[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 107 (Tuesday, June 4, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33204-33206]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12720]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0470; Directorate Identifier 2013-SW-008-AD;
Amendment 39-17465; AD 2013-11-05]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. (Bell)
Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Bell
Model 214B, 214B-1, and 214ST helicopters with a certain tail rotor
hanger bearing (bearing) installed. This AD requires inspecting the
bearing to determine whether an incorrectly manufactured seal material
is installed on the bearing. This AD is prompted by a report that
certain bearings were manufactured with an incorrect seal material that
does not meet Bell specifications. The actions specified by this AD are
intended to prevent loss of bearing grease, failure of the bearing, and
subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

DATES: This AD becomes effective June 19, 2013.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain documents listed in this AD as of June 19, 2013.
    We must receive comments on this AD by August 5, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address 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 AD, the economic 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 service information identified in this AD, contact Bell
Helicopter Textron, Inc., P.O. Box 482, Fort Worth, TX 76101; telephone
(817) 280-3391; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at http://www.bellcustomer.com/files/. You may review the referenced service information at the FAA,
Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd.,
Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Blyn, Aviation Safety Engineer,
Rotorcraft Certification Office, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601
Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to
provide your comments prior to it becoming effective. However, we
invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written
comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the
economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that resulted
from adopting this AD. The most helpful comments reference a specific
portion of the AD, explain the reason for any recommended change, and
include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain
duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written
comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should
submit them only one time. We will file in the docket all comments that
we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public
contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking during the
comment period. We will consider all the comments we receive and may
conduct additional rulemaking based on those comments.

Discussion

    We are adopting a new AD for Bell Model 214B, 214B-1, and 214ST
helicopters with certain bearings installed. Bell was notified by a
supplier that all part number 214-040-606-005 and 214-040-606-101
bearings delivered between May 2011 and June 2012 were manufactured
with incorrect seal material. The incorrect seal material does not meet
Bell's operating and environmental temperature specifications and under
extreme heat could result in seal failure and grease loss from the
bearing. The incorrect seal material is black in color; the correctly
manufactured bearings have a red/orange to brown colored seal.

FAA's Determination

    We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other helicopters of these same type
designs.

Related Service Information

    Bell has issued Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) 214-13-74, Revision A,
dated March 25, 2013, for Model 214B and 214B-1 helicopters, serial
number (S/N) 28001 through 28070, and ASB 214ST-13-90, Revision A,
dated March 25, 2013, for Model 214ST helicopters, S/N 28101 through
28200. Both ASBs describe procedures for determining whether any
bearing with incorrect seal material is installed on the helicopter and
for inspecting any installed bearing with incorrect seal material every
10 hours time-in-service (TIS). Both ASBs also specify replacing any
bearing with incorrect seal material that is leaking grease or damaged.
Finally, the ASBs specify replacing any bearing with incorrect seal
material within 500 hours TIS or by December 31, 2013.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires:
     Inspecting each bearing within 10 hours TIS to determine
whether the bearing has correct seal material.
     If a bearing has incorrect seal material, inspecting the
bearing at intervals not to exceed 10 hours TIS for leakage, slung
grease, or damage.
     If there is leakage, slung grease, or damage, before
further flight, replacing the bearing with an airworthy bearing that
does not have a black seal, which would be terminating action for the
requirements of this AD.

Differences Between This AD and the Service Information

    The Bell ASBs specify 25 hours TIS for the initial inspection,
while this AD requires inspecting within 10 hours TIS. The ASBs specify
replacing any bearing with black seal material within 500 hours TIS or
by December 31, 2013. This AD requires repetitive inspections of the
bearing until the bearing is replaced with an airworthy bearing that
does not have a black seal.

Interim Action

    We consider this AD to be an interim action. We are currently
considering requiring the replacement of the defective bearings, which
will constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections
required by this AD action. However, the planned compliance time for
the replacement of the bearing would allow enough time to provide
notice and opportunity for prior public comment on the merits of the
replacement.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 26 helicopters of U.S.
Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in
order to comply with this AD. At an average labor cost of $85 per hour,
inspecting the bearings would require about 2.5 work hours, for a cost
per helicopter of $213 and a cost of $5,538 for the fleet. Replacing a
defective bearing would require about 3 work hours, and required parts
would cost $1,372 per bearing, for a cost per helicopter of $1,627.
    According to Bell's service information some of the costs of this
AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage by Bell.
Accordingly, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    Providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adopting
these AD requirements would delay implementing the safety actions
needed to correct this known unsafe condition. Therefore, we find that
the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment
prior to the adoption of this rule because the required corrective
actions must be accomplished within 10 hours TIS, a very short time
period based on the average flight hour utilization rate of these
helicopters.
    Since an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate
adoption of this AD, we determined that notice and opportunity for
public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good
cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

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 AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; 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.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2013-11-05 Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. (Bell): Amendment 39-17465;
Docket No. FAA-2013-0470; Directorate Identifier 2013-SW-008-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bell Model 214B helicopters, serial number
(S/N) 28001 through 28070, Model 214B-1 helicopters, S/N 28001
through 28070, and Model 214ST helicopters, S/N 28101 through 28200,
with a tail rotor hanger bearing (bearing), part number (P/N) 214-
040-606-005 or 214-040-606-101 installed, certificated in any
category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a bearing with incorrect
seal material, which could fail under extreme temperature or
environmental conditions, resulting in loss of tail rotor control
and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

(c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective June 19, 2013.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time.

(e) Required Actions

    (1) Within 10 hours time in service (TIS):
    (i) Inspect each bearing to determine whether the seal material
is correct, as described in the Accomplishment Instructions, Part
1--Inspection, paragraphs 1.a. through 2. and Figure 1 of Bell Alert
Service Bulletin (ASB) 214-13-74, Revision A, dated March 25, 2013,
for Model 214B and 214B-1 helicopters and ASB 214ST-13-90, Revision
A, dated March 25, 2013, for Model 214ST helicopters.
    (ii) For each bearing with black seal material, before further
flight and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 10 hours TIS,
inspect the bearing for leakage, slung grease, or damage. If there
is any leakage, slung grease, or damage, before further flight,
replace the bearing with an airworthy bearing with red/orange to
brown color seal material.
    (2) Replacing a bearing with an airworthy bearing with the
correct red/orange to brown color seal material terminates the
inspection requirements of this AD.
    (3) Do not install bearing P/N 214-040-606-005 or 214-040-606-
101 with black seal material on any helicopter.

(f) Special Flight Permits

    Special flight permits are prohibited.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Rotorcraft Certification Office, FAA, may
approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: James Blyn,
Aviation Safety Engineer, Rotorcraft Certification Office,
Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas
76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or

certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

 (h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6500: Tail Rotor
Drive Bearing.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Bell Alert Service Bulletin No. 214-13-74, Revision A, dated
March 25, 2013.
    (ii) Bell Alert Service Bulletin No. 214ST-13-90, Revision A,
dated March 25, 2013.
    (3) For Bell service information identified in this AD, contact
Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., P.O. Box 482, Fort Worth, TX 76101;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at http://www.bellcustomer.com/files/.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663,
Fort Worth, Texas 76137. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 17, 2013.
Kim Smith,
Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-12720 Filed 6-3-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 193 (Tuesday, October 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60377-60379]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25387]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PF14-17-000]

Louisiana LNG Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice of Intent To
Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Planned Mississippi
River LNG Project, and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues
Related to Project Changes

    On October 3, 2014, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC
or Commission) issued in Docket No. PF14-17-000 a Notice of Intent to
Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Planned Mississippi
River LNG Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues
(NOI). Since the NOI was issued Louisiana LNG Energy, LLC (Louisiana
LNG) has made project changes. This Supplemental Notice is being issued
to seek comments on the project changes and opens a new scoping period
for interested parties to file comments on environmental issues
specific to these facilities.
    The October 3, 2014 NOI announced that the FERC is the lead federal
agency responsible for conducting the environmental review of the
Mississippi River LNG Project (Project) and that the Commission staff
will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) that discusses the
environmental impacts of the Project. Please refer to the NOI for more
information about the overall facilities proposed by Louisiana LNG and
FERC staff's EIS process. This EIS will be used in part by the
Commission to determine whether the Mississippi River LNG Project is in
the public convenience and necessity. On November 17, 2015, Louisiana
LNG is planning on having another open house to give the new landowners
the opportunity to attend and learn about the Project and the FERC
process.
    This Supplemental Notice is being sent to the Commission's current
environmental mailing list for this Project, including new landowners
that would be affected by the project changes. We encourage elected
officials and government representatives to notify their constituents
about the Project and inform them on how they can comment on their
areas of concern. Please note that comments on this Notice should be
filed with the Commission by October 30, 2015.
    If your property would be affected by the Project, you should have
already been contacted by a Louisiana LNG representative. A Louisiana
LNG

representative may have also contacted you or may contact you in the
near future about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate,
and maintain the planned pipeline facilities or request permission to
perform environmental surveys on your property. If the Commission
approves the Project, that approval conveys with it the right of
eminent domain for easement acquisition for the pipeline. Therefore, if
easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the company could
initiate condemnation proceedings where compensation would be
determined in accordance with state law.
    To help potentially affected landowners better understand the
Commission and its environmental review process, the ``For Citizens''
section of the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov) provides information about
getting involved in FERC jurisdictional projects, and a citizens' guide
entitled ``An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I
Need to Know?'' This guide addresses a number of frequently asked
questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate
in the Commission's proceedings.

Summary of the Planned Project Changes

    Louisiana LNG is planning the following changes in response to new
ownership and additional environmental and engineering analysis:
     Increase the production capacity to 6.0 million tons per
annum (MTPA) from 2.0 MTPA;
     increase the storage capacity of the LNG storage tanks to
140,000 cubic meters (net) from 100,000 cubic meters;
     increase the pipeline from the 1.9-mile 24-inch-diameter
to 1.9-mile 36-inch-diameter (northern pipeline) with an associated
meter station that would deliver gas from the Tennessee Gas interstate
pipeline system;
     increase the pipeline from the 1.6-mile 12-inch-diameter
to 3.5-mile 36-inch-diameter (southern pipeline) that would deliver gas
from the Tennessee Gas Pipeline system to the facility;
     eliminate the truck loading facility from the Project
design; and
     eliminate the compressor station from the Project design.
    A map depicting the general location of the Project facilities is
included in Appendix 1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies of appendices were sent to
all those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at
www.ferc.gov using the link called ``eLibrary'' of fromthe
Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>. For instructions on
connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    The planned construction would impact a 190-acre site on the east
bank of the Mississippi River in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, which
would include the liquefaction trains, LNG storage tanks, marine
loading facilities, the electrical power station, and ancillary
facilities. The full 190-acre site would be fenced and retained for
operations of the planned Project. Construction of the two pipelines
and associated meter stations would require approximately 65 acres of
land, 33 of which would be permanently impacted during operations.
Louisiana LNG is still in the planning phase for the Project and
requirements for construction workspaces, access roads, and pipe
storage/contractor yards would be determined during engineering and
design.

The EIS Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the authorization of LNG
facilities. NEPA also requires us \2\ to discover and address concerns
the public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as
``scoping.'' The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the
analysis in the EIS on the important environmental issues. By this
notice, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of the
issues to address in the EIS. We will consider all filed comments
during the preparation of the EIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the EIS we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the proposed Project. We will also
evaluate reasonable alternatives to the planned Project or portions of
the Project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts
on the various resource areas.
    The EIS will present our independent analysis of the issues. We
will publish and distribute the draft EIS for public comment. After the
comment period, we will consider all timely comments and revise the
document, as necessary, before issuing a final EIS. To ensure we have
the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully
follow the instructions in the Public Participation section below.

Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation
with the Louisiana Office of Historic Preservation (State Historic
Preservation Office [SHPO]), and to solicit their views and those of
other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on
the Project's potential effects on historic properties.\3\ We will
define the Project-specific Area of Potential Effects (APE) in
consultation with the SHPO as the Project develops. On natural gas
facility projects, the APE at a minimum encompasses all areas subject
to ground disturbance (examples include the terminal plot, construction
right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage yards, compressor stations, and
access roads). Our EIS for this Project will document our findings on
the impacts on historic properties and summarize the status of
consultations with the Louisiana Office of Historic Preservation under
section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations
are at title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, part 800. Those
regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the Project. Your comments should focus on
the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and
measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific
your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your
comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so
that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before
October 30, 2015.
    For your convenience, there are three methods which you can use to
submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances please
reference the Project docket number (PF14-17-000) with your submission.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert
staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. This is an easy

method for interested persons to submit brief, text-only comments on a
project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically using the eFiling
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a
variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission.
New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' You must select the type of filing you are making. If
you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select
``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426.

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for Project purposes, or who own homes within
certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits
comments on the Project. We will update the environmental mailing list
as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related
to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and
government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the
proposed Project.
    When we publish and distribute the EIS, copies will be sent to the
environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would
prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD
version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please
return the attached Information Request (Appendix 2).

Becoming an Intervenor

    Once Louisiana LNG files its application with the Commission, you
may want to become an ``intervenor'' which is an official party to the
Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the
process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard
by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling.
An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a
request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in
the User's Guide under the ``e-filing'' link on the Commission's Web
site. Please note that the Commission will not accept requests for
intervenor status at this time. You must wait until the Commission
receives a formal application for the project.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site at www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., PF14-
17). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: September 30, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-25387 Filed 10-5-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 22, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40495-40499]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14799]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 95

[Docket No. 31084; Amdt. No. 527]

IFR Altitudes; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts miscellaneous amendments to the required
IFR (instrument flight rules) altitudes and changeover points for
certain Federal airways, jet routes, or direct routes for which a
minimum or maximum en route authorized IFR altitude is prescribed. This
regulatory action is needed because of changes occurring in the
National Airspace System. These changes are designed to provide for the
safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace under instrument
conditions in the affected areas.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, July 21, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard A. Dunham, Flight Procedure
Standards Branch (AMCAFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs
Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration,
Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma
City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082 Oklahoma City, OK 73125)
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This amendment to part 95 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) amends, suspends, or revokes IFR
altitudes governing the operation of all aircraft in flight over a
specified route or any portion of that route, as well as the changeover
points (COPs) for Federal airways, jet routes, or direct routes as
prescribed in part 95.

The Rule

    The specified IFR altitudes, when used in conjunction with the
prescribed changeover points for those routes, ensure navigation aid
coverage that is adequate for safe flight operations and free of
frequency interference. The reasons and circumstances that create the
need for this amendment involve matters of flight safety and
operational efficiency in the National Airspace System, are related to
published aeronautical charts that are essential to the user, and
provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. In
addition, those various reasons or circumstances require making this
amendment effective before the next scheduled charting and publication
date of the flight information to assure its timely availability to the
user. The effective date of this amendment reflects those
considerations. In view of the close and immediate relationship between
these regulatory changes and safety in air commerce, I find that notice
and public procedure before adopting this amendment are impracticable
and contrary to the public interest and that good cause exists for
making the

amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Conclusion

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 95

    Airspace, Navigation (air).

    Issued in Washington, DC on June 17, 2016.
John Duncan,
Director, Flight Standards Service.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part
95) is amended as follows effective at 0901 UTC, July 21, 2016.

PART 95--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 95 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Part 95 is amended to read as follows:

              Revisions to IFR Altitudes & Changeover Point
              [Amendment 527, effective date July 21, 2016]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               From                           To                 MEA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Sec.   95.6001 Victor Routes--U.S.
    Sec.   95.6025 VOR Federal Airway V25 is Amended to Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VENTURA, CA VOR/DME..............  DEANO, CA FIX...........         6000
DEANO, CA FIX....................  * SAN MARCUS, CA VORTAC.         6200
    * 7600--MCA SAN MARCUS, CA...  VORTAC, NW BND..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6026 VOR Federal Airway V26 is Amended to Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDGRR, WI FIX....................  WAUSAU, WI VORTAC.......       * 6000
    * 3600--MOCA
    * 3600--GNSS MEA
WAUSAU, WI VORTAC................  CHURP, WI FIX...........       * 8000
    * 3000--GNSS MEA
CHURP, WI FIX....................  GREEN BAY, WI VORTAC....       * 7000
    * 2400--MOCA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6067 VOR Federal Airway V67 is Amended to Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CEDAR RAPIDS, IA VOR/DME.........  * LYERS, IA FIX.........         2900
    * 3200--MRA
* LYERS, IA FIX..................  WATERLOO, IA VOR/DME....         2900
    * 3200--MRA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6077 VOR Federal Airway V77 is Amended to Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WATERLOO, IA VOR/DME.............  WAUKON, IA VORTAC.......       * 3000
    * 2800--MOCA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6097 VOR Federal Airway V97 is Amended to Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOISE, TN FIX....................  LONDON, KY VORTAC.......       * 5000
    * 4200--MOCA
LONDON, KY VORTAC................  REBEL, KY FIX...........       * 3400
    * 2900--MOCA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6120 VOR Federal Airway V120 is Amended to Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MASON CITY, IA VORTAC............  * AREDA, IA FIX.........      ** 3000
    * 4500--MRA
    ** 2800--MOCA
* AREDA, IA FIX..................  ** SEATS, IA FIX........     *** 3000
    * 4500--MRA
    ** 4500--MRA
    *** 2800--MOCA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6139 VOR Federal Airway V139 is Amended to Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUNFE, VA FIX....................  SNOW HILL, MD VORTAC....       * 4000
    * 1600--MOCA
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sec.   95.6146 VOR Federal Airway V146 is Amended to Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROVIDENCE, RI VORTAC............  MARTHAS VINEYARD, MA VOR/        2100
                                    DME.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6148 VOR Federal Airway V148 is Amended to Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALEEN, WI FIX....................  HAYWARD, WI VOR/DME.....            #
    #UNUSABLE
HAYWARD, WI VOR/DME..............  * IRONWOOD, MI VORTAC...        10000
    * 5200--MCA IRONWOOD, MI.....  VORTAC, SW BND..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6165 VOR Federal Airway V165 is Amended to Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFY, CA FIX....................  * LOPES, CA FIX.........         9000
    *8600--MCA LOPES, CA.........  FIX, S BND..............
LOPES, CA FIX....................  * ARVIN, CA FIX.........         8500
    * 7300--MCA ARVIN, CA........  FIX, SE BND.............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6167 VOR Federal Airway V167 is Amended to Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
JEWIT, CT FIX....................  PROVIDENCE, RI VORTAC...         2500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6186 VOR Federal Airway V186 is Amended to Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAN MARCUS, CA VORTAC............  DEANO, CA FIX...........         6200
DEANO, CA FIX....................  * HENER, CA FIX.........         5000
    * 5100--MCA HENER, CA........  FIX, E BND..............
HENER, CA FIX....................  FILLMORE, CA VORTAC.....         6300
FILLMORE, CA VORTAC..............  VAN NUYS, CA VOR/DME....         6000
VAN NUYS, CA VOR/DME.............  TIFNI, CA FIX...........         5500
PARADISE, CA VORTAC..............  TANNR, CA FIX...........         6000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6187 VOR Federal Airway V187 is Amended to Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANCA, CO FIX....................  HERRM, CO FIX...........    # * 15000
    * 12800--MOCA
    # MEA IS ESTABLISHED WITH A
     GAP IN NAVIGATION SIGNAL
     COVERAGE.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6197 VOR Federal Airway V197 is Amended to Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PARADISE, CA VORTAC..............  * POMONA, CA VORTAC.....         4500
    * 5800--MCA POMONA, CA.......  VORTAC, NW BND..........
FISCH, CA FIX....................  * KELEN, CA FIX.........     ** 10200
    * 9300--MCA KELEN, CA........  FIX, SE BND.............
    ** 10200--MOCA
KELEN, CA FIX....................  * ARVIN, CA FIX.........         8500
    * 7300--MCA ARVIN, CA          FIX, SE BND.............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6198 VOR Federal Airway V198 is Amended to Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TIBBY, LA VOR/DME................  HARVEY, LA VORTAC.......         2100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6248 VOR Federal Airway V248 is Amended to Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AVENAL, CA VOR/DME...............  SCRAP, CA FIX...........         4000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6310 VOR Federal Airway V310 is Amended to Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOUISVILLE, KY VORTAC............  LONDON, KY VORTAC.......       * 3300
    * 2900--MOCA
LONDON, KY VORTAC................  ROSAR, KY FIX...........       * 5500
    * 3800--MOCA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6345 VOR Federal Airway V345 is Amended to Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EAU CLAIRE, WI VORTAC............  HAYWARD, WI VOR/DME.....     # * 5200
    * 3100--MOCA
    * 4000--GNSS MEA
    # HAYWARD R-178 UNUSABLE USE
     EAU CLAIRE R-357
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sec.   95.6347 VOR Federal Airway V347 is Amended to Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LONDON, KY VORTAC................  HINCH MOUNTAIN, TN             * 4700
                                    VORTAC.
    * 4600--MOCA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6459 VOR Federal Airway V459 is Amended to Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFY, CA FIX....................  * LOPES, CA FIX.........         9000
    * 8600--MCA LOPES, CA........  FIX, S BND..............
LOPES, CA FIX....................  * WRING, CA FIX.........         8500
    * 5800--MCA WRING, CA........  FIX, SE BND.............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6517 VOR Federal Airway V517 is Amended to Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LONDON, KY VORTAC................  LOGIC, KY FIX...........         2900
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6552 VOR Federal Airway V552 is Amended to Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* GRICE, LA FIX..................  TIBBY, LA VOR/DME.......         2000
    * 4000--MRA
TIBBY, LA VOR/DME................  HARVEY, LA VORTAC.......         2100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6562 VOR Federal Airway V562 is Amended to Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DRAKE, AZ VORTAC.................  PEACH SPRINGS, AZ VORTAC         9200
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6597 VOR Federal Airway V597 is Amended to Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FILLMORE, CA VORTAC..............  VAN NUYS, CA VOR/DME....         6000
VAN NUYS, CA VOR/DME.............  DARTS, CA FIX...........         5500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   95.6311 Alaska VOR Federal Airway V311 is Amended to Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANNETTE ISLAND, AK VOR/DME.......  * TOKEE, AK FIX.........         6000
    * 9000--MCA TOKEE, AK........  FIX, NW BND.............
TOKEE, AK FIX....................  WIBTA, AK FIX...........       * 9000
    * 4700--MOCA
WIBTA, AK FIX....................  FLIPS, AK FIX...........
                                   W BND...................       * 7500
                                   E BND...................       * 9000
    * 6300--MOCA
FLIPS, AK FIX....................  BIORKA ISLAND, AK VORTAC
                                   W BND...................         6100
                                   E BND...................         7500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   95.6473 Alaska VOR Federal Airway V473 is Amended to Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLIPS, AK FIX....................  BIORKA ISLAND, AK VORTAC
                                   W BND...................         6100
                                   E BND...................         7500
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     From                                         To                        MEA          MAA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Sec.   95.7001 Jet Routes
                             Sec.   95.7005 Jet Route J5 is Amended to Read in Part
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POWEL, OR FIX.................................  SUMMA, WA FIX.........................        24000        45000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Sec.   95.7054 Jet Route J54 is Amended to Read in Part
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OLYMPIA, WA VORTAC............................  BAKER CITY, OR VOR/DME................      # 24000        45000
    # MEA IS ESTABLISHED WITH A GAP IN
     NAVIGATION SIGNAL COVERAGE.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Sec.   95.7086 Jet Route J86 is Amended to Read in Part
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOULDER CITY, NV VORTAC.......................  PEACH SPRINGS, AZ VORTAC..............        18000        45000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               From                           To               Distance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Sec.   95.8003 VOR Federal Airway Changeover Point
Airway Segment Changeover Points Is Amended To Add Changeover Point V148
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HAYWARD, WI VOR/DME..............  IRONWOOD, MI VORTAC.....           20
    HAYWARD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Sec.   95.8005 Jet Routes Changeover Points
 Airway Segment Changeover Points Is Amended To Add Changeover Point J54
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OLYMPIA, WA VORTAC...............  BAKER CITY, OR VOR/DME..          143
    OLYMPIA
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2016-14799 Filed 6-21-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD DRIVE

ANN ARBOR, MI  48105-2498

									     OFFICE OF

									AIR AND RADIATION

1/20/16

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Test Procedure Meeting with the Engine Manufacturers
Association

FROM: Christopher Laroo

TO:  Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards
for Medium- and

Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles - Phase 2 - Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827

This memo documents a meeting held on January 19 and 20, 2016 between
representatives of the Engine Manufacturers Association and EPA to
discuss test procedures recently proposed in the Phase 2 greenhouse gas
and fuel efficiency standards for heavy-duty vehicles notice of proposed
rulemaking.  The meeting attendees, agenda, and draft part 1065 working
document are enclosed.

The discussion topics included test procedures in 40 CFR part 1065 and
fuel maps for engines as proposed in 1036.535 and 1036.540 as well as
powertrain testing as described in 1037.550.


The Iron and Steel Foundry NESHAP was signed by the acting administrator
of US EPA on August 29, 2003.  Once posted on the EPA web site, members
of the American Foundry Society (AFS) reviewed the final rule to
ascertain the actions companies will have to take to be in compliance
with the standard.  During the course of this review, a number of
questions arose.  AFS requests that EPA review the questions posed below
and provide guidance, so that the NESHAP can be consistently applied.
Please feel free to contact AFS to discuss these questions and the needs
for clarification.

1.  Page 113 - §63.7683(b) – Applicability Determination Date is One
Year from Publication

Under the terms of the final rule, the determination of NESHAP
applicability (i.e., major source status) is to be made one year after
the publication of the rule in the Federal Register.  This occurs since
the scrap selection work practice standard becomes effective on this
date.  This allots an insufficient period of time for minor sources to
obtain enforceable state operating permit restrictions to limit their
potential to emit and, thus, achieve “area” source status.  This
abbreviated ‘one year’ schedule was not included in the proposed
rule and, therefore, the industry is not prepared for this accelerated
applicability determination.

US EPA guidance states “the relevant date” for purposes of
determining the applicability of a NESHAP standard is “the first
substantive compliance date.”  This date is further defined as the
first date a source must comply with an emission limitation or other
substantive regulatory requirement such as a work practice measure.
However, the US EPA policy also states that this interpretation holds
“in the absence of a rulemaking record supporting a different result
… .”   [Memorandum by John S. Seitz, May 16, 1995].

It is requested that the Agency clearly identify within the rulemaking
record that the determination of applicability of this NESHAP is to be
made three years after the publication date of the final rule.

2.  Page 114 - §63.7690 – Alternate Emission Limitations
Clarification

For a number of foundry processes, the Agency has established alternate,
equivalent, PM and ‘total metal HAP’ emissions limitations (i.e.,
melting furnaces, scrap preheaters, pouring stations, and pouring
areas).  Likewise, alternate, equivalent, limitations have been
established for TEA mold and core making lines (i.e., 99 percent control
or 1 ppmv).  AFS believes it is the intent of the regulation to allow
foundries to choose to comply, at their option, with any one of the
alternate equivalent limitations.

In order to avoid misinterpretation, AFS requests that the Agency
clarify that: a) a foundry is not restricted in choosing the appropriate
alternate emissions limitation with which they will demonstrate
compliance; and b) a foundry is not precluded from selecting a different
alternate, equivalent, limitation at the time of a future compliance
demonstration.  This request is consistent with the premise that the
alternate emissions limitations are equivalent measures of compliance
with this NESHAP.

3.  Page 114 - §63.7690 – Applicability of Emission Standards is
Unclear

The final rule, at §63.7690(a), states that a source “must meet each
emissions limit or standard in paragraphs (a)(1) through (11).”  Since
the cited paragraphs contain several alternate, equivalent, emissions
limitations, AFS is concerned that the regulation could be
misinterpreted to require compliance with both of the alternate
standards (i.e., both the PM limitation and the ‘total metal HAP’
limitation).

It is requested that the Agency clarify that, where there are alternate,
equivalent PM and total metal HAP emissions limits, that one or the
other must be met and not that both have to be met.  This is consistent
with the premise that the alternative limits were provided to give a
foundry maximum flexibility while also achieving the same level of
environmental protection.  It is requested that the Agency clarify this
by modifying §63.7690(a) to state that a source “must meet the
emissions limits or standards in paragraphs (a)(1) through (11) that
apply to you.”

4.  Page 117 - §63.7690(a)(7) – Opacity Emissions Limitation Could be
Applied to Non-Foundry Operations

The final rule places an opacity limitation on fugitive emissions from
each building or structure housing any emissions source at the iron and
steel foundry.  It is unclear whether this requirement is applicable to
emissions sources that are not related to iron and steel foundry
operations.  Specifically, an iron and steel foundry may be co-located
with other non-foundry operations (e.g., a painting operation), or a
foundry may maintain and operate an emission source that is not directly
related to the iron and steel foundry operation (e.g., an industrial
boiler with ash handling operations or an aluminum foundry operation).
It is improper for the requirements of the Iron and Steel Foundry NESHAP
to be applied to these operations that are not part of the source
category.

It is requested that the Agency clarify that the opacity requirement
applies only to “those emission sources regulated under this
NESHAP.”  This interpretation is consistent with the language at
§63.7682(b) which states that this regulation “covers fugitive
emissions from foundry operations.”

5.  Page121 - §63.7700 (b) and (c) – Rule Requires Choosing One Melt
Material Acquisition Option

The final rule requires that a foundry select only one of the melt
material acquisition options and “operate at all times” according to
this option.  That is, a foundry must choose to always comply with
paragraph (b) and melt only those materials that are “certified;” or
choose to always comply with paragraph (c) and melt only scrap materials
that are subject to selection and inspection requirements.  This
requirement fails to recognize that a foundry may specify differing melt
materials for different processes or products, or based on the
availability of the melt materials.

Specifically, AFS requests that a foundry be able to utilize either melt
material acquisition option provided the melt materials remain
segregated.  This is desirable since a foundry may specify
“certified” materials for electric furnace operations while, at the
same site, receive “non-certified” scrap for use in a cupola
furnace.  Likewise, a foundry may specify “certified” materials for
the production of casting demanding very specific metallurgical
properties while, at the same time, receive “non-certified” scrap
materials for the production of other castings.  Finally, a foundry may,
due to the availability of materials, be unable to acquire
“certified” materials at various times and be compelled to accept
“non-certified” scrap materials.  AFS believes that, due to these
situations, the final rule should allow a foundry to operate under
either or both of the melt material acquisition options provided that
the different melt materials remain segregated.

6.  Page 121 - §63.7700 (b) and (c) – Scrap Inspection and Selection
Clarifications

The final rule allows foundries to forego the scrap metals inspection
requirement provided “certified” sources of metals are purchased and
used.  However, the list of materials prohibited from a certified scrap
shipment includes “oil filters” [see §63.7700 (b)] without regard
to whether the oil filters have been used (i.e., post-consumer).  Since
unused oil filters present little risk of organic contamination, it is
requested that the Agency clarify that the prohibited material is
properly identified as “used oil filters.”  This requested
clarification is consistent with the language at paragraph (c) that
states “used oil filters.”

Further, in paragraph (c)(i), the rule requires that all scrap metals
“be depleted (to the extent practicable) of the presence of used oil
filters, plastic parts, organic liquids, and a program to ensure the
scrap materials are drained of free liquids.”  Similar language exists
in paragraph (c)(2), while paragraph (c)(3) requires the rejection and
return of scrap that does not meet these specifications.  It is
requested that the Agency acknowledge that this language does not
constitute a complete prohibition on these materials.

Specifically, minimal amounts of contaminants and prohibited materials
are likely to be contained in scrap materials.  Although the industry
does not seek to identify a specific threshold for these prohibited
materials, since such a threshold would be difficult to both establish
and monitor, we do seek clarification that the regulation does not
intend to absolutely prohibit these materials.  This requested
clarification is consistent with the language in the “Background
Information for Promulgated Standards” which states “EPA did not
intend for the scrap specification and inspection program to completely
alter the recycling industry.”  (See pages 22 and 23.)

7.  Pages 121 - §63.7700 (b) – The Rule Does Not Specify Who Must
“Certify” Scrap Materials

Paragraph §63.7700 (b) states “(y)ou must prepare and operate at all
times according to a written certification that the foundry purchases
and uses only certified-metal ingots, pig iron, slitter, or other
materials that do not include post-consumer automotive body scrap,
post-consumer engine blocks, oil filters, oily turnings, lead
components, mercury switches, plastics, or organic liquids.”  While it
is clear that a foundry must certify that it is following the
requirements of §63.7700 (b) it is unclear who actually must certify
that the scrap materials meet the specifications of this section.  The
structure of the language can be taken to mean that the supplier’s
certification is limited to “metal ingots” with the remainder of
material being “certified” by the foundry.  Alternately, the
language could be read to require that the supplier certify that all of
the scrap materials meet the requirements of §63.7700 (b) and that the
foundry is required to certify that it is only specifying for purchase
and use the types of materials allowed in §63.7700 (b).   AFS requests
that the Agency clarify this requirement.

8.  Pages 14 and 124 - §63.7700(e)(1) – Scrap Preheaters are Cited as
Mandated Equipment

The language contained in the preamble and the final rule could be
interpreted to require foundries to install a gas-fired preheater, even
when this equipment is unnecessary for production operations.
Specifically, page 14 of the preamble states “the owner of an existing
iron and steel foundry must install” a preheater.  Likewise, at
§63.7700(e)(1) the regulation states that “you must install, operate,
and maintain” a preheater.  Obviously, it is not the intent of the
regulation to mandate the unnecessary installation of such equipment.

It is requested that the preamble clarify that “foundries that utilize
scrap preheaters” are subject to the cited requirements.  Further, it
is requested that the regulations be clarified by removing the
requirement to “install” from (e)(1) such that it reads “you must
operate and maintain” a preheater.

9.  Page 134 - §63.7732(c) – Method 29 Analysis Includes Analytes
That are Not HAP Metals

To demonstrate compliance with a “total metal HAP” limitation for a
melting furnace, scrap preheater, pouring station, or pouring area a
foundry is required to use Method 29.  However, Method 29 analysis
includes 17 individual analytes; of which five are not HAPs (i.e.,
barium, copper, silver, thallium and zinc) and three are not metals
(i.e., arsenic, phosphorus and selenium).

It is requested that the Agency clarify that, when utilizing Method 29,
the analysis should be specifically limited to HAP metals, and any other
anayltes are not to be considered in the compliance determination.

10.  Page 134 - §63.7732(c) – Further, Method 29 Analysis Includes
HAP Metals That Were Not Considered when Establishing the Standard

In establishing the alternative “total metal HAP” emissions
limitation the Agency relied primarily on data regarding lead and
manganese emissions.  In addition, limited data for cadmium, chromium,
nickel and mercury were used to estimate the amount of the “other”
HAP metals.  These data sets were then combined (i.e., lead, manganese,
and “other”) to establish the total metal HAP emission limit.  As a
result this emissions limitation does not encompass the full spectrum of
HAP metals that will be determined using Method 29.  Specifically, three
HAP metals not considered in establishing the standard (i.e., antimony,
beryllium and cobalt) are Method 29 analytes and could influence a
compliance determination.

The Agency acknowledged this limitation in the data in the August 27,
2003, memorandum to the docket titled “Determination of the MACT Floor
Metal HAP Emission Limits for Iron and Steel Foundries,” on page 18,
in the paragraph entitled “Determination of Alternative MACT Floor
Performance Limits:”

The available data regarding the metal HAP emissions as a percent of PM
are summarized in Table 7.  Separate statistical distributions were
generated for lead and manganese content, the two HAP that were
generally present at the highest concentrations, and a third
distribution was generated for the sum of all other metal HAP.  [Note:
the “other” metal HAP category generally included data for cadmium,
chromium, nickel and mercury.  The “other” metal HAP category may
underestimate the total concentration of other metal HAP because several
of the tests appeared to measure only select metal HAP and did not
attempt to measure or report all the metal HAP that would be measured
using EPA Method 29.]

Therefore, it is requested that the Agency clarify that the Method 29
analysis should be limited to the six HAP metals that were used to
establish the “total metal HAP” emission limit.  It is improper to
mandate a compliance methodology that differs from the methodology
utilized to establish the emissions limitation.

11.  Page 138 – §63.7732(d) – Initial Opacity Compliance
Demonstration ‘Overlaping’ PM Tests

The final rule requires that the initial opacity compliance
demonstration “overlap with the PM performance tests.”  However,
since some sources do not “discharge emissions through a
conveyance,” these sources will not be conducting PM performance
tests.  Likewise, other sources may conduct PM emissions tests at a
limited number of sources that are located apart from potential fugitive
emissions openings.  As such, the industry seek clarification of the
requirement to “overlap” these tests.

12.  Page 155 – §63.7734(a)(7) and Page 180 - §63.7743(a)(7) –
Opacity Compliance Demonstrations Clarification

The final rule requires that sources demonstrate “for each building or
structure housing any emissions source” that the opacity of any
fugitive emissions does not exceed the applicable limitation.  The
industry is concerned that this regulation could be interpreted to
require a documented reading of each window, vent, or other general
building ventilation or exhaust system.  It is requested that the Agency
clarify that a single opacity demonstration may encompass multiple
building openings.

13.  Page 161 - §63.7736(c) – O&M Requirements for Bag Leak Detectors

The requirements of §63.7736 cover the actions taken by a foundry that
directly effect the reduction of emissions from their operations.  A bag
leak detector does nothing to directly effect emissions, it is simply a
monitoring device for those control devices or actions that do directly
effect emissions.  Therefore, it is requested that the O&M plan
requirements for bag leak detectors be removed from this section and
included in the overall O&M plan for the foundry.

14.  Page 169 - §63.7741(b) – Bag Leak Detection Systems are Mandated
for All Collection Systems

The wording of the final rule requires bag leak detection systems be
installed, but does not limit this requirement to baghouse collection
systems.  Unlike other subparagraphs in §63.7741 which apply specific
requirements to the appropriate control device systems (e.g., “each
wet scrubber” or “each combustion device”), the requirement to
install, operate, and maintain a bag leak detection system is not
limited.  Further, the requirement to install a bag leak detection
system should not be applied to all baghouse systems since some systems
do not exhaust through a stack and, thus, such a system would not be
possible.

It is requested that the Agency clarify that the requirement to install
a bag leak detection system is applicable only to “baghouse-type
collection systems that exhaust through a stack”.

15.  Page 199 - §63.7752(a)(4) - The Record of Annual Quantity of HAP
is Not Well Defined as Binder and Coating Materials

Section 63.7752(a)(4) requires records of the annual quantity of each
chemical binder and coating material used.  Further, this subparagraph
requires a record of “the annual quantity of HAP used at the
foundry.”  The industry is concerned that this wording could be
misinterpreted to require an annual report of all HAP materials used at
the foundry, not just those associated with the chemical binders and
coatings.

It is requested that the Agency clarify that the annual report
encompasses only chemical binders and coating materials used to make
molds and cores.  AFS recommends the following language:

“…and the annual quantity of HAP used at the foundry for chemical
binder or coating material used to make molds and cores.”

 Or

“…and the annual quantity of these HAP used at the foundry.”

16.  The Final Rule Does Not Address Combined Emission Streams

Previously, the Agency and the industry group discussed various methods
by which compliance may be demonstrated for regulated emission streams
that are combined with other emission streams.  The industry group seeks
written assurance that these methods remain acceptable.

Specifically, it was agreed that: a) the combined emission stream can be
demonstrated to meet the emissions limitations; or b) the exhaust rate
from the regulated process can be determined prior to the control
device, and the overall efficiency of the device can be determined
(i.e., percent efficiency), and the “controlled” emission rate can
be determined by calculations; or c) a flow-weighted average can be
utilized.

NESHAP for Iron and Steel Foundries

Request for Clarification

Prepared by American Foundry Society

Submitted to EPA on October 9, 2003

Page   PAGE  6  of   NUMPAGES  6