[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 44 (Monday, March 7, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12592-12593]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04525]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2020-0167; FRL-8989-02-R6]

Air Plan Approval; New Mexico; Clean Air Act Requirements for
Emissions Inventory and Emissions Statement for Nonattainment Area for
the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the
State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of New Mexico to
meet the Emissions Inventory (EI), and Emissions Statement (ES)
requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) for the
Sunland Park ozone nonattainment area for the 2015 8-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). EPA is approving this
action pursuant to section 110 and part D of the CAA and EPA's
regulations.

DATES: This final rule is effective on April 6, 2022.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action, Docket No.
EPA-R06-OAR-2020-0167 All documents in the docket are listed on the
https://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., 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 electronically
through https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Nevine Salem, EPA Region 6 Office,
Infrastructure and Ozone Section,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected].
Out of an abundance of caution for members of the public and our staff,
the EPA Region 6 office will be closed to the public to reduce the risk
of transmitting COVID-19. Please call or email the contact listed above
if you need alternative access to material indexed but not provided in
the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

I. Background

    On October 15, 2021 (86 FR 57388), the EPA published a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the State of New Mexico, for the
approval of the State's 2017 base year emission inventories and
emissions statement requirements for the Sunland Park Sunland Park
marginal ozone nonattainment area for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The
background for this action and rational for EPA's proposed action are
explained in the NPRM and will not be restated here. One anonymous
comment was received during the public comment period which ended on
November 15, 2021.

II. Response to Comments

    Comment: The commenter believes that New Mexico is doing its best
in implementing regulations promulgated by the EPA under the CAA. The
commenter inquired about EPA's procedure for enforcing the CAA
regulations, and expressed concern that the clean air policy would fail
without the collective actions of other states.
    Response: We appreciate the commenter's perspective that New Mexico
is doing its best in implementing CAA regulations promulgated by the
EPA. However, the issues raised by the commenter are outside the scope
of this action. This action is limited to the approval of the Emissions
Inventory and Emissions Statement requirements for the 2015 8-hour
ozone NAAQS submitted by the state of New Mexico, for the Sunland
Parkozone nonattainment area, New Mexico, under the CAA.
    The CAA establishes a comprehensive program for controlling and
improving the nation's air quality through state and federal
regulation. This comprehensive program is based on cooperative
federalism that divides responsibilities between the EPA and the
states. Under the CAA, the EPA establishes the national air quality
standards, and the states are primarily responsible for implementing
those standards, with oversight from EPA.
    Upon the promulgation or revision of a NAAQS by the EPA, each state
is required to submit a state implementation plan (SIP). The SIP
provides the ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of the
NAAQS, and must ``contain adequate provisions'' prohibiting air
emissions in amounts that contribute significantly to nonattainment or
that interfere with the maintenance of the NAAQS in neighboring states.
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Where a state fails to submit all or a
portion of a SIP as required by the CAA, or where the EPA disapproves a
SIP as not meeting the CAA requirements, the EPA will assert federal
oversight authority and develop a federal implementation plan (FIP) for
the state. It may also develop a FIP for tribal lands if a tribe elects
not to develop their own implementation plan, as appropriate.
    The applicable state and the EPA both have authority to bring
enforcement actions for violations of federally-approved SIPs. Members
of the public can also file citizen suits under the CAA to address
violations of SIPs. For more details on Air Quality Implementation
Plans please visit https://www.epa.gov/air-quality-implementation-plans.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the New Mexico SIP revisions submitted on
September 10, 2020 to address the emissions inventory and emissions
statement requirements for the Sunland Park area for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS. The emissions inventory we are approving is listed in Table 1 of
the NPRM. We are approving the emissions inventory because it contains
a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions
for all relevant sources in accordance with CAA sections 172(c)(3) and
182(a)(1) requirements. We are also approving the New Mexico emission
statement because it includes the approved provision addressing the
emission statement requirement in CAA section 182(a)(3)(B). New Mexico
adopted the emission inventories consistent with the requirement for
reasonable public notice and opportunity for a public hearing.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735,

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will
not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November
9, 2000).
    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 Start Printed Page
11875 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 action 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).
    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 May 6, 2022. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and record keeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: February 28, 2022.
Earthea Nance,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part
52 as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart GG--New Mexico

0
2. In Sec.  52.1620 (e), the table titled ``EPA-Approved Nonregulatory
Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the New Mexico SIP'' is
amended by adding the entry ``2017 Emissions Inventory and Emissions
Statement for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS'' at the end of the table to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1620   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

            EPA-Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the New Mexico SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Applicable           State
      Name of SIP provision          geographic or       submittal/     EPA approval date       Explanation
                                   nonattainment area  effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
2017 Emissions Inventory and      Sunland Park ozone        9/20/2020  3/7/2022 [Insert    .....................
 Emissions Statement for the       nonattainment area.                  Federal Register
 2015 Ozone NAAQS.                                                      citation].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2022-04525 Filed 3-4-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


                      UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                          SECTOR POLICIES AND PROGRAMS DIVISION
                       OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS
                               OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION

November 22, 2011

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Summary of Pulp Bleaching Technology Review

FROM:	Kelley Spence	(EPA/OAR/OAQPS/SPPD/NRG)
      John Bradfield (EPA/OAR/OAQPS/SPPD/NRG)

TO:		Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0544

This memorandum summarizes the technology review of bleaching technology in pulp mills subject to 40 CFR 63, subpart S analyzed for the Risk and Technology Review (RTR) of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the pulp and paper industry.

Background[1][,2]:

   Bleaching is the whitening of pulp utilizing a chemical treatment; bleaching can be lignin preserving or lignin removing, based on which chemicals are used for treatment.  Lignin preserving is commonly used for mechanical and secondary pulps, as they are used to produce products of which brightness is not always required, such as newspapers.  Bleaching that removes lignin is typically used for higher grades of paper, such as printing and writing grades, where brightness has a significant impact on the final product properties.
   Bleaching is performed in a continuous sequence of processing which involves chemical treatment, chemical extraction, and washing.  Bleaching chemicals include the following: chlorine (C), hypochlorite (H), alkaline extraction (E), chlorine dioxide (D), oxygen (O), peroxide (P), ozone (Z), and enzymes (X).  These chemicals are used in sequence to obtain the desired product brightness. For example, a sequence for a highly bleached sheet could be OD(EOP)DD, representing oxygen delignification, followed by chlorine dioxide, enriched extraction with oxygen and peroxide, followed by two more chlorine dioxide stages. The process involves mixing the pulp and bleaching chemicals, reaction of the chemical in a retention tower, and removal of the chemical by washing the pulp.  Washing is typically performed between each stage, to remove chemicals prior to the following stage.  An example of this sequence is shown in Figure 1.

                  Figure 1: Bleaching line sequence OD(EOP)DD

   Prior to the original NESHAP, chlorine was used for bleaching. It was replaced by most facilities with chlorine dioxide to meet effluent guidelines and federal water rules after promulgation of "The Cluster Rule" (a simultaneous publication of Federal water and air pollution control regulations for the pulp and paper industry).
   Subpart S requires mills to collect and control bleaching process vent emissions from stages utilizing chlorinated compounds with a caustic scrubber and to eliminate the use of certain bleaching chemicals (chlorine and hypochlorite) from kraft, sulfite, and soda pulp bleach plants. In this definition, a stage consists of a retention tower, washers, seal tanks, chemical and steam mixers, and vacuum pumps. There are three alternative emission limits for total chlorinated HAP (excluding chloroform):
   1. Reduce chlorinated HAP emissions by 99% weight
   2. Achieve a total outlet mass emission rate less than or equal to 0.002 pounds chlorinated
       HAPs per ton oven-dried pulp for all subject stages
   3. Achieve an outlet concentration of chlorinated HAPs less than or equal to 10 ppmv
For chloroform, subpart S requires elimination of the use of chlorine and hypochlorite, or compliance with the applicable effluent limitations guidelines and standards in 40 CFR 430.

Developments in Practices, Processes, and Control Technologies

2011 Information Collection Request (ICR)  -  Part 1 Technologies
   The Information Collection Request (ICR)[3] collected data from the major and synthetic minor pulp and paper source facilities in the US.  Of these respondents, 98 facilities reported (in the bleaching tab of the survey) that they perform pulp bleaching with 164 bleaching lines. Elemental chlorine free (ECF) processing was used in 104 bleaching lines, while totally chlorine free (TCF) was used in 31 lines, and processed chlorine free (PCF) was used in 22 lines.  The remaining 7 lines utilized peroxide, sodium sulfate, hypochlorite, chlorine, or a combination of these bleaching chemicals. Oxygen delignification was utilized on 42 of the ECF bleaching lines to reduce emissions and bleaching chemical cost and consumption. Review of the survey data also showed 2 major source facilities, subject only to the effluent guidelines referenced in section 63.445(d)(1) that utilize chlorine as a bleaching agent and 2 that utilize hypochlorite. Options were not recommended for ending the use of chlorine and hypochlorite at these facilities, as it would be a change to the effluent guidelines, not the air regulations.
   There were 108 reported scrubbers in the Part I database. Packed-tower caustic scrubbers were the most popular type of air pollution control device used to collect and reduce emissions.  Packing material was typically saddles made of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and emissions reductions were reported at greater than 99%. White liquor, weak wash, and sodium hydroxide with fresh water were commonly reported as the source of liquid for the scrubber.

               Table 1: Summary technologies from ICR part I review

                             Number of Facilities
Facilities performing bleaching
                                      98
Bleach lines
                                      164
      ECF (elemental chlorine free)
                                      104
      TCF (totally chlorine free)
                                      31
      PCF (processed chlorine free)
                                      22
     Other
                                       7
O2 delig pretreatment
                                      42

Facilities (59) provided bleach plant scrubber test reports for chlorine and chlorine dioxide with their Part I ICR responses.  The common test methods were EPA M26A and NCASI 520 & 548.  The majority of tests were performed once to show compliance, however, several permitting authorities required testing annually or every five years (once per permit cycle).

Review of RBLC
   Review of the RBLC identified two facilities (RBLC ID: OK-0112 and WI-0205) with VOC BACT-PSD control methods for bleaching.  The facility in Oklahoma utilized bleaching using no chlorine or chlorine dioxide; the facility in Wisconsin conducted mechanical bleaching with only hydrogen peroxide, sodium hydrosulfite, and sodium borohydride[4].

Review of Other Available Information
   The Multi-Pollutant Emission Reduction Analysis Foundation (MERAF) for the Pulp and Paper Sector report was reviewed for additional information[5].  The report was prepared by AMEC Forest Industry Consulting for Environment Canada and The Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment (CCME). This report identifies the current best design for chlorine dioxide generation as venting miscellaneous vents from the process through a tail gas scrubber and to use the tail gas packed tower scrubber (using chilled water) after the chlorine dioxide absorption tower to reduce air emissions.
   Mills that use Chlorine Dioxide (ClO2) for bleaching must generate it on site since it is unsafe to transport.  A review of the air permits collected under Part I of the ICR indicates that the control technology discussed above, caustic scrubbing, is typical for the control of chlorinated compounds from ClO2 generation units and is equally effective (i.e. 99%+).  Because similar technology is also required for bleaching vents employing chlorinated compounds under Subpart S, facilities can employ a common scrubber for both processes instead of a stand alone scrubber.

Available HAP Emissions Data:

   Substantial HAP emissions reductions were achieved through the implementation of subpart S for beaching vents. HAPs from this process originate in the incoming pulp or from side reactions that occur during bleaching.

2011 Information Collection Request (ICR)  -  Part II Data
   A total of approximately 2,600 tons of HAP per year are emitted from bleaching, according the ICR Part II data collected. The average amount emitted from these facilities is approximately 38 tons per year.

NCASI Data
   Toxic air emissions from kraft mill bleach plants were tested and reported by NCASI (Technical Bulletin No. 973, page 15-25), mean emission factors are presented in Table 2. Of the United States facilities tested, only 5 of 54 were either ECF or TCF facilities. All facilities tested in Canada (6) were ECF mills. This means that the emission factors shown in Table 2 are limited in their representation of chlorinated HAPs from mills utilizing ECF or TCF bleaching. Also noted is that chloroform is formed at approximately 0.3  -  3.0 lb/ODTP in hypochlorite bleaching; ECF mills, however, only produce 0.005 lb/ODTP. The quality of bleach plant scrubber shower water and type of wood are thought to have an impact on VOC compounds from the bleach plant.

                  Table 2: Summary of air toxic emissions from
                     kraft mill bleach plants (NCASI TB 973)

                                   Pollutant
                                    Non-ECF
                             Emissions (lb/ADTBP)
                                    Non-ECF
                                No. of Sources
                                     ECF
                             Emissions (lb/ADTBP)
                                     ECF
                                No. of Sources
Acetaldehyde
                                   1.64E-03
                                      39

Acetone
                                   3.70E-03
                                      47

Acetophenone
                                      --
                                      15

Acrolein
                                   6.23E-05
                                      15

Acrylonitrile
                                  <1.3E-04
                                       1

Aniline
                                  <3.7E-08
                                       1

Benzaldehyde
                                   2.80E-04
                                      12

Benzene
                                   5.74E-05
                                      42

Biphenyl
                                      --
                                       3

Bromodichloromethane
                                   3.70E-03
                                       8

Bromomethane
                                  <6.4E-04
                                       1

1,3-Butadiene
                                   4.94E-05
                                       6

Carbon Disulfide
                                   1.11E-04
                                       5

Carbon Tetrachloride
                                   1.92E-04
                                      16
                                   5.06E-06
                                       2
3-Carene (sftwds)
                                   4.72E-03
                                      10

3-Carene (hdwds)
                                      --
                                       3

Catechol
                                  <8.4E-08
                                       1

Chlorobenzene
                                   9.30E-04
                                      14
                                   1.07E-05
                                       8
Chloromethane
                                  <8.8E-04
                                       1

m-Cresol
                                      --
                                       2

o-Cresol
                                   2.68E-03
                                       5

Cresols (mixed isomers)
                                      --
                                      --

Crotonaldehyde
                                   6.20E-05
                                       2

Cumene
                                   2.20E-04

                                       2

Cyclohexanone
                                   9.40E-05

                                       5

p-Cymene (sftwds)
                                   3.84E-04

                                       5

p-Cymene (hdwds)
                                      --

                                       3

1,2-Dibromoethane
                                   2.33E-04

                                       3

1,1-Dichloroethane
                                  <9.7E-05

                                       1

1,2-Dichloroethane
                                   6.90E-05

                                      13
                                            --
                                            8
1,1-Dichloroethene
                                  <1.8E-03

                                       1

1,2-Diochloropropane
                                  <9.1E-05

                                       1

1,2-Dichloroethylene
                                   3.20E-04

                                      13
                                         9.30E-06
                                            7
1,2-Dimethoxyethane
                                      --

                                       3

Ethanol
                                   2.50E-03

                                      24

Ethyl Benzene
                                   8.00E-06

                                       3

Formaldehyde
                                   6.21E-04

                                      30

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
                                   4.34E-03

                                       1

Hexachloroethane
                                      --

                                       6
                                          2.50E-02
                                             1
n-Hexane
                                   2.80E-05

                                      12

Hydrochloric Acid
                                   2.30E-02

                                       7

Iodomethane
                                  <5.3E-05
                                       1
1

Isopropanol
                                   1.48E-03
                                      17
17

Limonene (sftwds)
                                   5.20E-04

1

                                   Pollutant
                             Emissions (lb/ADTBP)
                                No. of Sources
                                     ECF
                             Emissions (lb/ADTBP)
                                     ECF
                                No. of Sources
Limonene (hdwds)
                                      --

1

Methanol
                                   1.62E-01

57

Methyl Ethyl Ketone
                                   1.40E-03

48

Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
                                   7.56E-04

24

Methylene Chloride
                                   1.69E-03

33
        1.67E-04
               7
Napthalene
                                      --

4

Phenol
                                   4.96E-03

17

Alpha-Pinene (sftwds)
                                   1.60E-02

24

Alpha-Pinene (hdwds)
                                   5.83E-03

7

Beta-Pinene (sftwds)
                                   6.39E-03

23

Beta-Pinene(hdwds)
                                   2.14E-03

5

Propionaldehyde
                                   7.01E-04

8

Styrene
                                   2.04E-04

22

Terpenes (sftwds)
                                   3.18E-02

9

Terpenes (hdwds)
                                   7.70E-03

8

Alpha-Terpineol
                                      --

2

Tetrachloroethylene
                                   3.74E-04

10
             --
              7
Toluene
                                   2.37E-04

23

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
                                   2.73E-03

14
        1.45E-04
              6
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
                                   2.11E-04

13
             --
              8
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
                                   2.66E-04

13
        6.85E-06
              1
Trichloroethylene
                                   4.43E-04

21
        9.70E-06
              4
Valeraldehyde
                                   5.10E-04

6

m-,p-Xylene
                                   1.93E-04

12

o-Xylene
                                   1.03E-04

12

Xylenes (mixed)
                                   2.17E-04

21

VOCs as C
                                   1.03E-01

34

Review of Other Available Data
   The Multi-Pollutant Emission Reduction Analysis Foundation (MERAF) for the Pulp and Paper Sector report was reviewed for additional data (i.e., Canadian data).  A summary of the estimated emissions are shown in Table 3 for emission points in the bleaching process, based on stage chemical type. As expected, the chlorine and hypochlorite bleaching stages emit significantly more HAP than the extraction and the chlorine dioxide stages.

            Table 3: Summary of estimated emissions from MERAF (kg/t)
Emission Point
Total HAP[a]
Chloroform
Chlorine
Methanol
C-stage tower
0.054-0.252
0.0009-0.01
0.05-0.21
0.00062-0.029
C-stage washer
0.062-0.647
0.0009-0.0113
0.05-0.21
0.009-0.415
C-stage seal tank
0.0084-0.323
5.5E-5 - 7.2E-4
0.00127-0.0053
0.0067-0.311
E-stage tower
0.013-0.026
0.0014-0.01
0-0.003
0.0027-0.0054
E-stage washer
0.031-0.168
0.0014-0.01
0-0.003
0.0035-0.078
E-stage seal tank
0.013-0.101
0.00009-0.0005
0-0.000076
0.0026-0.029
D-stage tower
0.011-0.036
0.00003-0.02
0.01
0.0002
D-stage washer
0.01-0.06
0.00003-0.02
0.01
0.00001-0.003
D-stage seal tank
0.0005-0.02
0.000003-0.001
0.0003
0.000008-0.002
H-stage tower
0.088-0.62
0.04-0.05
0.01
0.00049-0.0063
H-stage washer
0.15
0.04
0.01
0.091
H-stage seal tank
0.074
0.003
0.0003
0.068
Acid sewer
0.12-0.52
0.008-0.005
0
0.05-0.5
Caustic sewer
0.041-0.032
0.002-0.0023
0
0.03-0.3

Regulatory Options:

   Section 112(d)(6) of the CAA requires EPA to review and revise the MACT standards, as necessary, taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies. The information presented in this memorandum is relevant for consideration in the development of regulatory options under 112(d)(6).
   As explained in the previous sections of this memo, bleach plant chlorinated vent gas emissions are effectively controlled at 99%.  Our technology review did not identify any new control technologies that had been installed to reduce emissions further beyond the current requirement to control 99%+ at bleaching vents where chlorinated bleaching compounds are used. It is the staff recommendation not to amend the current NESHAP regarding bleach plant vents.

References:

1. Pulp and Paper NESHAP: A Plain English Description. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.  EPA-456/R-98-008. November 1998.
2.  Smook, G. Handbook for Pulp & Paper Technologists.  3[rd] Edition. Angus Wilde Publications Inc., Bellingham WA.  2002.
3.   Pulp and Paper ICR 2011.
4.  Memorandum from T. Holloway, C. Gooden, and K. Hanks, to J. Bradfield and B. Schrock, EPA.  Summary of RBLC and Other Findings to Support Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for Pulp and Paper NESHAP. RTI. 2011.
5.  Multi-pollutant Emission Reduction Analysis Foundation (MERAF) for the Pulp and Paper Sector. AMEC Forest Industry Consulting. 2002.


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 181 (Tuesday, September 18, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 47238]
[FR Doc No: 2018-20204]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2018-0026]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    Under part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this
provides the public notice that on June 7, 2018, the Western Maryland
Scenic Railroad (WMSR) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal
railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR parts 215 and 224. FRA
assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2018-0026.
    Specifically, WMSR requests relief from 49 CFR 215.303, Stenciling
of restricted cars, and 49 CFR part 224, Reflectorization of Rail
Freight Rolling Stock, for 16 freight cars. WMSR explains it is a non-
profit entity, operating on 17 miles of track from Ridgeley, WV,
through Cumberland, MD, and west to Frostburg, MD. WMSR owns several
freight cars of various built and rebuilt dates, and primarily uses
this equipment as operating historic artifacts. WMSR receives inquiries
for the making up and operation of historic demonstration trains using
the freight cars for photography, historic documentation, and film
production, along with its diesel and steam engines. Because the
chartering of such demonstration trains is potentially profitable, WMSR
would like the flexibility to make and operate the historic freight
trains at any time. WMSR states these ``dedicated service'' cars have
been certified as safe to operate. The cars will only be operated
occasionally, on WMSR track, empty, and at or below 10 miles per hour.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations
Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties
desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Website: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by November 2, 2018 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered as far as practicable.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better
inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including
any personal information the commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/
ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice for the
privacy notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Robert C. Lauby,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2018-20204 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 40 (Friday, February 28, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11876-11879]
[FR Doc No: 2020-03547]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0102; Product Identifier 2019-NM-184-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; ATR--GIE Avions de Transport
R[eacute]gional Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2000-17-09, AD 2008-04-19 R1, and AD 2015-26-09; and to terminate all
requirements of AD 2018-18-05, which applies to ATR--GIE Avions de
Transport R[eacute]gional Model ATR42-200, -300, and -320 airplanes. AD
2018-18-05 requires updating the maintenance or inspection program, as
applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive maintenance
requirements and airworthiness limitations and terminates the relevant
requirements of AD 2000-17-09, AD 2008-04-19 R1, and AD 2015-26-09.
Since AD 2018-18-05 was issued, the FAA has determined that new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. This proposed AD
would require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program,
as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness
limitations, as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) AD, which will be incorporated by reference. The FAA is
proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 13,
2020.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For the material identified in this proposed AD that will be
incorporated by reference (IBR), contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer
3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 89990 1000; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this IBR
material on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view
this IBR material at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in the AD
docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0102.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0102; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace
Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2020-0102;
Product Identifier 2019-NM-184-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
The FAA specifically invites comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. The FAA will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
NPRM based on those comments.
    The FAA will post all comments received, without change, to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide.
The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this NPRM.

Discussion

    The FAA issued AD 2018-18-05, Amendment 39-19384 (83 FR 44463,
August 31, 2018) (``AD 2018-18-05''), which applies to ATR--GIE Avions
de Transport R[eacute]gional Model ATR42-200, -300, and -320 airplanes.
    AD 2018-18-05 requires updating the maintenance or inspection
program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive
maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. The FAA issued
AD 2018-18-05 to address reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
    AD 2018-18-05 specifies that accomplishing the revision required by
paragraph (g) of that AD terminates all requirements of AD 2000-17-09,
Amendment 39-11883 (65 FR 53897, September 6, 2000); AD 2008-04-19 R1,
Amendment 39-16069 (74 FR 56713, November 3, 2009) (``AD 2008-04-19
R1''); and AD 2015-26-09, Amendment 39-18357 (81 FR 1483, January 13,
2016) (``AD 2015-26-09''); for ATR--GIE Avions de Transport
R[eacute]gional Model ATR42-200, -300, and -320 airplanes only.
    AD 2008-04-19 R1 also applies to ATR--GIE Avions de Transport
R[eacute]gional Model ATR42-500 airplanes and Model ATR72 airplanes.
The actions required by AD 2018-20-14, Amendment 39-19448 (83 FR 52123,
October 16, 2018) (``AD 2018-20-14'') terminate all requirements of AD
2008-14-19 R1 for Model ATR42-500 airplanes. The actions required by AD
2019-13-04, Amendment 39-19677 (84 FR 35028, July 22, 2019) terminate
all requirements of AD 2008-04-19 R1 for Model ATR72 airplanes.
    AD 2015-26-09 also applies to ATR--GIE Avions de Transport
R[eacute]gional Model ATR42-500 airplanes. The actions required by AD
2018-20-14 terminate all requirements of AD 2015-26-09 for Model ATR42-
500 airplanes.
    This AD therefore proposes to supersede AD 2000-17-09, AD 2008-04-
19 R1, and AD 2015-26-09; and to terminate all requirements of AD 2018-
18-05.

Actions Since AD 2018-18-05 Was Issued

    Since AD 2018-18-05 was issued, the FAA has determined that new or
more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary.
    The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2019-0256, dated October 17, 2019
(``EASA AD 2019-0256'') (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for all ATR--GIE Avions de Transport R[eacute]gional Model
ATR42-200, -300, and -320 airplanes. EASA AD 2019-0256 supersedes EASA
AD 2017-0221R1 (which corresponds to FAA AD 2018-18-05).
    This proposed AD was prompted by a determination that new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. The FAA is
proposing this AD to address reduced structural integrity of the
airplane. See the MCAI for additional background information.

Relationship Between Proposed AD and AD 2018-18-05

    This NPRM does not propose to supersede AD 2018-18-05. Rather, we
have determined that it is more appropriate to address the changes in
the MCAI by proposing to require revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations. Accomplishment of the proposed
actions would then terminate all of the requirements of AD 2018-18-05.

Related IBR Material Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2019-0256 describes new and more restrictive airworthiness
limitations for airplane structure and systems.
    This material is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to a bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, the FAA
has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD because the agency
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations, which are specified in EASA AD
2019-0256 described previously, as incorporated by reference. Any
differences with EASA AD 2019-0256 are identified as

exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD.
    This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator
maintenance documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections).
Compliance with these actions is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For
airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in
the areas addressed by this proposed AD, the operator may not be able
to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this
situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request
approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph
(k)(1) of this proposed AD.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA initially worked with Airbus and EASA to develop a
process to use certain EASA ADs as the primary source of information
for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has
since coordinated with other manufacturers and civil aviation
authorities (CAAs) to use this process. As a result, EASA AD 2019-0256
will be incorporated by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed
AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2019-0256 in its
entirety, through that incorporation, except for any differences
identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular
section in the EASA AD does not mean that operators need comply only
with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to
``all required actions and compliance times,'' compliance with this AD
requirement is not limited to the section titled ``Required Action(s)
and Compliance Time(s)'' in the EASA AD.
    Service information specified in EASA AD 2019-0256 that is required
for compliance with EASA AD 2019-0256 will be available on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2020-0102 after the FAA final rule is published.

Airworthiness Limitation ADs Using the New Process

    The FAA's new process, which uses MCAI ADs as the primary source of
information for compliance with corresponding FAA ADs, has been limited
to certain MCAI ADs (primarily those with service bulletins as the
primary source of information for accomplishing the actions required by
the FAA AD). However, the FAA is now expanding the process to include
MCAI ADs that specify the incorporation of airworthiness limitation
documents.
    The previous format of the airworthiness limitation ADs included a
paragraph that specified that no alternative actions (e.g.,
inspections), intervals, or critical design configuration control
limitations (CDCCLs) may be used unless the actions, intervals, and
CDCCLs are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in
accordance with the procedures specified in the AMOCs paragraph under
``Other FAA Provisions.'' This new format includes a ``New Provisions
for Alternative Actions, Intervals, and CDCCLs'' paragraph that does
not specifically refer to AMOCs, but operators may still request an
AMOC to use an alternative action, interval, or CDCCL.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 33 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this proposed AD:
    The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the retained
actions from AD 2018-18-05 to be $7,650 (90 work-hours x $85 per work-
hour).
    The FAA has determined that revising the maintenance or inspection
program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although the
agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator to operator.
In the past, the agency has estimated that this action takes 1 work-
hour per airplane. Since operators incorporate maintenance or
inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has
determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-
airplane estimate.
    The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the new proposed
actions to be $7,650 (90 work-hours x $85 per work-hour).

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.
    The FAA is 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

    The FAA has determined that this proposed AD would not have
federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD
would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, 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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2000-17-09, Amendment 39-11883 (65 FR 53897, September 6, 2000); AD
2008-04-19 R1, Amendment 39-16069 (74 FR 56713, November 3, 2009); and
AD 2015-26-09, Amendment 39-18357 (81 FR 1483, January 13, 2016); and
adding the following new AD:

ATR--GIE Avions de Transport R[eacute]gional: Docket No. FAA-2020-
0102; Product Identifier 2019-NM-184-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by April 13, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    (1) This AD replaces the ADs identified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i)
through (iii) of this AD.

    (i) AD 2000-17-09, Amendment 39-11883 (65 FR 53897, September 6,
2000).
    (ii) AD 2008-04-19 R1, Amendment 39-16069 (74 FR 56713, November
3, 2009).
    (iii) AD 2015-26-09, Amendment 39-18357 (81 FR 1483, January 13,
2016).
    (2) This AD affects AD 2018-18-05, Amendment 39-19384 (83 FR
44463, August 31, 2018) (``AD 2018-18-05'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all ATR--GIE Avions de Transport
R[eacute]gional Model ATR42-200, -300, and -320 airplanes,
certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/
Maintenance Checks.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address reduced structural integrity of the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2019-0256, dated October 17, 2019 (``EASA AD 2019-0256'').

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2019-0256

    (1) The requirements specified in paragraphs (1) and (3) of EASA
AD 2019-0256 do not apply to this AD.
    (2) Where paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2019-0256 refers to its
effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this
AD.
    (3) Paragraph (4) of EASA AD 2019-0256 specifies revising ``the
approved AMP'' within 12 months after its effective date, but this
AD requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program,
as applicable to incorporate the ``limitations, tasks and associated
thresholds and intervals'' specified in paragraph (4) of EASA AD
2019-0256 within 90 days after the effective date of this AD.
    (4) The initial compliance time for doing the tasks specified in
paragraph (4) of EASA AD 2019-0256 is at the applicable ``associated
thresholds'' specified in paragraph (4) of EASA AD 2019-0256, or
within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs
later.
    (5) The provisions specified in paragraphs (5) and (6) of EASA
AD 2019-0256 do not apply to this AD.
    (6) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2019-0256 does not apply
to this AD.

(i) Provisions for Alternative Actions, Intervals, and Critical Design
Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs)

    After the maintenance or inspection program has been revised as
required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g.,
inspections), intervals, and CDCCLs are allowed except as specified
in the provisions of the ``Ref. Publications'' section of EASA AD
2019-0256.

(j) Terminating Action for AD 2018-18-05

    Accomplishing the maintenance or inspection program revision
required by paragraph (g) of this AD terminates the requirements of
AD 2018-18-05.

(k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (l)(2) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or ATR--GIE
Avions de Transport R[eacute]gional's EASA Design Organization
Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include
the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): For any service information
referenced in EASA AD 2019-0256 that contains RC procedures and
tests: Except as required by paragraph (k)(2) of this AD, RC
procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as
RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests
identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(l) Related Information

    (1) For information about EASA AD 2019-0256, contact the EASA,
Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221
89990 6017; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu.
You may find this EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this material at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195. This material may be found in the AD docket on the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0102.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Shahram
Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport
Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198;
telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Issued on February 18, 2020.
Gaetano A. Sciortino,
Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-03547 Filed 2-27-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 198 (Friday, October 12, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51624-51625]
[FR Doc No: 2018-22265]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 29

[Docket No.FAA-2017-1128; Notice No. 29-045-SC]

Special Conditions: Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. (BHTI), Model
525 Helicopters; Control Margin Awareness

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the BHTI Model 525
helicopter. This helicopter will have a novel or unusual design feature
associated with the fly-by-wire flight control system (FBW FCS) in the
area of pilot awareness of the control margins remaining while
maneuvering the helicopter. The applicable airworthiness regulations do
not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design
feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety
standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a
level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing
airworthiness standards.

DATES: These special conditions are effective November 13, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Harrum, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division, 10101
Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On December 15, 2011, BHTI applied for a type certificate for a new
transport category helicopter designated as the Model 525. The Model
525 is a medium twin-engine rotorcraft. The design maximum takeoff
weight is 20,500 pounds, with a maximum capacity of 19 passengers and a
crew of 2.
    The BHTI Model 525 helicopter will be equipped with a four-axis
full authority digital FBW FCS that provides for aircraft control
through pilot input and coupled flight director modes. The current 14
CFR part 29 regulations do not contain adequate standards for FBW FCS
with respect to control margin awareness. The airworthiness standards
for controllability and maneuverability of the rotorcraft are contained
in Sec.  29.143. These controllability requirements are compatible with
most FBW systems, while most of the maneuverability requirements are
not affected by FBW systems, except for the control margins. One of the
purposes of the rule is to ensure that control margins (at the rotor
and the anti-torque system level) are sufficient in the defined flight
envelope to avoid loss of control (that is, the rotorcraft has adequate
control power for the pilot to exit potentially hazardous flight
conditions). Implicit in this purpose is that the pilot is provided
with sufficient awareness of proximity to control limits. Because Sec.
29.143 was written to address hydro-mechanical flight control systems,
through which pilot awareness of control margins is provided by cyclic
and pedal position relative to cockpit control stops, the rule is
inadequate for certification of a FBW FCS, where there is no mechanical
link between the inceptor and the receptor. Without a constant
correlation between cockpit control and main or tail rotor actuator
positions, the FCS may not provide tactile control margin feedback to
the pilot through cockpit control position relative to the control
position physical stop or limit, for all flight conditions. The special
conditions will require the minimum safety standard to ensure awareness
of proximity to control limits at the main rotor and tail rotor is
provided to pilots of the Bell Model 525 helicopter.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, BHTI must show that the Model
525 helicopter meets the applicable

provisions of part 29, as amended by Amendment 29-1 through 29-55
thereto. The BHTI Model 525 certification basis date is December 31,
2013, the effective date of application to the FAA.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 29) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the BHTI Model 525 because of a novel
or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the
provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar
novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also
apply to the other model under Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the BHTI Model 525 helicopter must comply with the noise
certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36, and the FAA must issue a
finding of regulatory adequacy under section 611 of Public Law 92-574,
the ``Noise Control Act of 1972.''
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type-
certification basis under Sec.  21.17(a)(2).

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The BHTI Model 525 helicopter incorporates the following novel or
unusual design features: A four-axis full authority digital FBW FCS.
Pilot control inputs, through the mechanically linked cockpit controls
(cyclic, collective, directional pedals), are transmitted electrically
to each of the three Flight Control Computers (FCCs). The pilot control
input signals are then processed and transmitted to the hydraulic
flight control actuators which affect control of the main and tail
rotors.

Discussion

    These special conditions require the minimum safety standard to
ensure awareness of proximity to control limits at the main rotor and
tail rotor is provided to pilots of the Bell Model 525 helicopter. The
system design must provide the pilot with sufficient awareness of
proximity to control limits, traditionally achieved through
conventional flight controls by the pilot's inherent awareness of
cyclic stick and pedal position relative to control stops.

Discussion of Comments

    Notice of proposed special conditions No. 29-045-SC for the BHTI
Model 525 helicopter was published in the Federal Register on June 6,
2018 (83 FR 26225). No comments were received, and the special
conditions are adopted as proposed.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
BHTI Model 525 helicopter. Should BHTI apply at a later date for a
change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating
the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would
apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on one model of rotorcraft. It is not a rule of general applicability.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 29

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., Model
525 helicopters:

Control Margin Awareness

    In addition to the existing Sec.  29.143 requirements, the
following special condition applies: The system design must ensure that
the flight crew is made suitably aware whenever the means of primary
flight control approaches the limits of control authority. For the
context of this special condition, the term ``suitable'' indicates an
appropriate balance between nuisance and necessary operation.

    Issued in Ft Worth, Texas, on October 3, 2018.
Jorge Castillo,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-22265 Filed 10-11-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 107 (Friday, June 3, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 33872]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11976]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent of Waiver With Respect to Land; Sioux Falls
Regional Airport, Sioux Falls, South Dakota

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is considering a proposal to change approximately
64.93 acres of airport land from aeronautical use to non-aeronautical
use and to authorize the sale of airport property located at the Sioux
Falls Regional Airport, Sioux Falls, South Dakota. The property is made
up of three parcels. Parcel 1 is approximately 16.40 acres, located on
the southwest side of the airport and is currently used as a City
storage lot. Parcel 2 is approximately 39.16 acres, located under the
approach surface to Runway 3 and is currently used as part of the
Elmwood Golf Course. Parcel 3 is approximately 9.37 acres, located
north of National Guard Drive and is currently vacant land.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 5, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Documents are available for review by appointment at the FAA
Dakota-Minnesota Airports District Office, Jeremy McLeod, Program
Manager, 2301 University Dr., Bldg. 23B, Bismarck, ND 58504-7595,
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Written comments on the Sponsor's request must be delivered or
mailed to: Jeremy McLeod, Program Manager, Federal Aviation
Administration, Dakota-Minnesota Airports District Office, 2301
University Dr., Bldg. 23B, Bismarck, ND 58504-7595, Telephone Number:
701-323-7381.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeremy McLeod, Program Manager,
Federal Aviation Administration, Dakota-Minnesota Airports District
Office, 2301 University Dr., Bldg. 23B, Bismarck, ND 58504-7595,
Telephone Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with section 47107(h) of Title
49, United States Code, this notice is required to be published in the
Federal Register 30 days before modifying the land-use assurance that
requires the property to be used for an aeronautical purpose.
    Parcel 1 is currently used by the City of Sioux Falls as a City
storage lot and its proposed future use will remain the same. The City
of Sioux Falls originally acquired this parcel as part of a Surplus
Property Quitclaim deed from the United States of America, acting by
and through the War Assets Administrator on December 19, 1947. Parcel 2
is currently used as part of the City of Sioux Falls Elmwood Golf
Course and its proposed future use will remain the same. This parcel
was acquired by the City of Sioux Falls on March 31, 1942. Parcel 3 is
currently vacant land the airport leases out for haying and is proposed
to continue to be used for airport compatible non-aeronautical
purposes. This parcel was acquired by the City of Sioux Falls on
December 27, 1965. On July 8, 1987, the City of Sioux Falls,
transferred ownership of the airport, including these three parcels to
the Sioux Falls Regional Airport Authority. The Sioux Falls Regional
Airport Authority is proposing to grant these three parcels of airport
property to the City of Sioux Falls. In return, the City will deed 2.65
acres of City property located within the Runway 3/21 Safety Area and
approximately 273.3 acres of easements that will protect the Runway 3/
21 Runway Protection Zone and Approach surfaces. This proposed swap of
land is advantageous to the airport and enhances the Sioux Falls
Regional Airport Authority's ability to ensure future compatible land
use within the Runway Protection Zones and Approach surfaces for Runway
3/21.
    The disposition of proceeds from the sale of the airport property
will be in accordance with FAA's Policy and Procedures Concerning the
Use of Airport Revenue, published in the Federal Register on February
16, 1999 (64 FR 7696).
    This notice announces that the FAA is considering the release of
the subject airport property at the Sioux Falls Regional Airport, Sioux
Falls, South Dakota from federal land covenants, subject to a
reservation for continuing right of flight as well as restrictions on
the released property as required in FAA Order 5190.6B section 22.16.
Approval does not constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially
assist in the disposal of the subject airport property nor a
determination of eligibility for grant-in-aid funding from the FAA.
    The legal descriptions for the three parcels are as follows:
    Parcel 1--Tract 3 of County Auditor's Subdivision in the SE \1/3\
of Section 6, Township 101N, Range 49 west of the 5th Principal
Meridian.
    Parcel 2--Tract 2 of Airport 4th Addition to the City of Sioux
Falls, Minnehaha County, South Dakota.
    Parcel 3--Tract 1 of Airport 6th Addition to the City of Sioux
Falls, Minnehaha County, South Dakota.

    Issued in Minneapolis, Minnesota on May 31, 2022.
E. Lindsay Butler,
Manager, Dakota-Minnesota Airports District Office, FAA, Great Lakes
Region.
[FR Doc. 2022-11976 Filed 6-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: October 3, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 190)]
[Notices]
[Page 57632-57634]
[DOCID:fr03oc05-150]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-52504; File No. SR-Amex-2005-086]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
and Amendment No. 1 Revising the Implementation Date for the ANTE
System

September 23, 2005.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on September 1, 2005, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which items have been prepared by Amex. On September 20,
2005, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule
change.\3\ Amex filed the proposal, as amended, as a ``non-
controversial'' proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \4\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\5\ The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Amendment No. 1 clarified that the proposed rule change was
being submitted under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act and Rule
19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    Amex proposes to amend (1) Amex Rule 900-ANTE to provide a revised
date for the completion of the implementation of the ANTE System (as
defined herein) to all option classes; and (2) Amex Rule 935-ANTE,
Commentary .01 to establish a revised date for increased floor broker
functionality in the ANTE System. The text of the proposed rule change
is available on Amex's Web site (http://www.amex.com), at Amex's Office

of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, Amex included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change, as
amended, and discussed any comments it received on the proposal. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose

Revised Implementation Date--Amex Rule 900-ANTE

    On May 20, 2004, the Commission approved Amex's proposal to
implement a new options trading platform known as the Amex New Trading
Environment (``ANTE'') System.\6\ On May 25, 2004, Amex began rolling
out the ANTE System on its trading floor on a specialist's post-by-
specialist's post basis. At that time, it was anticipated the roll-out
would be completed by the end of the second quarter of 2005. The
implementation date for the full roll-out of the ANTE System was
subsequently extended to August 31, 2005.\7\ Amex has now rolled out
the ANTE System to all its option classes except two--the Nasdaq 100
Index (``NDX'') and the Mini Nasdaq Index (``MNX''). Amex represents
that there are specific reasons why these products have not been rolled
out on the ANTE System. The specialist in these products is concerned
that the theoretical price calculator provided by the ANTE System may
not accurately price the options on these indexes. The specialist is
currently waiting for his own theoretical index price calculator, which
has been installed, to successfully calculate prices for these indexes
and the options. Amex expects that the MNX/NDX specialist will have its
proprietary calculator in place by October 31, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49747 (May 20, 2004)
69 FR 30344 (May 27, 2004) (``Initial Approval of ANTE System'').
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51965 (July 1, 2005)
70 FR 40082 (July 12, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Amex is now proposing to further revise its implementation schedule
to provide that the remaining two option classes will be on the ANTE
System by October 31, 2005. Maintaining two systems for the trading of
options--the legacy system (XTOPS, AODB and Auto-Ex) and ANTE--is
costly. As a result, the Exchange is working diligently to have all
option classes on the ANTE System by October 31, 2005, so that it can
retire its legacy systems.

Increased Floor Broker Functionality--Rule 935-ANTE

    Amex Rule 935-ANTE(b) provides for the post trade allocation of
contracts executed as the result of the submission of orders to trade
with orders in the ANTE Central Book. Under this rule, if more than one
ANTE Participant \8\ and/or floor broker representing a customer order
submits an order to trade with an order in the ANTE Central book within
a period not to exceed five seconds after the initial ANTE Participant
has submitted its order, all those ANTE Participants and/or floor
brokers' customers will be entitled to participate in the allocation of
any executed contracts. Amex represents that the ANTE System is
currently unable to provide the functionality necessary for floor
brokers representing customer orders in the trading crowd the ability
to directly participate in the post trade allocation of orders taken
off the Central Book. Commentary .01 to Amex Rule 935-ANTE provides a
temporary methodology for the specialist to disengage the post trade
allocation system in a specific series, which allows the floor broker
to alert the specialist within the five second timeframe whenever his
customer wants to participate in post trade allocation, and allows the
specialist to provide for the customer's participation in post trade
allocation when appropriate. The Commission approved the procedures

set forth in Commentary .01 as a ``reasonable, temporary solution.''
\9\ Commentary .01 to Amex Rule 935-ANTE also originally provided that
the ANTE System will give floor brokers greater functionality accessing
the Central Book on March 31, 2005 or such other date as established by
the Exchange and submitted to the Commission pursuant to Section 19(b)
of the Act. The Exchange subsequently established August 31, 2005, as
the date the increased functionality will be available in the ANTE
System. Due to a delay in the roll out of the increased floor broker
functionality, the Exchange now proposes to establish October 31, 2005
as the date set forth in Commentary .01 to Amex Rule 935-ANTE for such
increased functionality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Amex Rule 900-ANTE(b)(45) defines ``ANTE Participant'' as
either the specialist and/or registered options trader(s) assigned
to trade a specific options class on the ANTE System.
    \9\ See Initial Approval of ANTE System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \10\ in general and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ in particular, in that it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices
and to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and in general, to protect investors and the public interest;
and is designed to prohibit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers and dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change, as
amended, will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The Exchange has designated the proposed rule change, as amended,
as a ``non-controversial'' rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \12\ and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\13\ Amex represents that the foregoing rule change does
not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
by its terms, does not become operative for 30-days after the date of
this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the five-day pre-
filing requirement and the 30-day operative delay period for ``non-
controversial'' proposals and make the proposed rule change, as
amended, effective and operative upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \13\ 7 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has determined to waive the five-day pre-filing
requirement and the 30-day operative delay period.\14\ The Commission
notes that Amex has represented that the theoretical price calculators
for the final two options classes are not installed and/or functioning
properly and that it has not yet implemented the functionality for
floor brokers representing customer orders. The Commission believes
that extending the deadline for implementing Amex Rules 900- and 935-
ANTE by two months should afford Amex the time needed to install and/or
fix the theoretical price calculators and to implement the floor broker
customer order functionality. Furthermore, the Commission believes that
it is in the interest of investors and the public to delay
implementation of the ANTE system until all of the components are in
place and functioning properly. Therefore, the foregoing rule change
has become immediately effective and operative upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \15\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For purposes only of accelerating the operative date of
this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's
impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60-days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ For purposes of calculating the 60-day period within which
the Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change, as
amended, under Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, the Commission
considers the period to commence on September 20, 2005, the date on
which Amex submitted Amendment No. 1. See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-Amex-2005-086 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-9303.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2005-086. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at Amex's
Office of the Secretary. All comments received will be posted without
change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information
from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to
make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number
SR-Amex-2005-086 and should be submitted on or before October 24, 2005.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-5345 Filed 9-30-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 140 (Tuesday, July 22, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42506-42507]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17208]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP14-513-000]

Colombia Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on July 1, 2014, Colombia Pipeline, LLC
(Colombia), 17086 Interstate Highway 10 West, Suite 210, San Antonio,
Texas 78257, filed an application pursuant to section 3 of the Natural
Gas Act and part 153 of the Commission's regulations, for an order
authorizing the siting, connection, construction, and operation of new
border crossing pipeline facilities for the exportation of up to 1.120
billion cubic feet per day of natural gas at the International Boundary
between the United States and Mexico in Webb County, Texas, and for a
Presidential Permit for such facilities, all as more fully set forth in
the application which is on file with the Commission and open to 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, contact FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call
toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Brandon Seale, Vice President of Mexican Operations, Howard Midstream
Energy Partners, LLC, 17086 Interstate Highway 10 West, Suite 210, San
Antonio, Texas 78257, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will 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 FEIS or EA.
    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 in the proceeding with the Commission
and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. 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 commentors 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 commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors 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: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on August 6, 2014.

    Dated: July 16, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-17208 Filed 7-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P