[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 125 (Thursday, June 28, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38515-38523]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15475]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2009-0782; FRL-9691-8]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
Alabama; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing a limited approval of a revision to the
Alabama State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of
Alabama through the Alabama Department of Environmental Management
(ADEM) on July 15, 2008. Alabama's July 15, 2008, SIP revision
addresses regional haze for the first implementation period.
Specifically, this SIP revision addresses the requirements of the Clean
Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA's rules that require states to prevent any
future and remedy any existing anthropogenic impairment of visibility
in mandatory Class I areas (national parks and wilderness areas) caused
by emissions of air pollutants from numerous sources located over a
wide geographic area (also referred to as the ``regional haze
program''). States are required to assure reasonable progress toward
the national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I
areas. EPA is finalizing a limited approval of Alabama's July 15, 2008,
SIP revision to implement the regional haze requirements for Alabama on
the basis that this SIP revision, as a whole, strengthens the Alabama
SIP. Additionally, EPA is rescinding the federal regulations previously
approved into the Alabama SIP on November 24, 1987, and approving the
provisions in Alabama's July 15, 2008, SIP submittal to meet the long-
term strategy (LTS) requirements for reasonably attributable visibility
impairment (RAVI). In a separate action published on June 7, 2012, EPA
finalized a limited disapproval of this same SIP revision because of
the deficiencies in the State's regional haze SIP revision arising from
the remand by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit (DC Circuit) to EPA of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR).

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will be effective July 30, 2012,
except for the amendment to Sec.  52.61, which is effective on August
7, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2009-0782. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential
Business Information or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for
further information. The Regional Office's official hours of business
are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michele Notarianni, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Michele Notarianni can be reached at
telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> and by electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What is the background for this final action?
II. What is EPA's response to comments received on this action?
III. What is the effect of this final action?
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background for this final action?

    Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a
multitude of sources and activities which are located across a broad
geographic area and emit fine particles (e.g., sulfates, nitrates,
organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust), and their precursors
(e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides
(NOX), and in some cases, ammonia and volatile organic
compounds. Fine particle precursors react in the atmosphere to form
fine particulate matter (PM2.5) which impairs visibility by
scattering and absorbing light. Visibility impairment reduces the
clarity, color, and visible distance that one can see. PM2.5
can also cause serious health effects and mortality in humans and
contributes to environmental effects such as acid deposition and
eutrophication.
    In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national
goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing,
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas which impairment
results from manmade air pollution.'' On December 2, 1980, EPA
promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I
areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small
group of sources, i.e., ``reasonably attributable visibility
impairment.'' See 45 FR 80084. These regulations represented the first
phase in addressing visibility impairment. EPA deferred action on
regional haze that emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring,
modeling, and scientific knowledge about the relationships between
pollutants and visibility impairment were improved.
    Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional
haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1,
1999 (64 FR 35713), the Regional Haze Rule (RHR). The RHR revised the
existing visibility regulations to integrate into the regulation
provisions addressing regional haze impairment and established a
comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I areas. The
requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are
included in EPA's visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-
309. The requirement to submit a regional haze SIP applies to all 50
states, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands. 40 CFR
51.308(b) requires states to submit the first implementation plan
addressing regional haze visibility impairment no later than December
17, 2007.
    On July 15, 2008, ADEM submitted a revision to Alabama's SIP to
address regional haze in the State's and other states' Class I areas.
On February 28, 2012, EPA published an action proposing a limited
approval of Alabama's July 15, 2008, SIP revision to address the first
implementation period for regional haze.\1\ See 77 FR 11937. EPA
proposed a limited approval of Alabama's July 15, 2008, SIP revision to
implement the regional haze requirements for Alabama on the basis that
this revision, as a whole, strengthens the Alabama SIP. See section II
of this rulemaking for a summary of the comments received on the
proposed actions and EPA's responses to these comments. Detailed
background information and EPA's rationale for the proposed action is
provided in EPA's February 28, 2012, proposed rulemaking. See 77 FR
11937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In a separate action, published on June 7, 2012 (77 FR
33642), EPA finalized a limited disapproval of the Alabama regional
haze SIP because of deficiencies in the State's regional haze SIP
submittal arising from the State's reliance on CAIR to meet certain
regional haze requirements. This final limited disapproval triggers
a 24-month clock by which a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) or
EPA-approved SIP must be in place to address the deficiencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the remand of CAIR, EPA issued a new rule in 2011 to
address the interstate transport of NOX and SO2
in the eastern United States. See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (``the
Transport Rule,'' also known as the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
(CSAPR)). On December 30, 2011, EPA proposed to find that the trading
programs in the Transport Rule would achieve greater reasonable
progress towards the national goal of achieving natural visibility
conditions than would best available retrofit technology (BART) in the
states in which the Transport Rule applies (including Alabama). See 76
FR 82219. Based on this proposed finding, EPA also proposed to revise
the RHR to allow states to substitute participation in the trading
programs under the Transport Rule for source-specific BART. EPA
finalized this finding and RHR revision on June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33642).
    Also on December 30, 2011, the DC Circuit stayed the Transport Rule
(including the provisions that would have sunset CAIR and the CAIR
FIPs) and instructed the EPA to continue to administer CAIR pending the
outcome of the court's decision on the petitions for review challenging
the Transport Rule. EME Homer City v. EPA, No. 11-1302.

II. What is EPA's response to comments received on this action?

    EPA received two sets of comments on the February 28, 2012,
rulemaking proposing a limited approval of Alabama's July 15, 2008,
regional haze SIP revision. Specifically, the comments were received
from the Sierra Club and ADEM. Full sets of the comments provided by
all of the aforementioned entities (hereinafter referred to as ``the
Commenter'') are provided in the docket for today's final action. A
summary of the comments and EPA's responses are provided below.
    Comment 1: The Commenter does not believe that ADEM can rely on
CAIR or the Transport Rule to exempt the eight power plants with BART-
eligible electric generating units (EGUs) from an SO2 and
NOX BART analysis. The Commenter enclosed letters that it
submitted to EPA on February 28, 2012, with its comments on the
Agency's proposed December 30, 2011, rulemaking to find that the
Transport Rule is ``better than BART'' and to use the Transport Rule as
an alternative to BART for Alabama and other states subject to the
Transport Rule. See 76 FR 82219. The Commenter incorporates the
comments in this letter by reference and repeats a subset of those
comments, including the following: The Transport Rule cannot serve as a
BART alternative for the regional haze SIP process in Alabama; EPA has
not demonstrated that the Transport Rule assures greater reasonable
progress than source-specific BART; EPA failed to account for the
geographical and temporal uncertainties in emissions reductions
inherent in a cap-and-trade program such as the Transport Rule; EPA
underestimated the visibility improvements from BART using
``presumptive BART, rather than actual BART;'' ``case specific BART
determinations for SO2 emissions from EGUs in Alabama would
almost certainly ensure greater progress than would be achieved by
CSAPR;'' and

EPA has not accounted for the differences in averaging time under BART,
the Transport Rule, and in measuring visibility impacts.
    Response 1: These comments are beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
In today's rule, EPA is finalizing a limited approval of Alabama's
regional haze SIP. EPA did not propose to find that participation in
the Transport Rule is an alternative to BART in this action nor did EPA
reopen discussions on the CAIR provisions as they relate to BART.\2\ As
noted above, EPA proposed to find that the Transport Rule is ``Better
than BART'' and to use the Transport Rule as an alternative to BART for
Alabama in a separate action on December 30, 2011, and the Commenter is
merely reiterating and incorporating its comments on that separate
action. EPA addressed these comments concerning the Transport Rule as a
BART alternative in a final action that was published on June 7, 2012,
and has determined that they do not affect the Agency's ability to
finalize a limited approval of Alabama's regional haze SIP. EPA's
responses to these comments can be found in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0729 at www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In a final action published on July 6, 2005, EPA addressed
similar comments related to CAIR and determined that CAIR makes
greater reasonable progress than BART for certain EGUs and
pollutants (70 FR 39138). EPA did not reopen comment on that issue
through this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 2: The Commenter asserts that because ``the BART component
of Alabama's RH SIP is an essential element to the state's LTS for
achieving it RPGs, Alabama's treatment of CAIR (and now EPA's proposed
substitution of CSAPR for CAIR) as an acceptable BART-alternative must
be addressed in this present comment process. Separating the BART
analysis from the remaining portion of the RH SIP would result in an
inadequate SIP.'' The Commenter supports its position by repeating
statements made in its February 28, 2012, comments on the Agency's
proposed December 30, 2011, rulemaking to find that the Transport Rule
is ``Better than BART'' and to use the Transport Rule as an alternative
to BART for Alabama and other states subject to the Transport Rule. For
example, the Commenter states that ``EPA cannot exempt sources from the
RHR's BART requirements without full consideration of how that
exemption would affect the overarching reasonable progress mandate.''
    Response 2: As discussed in the response to Comment 1, today's
action does not address reliance on CAIR or CSAPR to satisfy BART
requirements. Comments related to the approvability of CAIR or CSAPR
for the Alabama regional haze SIP are therefore beyond the scope of
this rulemaking and were addressed by EPA in a separate action
published on June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33642). EPA addressed the Commenter's
repeated statements regarding the interrelatedness of BART, the LTS,
and RPGs in that final rulemaking action and those responses support
this limited approval action.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See EPA, Response to Comments Document, Regional Haze:
Revisions to Provisions Governing Alternatives to Source-Specific
Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations, Limited
SIP Disapprovals, and Federal Implementation Plans (76 FR 82219;
December 30, 2011), Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729 (May 30,
2012), pages 49-51 (noting that EPA ``disagree[s] with comments that
we cannot evaluate the BART requirements in isolation from the
reasonable progress requirements. We have on several occasions
undertaken evaluations of a state's BART determination or
promulgated a FIP separately from our evaluation of whether the SIP
as a whole will ensure reasonable progress.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA believes the Commenter overstates the overarching nature of the
changes due to CAIR or CSAPR. The reliance on CAIR in the Alabama
submittal was consistent with EPA policy at the time the submittal was
prepared. CSAPR is a replacement for CAIR, addressing the same regional
EGU emissions, with many similar regulatory attributes. The need to
address changes to the LTS resulting from the replacement of CAIR with
CSAPR was acknowledged in the proposal, and as stated in the proposal,
EPA believes that the five-year progress report is the appropriate time
to address any changes to the RPG demonstration and, if necessary, the
LTS. EPA expects that this demonstration will address the impacts on
the RPG due to the replacement of CAIR with CSAPR as well as other
adjustments to the projected 2018 emissions due to updated information
on the emissions for other sources and source categories. If this
assessment determines an adjustment to the regional haze plan is
necessary, EPA regulations require a SIP revision within a year of the
five-year progress report.
    Comment 3: The Commenter believes that Alabama should have
considered the cumulative impacts of the particulate matter (PM)
emissions from the State's PM BART-eligible EGUs when performing BART
exemption modeling and that the State should not have modeled these
sources in isolation of one another or without regard to PM emissions
from sources in other states which impact the Sipsey Wilderness Area
(Sipsey) or any Class I area. The Commenter also believes that ADEM
should have considered both filterable and condensable PM when
conducting this modeling.
    Response 3: As discussed in the proposal, (see section IV.C.6.B.2,
February 28, 2012, 77 FR 11950-11951), Alabama adequately justified its
contribution threshold of 0.5 deciview. While states have the
discretion to set an appropriate contribution threshold considering the
number of emissions sources affecting the Class I area at issue and the
magnitude of the individual sources' impacts, the states' analysis must
be consistent with the CAA, the RHR, and EPA's Guidelines for BART
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 CFR
part 51 (BART Guidelines). Consistent with the regulations and EPA's
guidance, ``the contribution threshold should be used to determine
whether an individual source is reasonably anticipated to contribute to
visibility impairment. You should not aggregate the visibility effects
of multiple sources and compare their collective effects against your
contribution threshold because this would inappropriately create a
`contribution to contribution' test.'' See also 70 FR 39121. Alabama's
analysis in the regional haze SIP revision was consistent with EPA's
regulations and guidance on the issue of cumulative analyses.
    It is unclear what condensable PM emissions the Commenter believes
that the State should have included in its visibility modeling. Each of
the units evaluated for BART in Alabama's regional haze SIP followed
the Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the
Southeast (VISTAS) modeling protocol and considered the contribution of
total PM10 and PM2.5 (as a subset of the total
PM10) as well as condensable PM (primarily sulfuric acid
mist) (see Appendix H.9 of Alabama's regional haze SIP). Regarding
modeling in Alabama's submittal that uses PM only for its BART-eligible
EGUs, EPA previously determined that this approach is appropriate for
EGUs where the State proposed to rely on CAIR to satisfy the BART
requirements for SO2 and NOX.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Regional Haze Regulations and Guidelines for Best Available
Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations, EPA Memorandum from
Joseph Paisie, Group Leader, Geographic Strategies Group, OAQPS, to
Kay Prince, Branch Chief, EPA Region 4, July 19, 2006, located at:
http://www.epa.gov/visibility/pdfs/memo_2006_07_19.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 4: The Commenter disagrees with ADEM's BART analyses for
the five BART eligible-units at the Solutia, Inc., facility in Decatur,
Alabama, as well as its analyses for the seven BART-eligible units at
International Paper's Courtland,

Alabama, facility (International Paper). In particular, the Commenter
states that Alabama's BART analyses failed to consider all available
retrofit technologies. The Commenter identified combustion controls
that ``should be considered for NOX BART'' including: flue
gas recirculation, overfire air, low NOX burners, and ultra
low NOX burners; as well as post-combustion controls such
as: selective catalytic reduction (SCR) and selective non-catalytic
reduction (SNCR). Regarding SO2 BART, the Commenter believes
that ADEM should have considered additional controls such as: ``a
number of post-combustion flue gas desulfurization options'' (e.g., dry
sorbent injection, spray dryer absorbers, wet scrubbers, circulating
dry scrubbers) as well as fuel switching (e.g., switching from coal to
oil). For PM BART, the Commenter identifies the following controls for
consideration: changing the operation of any air pre-heaters;
installing fabric filters or baghouses; installing or upgrading
electrostatic precipitators (ESPs); switching to wet ESPs; upgrading
electrodes (e.g., possibly changing from wire to rigid discharge
electrode); switching to ``a lower sulfur coal or a different sort or
blend of fuel;'' addition of a trona injection system; installation of
scrubbers; and upgrading any existing scrubbers. The Commenter believes
that Alabama should have considered all of the above-mentioned control
options when conducting its BART analyses, regardless of their
comparative costs.
    The Commenter also contends that ADEM: Ignored less costly yet
equally efficient controls; should have fully considered options for
improving existing controls instead of just those involving a complete
replacement of control devices (e.g., ESP upgrade options);'' should
have evaluated different combinations of controls in making its BART
determinations; and must ensure that current controls are actually
operating at BART levels where ADEM concluded that those controls are
BART. Finally, the Commenter believes that it is not possible to
determine if the proper costing methodology was followed by these
sources ``without supporting data in the docket.''
    Response 4: As stated in EPA's BART Guidelines, available retrofit
control options are those air pollution control technologies with a
practical potential for application to the emissions unit and the
regulated pollutant under evaluation. In identifying ``all'' options, a
state must identify the most stringent option and a reasonable set of
options for analysis that reflects a comprehensive list of available
technologies. It is not necessary to list all permutations of available
control levels that exist for a given technology; the list is complete
if it includes the maximum level of control that each technology is
capable of achieving.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ EPA's BART Guidelines at 70 FR 39164.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Attachment H-6 to Appendix H of the State's regional haze SIP
submittal summarizes the State's assessment of the available strategies
evaluated at each facility for BART, including many of the control
options that the Commenter believes were ignored by ADEM; assesses the
five statutory BART factors, including ADEM's estimates of the costs of
control sufficient to identify and evaluate the cost methodology
employed; and describes ADEM's basis for accepting or rejecting each
measure as BART. For example, ADEM notes in Appendix H that Solutia has
already installed a rotating opposed fired air combustion control
system to reduce NOX formation from Boiler No. 7. ADEM
identified SNCR and SCR as available post-combustion control options
for this unit and noted that modeling for all of the NOX
control options evaluated indicated relatively small to no reduction in
visibility impacts, even with the maximum additional NOX
control. In considering the five BART statutory factors for this unit,
ADEM relied most heavily on the lack of visibility improvement at any
federal Class I areas as the basis for its BART determination. Modeling
lesser options would not have changed this result. Similar analyses and
similar results were attained for all the BART-subject units at this
facility and at International Paper. EPA has reviewed ADEM's analyses
and concluded they were conducted in a manner that is consistent with
EPA's BART Guidelines and reflect a reasonable application of EPA's
guidance to these sources. Emissions limits for these operations are
contained in the State's title V permits for these facilities.
    Comment 5: The Commenter disagrees with ADEM's methodology for
identifying pollutants and sources subject to a reasonable progress
analysis. The concerns identified by the Commenter include an
``incomplete identification of emissions units likely to have the
largest impacts on visibility'' at federal Class I areas; improper
reliance on CAIR to exempt out-of-state EGUs from conducting reasonable
progress analyses; and a failure to identify and consider all proposed
major new sources or major modifications to sources within and outside
of the State.
    Regarding in-state sources, the Commenter notes that ADEM's
SO2 area of influence (AOI) methodology captured only 55
percent of the total point source SO2 contribution to
visibility impairment in Sipsey and only 61-73 percent of the total
contribution at federal Class I areas in neighboring states. The
Commenter believes that, due to cumulative impacts, the reasonable
progress analysis should have encompassed a greater number of units
with SO2 emissions that impact the State's Class I area and
that Alabama's LTS should have further considered reducing
NOX and ammonia emissions.
    For the out-of-state CAIR EGUs that impact Alabama's Class I area,
the Commenter believes that ADEM must conduct reasonable progress
control analyses in order to determine which emissions control measures
would be needed at these EGUs to make reasonable progress toward
improving visibility at Sipsey and reiterates statements made in its
aforementioned February 28, 2012, comment letter regarding EPA's
December 30, 2011, proposed rule.
    Regarding proposed major new sources or major modifications new
sources, the Commenter states that there is no evidence that Alabama's
regional haze SIP submittal complies with the requirement in 40 CFR
51.306(d) that the LTS provides for review of the impacts from any new
major stationary source or major modifications on visibility in any
mandatory Class I area in accordance with 40 CFR 51.307, 51.166, 51.160
and any binding guidance insofar as these provisions pertain to
protection of visibility. According to the Commenter, ADEM should have
identified these sources and any increases in emissions resulting from
installation and operation of new pollution controls (e.g., increased
ammonia emissions from new SCRs and SNCRs) and considered them in a
cumulative impact analysis for Sipsey.
    Response 5: Concerning the State's AOI methodology for the
identification of emission units for reasonable progress evaluation, as
noted in EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance \6\ and discussed further
in EPA's February 28, 2012, proposal action on the Alabama regional
haze SIP submittal (77 FR 11949), the RHR gives states wide latitude to
determine additional control requirements, and there are many ways

to approach identifying additional reasonable measures as long as they
consider the four statutory factors. Further, states have considerable
flexibility in how to take these factors into consideration. EPA's
Reasonable Progress Guidance recognizes that there are numerous ways to
approach development of the LTS and to focus on those source categories
that may have the greatest impact on visibility at Class 1 areas,
considering the statutory factors at a minimum.\7\ Significant control
programs are being implemented nationally and across the southeast
during the first implementation period, as described in chapter 7 of
Alabama's regional haze SIP submittal. The impact of programs such as
CAIR, CSAPR, and the NOX SIP Call are being realized
regionally, and the implementation of these programs in Alabama will
significantly reduce emissions and improve visibility at Sipsey and at
federal Class I areas outside Alabama.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the
Regional Haze Program, July 1, 2007, memorandum from William L.
Wehrum, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to EPA
Regional Administrators, EPA Regions 1-10 (``EPA's Reasonable
Progress Guidance''), page 4-2.
    \7\ EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance, pages 4-1, 4-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding its reliance on CAIR, the State took into account
emissions reductions expected from CAIR to determine the 2018
reasonable progress goals (RPGs) for its Class I areas. This approach
was fully consistent with EPA guidance at the time of SIP development.
ADEM determined that no additional SO2 controls beyond CAIR
are reasonable for its EGUs in the first implementation period based on
the State's review of the statutory factors (i.e., the costs of
compliance, the time necessary for compliance, the energy and non-air
quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful
life of any potentially affected sources) as evaluated by EPA for CAIR,
and that CAIR is expected to reduce EGU SO2 emissions by
approximately 70 percent.
    Regarding the consideration of new sources and major modifications,
the Alabama regional haze SIP revisions subject to this rulemaking
address the regional haze requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 whereas the
regulation cited by the Commenter, 40 CFR 51.306(d), 40 CFR 51.307,
51.166, and 51.160, are specific to the new source review (NSR)
requirements for RAVI. Furthermore, as identified in footnote 19 of
EPA's the February 28, 2012, proposed rulemaking 77 FR 11955, Alabama
has already addressed the NSR requirements for visibility (40 CFR
51.307) and RAVI LTS (40 CFR 51.306) in its SIP. New sources and major
modifications are also explicitly part of the emissions inventory used
to project future conditions.
    The projected inventories for 2009 and 2018 account for post-2002
emissions reductions from promulgated and proposed federal, state,
local, and site-specific control programs and account for expected
growth in emissions from new sources. For EGUs, the Integrated Planning
Model was run to estimate emissions of the proposed and existing units
in 2009 and 2018. These results were adjusted based on state and local
air agencies' knowledge of planned emissions controls at specific EGUs.
For non-EGUs, VISTAS used recently updated growth and control data
consistent with the data used in EPA's CAIR analyses supplemented by
state and local air agencies' data and updated forecasts from the U.S.
Department of Energy. These updates are documented in the MACTEC
emissions inventory report ``Documentation of the 2002 Base Year and
2009 and 2018 Projection Year Emission Inventories for VISTAS'' dated
February 2007 (Appendix D of Alabama's regional haze SIP submittal).
The technical information provided in the record demonstrates that the
emissions inventory in the SIP adequately reflects projection 2018
conditions and that the LTS meets the requirements of the RHR and is
approvable. EPA finds that these inventories provide a reasonable
assessment of future emissions from North Carolina sources.
    Comment 6: The Commenter believes that ADEM improperly exempted
several sources from a reasonable progress evaluation for
SO2 even though the State determined that these sources were
above its minimum threshold for performing such an analysis and
reiterates statements made in its aforementioned February 28, 2012,
comment letters regarding EPA's December 30, 2011, proposed rule. The
Commenter disagrees with ADEM's decision to exempt EGUs subject to CAIR
from conducting reasonable progress analyses. As for non-EGUs subject
to BART, the Commenter accepts ADEM's conclusion that the BART
determinations satisfy requirements under the RHR's reasonable progress
provisions for International Paper and Solutia; however, the Commenter
disagrees with Alabama's BART determinations for these units.
    Response 6: See the response to Comment 5 regarding the State's
determination that no additional SO2 controls beyond CAIR
are reasonable for its EGUs in the first implementation period.
Regarding the BART determinations for non-EGUs, EPA has reviewed the
ADEM analyses and concluded they were conducted in a manner that is
consistent with EPA's BART Guidelines and reflect a reasonable
application of EPA's guidance to these sources (see response to Comment
4).
    Comment 7: According to the Commenter, the cost effectiveness
analysis used to make the reasonable progress determination for the
Cargill, Inc. facility (Cargill) was flawed, and therefore, EPA cannot
approve Alabama's proposed SIP. The Commenter contends that the inputs
used for the efficiency of the pollution controls analyzed and the
costs attributed to those controls were improper.
    Response 7: Cargill shut down operations of this facility in 2009
and sold the site to DeBruce Grain in August 2010. DeBruce Grain plans
to operate a grain handling, shipping, and storage facility and is no
longer expected to be a main contributor to regional haze.
    Comment 8: The Commenter states that ADEM improperly estimated
emissions reductions for 2018 and that Alabama's projection of future
visibility conditions for 2018 is based on ``uncertain federal and
state pollution control projects, including, in large part, on the
emissions reductions anticipated from CAIR.'' The Commenter also
believes that anticipated emissions reductions resulting from the other
control programs considered by Alabama (e.g., Industrial Boiler MACT,
the Atlanta/Birmingham/Northern Kentucky 1997 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area SIP) are just as uncertain as those resulting under
CAIR and the Transport Rule, and that Alabama ``need[s] to base its LTS
on concrete, definite SO2 emissions reductions.'' Because of
the alleged uncertainty of the actual reductions predicted under the
pollution control programs identified by the Commenter, the Commenter
believes that additional SO2 reductions are necessary at
this time to ensure that Alabama's RPGs are met. The Commenter requests
that, at a minimum, EPA should ensure that ADEM follows through on its
commitment to re-evaluate its ability to meet its RPGs in the five-year
progress review. While the Commenter acknowledges that the RPGs exceed
the uniform rate of progress and are projected to be met, it contends
that the State should ``go beyond the URP [uniform rate of progress]
analysis in establishing RPGs and do everything it can to ensure
visibility impacts to affected Class I areas are reduced.''
    Response 8: The technical information provided in the record
demonstrates that the emissions

inventory in the SIP adequately reflects projected 2018 conditions and
should be approved. Alabama's 2018 projections are based on the State's
technical analysis of the anticipated emissions rates and level of
activity for EGUs, other point sources, nonpoint sources, on-road
sources, and off-road sources based on their emissions in the 2002 base
year, considering growth and additional emissions controls to be in
place and federally enforceable by 2018. The emissions inventory used
in the regional haze technical analyses that was developed by VISTAS
with assistance from Alabama projected 2002 emissions (the latest
region-wide inventory available at the time the submittal was being
developed) and applied reductions expected from federal and state
regulations affecting the emissions of volatile organic compounds and
the visibility impairing pollutants NOX, PM, and
SO2.
    To minimize the differences between the 2018 projected emissions
used in the Alabama regional haze submittal and what actually occurs in
2018, the RHR requires that the five-year review address any expected
significant differences due to changed circumstances from the initial
2018 projected emissions, provide updated expectations regarding
emissions for the implementation period, and evaluate the impact of
these differences on RPGs. It is expected that individual projections
within a statewide inventory will vary from actual emissions over a 16-
year period. For example, some facilities shut down whereas others
expand operations. Furthermore, economic projections and population
changes used to estimate growth often differ from actual events; new
rules are modified, changing their expected effectiveness; and
methodologies to estimate emissions improve, modifying emissions
estimates. The five-year review is a mechanism to assure that these
expected differences from projected emissions are considered and their
impact on the 2018 RPGs is evaluated. In the regional haze program,
uncertainties associated with modeled emissions projections into the
future are addressed through the requirement under the RHR to submit
periodic progress reports in the form of a SIP revision. Specifically,
40 CFR 51.308(g) requires each state to submit a report every five
years evaluating progress toward the RPGs for each mandatory Class I
area located in the state and for each Class I area outside the state
that may be affected by emissions from the state. Since this five-year
progress re-evaluation is a mandatory requirement, it is unnecessary
for EPA to take additional measures to ``ensure'' that the State meets
its reporting obligation. In the specific instances of uncertainty of
future reductions cited by the Commenter, the State's analysis of
projected emissions and its reliance on these projections to establish
its RPGs meets the requirements of the regional haze regulations and
EPA guidance.
    Regarding the need to go beyond the URP analysis when establishing
RPGs, EPA affirmed in the RHR that the URP is not a ``presumptive
target;'' rather, it is an analytical requirement for setting RPGs. See
64 FR 35731. In determining RPGs for Alabama's Class I area, the State
identified sources through its AOI methodology for reasonable progress
control evaluation and described those evaluations in its SIP. Thus,
the State went beyond the URP to identify and evaluate sources for
potential control under reasonable progress in accordance with EPA
regulations and guidance.
    Comment 9: The Commenter contends that Alabama's regional haze SIP
must require revisions to address RAVI within three years of a Federal
Land Manager (FLM) certifying visibility impairment and that the
State's commitment to address RAVI, should a FLM certify visibility
impairment, is not enough.
    Response 9: The SIP revisions do not address RAVI requirements
since this was the subject of previous rulemakings. EPA's visibility
regulations direct states to coordinate their RAVI LTS provisions with
those for regional haze and the RAVI portion of a SIP must address any
integral vistas identified by the FLMs. However, as stated in the
February 28, 2012, proposed rulemaking, the FLMs have not identified
any integral vistas in Alabama, the Class I area in Alabama is not
experiencing RAVI, and no Alabama sources are affected by the RAVI
provisions. Thus, the July 15, 2008, Alabama regional haze SIP revision
did not explicitly address the coordination of the regional haze with
the RAVI LTS although Alabama made a commitment to address RAVI should
the FLM certify visibility impairment from an individual source. EPA
finds that Alabama's regional haze SIP appropriately supplements and
augments the State's RAVI visibility provisions to address regional
haze by updating the LTS provisions as Alabama has done. The
commitments in Alabama's SIP are consistent with the regulatory
requirements for this provision.
    Comment 10a: The Commenter claims that Alabama's regional haze SIP
does not explain how monitoring data and other information is used to
determine the contribution of emissions from within the State to
regional haze visibility impairment at Class I areas within and outside
Alabama. Therefore, the Commenter believes that EPA must disapprove
Alabama's regional haze SIP.
    Comment 10b: The Commenter states that the SIP must clearly state
the method by which the State intends to report visibility monitoring
to the EPA. Additionally, the Commenter states that if Alabama plans to
rely on the referenced Visibility Information Exchange Web System
(VIEWS) Web site for reporting, the SIP must clearly state that Alabama
intends to use the Web site as its way of reporting visibility
monitoring data. ``If Alabama intends to use another method of
reporting visibility, the proposal needs to explain that. If Alabama
intends to use VIEWS for reporting, it is not sufficient for Alabama to
`encourage' VISTAS to maintain the Web site.'' The Commenter also
states that the Alabama SIP needs to have an enforceable mechanism to
transmit the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments
(IMPROVE) data to EPA as well as an enforceable mechanism to ensure
that the IMPROVE data is continually gathered. The ``SIP must include
an enforceable requirement that the data is gathered by Alabama unless
it is gathered by other entities such as VISTAS and the National Park
Service.'' The Commenter concludes by stating that ``[b]ecause such an
enforceable requirement is missing, EPA must disapprove the SIP
submittal in this regard.''
    Responses 10a, 10b: As noted by the Commenter, the primary
monitoring network for regional haze in Alabama is the IMPROVE network,
and there is currently one IMPROVE site in Alabama, within the Bankhead
National Forest and managed by the FLM, which serves as the monitoring
site for Sipsey. IMPROVE monitoring data from 2000-2004 serves as the
baseline for the regional haze program, and is relied upon in the
Alabama regional haze submittal and in providing annual visibility data
to EPA. Monitoring data is different from emissions data or analyses
conducted to attribute contribution. These analyses are part of the
ten-year implementation period updates conducted by the states.
    In its SIP revision, Alabama states its intention to rely on the
IMPROVE network for complying with the regional haze monitoring
requirement in EPA's RHR for the current and future regional haze
implementation periods. Data produced by the IMPROVE monitoring network
will be used nearly continuously for preparing the five-year

progress reports and the 10-year SIP revisions, each of which relies on
analysis of the preceding five years of data. The VIEWS Web site has
been maintained by VISTAS and the other regional planning organizations
(RPOs) to provide ready access to the IMPROVE data and data analysis
tools. Alabama is encouraging VISTAS and the other RPOs to maintain
VIEWS or a similar data management system to facilitate analysis of the
IMPROVE data. Alabama cannot legally bind federal and state
legislatures to continue to fund the monitoring program for regional
haze. Alabama's SIP adequately addresses this provision and explains
how monitoring data and other information has been and will be used to
determine the contribution of emissions from within the State to
regional haze visibility impairment at federal Class I areas.
    Comment 11: The Commenter believes that EPA should fully approve
the State's implementation plan as it applies to regional haze since it
is likely that either CAIR or the Transport Rule will be in effect in
the future.
    Response 11: Today, EPA is finalizing action on a limited approval
of Alabama's regional haze SIP that results in an approval of the
entire regional haze submission and all of its elements, preserving the
visibility benefits offered by the SIP. EPA has the authority to issue
a limited approval and believes that it is appropriate and necessary to
promulgate a limited approval of Alabama's regional haze SIP. On
December 30, 2011, EPA proposed a limited disapproval for Alabama's
regional haze SIP and explained that EPA cannot fully approve regional
haze SIP revisions that rely on CAIR for emissions reduction measures
for the reasons discussed in that action. Comments on the disapproval
are therefore beyond the scope of this rulemaking. EPA finalized the
limited disapproval of Alabama's regional haze SIP in a final action
published June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33642).
    Comment 12: The Commenter expressed concern with EPA's proposed
approach of adopting FIPs at the time of disapproval to replace
reliance on CAIR in the regional haze SIPs with reliance on the
Transport Rule. The Commenter believes that states should be given
every opportunity provided by the Act to make revisions to correct SIP
deficiencies before EPA acts by imposing a FIP.
    Response 12: As discussed in the response to Comment 11, today's
action addresses the limited approval, and EPA finalized a limited
disapproval in a separate action published on June 7, 2012. In that
same action, EPA did not finalize a FIP for Alabama. EPA's response to
comments on the final disapproval can be found in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2011-0729 at www.regulations.gov.

III. What is the effect of this final action?

    Under CAA sections 301(a) and 110(k)(6) and EPA's long-standing
guidance, a limited approval results in approval of the entire SIP
revision, even of those parts that are deficient and prevent EPA from
granting a full approval of the SIP revision. Today, EPA is finalizing
a limited approval of Alabama's July 15, 2008, regional haze SIP
revision. This limited approval results in approval of Alabama's entire
regional haze submission and all its elements. EPA is taking this
approach because Alabama's SIP will be stronger and more protective of
the environment with the implementation of those measures by the State
and having federal approval and enforceability than it would without
those measures being included in its SIP.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is finalizing a limited approval of a revision to the Alabama
SIP submitted by the State of Alabama on July 15, 2008, as meeting some
of the applicable regional haze requirements as set forth in sections
169A and 169B of the CAA and in 40 CFR 51.300-308. Also in this action,
EPA is rescinding the federal regulations in 40 CFR 52.61 that were
approved into the Alabama SIP on November 24, 1987, and approving the
provisions in Alabama's July 15, 2008, SIP submittal to meet the
monitoring and LTS requirements for RAVI at 40 CFR 51.306.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.''

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., OMB must
approve all ``collections of information'' by EPA. The Act defines
``collection of information'' as a requirement for answers to ``* * *
identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or
more persons * * *''. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). The Paperwork Reduction Act
does not apply to this action.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The RFA generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit
enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and
subchapter I, part D of the CAA do not create any new requirements but
simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing.
Therefore, because the federal SIP approval does not create any new
requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    Moreover, due to the nature of the federal-state relationship under
the CAA, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute federal
inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The CAA
forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union
Electric Co., v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.
7410(a)(2).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    Under sections 202 of the UMRA of 1995 (``Unfunded Mandates Act''),
signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact
statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a
federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to state, local, or
tribal governments in the aggregate; or to the private sector, of $100
million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-
effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203
requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small
governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that today's action does not include a federal
mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to
either state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the
private sector. This federal action approves pre-existing requirements
under state or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly,
no additional costs to

state, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result
from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have Federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that 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.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has Federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by state and local governments, or EPA
consults with state and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has Federalism implications and that preempts state law unless the
Agency consults with state and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
    This rule 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it
merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does
not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA. Thus, the requirements of
section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

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

    Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under
Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible
alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does
not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or
safety risks.

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

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    Section 12 of the NTTAA of 1995 requires federal agencies to
evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new regulation.
To comply with NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus
standards'' (VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs
and policies unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law
or otherwise impractical.
    EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to
the use of VCS.

J. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

K. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by August 27, 2012. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: June 14, 2012.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart B--Alabama

0
2. Section 52.50 (e) is amended by adding a new entry for ``Regional
Haze Plan'' at the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.50  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                                     EPA Approved Alabama Non-Regulatory Provisions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                State submittal
     Name of nonregulatory SIP  provision          Applicable geographic or       date/effective      EPA approval date             Explanation
                                                      nonattainment area               date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Regional haze plan...........................  Statewide......................          7/15/2008              6/28/2012            [Insert citation of
                                                                                publication].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. Section 52.61 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (a) to
read as follows:

Sec.  52.61  Visibility protection.

    (a) [Reserved]
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-15475 Filed 6-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 160 (Monday, August 19, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 42977]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17803]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0369]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of a Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Human Space
Flight Requirements for Crew and Space Flight Participants

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the Human Space Flight Requirements for Crew and
Space Flight Participants collection of information was published on
June 12, 2019. The collection involves information demonstrating that a
launch or reentry operation involving a human participant will meet the
risk criteria and requirements to ensure public safety. The information
to be collected is necessary for the FAA to assess crew qualification
and training; for operators to inform space flight participants and
crew members of the risks associated with launch and reentry
activities; for the implementation of waiver of claims; and to ensure
environmental control and life support systems and other systems
adequately protect public health and safety.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by September 18, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be
addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of
Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW, Washington,
DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shirley McBride by email at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and, (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0720.
    Title: Same title as above.
    Form Numbers: N/A.
    Type of Review: Renewal.
    Background: The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment
period soliciting comments on the Human Space Flight Requirements for
Crew and Space Flight Participants collection of information was
published on June 12, 2019 (84 FR 27391). The FAA established
requirements for human space flight of crew and space flight
participants as required by the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act
of 2004. The information collected is used by the FAA, a licensee or
permittee, a space flight participant, or a crew member. The FAA uses
the information to ensure that a launch or reentry operation involving
a human on board a vehicle will meet the risk criteria and requirements
to ensure public safety.
    Respondents: All commercial space entities that propose to conduct
a launch or reentry with flight crew or space flight participants on
board must comply with this collection.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 4 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 808 hours.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 13, 2019.
Kelvin B. Coleman,
Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of Commercial Space
Transportation.
[FR Doc. 2019-17803 Filed 8-16-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 142 (Wednesday, July 24, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 44556]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17742]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1986-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: Klamath Energy Construction Agreement to be effective
9/16/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/16/13.
    Accession Number: 20130716-5196.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/6/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1987-000.
    Applicants: Catalina Solar, LLC.
    Description: Catalina Solar LLC Notice of Cancellation of Market-
Based Rate Tariff to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 7/16/13.
    Accession Number: 20130716-5200.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/6/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1988-000.
    Applicants: Eligo Energy NY, LLC.
    Description: Initial Eligo Energy Market Based Rate Filing to be
effective 7/17/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/17/13.
    Accession Number: 20130717-5003.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/7/13.

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

    Dated: July 17, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-17742 Filed 7-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 28, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 81409-81412]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32354]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0437; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-130-AD;
Amendment 39-16539; AD 2010-25-06]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Model 737-200, -300,
-400, and -500 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Model 737-200, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. This AD requires
repetitive inspections for cracking of certain fuselage frames and stub
beams, and corrective actions if necessary. This AD also provides for
an optional repair, which would terminate the repetitive inspections.
For airplanes on which a certain repair is done, this AD also requires
repetitive inspections for cracking of certain fuselage frames and stub
beams, and corrective actions if necessary. This AD results from
reports of the detection of fatigue cracks at certain frame sections,
in addition to stub beam cracking, caused by high flight cycle stresses
from both pressurization and maneuver loads. We are issuing this AD to
detect and correct fatigue cracking of certain fuselage frames and stub
beams and possible

severed frames, which could result in reduced structural integrity of
the frames. This reduced structural integrity can increase loading in
the fuselage skin, which will accelerate skin crack growth and could
result in rapid decompression of the fuselage.

DATES: This AD is effective February 1, 2011.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of February 1,
2011.

ADDRESSES: 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>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.

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 AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the Document Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
917-6447; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that would apply to
certain Model 737-200, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. That NPRM
was published in the Federal Register on May 7, 2010 (75 FR 25124).
That NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections for cracking of
certain fuselage frames and stub beams, and corrective actions if
necessary. That NPRM also proposed an optional repair, which would
terminate the repetitive inspections. For airplanes on which a certain
repair is done, that NPRM also proposed to require repetitive
inspections for cracking of certain fuselage frames and stub beams, and
corrective actions if necessary.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We considered the comments received.

Request To Change Paragraph (i)

    Boeing asked that paragraph (i) of the NPRM be changed to include a
high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection. Boeing stated that
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1254, Revision 1, dated July 9,
2009, provides two options for inspections: detailed and HFEC. Boeing
added that for areas where the repair hinders the inspection, both
detailed and HFEC inspection options were provided, depending on which
option was chosen for the original inspection.
    We agree with the commenter for the reasons provided. We have
changed paragraph (i) of this AD to include an option for the HFEC
inspection.

Request To Change Compliance Time

    Boeing also asked that the compliance time specified in paragraph
(g)(3) of the NPRM be changed to ``the sooner of (i) within 4,500
flight cycles after the effective date of the AD or (ii) within 9,000
flight cycles after the previous inspection done in accordance with
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1254, dated February 17, 2005.''
Boeing stated that new data indicate that the repeat interval for the
area below the floor should be changed to 9,000 flight cycles from
4,500 flight cycles. Boeing added that for airplanes on which the
inspection in the original issue of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1254 has been done, the compliance time as written in Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-53A1254, Revision 1 (i.e., 3,000 flight cycles
from release of Revision 1 or 4,500 flight cycles from previous
inspection, whichever is sooner), could cause a significant impact by
putting some airplanes out of compliance. Boeing noted that the NPRM
could potentially allow a longer compliance time than that in the
original issue of the service bulletin. Boeing recommends that
paragraph (g)(3) be changed as specified previously.
    We acknowledge the commenter's concern and provide the following.
The compliance times required by paragraph (g) are at the ``later of,''
not the ``sooner of,'' the compliance times specified in paragraphs
(g)(3)(i) and (g)(3)(ii). We agree that the compliance times specified
in paragraphs (g)(3)(i) and (g)(3)(ii) of this AD are somewhat
confusing and can be clarified. Therefore, we have combined paragraphs
(g)(3)(i) and (g)(3)(ii) with paragraph (g)(3) to provide that
clarification.

Request To Change Initial Inspection Threshold

    Southwest Airlines asked that the initial inspection threshold
required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of the NPRM be changed.
Southwest stated that the specified threshold will pose a significant
burden on its airline to complete the inspections within the required
timeframe. Southwest projected that half of its Model 737-300 and -500
fleet will require an out-of-sequence maintenance visit to support this
inspection threshold. Southwest added that this is based on its current
substantial maintenance schedule, fleet utilization, and the proposed
compliance thresholds based on each airplane's total flight cycles.
    We do not agree with the commenter's request. No supporting data
were submitted proposing alternative inspection thresholds to maintain
an adequate level of safety for its fleet. However, under the
provisions of paragraph (m) of this AD, we will consider requests for
approval of an alternative inspection threshold if sufficient data are
submitted to substantiate that changing the initial inspection
threshold would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not
changed the AD in this regard.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD with the changes described previously. We also determined that
these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or
increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 635 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to
comply with this AD.

                                             Table--Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Average                          Number of
                                       Work      labor                             U.S.-
              Action                  hours     rate per    Cost per product    registered       Fleet cost
                                                  hour                           airplanes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BS 616 and BS 639 inspection/lower         15        $85  $1,275 per                   635  $809,625 per
 frame and stub beam.                                      inspection cycle.                 inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of
compliance 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

0
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 AD:

2010-25-06 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-16539. Docket No. FAA-
2010-0437; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-130-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective February 1,
2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-200, -300, -
400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category; as
identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1254, Revision 1,
dated July 9, 2009.

Subject

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

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD results from the detection of fatigue cracks at
certain frame sections, in addition to stub beam cracking, caused by
high flight cycle stresses from both pressurization and maneuver
loads. The Federal Aviation Administration is issuing this AD to
detect and correct fatigue cracking of certain fuselage frames and
stub beams and possible severed frames, which could result in
reduced structural integrity of the frames. This reduced structural
integrity can increase loading in the fuselage skin, which will
accelerate skin crack growth and could result in rapid decompression
of the fuselage.

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Repetitive Inspections and Corrective Actions

    (g) At the applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(1),
(g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD: Do a detailed or high frequency eddy
current (HFEC) inspection for cracking of body station (BS) 616 and
BS 639 frame webs, inner chord, and outer chord, and the stub beams;
and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions;
by accomplishing all the actions specified in Part 1 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1254, Revision 1, dated July 9, 2009, except as specified in
paragraphs (i) and (j) of this AD. Do all applicable related
investigative and corrective actions before further flight.
Thereafter, repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 4,500
flight cycles since accomplishing the detailed inspection or at
intervals not to exceed 9,000 flight cycles since accomplishing the
HFEC inspection, as applicable.
    (1) For airplanes on which no inspection of the BS 616 and BS
639 frames specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1254,
dated February 17, 2005, has been done as of the effective date of
this AD, and that have accumulated fewer than 55,000 total flight
cycles as of the effective date of this AD: Inspect within 3,000
flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, or before the
accumulation of 56,500 total flight cycles, whichever occurs first.
    (2) For airplanes on which no inspection of the BS 616 and BS
639 frames specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1254,
dated February 17, 2005, has been done as of the effective date of
this AD, and that have accumulated 55,000 or more total flight
cycles as of the effective date of this AD: Inspect within 1,500
flight cycles after the effective date of this AD.
    (3) For airplanes on which a detailed or HFEC inspection of the
BS 616 and BS 639 frames, specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-53A1254, dated February 17, 2005, has been done as of the
effective date of this AD: Inspect within 4,500 flight cycles after
the previous inspection done in accordance with Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-53A1254, dated February 17, 2005, or within 3,000
flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs
later.

Post-Repair Repetitive Inspections and Corrective Actions

    (h) For airplanes on which the repair specified in Part 4 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1254, Revision 1, dated July 9, 2009, has been done: At the
applicable time specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this
AD, do a detailed or HFEC inspection for

cracking of the replacement frame section (frame webs, inner chord,
and outer chord); and do all applicable related investigative and
corrective actions; by accomplishing all the actions specified in
Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-53A1254, Revision 1, dated July 9, 2009, except as
specified in paragraphs (i) and (j) of this AD. Do all applicable
related investigative and corrective actions before further flight.
Thereafter, repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 4,500
flight cycles since accomplishing the detailed inspection or at
intervals not to exceed 9,000 flight cycles since accomplishing the
HFEC inspection, as applicable.
    (1) For airplanes on which a partial frame splice repair at BS
616 or BS 639 has been done, and the inner chord and web have been
cold-worked: Inspect within 44,000 flight cycles after the repair
has been done.
    (2) For airplanes on which a partial frame splice repair at BS
616 or BS 639 has been done, and the inner chord and web have not
been cold-worked: Inspect within 29,000 flight cycles after that
repair has been done.

Alternative Inspection of Repaired or Modified Area

    (i) For airplanes on which a repair or preventative modification
exists on the inner chord below the floor which prevents the
accomplishment of the detailed or HFEC inspection in that area as
required by paragraph (g) of this AD: In lieu of inspecting that
area, do a detailed or HFEC inspection of the inner chord along the
length of the repair and around the fastener heads in accordance
with Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-53A1254, Revision 1, dated July 9, 2009.

Exceptions to Service Information

    (j) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1254, Revision 1,
dated July 9, 2009, specifies to contact Boeing for repair
instructions and repair: Before further flight, repair the cracking
using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified
in paragraph (m) of this AD.
    (k) Although Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1254, Revision
1, dated July 9, 2009, specifies to submit information to the
manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.

Terminating Action

    (l) Doing the repair specified in Part 4 of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-53A1254, Revision 1, dated July 9, 2009, terminates the
repetitive inspection requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD for
the repaired frame only.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (m)(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. Send information to
ATTN: Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S,
FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (425)
917-6590. Or, e-mail information 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 an
Authorized Representative for 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.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (n) You must use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1254,
Revision 1, dated July 9, 2009, to do the actions required by this
AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (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>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the 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>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the 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/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington on December 16, 2010.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-32354 Filed 12-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 124 (Monday, June 29, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 37035]
[FR Doc No: 2015-15931]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Tenth Meeting: Tactical Operations Committee (TOC)

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

ACTION: Tenth meeting notice of Tactical Operations Committee.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the
tenth meeting of the Tactical Operations Committee.

DATES: The meeting will be held July 21st from 9:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA Headquarters, 1150 18th
Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-
9339, fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org or Trin
Mitra, TOC Secretary, RTCA, Inc<EMAIL_ADDRESS>202-330-0655.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a meeting of the Tactical Operations Committee. The
agenda will include the following:

Tuesday, July 21, 2015

    1. Opening of Meeting/Introduction of TOC Members--Co Chairs Jim
Bowman and Dale Wright
    2. Official Statement of Designated Federal Official--Elizabeth Ray
    3. Approval of May 20, 2015 Meeting Summary
    4. Recommendation on NOTAM Search Phase 2 Implementation
    5. Recommendation on GPS Adjacent Band Compatibility Exclusion
Zones
    6. Recommendation on Class B Airspace Design, Designation and
Evaluation
    7. Recommendation on Improving Safety and Operations in the
Caribbean
    8. Update on Airport Construction Task: Case Studies, Construction
Process & Timeline
    9. Update on National Procedure Assessment Initiative and Approval
of TORs
    10. Anticipated Issues for TOC consideration and action at the next
meeting
    11. Other business
    12. Adjourn

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 23, 2015.
Latasha Robinson,
Management & Program Analyst, NextGen, Program Oversight and
Administration, Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2015-15931 Filed 6-26-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


The body weight of males used in the non spawning adult 14 Day Methoxychlor assay ranged from 1.6 g to 5.5 g ( Figure 3.60). There were no significant differences in mean body weight among treatments ( Kruskal Wallis, H = 3.80, p = 0. 284, df = 3). The achieved power for this endpoint was 30%, and the sample size required to detect a significant difference from the Control treatment at 80% power was 27 ( Table 3.52).

The body length of males used in the Non spawning adult 14 Day Methoxychlor assay ranged from 52 mm to 70 mm ( Figure 3.61). There were no significant differences in mean body length among treatments ( Kruskal Wallis, H = 1.73, p = 0.630, df = 3). The achieved power for this endpoint was 16%, and the sample size required to detect a significant difference from the Control treatment at 80% power was 56 ( Table 3.52). DRAFT EPA WA 3 8 ( Report of WA 2 18 Study) 88 Preliminary Data: May be subject to change following QA and Management review July 30, 2003 Mid Low High Control 5.5 4.5 3.5 2.5 1.5 treatment fish_ wgt_ whole Boxplots of fish_ wgt by treatmen ( means are indicated by solid circles)

Figure 3.60. Boxplot of male body weight ( g) by treatment for the Non spawning Adult 14 Day Methoxychlor assay. The box represents the interquartile range, whiskers represent the data range, the horizontal line is the median value, and the circle is the mean value.

Table 3.52. Summary statistics and power estimates for male body weight ( g) data for the Non spawning Adult 14 Day Methoxychlor assay Level N Mean SD CV Achieved Power 1 Sample Size Required 2 Control 10 2.9 0.5 17% 30% 27 Low 10 3.4 0.8 24% Medium 10 3.2 1.1 33% High 9 3.8 0.9 25% 1 Calculated from natural log transformed data; sample size = 9. 2 Required size to detect a significant difference from Control treatment based on maximum achieved absolute difference; calculated on natural log transformed data. DRAFT EPA WA 3 8 ( Report of WA 2 18 Study) 89 Preliminary Data: May be subject to change following QA and Management review July 30, 2003 Mid Low High Control 70 60 50 treatment fish_ length_ fork Boxplots of fish_ len by treatmen ( means are indicated by solid circles)

Figure 3.61. Boxplot of male body length ( mm) by treatment for the Non spawning Adult 14 Day Methoxychlor assay. The box represents the interquartile range, whiskers represent the data range, the horizontal line is the median value, and the circle is the mean value.

Table 3.53. Summary statistics and power estimates for male body length ( mm) data for the Nonspawning Adult 14 Day Methoxychlor assay Level N Mean SD CV Achieved Power 1 Sample Size Required 2 Control 10 58.8 3.9 7% 16% 56 Low 10 60.6 4.8 8% Medium 10 59.9 5.4 9% High 9 61.8 4.5 7% 1 Calculated from natural log transformed data; sample size = 9. 2 Required size to detect a significant difference from Control treatment based on maximum achieved absolute difference; calculated on natural log transformed data.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 238 (Thursday, December 11, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73571-73572]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29054]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP15-16-000; PF14-6-000]

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC; Notice of
Application

    Take notice that on November 18, 2014, Transcontinental Gas Pipe
Line Company, LLC (Transco), 2800 Post Oak Boulevard, Houston, TX
77056-6106, filed an application under section 7(b) and 7(c) of the
Natural Gas Act, requesting authorization to construct, own, and
operate approximately 43.5 miles of pipeline looping facilities and
88,500 horsepower of compression at one new and three existing
compressor stations, all in Alabama (Hillabee Expansion Project), and
to abandon the 1,131,730 dekatherms per day project capacity by lease
to Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC (Sabal Trail) (Docket No. CP15-17-
000), all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file
with the Commission and open for public inspection. The filing may also
be viewed on the web at 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. For assistance, please
contact FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at (866) 208-
3676, or TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding the proposed project should be directed to
Derrick Hughey, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC, P.O. Box
1396, Houston, Texas 77251, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER> (telephone) or
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    On November 8, 2013, the Commission staff granted Transco's request
to utilize the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Pre-Filing
Process and assigned Docket No. PF14-6-000 to staff activities
involving the project. Now, as of the filing of this application on
November 18, 2014, the NEPA Pre-Filing Process for this project has
ended. From this time forward, this proceeding will be conducted in
Docket No. CP15-16-000, as noted in the caption of this Notice.
    Because the environmental review of the Hillabee Expansion Project
must also include both Sabal Trail and Florida Southeast Connection
LLC's FSC Project (Docket No. CP14-554-000), preparation of the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to comply with the NEPA of 1969
will combine all three applications. Within 90 days after the issuance
of this Notice of Application, concurrent with the Notice of
Application in CP15-17-000, the Commission staff will issue a Notice of
Schedule for Environmental Review that will indicate the anticipated
date for the Commission's staff issuance of the final EIS analyzing all
three proposals. The issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental
Review will also serve to notify federal and state agencies of the
timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent
need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date
of issuance of the Commission staff's final EIS.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party

status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary
of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the
applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 7 copies of
filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant
and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the
proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the
proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    Comment Date: December 24, 2014.

    Dated: December 3, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-29054 Filed 12-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P