

    For all airplanes: Do detailed inspections for cracking or
discrepancies of the fasteners in the tension ties, shear webs, and
frames at body stations 1120 through 1220, and related investigative
and corrective actions as applicable, by doing all actions specified
in and in accordance with ``Stage 1 Inspection'' of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2507, dated April 21, 2005, except as provided by paragraph (k)
of this AD; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2507, Revision
1, dated January 14, 2010. As of the effective date of this AD only
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2507, Revision 1, dated January
14, 2010, may be used. Do the Stage 1 inspections at the applicable
times specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD, except as
provided by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD. Accomplishment
of the initial Stage 2 inspection required by paragraph (j) of this
AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph. Any applicable
related investigative and corrective actions must be done before
further flight. Doing the modification required by paragraph (l) of
this AD terminates the repetitive inspection requirements of this
paragraph.
    (1) Where paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2507, dated April 21, 2005, specifies a
compliance time relative to ``the original issue date on this
service bulletin,'' this AD requires compliance before the specified
compliance time after April 26, 2006 (the effective date of AD 2006-
06-11).
    (2) For any airplane that reaches the applicable compliance time
for the initial Stage 2 inspection (as specified in Table 1,
Compliance Recommendations, under paragraph 1.E. of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2507, dated April 21, 2005) before reaching
the applicable compliance time for the initial Stage 1 inspection:
Accomplishment of the initial Stage 2 inspection eliminates the need
to do the Stage 1 inspections.

(h) Compliance Time for Initial Stage 1 Inspection

    Do the initial Stage 1 inspection at the earlier of the times
specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD.
    (1) At the earlier of the times specified in paragraphs
(h)(1)(i) and (h)(1)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2507, dated
April 21, 2005.
    (ii) Before the accumulation of 10,000 total flight cycles, or
within 250 flight cycles after November 28, 2007 (the effective date
of AD 2007-23-18, amendment 39-15266 (72 FR 65655, November 23,
2007)), whichever occurs later.
    (2) At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (h)(2)(i)
and (h)(2)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) Before the accumulation of 12,000 total flight cycles.
    (ii) Within 50 flight cycles or 20 days, whichever occurs first,
after November 28, 2007.

(i) Compliance Times for Repetitive Stage 1 Inspections

    Repeat the Stage 1 inspection specified in paragraph (g) of this
AD at the time specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD,
as applicable. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 250 flight cycles, until the initial Stage 2 inspection
required by paragraph (j) of this AD has been done.
    (1) For airplanes on which the initial Stage 1 inspection has
not been accomplished as of November 28, 2007: Do the next
inspection before the accumulation of 10,000 total flight cycles, or
within 250 flight cycles after the initial Stage 1 inspection done
in accordance with paragraph (j) of this AD, whichever occurs later.
    (2) For airplanes on which the initial Stage 1 inspection has
been accomplished as of November 28, 2007: Do the next inspection at
the applicable time specified in paragraph (i)(2)(i) or (i)(2)(ii)
of this AD.
    (i) For airplanes that have accumulated fewer than 12,000 total
flight cycles as of November 28, 2007: Do the next inspection before
the accumulation of 10,000 total flight cycles, or within 250 flight
cycles after November 28, 2007, whichever occurs later.
    (ii) For airplanes that have accumulated 12,000 total flight
cycles or more as of November 28, 2007: Do the next inspection at
the later of the times specified in paragraphs (i)(2)(ii)(A) and
(i)(2)(ii)(B) of this AD.
    (A) Within 250 flight cycles after accomplishment of the initial
Stage 1 inspection.
    (B) Within 50 flight cycles or 20 days, whichever occurs first,
after November 28, 2007.

(j) Repetitive Stage 2 Inspections With Reduced Initial Compliance Time

    For all airplanes: Do detailed and high frequency eddy current
inspections for cracking or discrepancies of the fasteners in the
tension ties, shear webs, and frames at body stations 1120 through
1220, and related investigative and corrective actions as

applicable, by doing all actions specified in and in accordance with
``Stage 2 Inspection'' of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2507, dated April 21, 2005; or Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2507, Revision 1, dated January 14,
2010; except as provided by paragraph (j) of this AD. Do the initial
inspections at the earlier of the times specified in paragraphs
(j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD. Repeat the Stage 2 inspection
thereafter at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2507, dated
April 21, 2005. As of the effective date of this AD only Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2507, Revision 1, dated January 14,
2010, may be used. Any applicable related investigative and
corrective actions must be done before further flight.
Accomplishment of the initial Stage 2 inspection ends the repetitive
Stage 1 inspections. Doing the modification required by paragraph
(m) of this AD terminates the repetitive inspection requirements of
this paragraph.
    (1) Before the accumulation of 16,000 total flight cycles, or
within 1,000 flight cycles after November 28, 2007; whichever occurs
later.
    (2) Before the accumulation of 10,000 total flight cycles, or
within 1,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD.

(k) Exception to Corrective Action Instructions

    If any discrepancy including but not limited to any crack,
broken fastener, loose fastener, or missing fastener is found during
any inspection required by paragraph (g), (h) or (i) of this AD, and
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2507, dated April 21, 2005; or
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2507, Revision 1, dated January
14, 2010; specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action: Before
further flight, repair the discrepancy using a method approved in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (s) of this
AD.

(l) Reporting Requirement

    At the applicable time specified in paragraph (l)(1) or (l)(2)
of this AD, submit a report of the findings (both positive and
negative) of each Stage 1 inspection required by paragraph (g) of
this AD to Boeing Commercial Airplanes; Attention: Manager, Airline
Support; P.O. Box 3707 MC 04-ER; Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; fax
(425) 266-5562. The report must include the inspection results, a
description of any discrepancies found, the inspections performed,
the airplane serial number, and the number of total accumulated
flight cycles on the airplane. Under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) has approved the information collection requirements
contained in this AD and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056.
    (1) For any inspection done after November 28, 2007: Submit the
report within 30 days after the inspection.
    (2) For any inspection done before November 28, 2007: Submit the
report within 30 days after November 28, 2007.

(m) New Requirements of This AD: Modification

    Except as provided by paragraphs (m)(1) and (m)(2) of this AD:
At the times specified in paragraph 1.E, ``Compliance,'' of Boeing
Service Bulletin 747-53A2559, Revision 1, dated August 4, 2011,
modify the frame-to-tension-tie joints at body stations (STA) 1120
through 1220; do all related investigative and applicable corrective
actions; do the repetitive post-modification detailed inspections
for cracking of the tension tie and frame structure and all
applicable corrective actions; and do the additional modification.
Do all actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2559, Revision 1, dated August 4,
2011. Modifying the frame-to-tension-tie joints at body stations
1120 through 1220 terminates the repetitive inspection requirements
of paragraphs (g) and (j) of this AD.
    (1) Where paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Service
Bulletin 747-53A2559, Revision 1, dated August 4, 2011, specifies a
compliance time relative to ``the original issue date of this
service bulletin,'' this AD requires compliance within the specified
compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
    (2) Where Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2559, Revision 1, dated
August 4, 2011, specifies to contact Boeing for repair instructions
or additional modification requirements: Before further flight,
repair the cracking or do the modification using a method approved
in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (s) of this
AD.

(n) Credit for Actions Accomplished in Accordance With Previous Service
Information

    Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance
with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2559, dated January 8,
2009, are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions
required by this AD.

(o) Stage 2 Inspection: Additional Work at STA 1140

    For all airplanes: Except as provided by paragraph (r) of this
AD; at the time specified in paragraph 1.E, ``Compliance,'' of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2507, Revision 1, dated January
14, 2010; do an open hole high frequency eddy current (HFEC)
inspection for cracking in the forward and aft tension tie channels
at 12 fastener locations inboard of the aluminum straps at STA 1140,
and before further flight do all applicable repairs. Do all actions
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2507, Revision 1, dated January 14, 2010.
Repeat the inspections thereafter at the time specified in paragraph
1.E., ``Compliance.''

(p) One-Time Inspection for Mis-Located Angles

    For Group 1, Configuration 1, airplanes as identified in Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2507, Revision 1, dated January 14,
2010: Except as provided by paragraph (r) of this AD; at the time
specified in paragraph 1.E, ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-53A2507, Revision 1, dated January 14, 2010, do a
detailed inspection to determine if the angle is installed
correctly, and before further flight re-install all angles installed
incorrectly. Do all actions in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2507, Revision
1, dated January 14, 2010.

(q) One-Time Inspection for Cracks in Frames at Previous Tension Tie
Locations

    For Group 1, Configuration 2 airplanes; and Group 2 and 3
airplanes; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2507, Revision 1, dated January 14, 2010: Except as provided by
paragraph (r) of this AD; at the time specified in paragraph 1.E,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2507,
Revision 1, dated January 14, 2010, do an open hole HFEC inspection
for cracks at the fastener locations (STA 1120, 1160, 1200, and
1220) where the tension tie previously attached to the frame prior
to modification to the Boeing special freighter or Boeing Converted
Freighter configuration, and before further flight do all applicable
repairs. Do all actions in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2507, Revision
1, dated January 14, 2010.

(r) Exception to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2507, Revision 1,
Dated January 14, 2010

    Where paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-53A2507, Revision 1, dated January 14, 2010, specifies
a compliance time relative to ``the Revision 1 date of this service
bulletin,'' this AD requires compliance within the specified
compliance time after the effective date of this AD.

(s) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.
The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization

Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the
Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to
be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the
airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 2007-23-18,
amendment 39-15266 (72 FR 65655, November 23, 2007), are approved as
AMOCs for the corresponding requirements of paragraphs (g), (h), and
(i) of this AD.

(t) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Nathan Weigand,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington
98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone
(206) 544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 12, 2012.
Michael J. Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-2301 Filed 2-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 125 (Thursday, June 30, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 39085]
[FR Doc No: 2022-14012]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER22-2178-000]

ORNI 50 LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate
Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
ORNI 50 LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an
accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is July 14, 2022.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 24, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-14012 Filed 6-29-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P