[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 88 (Friday, May 7, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25236-25238]
[FR Doc No: 2010-10868]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2005-0062; ER-FRL-8990-3]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental
Policy Act and Assessing the Environmental Effects Abroad of EPA
Actions (Renewal); EPA ICR No. 2243.06, OMB Control No. 2020-0033

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that EPA is planning to
submit a request to renew an existing approved Information Collection
Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This ICR is
scheduled to expire on August 31, 2010. Before submitting the ICR to
OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific
aspects of the proposed information collection as described below.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before Tuesday, July 6, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OECA-2005-0062, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Enforcement and Compliance Docket, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Headquarters West Building, Room 3334,
located at 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OECA-
2005-0062. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jessica Trice, Office of Federal
Activities, Mail Code 2252A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202)
564-6646; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

How can I access the docket and/or submit comments?

    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OECA-2005-0062, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Enforcement and
Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public
Reading Room is open from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is
202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and
Compliance Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use http://www.regulations.gov to obtain a copy of the draft
collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once
in the system, select ``search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified in this document.

What information is EPA particularly interested in?

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically
solicits comments and information to enable it to:
    (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden
of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
to be collected; and
    (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

What should I consider when I prepare my comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific
examples.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used
that support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at the estimate that you provide.
    5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
    6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified
under DATES.
    7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket
ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page
of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal
Register citation.

What information collection activity or ICR does this apply to?

    Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are
certain grant or permit applicants who must submit environmental
information documentation to EPA for their projects to comply with NEPA
or Executive Order 12114. The applicant burden for any EPA action
subject to NEPA and/or Executive Order 12114 that is based on an
applicant proposal, including Wastewater Treatment Construction Grants
Program facilities, STAG actions subject to NEPA and new source NPDES
permits issued by EPA, is addressed in this ICR. EPA's Executive Order
12114 implementing procedures further the purpose of NEPA and provide
that EPA may be guided by the CEQ Regulations to the extent they are
applicable. Therefore, when EPA conducts an environmental assessment
pursuant to its Executive Order 12114 procedures, the Agency generally
follows the CEQ Regulations and the procedures in EPA's NEPA
implementing regulations.
    Title: Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed
Collection; Comment Request; Procedures for Implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act and Assessing the Environmental Effects Abroad
of EPA Actions (Renewal).
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 2243.06, OMB Control No. 2020-0033.
    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on August 31,
2010. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal
Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed
either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate
means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if
applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA
regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42
U.S.C. 4321-4347 establishes the Federal government's national policy
for protection of the environment. The Council on Environmental Quality
Regulations (CEQ Regulations) at 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508
establish procedures implementing the national policy. The CEQ
Regulations (40 CFR 1505.1) require Federal agencies to adopt and, as
needed, revise their own implementing procedures to supplement the CEQ
Regulations and to ensure their decision-making processes are
consistent with NEPA.
    Those subject to the final NEPA rule include EPA officials who must
comply with NEPA, and certain grant or permit applicants who must
submit environmental information documentation to EPA for their
proposed projects. The final NEPA regulations consolidate and
standardize the environmental review process applicable to all EPA
actions subject to NEPA, including those actions now specifically
addressed in the regulations and other actions subject to NEPA but not
specifically addressed in the regulations (e.g., certain grants awarded
for special projects authorized by Congress through the Agency's annual
Appropriations Act).
    Compliance with the final NEPA regulations is the responsibility of
EPA's Responsible Officials. For applicant-proposed actions, certain
procedures apply to applicants (that is grantees and permit applicants)
who must submit environmental information to EPA as part of the
environmental review process. The EPA Responsible Official is
responsible for the environmental review process, including any
categorical exclusion determination or the scope, accuracy, and
contents of a final environmental assessment (EA) or environmental
impact statement (EIS) and any supporting documents.
    The applicant contributes by submitting environmental information
to EPA as part of the environmental review process. For actions subject
to NEPA, the Responsible Official may determine that the proposed
action does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect
on the human environment and may, therefore, be categorically excluded
from further NEPA review. If the proposed action is not categorically
excluded, the Responsible Official may prepare an EA in order to
determine whether to prepare an EIS or a finding of no significant
impact (FONSI). If necessary, the Responsible Official must prepare an
EIS if the proposed action will have a significant effect on the human
environment. For applicant-proposed actions, the applicant may submit
information to the Responsible Official regarding the applicability of
a categorical exclusion and request a determination by the Responsible
Official. Unless the applicant-proposed action is categorically
excluded, the Responsible Official may gather the information and
prepare the NEPA documents without assistance from the applicant, or
have the applicant prepare an environmental information document (EID)
or a draft EA and supporting documents or implement a third-party
contract agreement with the applicant.
    EPA is collecting information from certain applicants as part of
the process of complying with either NEPA or Executive Order 12114.
EPA's NEPA regulations apply to the actions of EPA that are subject to
NEPA in order to ensure that environmental information is available to
the Agency's decision-makers and the public before decisions are made
and before actions are taken. The Part 6 regulations also include EPA's
procedures implementing Executive Order 12114. These procedures ensure
that environmental information is available to the Agency's decision-
makers and other appropriate Federal agencies and officials for actions
subject to Executive Order 12114.
    Whether the NEPA documents are based on environmental information
developed by the Responsible Official or submitted by the applicant,
the NEPA review and resulting documents generally rely on the use of
existing data and information, including data and information from
other federal agencies, state or local governments, or federally-
recognized Indian tribes with jurisdiction by law or special expertise.
Whether the NEPA documents are prepared by the Responsible Official or
based on environmental information submitted by the applicant, the
quality of the information provided by an applicant must be sufficient
to enable the Responsible Official to make a decision. This is
accomplished under EPA's NEPA implementing procedures through: (1)
Early coordination and

cooperation with Federal agencies, State and local governments, and
federally-recognized Indian tribes with jurisdiction by law or special
expertise (see final rule Sec.  6.202); and (2) the public
participation process associated with actions other than those
categorically excluded (see final rule Sec.  6.203). When the
environmental information is provided by the applicant, the Responsible
Official is responsible for the statements, analyses, and conclusions
of the EA or EIS and any supporting documents. The information compiled
is a one-time submission in narrative text format (see final rule
Sec. Sec.  6.205 and 6.207) rather than computerized compilations of
data and information. There are no forms, checklists, or ongoing
reporting, recordkeeping or file-maintenance requirements for
applicants. EPA maintains file records for each action.
    The information submitted by applicants would be consistent with
the guidelines of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in 5 CFR
1320.6. There are no schedule requirements or requirements on the
number of copies of the documentation to be submitted or requirements
for ongoing reporting or recordkeeping or to conduct statistical
surveys.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 123
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    For purposes of this ICR, the total annual public reporting and
recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated at
38,472 hours and $3,503,245 for contractor hours and costs, direct
labor hours and costs, and O&M costs. This burden reflects the annual
submission of documentation for an anticipated 312 applicant-proposed
project that may be documented with a CE, or an EA/FONSI, or an EIS/
ROD. For any specific project, only one of these levels of
documentation is generally prepared.
    The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate,
which is only briefly summarized here:
    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 312.
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: 1.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 38,472 hours.
    Estimated total annual costs: $3,503,245.

Are there changes in the estimates from the last approval?

    There is a decrease of 9,675 hours in the total estimated
respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This decrease reflects the increasing number of
projects that are documented with a categorical exclusion (CE) rather
than an environmental assessment (EA). Under the current ICR,
approximately 60% of the annual 300 grant projects were documented with
a CE, and 40% with an EA. However, we estimate that out of the 300
annual grant projects, 75% will be documented with a CE and 25% will be
documented with an EA. Annually, then, the burden would shift to 10,125
hours and $3,825 for CE documentation, and 19,500 hours and $3,000 for
EA documentation. With the current ICR, the total annual burden is
48,147 hours and $8,673.34. Under the renewal ICR, the total annual
burden is 38,472 hours and $7,638.34. The renewal ICR reduces the total
annual burden by 9,675 hours and $1,035. This reflects EPA's
respondents anticipated during the 3-year ICR renewal period and the
level of environmental documentation EPA anticipates the respondents
will submit.

What is the next step in the process for this ICR?

    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will
issue another Federal Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR
1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the
opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any
questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Dated: April 30, 2010.
Susan E. Bromm,
Director, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2010-10868 Filed 5-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


                 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                  REGION III
	1650 Arch Street
	Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19103

DATE:	February 26, 2014

SUBJECT:	Technical Support Document for the Update of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for the Reading 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard Maintenance Area

FROM:	Asrah Khadr, Environmental Engineer, EIT		/s/
            Office of Air Program Planning

TO:	File

THRU: 	Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director		/s/
            Office of Air Program Planning

A.  BACKGROUND:

On July 22, 2013, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) submitted a revision to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's (Pennsylvania) State Implementation Plan (SIP).  The SIP revision consists of updated Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEBs) for nitrogen oxides (NOx) for the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).  The SIP revision also includes updated point and area source inventories for NOx.  The updated budgets were calculated using the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator model (MOVES2010a).  The intention of the revised SIP is to replace the approved MOBILE6.2-based MVEBs with budgets based on MOVES2010a and to ensure that the SIP revision still provides for attainment of the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone NAAQS.

On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38856), EPA established the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone NAAQS.  On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23858), Berks County was designated as nonattainment for the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone NAAQS.  On January 25, 2007, PADEP submitted a SIP revision which consists of a maintenance plan, a 2002 base year inventory and MVEBs for transportation conformity purposes.  On August 24, 2007 (72 FR 48559), EPA approved the SIP revision as well as the redesignation request made by PADEP.  Berks County was redesignated as a maintenance area.

The MVEBs are a mobile source inventory to which an area's transportation improvement program (TIP) and long range transportation plan must conform.  Conformity to MVEBs in a SIP means that transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS or any required interim milestones.  This July 22, 2013 SIP revision submittal provides updated MVEBs for NOx.  The budgets were developed utilizing MOVES2010a.  On March 2, 2010 (75 FR 9411), EPA published a notice of availability for the MOVES2010 model for use in SIP submissions and started a two year grace period for the use of MOVES2010 for transportation conformity purposes.  The two year grace period was scheduled to end on March 2, 2012.  On February 27, 2012 (77 FR 11394), EPA published a final rule extending the grace period another year to March 2, 2013 to ensure adequate time for affected parties to adopt the model.  On September 8, 2010, EPA released MOVES2010a, which is a minor update to MOVES2010.  Pennsylvania utilized MOVES2010a in its November 19, 2012 SIP revision.  MOVES2010a was used in order to ensure that the nonattainment area can demonstrate transportation conformity using MOVES2010a once the 3-year conformity grace period expires.  Pennsylvania updated their SIP-approved MVEBs with the use of MOVES2010a.  The budgets were previously developed with the use of the Highway Mobile Source Emission Factor Model (MOBILE6.2).

MOBILE6.2 is a motor vehicle emissions factor model that was utilized for SIPs and transportation conformity.  MOBILE6.2 was made available for use in SIPs and transportation conformity purposes on May 19, 2004 (69 FR 28830).  MOBILE6.2 was merely an update to MOBILE6 that added the ability for the program to estimate direct exhaust and brake and tire wear particulate matter emission factors as well as exhaust emission factors for particulate matter precursors.

MOVES2010 improves upon MOBILE6.2 in many aspects.  MOVES2010 utilizes a plethora of vehicle data that has been made available since the release of MOBILE6.2; this vehicle data includes emissions data for different kinds of vehicles.  The new data has allowed EPA to better understand on-road mobile source emissions and their contribution to emissions inventories as well as how effective different control strategies are.  The MOVES2010 model offers more flexibility because the program has a database design that allows easier organization of input and output files and data.  The database design of the MOVES2010 model allows much easier update of input data upon the release of new data.  MOVES2010 also accounts for temperature and speed variations and allows the model to run at a higher resolution which allows for the input of more activity data.

Under Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), any federal action is required to conform to the applicable SIP.  A part of this requirement for conformity is transportation conformity.  Transportation conformity requires that any federally funded transportation plan, program or project conform to the applicable SIP for the transportation-related criteria pollutants (ozone, carbon monoxide, PM2.5, PM10, and nitrogen dioxide).  The transportation conformity rules can be found at 40 CFR 93, Subpart A.  One of the requirements found under 40 CFR 93, Subpart A is that any transportation plan, TIP or project not in a conforming TIP must conform to the MVEBs in the applicable SIP.  In order for the MVEBs in a SIP to be used to determine conformity of a transportation plan, TIP or project, the MVEBs must be either approved or deemed adequate.  In this case, the budgets must be approved because this SIP revision is revising already approved budgets.  However, in reviewing such a submitted SIP it remains useful to apply the criteria used to make an adequacy finding.  The requirements for adequacy are set forth in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(i)-(vi).  The criteria for adequacy and how they are met by the Pennsylvania submittal are found below in Table 1.  Adequacy Criteria.
Table 1.  Adequacy Criteria
                                   Criterion
                                   Submittal

(i) The submitted control strategy implementation plan revision or maintenance plan was endorsed by the Governor (or his or her designee) and was subject to a State public hearing;
   * Letter addressed to Shawn M. Garvin, Regional Administrator, EPA Region III from E. Christopher Abruzzo, Acting Secretary, Pennsylvania DEP
   * Public hearing documents were submitted

(ii) Before the control strategy implementation plan or maintenance plan was submitted to EPA, consultation among federal, State, and local agencies occurred; full implementation plan documentation was provided to EPA; and EPA's stated concerns, if any, were addressed;
   * N/A, this revision does not accompany a control strategy implementation plan or maintenance plan

(iii) The motor vehicle emissions budget(s) is clearly identified and precisely quantified;
   * Appendix C-2 of the submittal provides detailed emission summary tables

(iv) The motor vehicle emissions budget(s), when considered together with all other emissions sources, is consistent with applicable requirements for reasonable further progress, attainment, or maintenance (whichever is relevant to the given implementation plan submission);
   * Maintenance plan for Berks County was already approved on July 6, 2007 (72 FR 36889), no changes to nonroad source emissions, point and area source emissions were updated
   * Berks County continues to attain the 1997 Ozone NAAQS as shown by the design value obtained from 2010-2012 data
   * Update of point and area source emissions shows less emissions than those predicted in the maintenance plan

(v) The motor vehicle emissions budget(s) is consistent with and clearly related to the emissions inventory and the control measures in the submitted control strategy implementation plan revision or maintenance plan; and
   * The SIP revision shows no change in any control measures in the previously submitted maintenance plan.

(vi) Revisions to previously submitted control strategy implementation plans or maintenance plans explain and document any changes to previously submitted budgets and control measures; impacts on point and area source emissions; any changes to established safety margins (see § 93.101 for definition); and reasons for the changes (including the basis for any changes related to emission factors or estimates of vehicle miles traveled).
   * Changes in MVEBs are clearly documented and explained in the submittal.  The higher emissions are due to the use of MOVES2010a which is a more accurate emissions model and is based on more recent data on vehicle emissions than MOBILE6.2.  Update of point source emissions and addition of small safety margin are well explained.

B.  STATE SUBMITTAL:

On January 22, 2013, PADEP submitted a SIP revision which included an update to the MVEBs for NOx and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) for the years 2009 (interim year) and 2018 (maintenance year).  The updated MVEBs were produced using the MOVES2010a model. The MVEBs were developed with guidance from the following EPA guidance documents:  Policy Guidance on the Use of MOVES2010 for SIP Development, Transportation Conformity, and Other Purposes and Technical Guidance on the Use of MOVES2010 for Emission Inventory Preparation in State Implementation Plans and Transportation Conformity.  The submittal also included an update tro the point and area source emissions inventories.

I.  Methodology for Developing Data for Use in MOVES2010a

PADEP utilized MOVES2010a to provide emissions rates for emissions of NOx and VOCs.  PPSUITE is a program that was utilized for the processing of highway information and to provide input files that are usable by the MOVES2010a model.  PPSUITE was run utilizing CENTRAL; CENTRAL is a program that provides a process for the proper function of PPSUITE and MOVES2010a.  The MVEBs were developed for NOx and VOCs since they are the two biggest contributors to the formation of ozone.

In PPSUITE, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) Roadway Management System (RMS) data among other data was utilized to produce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) estimates.  The VMT produced via PPSUITE was then imported into the county data manager (CDM) in MOVES2010a.  Since VOCs and NOx emissions differ with respect to travel speed, travel speed is utilized as an input in MOVES2010a. To develop an array of travel speeds, PPSUITE was utilized to develop vehicle hours of travel (VHT) by speed bin file which allows for the distribution of speeds across links into MOVES2010a speed bins.  The travel speed calculations were completed with guidance from Technical Guidance on the Use of MOVES2010 for Emission Inventory Preparation in State Implementation Plans and Transportation Conformity.

Road type distribution was another traffic input for MOVES2010a.  Road type distribution was developed with the use of PPSUITE.  The five different road types utilized by MOVES2010a are off network, rural restricted access, rural unrestricted access, urban restricted access and urban unrestricted access.  In addition, ramps are not included in road type distribution so it is assumed that 8% of the roadway VHT is ramp VHT.  This traffic input assumption is consistent with EPA's technical guidance.

Before RMS data is utilized by PPSUITE to develop various traffic inputs, several adjustments must be made.  The RMS VMT is adjusted to meet the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) VMT totals.  HPMS VMT utilizes snapshots of RMS VMT to satisfy reporting requirements established by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).  To make this adjustment, adjustment factors were calculated and utilized.

Adjustments to average annual daily traffic (AADT) were completed because calculations for ozone precursors are based on a summer weekday, since that is when ozone formation tends to be the greatest.  The RMS AADT volumes are adjusted by the use of a seasonal factor that was developed by PennDOT's Bureau of Planning and Research (BPR) to produce July traffic volumes.  The RMS data was also adjusted for differences in hourly traffic volumes.  The 24-hour pattern data provided to PPSUITE allowed PPSUITE to provide roadway segment volumes by the hour.  The 24-hour pattern data was obtained from PennDOT's PBR.

Traffic volume forecasts had to be applied to estimate future emissions from vehicles.  The growth rates utilized for these forecasts are the PennDOT PBR growth rate forecasting system, the regional travel model and any applicable Marcellus Shale related activity growth.  Additionally, county specific growth rates were utilized from a 2005 PennDOT report titled Statistical Evaluation of Projected Traffic Growth, Traffic Growth Forecasting System: Final Report, March 14, 2005.

MOVES2010a utilizes 13 vehicle source types.  Since HPMS utilizes different categories for vehicle types, the RMS traffic volumes were disaggregated to the 13 vehicle source types which were then combined into the 6 HPMS vehicle classes.  Vehicle type data input into PPSUITE is used to divide the roadway segment volumes with respect to the MOVES2010a source types.  The source types are split into percentages among the 24-hours of the day.  The vehicle source type percentages are then utilized to adjust vehicle speeds in response to trucks.

Vehicle population is also another important input for MOVES2010a.  Vehicle population is input into MOVES2010a with respect to the 13 vehicle source types utilized by the model. County level vehicle registration data is utilized for light duty vehicles and school buses. Transit bus data is obtained from PennDOT's National Transit Database (NTD); it is utilized to estimate county level transit bus counts.  Heavy duty vehicle population data is estimated by utilizing source type VMT and vehicle source and pattern data are utilized.  Vehicle age is input into the model as well.  The vehicle age is input into the model as a percentage of vehicles of the fleet between ages 0 and 31.

Outside of vehicle and roadway data, environmental variables are utilized as inputs since evaporative emissions are dependent on the surrounding temperatures.  The environmental variables used included hourly temperatures and humidity values. The temperatures were retrieved by Weather Bank, Inc.  Humidity values were produced according to EPA's technical guidance.  Minimum and maximum monthly temperatures were converted to hourly temperatures using EPA converters in the MOVES2010a model.

Fuel parameters were also input since different fuels produce different emissions.  The MOVES2010a default fuel formulation and supply data was utilized and updated with local volumetric fuel property data.  Gasohol market penetration and RVP values were updated at the county level.  Other fuel parameters were obtained through the MOVES2010a default data.

Refueling emissions were not included as an input because Pennsylvania provides the refueling emissions in its area source inventory; hence it is not required for the production of MVEBs.  Additionally, MOVES2010a also includes input parameters for inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs.  The inputs for the I/M program include: program start year, stringency level, first and last model years subject to the program, waiver rates, compliance rates, program type and effectiveness, frequency of inspection, vehicle type coverage and test type.  The defaults for an I/M program in MOVES2010a were modified to accurately represent the I/M program for Berks County.

II.  Running MOVES2010a

As stated in Section I, the data utilized to run MOVES2010a is a mixture of local and national data.  Local data is utilized for all inputs that have significant impact on the emissions rates that are calculated by MOVES2010a.  The local data utilized as inputs for MOVES2010a is categorized into five categories which include: traffic data, vehicle descriptions, fuel parameters, I/M programs, and environmental variables.  The inputs for traffic data include vehicle type VMT, vehicle population, VMT fractions, road type distribution, and ramp fractions.  The inputs for vehicle descriptions include vehicle type mix, vehicle age distribution, average speeds and hourly distributions of different vehicles.  The inputs for fuel parameters include RVP, sulfur level and ethanol volume.  The inputs for I/M programs include start and model years, the frequency of tests, test standards, source types, stringency of tests, the waiver rate, and compliance rates.  The inputs for environmental variables include hourly temperatures and humidity.

MOVES2010a inputs that were prepared by PPSUITE included vehicle type VMT, vehicle population, VMT fractions, average speed distributions, road type distribution and ramp fractions.  These files were input into the MOVES2010a county data importer.  Additional non-PPSUITE inputs included fuel and vehicle ages, as well as temperatures and I/M programs.  The county data importer was run in batch mode.  Running the county data importer converts input files into a MYSQL format which is accepted by MOVES2010a.  Afterwards, a MOVES run specification file (.mrs) was created.  This file includes options and different data locations for the execution of the model.  MOVES2010a can be executed to provide an emissions rate or an emissions inventory.  In this submittal, MOVES2010a was executed to provide an emissions inventory.  The emissions estimates of NOx produced for the years 2004, 2009 and 2018 by MOVES2010a are provided in Table 2.  Summary of Motor Vehicle Emissions.  The emissions estimates are provided in tons per day (tpd); also provided in Table 2 is the comparison between the emissions produced by MOBILE6.2 and MOVES2010a.  No new emissions estimates were produced for VOCs therefore their inclusion into the MOVES estimates portion in the table below is not applicable (N/A).  After reviewing this submittal, EPA concurs with Pennsylvania that even though the emissions results produced by MOVES2010a are greater than those previously calculated using MOBILE6.2.  EPA's review of the SIP revision indicates these higher emissions result from improvements in the MOVES model rather than from unanticipated growth or changes in control measures.  The MOVES results are more accurate estimates of the emissions that actually occurred in 2002 and 2009, rather than an indication that emissions are increasing.  More importantly, Berks County attained the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone NAAQS and was redesignated to a maintenance area on July 6, 2007 (72 FR 36889).  Berks County continues to attain the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone NAAQS as shown by its 2010-2012 design values.  The two air quality monitors in Berks County are providing design values of 75 parts per billion (ppb) and 79 ppb, which are below the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone NAAQS of 0.08 ppm.  Also, the preliminary 2011-2013 design value for the Berks County air quality monitor with the highest design value is 73 ppb which is below the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone NAAQS.   Therefore, EPA finds this update to the MVEBs does not interfere with Berks County's ability to maintain its attainment of the1997 Eight-Hour Ozone NAAQS.

Table 2.  Summary of Motor Vehicle Emissions in TPD
Model
                                   MOBILE6.2
                                  MOVES2010a
Year
                                                                           2004
                                                                           2009
                                                                           2018
                                                                           2004
                                                                           2009
                                                                           2018
VOCs
                                                                           17.0
                                                                           12.1
                                                                            6.5
                                                                            N/A
                                      N/A
                                                                            N/A
NOx
                                                                           29.8
                                                                           20.7
                                                                            8.4
                                                                           34.4
                                                                           27.0
                                                                           12.9

III.  Review of MOVES Modeling

To run the MOVES2010a model, a run specification (hereafter referred to as "RunSpec") must be created so the appropriate parameters are selected for the modeling run.  The RunSpecs were reviewed against the following EPA document:  Technical Guidance on the use of MOVES2010 for Emission Inventory Preparation in State Implementation Plans and Transportation Conformity.  This guidance document provides guidance on the use of the MOVES model to develop inventories for SIPs as well as analysis of emissions for transportation conformity determinations.
MVEBs were submitted for the years 2009 and 2018 for the 1997 Ozone NAAQS which are consistent with the rest of the emissions inventory in the maintenance plan.  The submitted RunSpecs, input files and output files were reviewed and found to have followed the applicable EPA guidance provided in the Technical Guidance on the use of MOVES2010 for Emission Inventory Preparation in State Implementation Plans and Transportation Conformity.  Table 3.  RunSpec Reviews for the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone NAAQS for Years 2009 and 2018 for Berks County, presents the RunSpec parameters that were reviewed and each parameter's respective component in the submittal.

Table 3.  RunSpec Reviews for the 1997 Ozone NAAQS for Years 2009 and 2018 for Berks County
Domain/Scale
County scale was selected.  Selection of county scale is acceptable for this air quality analysis.
Calculation Type
Inventory was selected which is acceptable for this analysis.
Time Aggregation Level
Hourly time aggregation was selected.  Selection of hourly time aggregation level is acceptable for this analysis.
Calendar Year Of Evaluation
The appropriate calendar year was selected for each RunSpec; each RunSpec has 2009 or 2018 as the selected calendar year.  MOVES2010b can model years 1990 and 1999-2050.
Month of Evaluation
July was selected to be the month of evaluation.  This is acceptable for ozone precursor analysis.
Type of Day of Evaluation
Weekdays were selected, which is appropriate for the evaluation of pollutant emissions related to ozone.
Hours of Evaluation
Starting and ending hours create a whole day (from 0-24 hours).
Geographic Bounds
Berks County was selected for each RunSpec.
Vehicles/Equipment: On-Road Vehicle Equipment
Appropriate combinations of fuels and source use types were made.
Road Type
Selection included all necessary road types.
Pollutants and Processes
NOx, total gaseous hydrocarbons, non-methane hydrocarbons, and VOCs were selected.
On-Road Retrofits
N/A
ROP
N/A
Output Database/Unit Selection
Mass units selected to be grams; energy units selected to be million British Thermal Unit (BTU); distance units selected to be miles.
Output Emission Detail in Emission Rate Calculations
Emission detail was selected via user preference.  The output emissions detail does not affect the results of the modeling runs, therefore user preference is acceptable.
Advanced Performance Features
N/A

IV.  Safety Margins

Since there is a significant difference between the projected emissions for the maintenance year and the attainment year a small portion of that difference was made into a safety margin.  In other terms, the emissions for the attainment year are much greater than the emissions for the interim (2009) and maintenance (2018) years, which allows for a portion of those excess emissions to become a safety margin.  A two tpd safety margin was added for NOx emissions for the 2009 and 2018 MVEBs.  The MVEBs are presented below in Table 4.  Revised MVEBs.  The differences between the 2004 attainment year and the 2009 interim year and 2018 maintenance year for NOx are found below in Table 5.  NOx Emissions and Differences for Years 2004, 2009, and 2018.  Table 4 presents decreases in emissions which are significant in some categories between the attainment, interim and maintenance years.  Because the 2009 and 2018 emissions are less than the 2004 attainment year emissions, a small portion of the excess emissions can be allocated to safety margins while the area can continue to attain the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone NAAQS.

Table 4.  Revised MVEBs in TPD
Year
                                                                           2009
                                                                           2018
VOCs
                                      N/A
                                                                            N/A
NOx
                                                                           29.0
                                                                           14.9

Table 5.  NOx Emissions and Differences for Years 2004, 2009, and 2018 in TPD
Category
                                                                           2004
                                                                           2009
 2004-2009
                                                                           2018
    2004-2018
Point
                                     16.00
                                                                          11.51
                                                                           4.49
                                                                           12.6
                                                                           3.40
Area
                                                                           2.12
                                                                           2.31
                                                                          -0.19
                                                                           2.11
                                                                          -0.01
Nonroad
                                                                          10.30
                                                                           8.40
                                                                           1.90
                                                                           5.40
                                                                           4.90
Mobile
                                                                          34.40
                                                                          29.98
                                                                           5.42
                                                                          14.90
                                                                          19.50
Total
                                                                          62.82
                                                                          51.20
                                                                          11.62
                                                                          35.01
                                                                          27.81

C.  EPA EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION:

EPA thoroughly evaluated the submittal made by Pennsylvania through PADEP.  EPA's detailed review has led us to conclude that the development methodology of the MVEBs is consistent with applicable guidance documents intended to guide the development of on-road inventories and MVEBs.  EPA also reviewed the MVEBs using the adequacy criteria set forth in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(i)-(vi), and as documented above we found that the budgets meet all of the adequacy criteria.  Based on the results of EPA's in depth review of the SIP revision, the area's continued attainment of the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone  NAAQS and the results of EPA's review of the MVEBs using the adequacy criteria in the transportation conformity rule, EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision.


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 77 (Friday, April 21, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 24612]
[FR Doc No: 2023-08487]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL OP-OFA-066]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or https://www.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
Filed April 10, 2023 10 a.m. EST Through April 17, 2023 10 a.m. EST
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxapps.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-II/public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20230053, Draft, FERC, VA, Virginia Reliability Project and
Commonwealth Energy Connector Project, Comment Period Ends: 06/05/2023,
Contact: Office of External Affairs<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20230054, Final, USFWS, AZ, ADOPTION--4FRI Rim Country Project,
Review Period Ends: 05/22/2023, Contact: Nicole Jimenez<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    The Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has adopted the Forest
Service's Final EIS No.20220116, filed 08/06/2022 with the
Environmental Protection Agency. The USFWS was not a cooperating agency
on this project. Therefore, republication of the document is necessary
under Section 1506.3(b)(2) of the CEQ regulations.

EIS No. 20230055, Draft, BLM, NAT, Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement Addressing Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides, Comment
Period Ends: 06/05/2023, Contact: Seth Flanigan<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20230056, Final, EPA, PRO, ADOPTION--PROGRAMMATIC--Habitat
Restoration Activities Implemented throughout the Coastal United
States, Review Period Ends: 05/22/2023, Contact: Sharon Osowski 214-
665-7506.

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has adopted the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Final EIS No.20150171, filed
06/11/2015 with the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA was not a
cooperating agency on this project. Therefore, republication of the
document is necessary under Section 1506.3(b)(2) of the CEQ
regulations.

    Dated: April 17, 2023.
Cindy S. Barger,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2023-08487 Filed 4-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 230 (Friday, December 1, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 83822-83825]
[FR Doc No: 2023-26382]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-1710; Project Identifier MCAI-2023-00243-T;
Amendment 39-22600; AD 2023-22-16]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2B16 (604 Variant) airplanes.
This AD was prompted by reports from the supplier that sensing elements
of the bleed air leak detection system were manufactured with
insufficient salt fill, which can result in an inability to detect hot
bleed air leaks. This AD requires testing of all affected overheat
detection sensing elements of the bleed air leak detection system, and
replacement if necessary. This AD also prohibits the installation of
affected parts. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective January 5, 2024.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of January 5,
2024.

ADDRESSES:
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-1710; 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 final rule, the mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), any comments received, and

other information. The address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For Bombardier service information identified in this
final rule, contact Bombardier Business Aircraft Customer Response
Center, 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9,
Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
website bombardier.com.
     For Kidde Aerospace & Defense service information
identified in this final rule, contact Kidde Aerospace & Defense, 4200
Airport Drive NW, Building B, Wilson, NC 27896; telephone: 319-295-
5000; website: kiddetechnologies.com/aviation.com.
     You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety 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 at
regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gabriel Kim, Aviation Safety Engineer,
FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-
228-7300; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier,
Inc., Model CL-600-2B16 (604 Variant) airplanes. The NPRM published in
the Federal Register on August 14, 2023 (88 FR 54946). The NPRM was
prompted by AD CF-2023-05, dated February 8, 2023, issued by Transport
Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada (referred to after
this as the MCAI). The MCAI states that Bombardier received reports
from the supplier of the overheat detection sensing elements of a
manufacturing quality escape. Some of the sensing elements of the bleed
air leak detection system were manufactured with insufficient salt
fill, which can result in an inability to detect hot bleed air leaks
and cause damage to surrounding structures and systems that can prevent
continued safe flight and landing.
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require testing of all affected
overheat detection sensing elements of the bleed air leak detection
system, and replacement if necessary. In the NPRM, the FAA also
proposed to prohibit the installation of affected parts. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-1710.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received a comment from Bombardier. The following presents
the comment received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to the comment.

Request for Removal of Certain Variants

    Bombardier requested that the FAA remove reference to the 601-3A
and 601-3R Variants from the proposed AD. Bombardier stated that Model
CL-600-2B16 601-3A and 601-3R Variants are not affected by the
identified unsafe condition; only Model CL-600-2B16 604 Variant
airplanes are affected.
    The FAA agrees and notes that the 604 Variant airplanes are those
having serial numbers 5301 and subsequent, therefore, the 601-3A and
601-3R Variants are not applicable to this AD. The FAA revised the
Summary, Background, and paragraph (c) of this AD accordingly.

Conclusion

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it
has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the
comment received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this
AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on this product. Except for minor editorial changes,
and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as
proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic
burden on any operator.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Bombardier Service Bulletin 604-36-005, Bombardier
Service Bulletin 605-36-002, and Bombardier Service Bulletin 650-36-
001, all dated December 23, 2022. This service information specifies
procedures for testing affected bleed air leak detection system sensing
elements (i.e., those marked with a date code before ``A2105'' (which
corresponds to January 31, 2021) with a part number defined in this
service information) to determine if they are serviceable and replacing
failed sensing elements with serviceable ones. These documents are
distinct since they apply to different airplane serial numbers.
    The FAA reviewed Kidde Aerospace & Defense Service Bulletin CFD-26-
1, Revision 6, dated February 28, 2022. This service information
specifies affected continuous fire detector part numbers and testing
procedures.
    This service information 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.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 694 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Labor cost               Parts cost           Cost per product            Cost on U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 37 work-hours x $85 per                  $0  Up to $3,145.................  Up to $2,182,630.
 hour = Up to $3,145.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-condition
actions that would be required based on the results of any required
actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that
might need these on-condition actions.

                                     Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                                  Labor cost                                       Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
37 work-hours x $85 per hour = $3,145.........................................        $4,000 *           $7,145
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost estimates for the parts specified in this
  AD. This is the estimated cost for replacement of 2 percent of the failed sensing elements. If all sensing
  elements failed, the estimated parts cost would be $40,000 for each airplane.

    The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate.
According to the manufacturer, however, some or all the costs of this
AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected operators.

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

    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) 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 Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2023-22-16 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-22600; Docket No. FAA-
2023-1710; Project Identifier MCAI-2023-00243-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective January 5, 2024.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2B16 (604
Variant) airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers
5580 through 5665 inclusive, 5701 through 5988 inclusive, and 6050
and subsequent.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code: 36, Pneumatic.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports that sensing elements of the
bleed air leak detection system were manufactured with insufficient
salt fill. The FAA is issuing this AD to address insufficient salt
fill, which can result in an inability to detect hot bleed air
leaks, which can cause damage to surrounding structures and systems
that can prevent continued safe flight and landing.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Definitions

    For the purposes of this AD, the definitions specified in
paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this AD apply.
    (1) Affected part: A sensing element marked with a date code
before A2105 and having a part number listed in Kidde Aerospace and
Defense Service Bulletin CFD-26-1, Revision 6, dated February 28,
2022; unless the sensing element meets the conditions specified in
paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and (ii) of this AD, or has passed the test
specified in paragraph (h) of this AD.
    (i) Has been tested in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Kidde Aerospace and Defense Service Bulletin CFD-26-
1, Revision 6, dated February 28, 2022, and passed the test; and
    (ii) Has been marked on one face of its connector hex nut in
accordance with paragraph 3.C., Identification Procedure, of Kidde
Aerospace and Defense Service Bulletin CFD-26-1, Revision 6, dated
February 28, 2022.
    (2) Serviceable part: A sensing element that is not an affected
part.

(h) Testing

    For airplane serial numbers 5580 through 5665 inclusive, 5701
through 5988 inclusive, and 6050 through 6174 inclusive: Within
7,800 flight cycles or 96 months, whichever occurs first, from the
effective date of this AD, test the bleed air leak detection system
sensing elements to determine if they are serviceable, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service
information identified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (3) of this AD.
If the sensing element is found serviceable, before further flight,
mark the sensing element with a green mark in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information
identified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (3) of this AD. If the
sensing element is found not serviceable, before further flight,
replace the sensing element with a serviceable part in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service
information identified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (3) of this AD.
    (1) For Model CL-600-2B16 airplanes, serial numbers 5580 through
5665 inclusive (Challenger 604): Use Bombardier Service Bulletin
604-36-005, dated December 23, 2022.
    (2) For Model CL-600-2B16 airplanes, serial numbers 5701 through
5988 inclusive (Challenger 605): Use Bombardier Service Bulletin
605-36-002, dated December 23, 2022.
    (3) For Model CL-600-2B16 airplanes, serial numbers 6050 through
6174 inclusive (Challenger 650): Use Bombardier Service Bulletin
650-36-001, dated December 23, 2022.

(i) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an
affected part on any airplane.

(j) No Reporting Requirement

    Although the service information referenced in paragraph (g)(1)
of this AD and paragraphs (h)(1) through (3) of this AD specifies to
submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not
include that requirement.

(k) Additional AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Validation 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 responsible Flight Standards Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the Manager,
International Validation Branch, mail it to the address identified
in paragraph (l)(2) of this AD or email to: [email protected]. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your
appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the responsible Flight Standards 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
Validation Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada; or Bombardier, Inc.'s
Transport Canada Design Approval Organization (DAO). If approved by
the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by
paragraph (k)(2) of this AD, if any service information contains
procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those 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) Additional Information

    (1) Refer to Transport Canada AD CF-2023-05, dated February 8,
2023, for related information. This Transport Canada AD may be found
in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1710.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Gabriel Kim,
Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 604-36-005, dated December 23,
2022.
    (ii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-36-002, dated December 23,
2022.
    (iii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 650-36-001, dated December 23,
2022.
    (iv) Kidde Aerospace and Defense Service Bulletin CFD-26-1,
Revision 6, dated February 28, 2022.
    Note 1 to paragraph (m)(2)(iv): The revision level of this
service bulletin is only identified on the transmittal sheet.
    (3) For Bombardier service information identified in this AD,
contact Bombardier Business Aircraft Customer Response Center, 400
C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>website
bombardier.com.
    (4) For Kidde Aerospace & Defense service information identified
in this AD, contact Kidde Aerospace & Defense, 4200 Airport Drive
NW, Building B, Wilson, NC 27896; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; website:
kiddetechnologies.com/aviation.com.
    (5) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (6) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email [email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on November 2, 2023.
Victor Wicklund,
Deputy Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-26382 Filed 11-30-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 46 (Friday, March 8, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15112-15114]
[FR Doc No: 2013-05230]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration Aviation

Rulemaking Advisory Committee; Transport Airplane Performance and
Handling Characteristics--New Task

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of new task assignment for the Aviation Rulemaking
Advisory Committee (ARAC).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA assigned ARAC a new task to prioritize potential topic
areas for development of new or revised requirements and guidance
material for airplane performance and handling characteristics in new
transport category airplanes. The output of this task is intended to
support FAA planning for subsequent ARAC taskings in these topic areas.
This notice is to inform the public of this ARAC activity.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe Jacobsen, Airplane & Flight Crew
Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Federal
Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, Washington 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile (425) 227- 1149; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA established ARAC to provide advice and recommendations to
the FAA Administrator on the FAA's rulemaking activities with respect
to aviation-related issues. This includes obtaining advice and
recommendations on the FAA's commitments to harmonize FAA regulations
with its partners in Europe, Canada, and Brazil; in this instance, on
airplane performance and handling characteristics standards. ARAC will
address this task under the Transport Airplane and Engine (TAE)
Subcommittee, and will reestablish the Flight Test Harmonization
Working Group (FTHWG) to assist in completion of this task.
    The FAA has established regulations and policy in the areas of
airplane performance and handling characteristics. However, existing
standards do not adequately address airplane designs using fly-by-wire
technology. Additionally, there are a number of issues, such as several
items in the areas of takeoff and landing performance and flying
qualities that may not be adequately addressed by the existing
airworthiness requirements and guidance material. Finally, there are
cases where guidance information provided by the airworthiness
authorities is not harmonized, sometimes leading to different
compliance findings.

The Task

    The FAA tasked ARAC to consider several areas within the airplane
performance and handling qualities requirements of the 14 CFR part 25
airworthiness standards and guidance for possible revision. The task
includes prioritizing the list of topic areas provided in this notice
based on prioritization criteria established by the FTHWG. The
prioritization criteria should consider harmonization of regulatory
requirements and associated guidance material for airworthiness
certification of airplane designs. Recommendations may result in
subsequent ARAC taskings for standards recommendations in follow-on
phases. ARAC may also recommend additional topics in the general area
of airplane performance and handling qualities that are not on the list
provided in this notice
    The working group will provide a draft report to ARAC recommending
focus areas and work plans to address those areas the FTHWG identified
as high priorities for airworthiness standards development relative to
new

airplane designs. This report will provide the rationale for the
priority recommended as well as identify those items for which
coordination with other working groups or experts outside the FTHWG may
be needed. The report will also include a proposed schedule for
accomplishment of the plan, including whether multiple topics can be
worked simultaneously. If there is disagreement within the working
group, those items should be documented, including the rationale from
each party and the reasons for the disagreement. The following subject
areas should be considered:
    1. Fly-by-wire (FBW) Flight Controls. Regulatory requirements and
associated guidance material for airworthiness certification of
airplane designs using FBW technology to obviate longstanding,
repetitively used FBW special conditions. Specific areas include:
    a. Applicability/adaptation of Amendment 25-121 airplane
performance and handling characteristics in icing conditions
requirements
    b. Design maneuver requirements,*
    c. Design dive speed,*
    d. Side stick controls,*
    e. Flight envelope protection, and *
    f. Interaction of airplane systems and structure.*

    * Note: These items should be considered for coordination with
other working groups.

    2. Takeoff and Landing Performance. Regulatory requirements and
associated guidance material for airworthiness certification in the
following areas listed below. (Note: This topic area excludes items
addressed by the Takeoff and Landing Performance Assessment Aviation
Rulemaking Committee.)
    a. Flight test methods used to determine maximum tailwind and
crosswind capability. Additionally, for crosswind testing, better
define intended operational use of demonstrated maximum steady and
gusting crosswind performance.
    b. Wet runway stopping performance. Recent landing overruns on wet
runways have raised questions regarding current wet runway stopping
performance requirements and methods. Analyses indicate that the
braking coefficient of friction in each case was significantly lower
than expected for a wet runway (i.e., lower than the level specified in
FAA regulations). Consideration should also be given to the scheduling
of landing performance on wet porous friction course and grooved runway
surfaces. Recommendations may include the need for additional data
gathering, analysis, and possible rulemaking.
    c. Go-around performance, specifically height lost in executing a
go-around. While airplanes may be able to demonstrate the climb
gradient capability prescribed in 14 CFR/European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) Certification Specification (CS) 25.121, it may not be
able to achieve it quickly enough, particularly when executing a go-
around close to the ground.
    d. Performance standards and guidance regarding landing in abnormal
configurations.
    e. Guidance regarding the function and use of the amber band on
airspeed tapes. Manufacturers' philosophies differ regarding the
meaning of the amber band in an airspeed tape display, as do U.S. and
European regulatory authorities' policies regarding acceptance of
target airspeeds within the amber band.
    f. Guidance on piloting procedures used to evaluate airplane tail
clearance during certification flight tests for takeoff performance.
    g. Landing distance performance for autoland and landing distance
performance using heads-up-displays (HUD). Use of autoland or HUD may
invalidate landing distance performance determined for compliance to 14
CFR/CS 25.125.
    h. Steep approach landing performance. Current airplane
certification standards are not harmonized among the U.S., Canadian,
Brazilian, and European airworthiness authorities.
    i. Narrow runway operations. Current airplane certification
standards do not identify minimum runway widths for which the standards
apply.
    j. Reduced and derated takeoff thrust procedures. Updates to
existing guidance material may be appropriate to limit the number of
derates permitted for a specific airframe/engine combination.
    k. Guidance material for pressure error measurement during takeoff
until out of ground effect to ensure proper data reduction for
calculation of takeoff distance performance.
    l. Guidance material addressing the adverse effects on stall speed
in ground effect.
    3. Handling Characteristics. Regulatory requirements and associated
guidance material for airworthiness certification in the following
areas:
    a. Guidance material for assessing handling qualities. Advisory
Circular 25-7C, ``Flight Test Guide for Certification of Transport
Category Airplanes,'' provides an FAA Handling Quality Rating Method
(HQRM) that is intended to provide a systematic way of determining
appropriate minimum handling qualities requirements and evaluating
those handling qualities for failure conditions affecting an airplane's
flying qualities. The FAA handling quality rating system is not
universally accepted within industry, nor is it accepted by EASA.
    b. Guidance for assessing susceptibility to pilot-induced
oscillations/airplane-pilot coupling (PIO/APC). Guidance provided in AC
25-7C for evaluating PIO/APC is also not well accepted by airplane
manufacturers, is not harmonized with EASA, and has been superseded to
some extent in recent certification programs. Modified guidance is
needed to both simplify and standardize the methods for evaluating an
airplane's susceptibility to PIO/APC.

Schedule

    The required completion date for the recommendation report is 9
months after the FAA publishes the task in the Federal Register. After
receiving the report, the FAA will consider the recommendations and
determine subsequent development tasks. The FAA expects to publish
additional ARAC taskings for follow on phases to develop
recommendations for the selected standards and guidance.

ARAC Acceptance of Task

    ARAC accepted the task and assigned it to the FTHWG under the TAE
Subcommittee. The working group serves as staff to ARAC and assists in
the analysis of assigned tasks. ARAC must review and approve the
working group's recommendations. If ARAC accepts the working group's
recommendations, it will forward them to the FAA.

Working Group Activity

    The FTHWG must comply with the procedures adopted by ARAC. As part
of the procedures, the working group must:
    1. Develop a prioritized list of subject areas (as provided in this
notice or added by the FTHWG) to focus subsequent efforts and standards
development in follow-on phases for consideration by ARAC.
    2. Based on the priorities from item 1 above, recommend a work plan
and phasing for completion of each prioritized task for review and
approval by ARAC.
    3. Provide a status report at each meeting of ARAC.
    4. Provide a final recommendation report to ARAC for review and
approval.

Participation in the Working Group

    The FTHWG is composed of technical experts having expertise in the
subject matter and an interest in the assigned task. A working group
member need not be a representative or a member of ARAC.
    If you have expertise in the subject matter and wish to become a
member of the working group, write to the person listed under the
caption FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT expressing that desire.
Describe your interest in the task and state the expertise you would
bring to the working group. We must receive all requests by April 5,
2013. ARAC and the FAA will review the requests and advise you whether
or not your request is approved.
    If you are chosen for membership on the working group, you must
represent your aviation community segment and actively participate in
the working group by attending all meetings and providing written
comments when requested to do so. You must devote the resources
necessary to support the working group in meeting any assigned
deadlines. You must keep your management chain and those you may
represent advised of working group activities and decisions to ensure
that the proposed technical solutions do not conflict with your
sponsoring organization's position when the subject being negotiated is
presented to ARAC for approval. Once the working group has begun
deliberations, members will not be added or substituted without the
approval of the FAA and the Working Group Co-Chairs.
    The Secretary of Transportation determined that the formation and
use of ARAC is necessary and in the public interest in connection with
the performance of duties imposed on the FAA by law. ARAC and the TAE
Subcommittee meetings are open to the public. Meetings of the Flight
Test Harmonization Working Group will not be open to the public, except
to the extent individuals with an interest and expertise are selected
to participate. The FAA will make no public announcement of working
group meetings.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 1, 2013.
Lirio Liu,
Designated Federal Officer, Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 2013-05230 Filed 3-7-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


BFG Tuscaloosa

BFG Tuscaloosa

BFG Tuscaloosa

BFG Tuscaloosa

BFG Ft. Wayne

BFG Ft Wayne

Continental mixers 1-13, 16   Continental mixers 14, 15, 17, 18

Continental mixers 19

Continental mixer 20, 21   Continental mixer 22 (continuous run)

Cooper Findley

Cooper Findley

Cooper Findley

Cooper Findley

Cooper Texarkana mixers 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9

Cooper Texarkana

Cooper Texarkana

Cooper Texarkana

Cooper Tupelo

Cooper Tupelo

Cooper Tupelo

Cooper Tupelo mixers 4, 6, 7, 8

Cooper Tupelo

Goodyear Danville

Goodyear Danville

Goodyear Danville

Goodyear Fayetteville

Goodyear Fayetteville

Goodyear Lawton

Goodyear Lawton

Goodyear Lawton

Goodyear Lawton

Goodyear Social Circle mx 1

Goodyear Social Circle mx 2

Goodyear Topeka mx1

Goodyear Topeka mx 2 - 11

US2 Sandy Springs

US2 Sandy Springs

US2 Sandy Springs

US2 Sandy Springs

US2 Sandy Springs

US2 Sandy Springs

US2 Sandy Springs

US2 Sandy Springs

US2 Sandy Springs

US8 MIXER 1 AND 2

US8

US 9

US  9

Titan

Titan

Titan


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 71 (Friday, April 12, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14932-14934]
[FR Doc No: 2019-07292]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 3023-014; Project No. 2972-027]

Blackstone Hydro, Inc., City of Woonsocket, Rhode Island; Notice
of Scoping Meetings and Environmental Site Review and Soliciting
Scoping Comments

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric applications have been
filed with Commission and are available for public inspection:

    a. Type of Application:

New Major License (P-3023-014)
Subsequent Minor License (P-2972-027)

    b. Project Nos.: 3023-014 and 2972-027.

    c. Dates filed:

October 1, 2018 (P-3023-014)
November 1, 2018 (P-2972-027)

    d. Submitted By:

Blackstone Hydro, Inc. (Blackstone Hydro) (P-3023-014)
City of Woonsocket, Rhode Island (City) (P-2972-027)

    e. Names of Project:

Blackstone Hydroelectric Project (P-3023-014)
Woonsocket Falls Project (P-2972-027)

    f. Location: The Blackstone Hydroelectric Project is located on the
Blackstone River in Providence County, Rhode Island and Worchester
County, Massachusetts. The Woonsocket Falls Project is located on the
Blackstone River in the City of Woonsocket, Providence County, Rhode
Island. The Blackstone Hydroelectric and Woonsocket Falls Projects do
not occupy any federal land.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contacts: Blackstone Hydroelectric Project--Lewis C.
Loon, General Manager, Operations and Maintenance--USA/QC, KEI USA
Power Management, Inc., 423 Brunswick Avenue, Gardiner, ME 04345; (207)
203-3027, or [email protected].
    Woonsocket Falls Project--Mr. Michael Debroisse, City of
Woonsocket, Engineering, 169 Main Street, Woonsocket, RI 02895; (401)
767-9213.
    i. FERC Contact: Patrick Crile,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected].
    j. Deadline for filing scoping comments: June 9, 2019.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
scoping comments using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. All filings must clearly identify the project
name and docket number on the first page: Blackstone Hydroelectric
Project No. 3023-014 and/or Woonsocket Falls Project No. 2972-027.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
interveners filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person on the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervener files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. The applications are not ready for environmental analysis at
this time.
    l. The existing Blackstone Hydroelectric Project consists of: (1) A
210-foot-long, 12-foot-high arch-type masonry dam and spillway
(Blackstone Dam) with 12-inch-high flashboards and a crest elevation of
192.8 feet above mean sea level (msl) at the top of the flashboards;
(2) an approximately 2-mile-long impoundment with a normal maximum
elevation of 192.8 feet msl; (3) water conveyance structures that
consist of: (a) A 1,100-foot-long, 60- to 100-foot-wide power canal
located 700 feet upstream of the Blackstone Dam; (b) an 11.5-acre
headpond at a normal maximum elevation of 192.8 feet msl; (c) a 46-
foot-long, 16-foot-high headgate dam structure with four 7-foot-high,
8-foot-wide intake gates; (d) a 300-foot-long, 40-foot-wide headrace
canal structure; and (e) four 8-foot-diameter, 22-foot-long buried
penstocks; (4) a concrete and brick powerhouse containing four vertical
Francis turbine-generator units with a total authorized capacity of
1,724 kilowatts; (5) a 100-foot-long, 40-foot-wide tailrace channel
that discharges into the Blackstone River; (6) outlet work structures
located downstream of the headgate dam structure in the headrace canal
that consist of: (a) A 37-foot-long, 12-foot-high emergency spillway
with a crest elevation of 196 feet msl located at the north end of the
headrace; (b) two 5-foot-wide, 5-foot-high outlet gates; (c) a 60-foot-
long outlet channel; and (d) two 36-inch-diameter, 150-foot-long
concrete conduits that empty into a 190-foot-long, 20-foot-wide channel
that discharges into the Blackstone River downstream from the tailrace;
(7) a 90-foot-long, 4.16-kilovolt (kV) transmission line, a 4.16/13.8-
kV step-up transformer, and a 1,300-foot-long, 13.8-kV transmission
line connecting the project generators to the regional electric grid;
and (8) appurtenant facilities.
    Blackstone Hydro operates the project in a run-of-river mode with
an annual average generation of approximately 4,027 megawatt-hours. The
project bypasses approximately 1 mile of the Blackstone River, and
there is currently no required minimum instream flow for the bypassed
reach. However, Blackstone Hydro voluntarily maintains a flow between
11 and 21 cubic feet per second (cfs) over the crest of the Blackstone
Dam to the bypassed reach using an automatic pond level controller.
    Blackstone Hydro proposes to: (1) Continue operating the project in
a run-of-river mode; (2) provide a year-round minimum flow of 35 cfs to
the bypassed reach; (3) provide upstream eel passage at the project,
following installation of an upstream eel passage facility at the
downstream Woonsocket Falls Project; (4) implement nighttime turbine
shutdowns during the downstream eel passage season to facilitate
downstream passage, 10 years after the installation of the upstream eel
passage facility; and (5) provide a continuous flow through the intake
canal to improve dissolved oxygen levels in the power canal under
certain flow conditions from June 1 to October 31.
    The existing Woonsocket Falls Project utilizes water from an
impoundment that is created by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
(Corps) Woonsocket Falls Dam. The project consists of: (1) A 14-foot-
wide, 20.5-foot-high concrete intake structure located about 60 feet
upstream of the Woonsocket Falls Dam and fitted with a 12-foot-wide,
18-foot-high steel trash rack having 3.5-inch clear bar spacing; (2) a
275-foot long, 12-foot-wide, 10-foot-high concrete penstock; (3) a
steel headgate integral with the powerhouse; (4) a 65-foot-long, 25-
foot-wide, 20-foot-high concrete powerhouse containing one adjustable
blade turbine-generator unit with an authorized capacity of 1,200
kilowatts; (5) a 50-foot-long, 12.5-foot-diameter steel draft tube; (6)
an approximately 50-foot-long, 20-foot-wide, 15-foot-deep tailrace; (7)
a 35-foot-long 4.16 kilovolt (kV) generator lead line, a 4.16/13.8-kV
step-up transformer, and a 1,200-foot-long, 13.8-kV transmission line
connecting the project generator to the regional grid; and (8)
appurtenant facilities.
    The dam and impoundment are operated in a run-of-river mode. The
Woonsocket Falls Project bypasses approximately 360 feet of the
Blackstone River and there is currently no required minimum instream
flow for the bypassed reach. However, a flow of 20 cfs is provided to
the bypassed reach over the crest of the dam. The Woonsocket Falls
project has an average annual generation of approximately 4,584
megawatt-hours.
    The City proposes to: (1) Operate the impoundment in a run-of-river
mode pursuant to an operating plan and Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
with the Corps; (2) provide a year-round minimum flow of 20 cfs to the
bypassed reach pursuant to an operating plan and MOA with the Corps;
(3) provide upstream eel passage at the dam pursuant to an operating
plan and MOA

with the Corps; and (4) implement nighttime turbine shutdowns during
the downstream eel passage season to protect eels during passage.
    m. Copies of the applications are available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's website 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 Online Support. Copies are also available for inspection and
reproduction at the addresses in item h above. Additionally, copies of
the Blackstone project license application are available for viewing
during normal business hours at the Blackstone Public Library located
at 86 Main Street, Blackstone, MA 01504 and at the North Smithfield
Public Library located at 20 N Main St., Slatersville, Rhode Island
02876.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    n. Scoping Process
    The Commission intends to prepare an environmental assessment (EA)
on the project in accordance with the National Environmental Policy
Act. The EA will consider both site-specific and cumulative
environmental impacts and reasonable alternatives to the proposed
action.

Scoping Meetings

    FERC staff will conduct one agency scoping meeting and one public
meeting. The agency scoping meeting will focus on resource agency and
non-governmental organization (NGO) concerns, while the public scoping
meeting is primarily for public input. All interested individuals,
organizations, and agencies are invited to attend one or both of the
meetings, and to assist the staff in identifying the scope of the
environmental issues that should be analyzed in the EA. The times and
locations of these meetings are as follows:

Evening Scoping Meeting
    Date: Thursday, May 9, 2019
    Time: 6:00 p.m. (ET)
    Place: Holiday Inn Express & Suites
    Address: 194 Fortin Drive, Woonsocket, Rhode Island 02895
Daytime Scoping Meeting
    Date: Friday, May 10, 2019
    Time: 9:00 a.m. (ET)
    Place: Holiday Inn Express & Suites
    Address: 194 Fortin Drive, Woonsocket, Rhode Island 02895

    Copies of the Scoping Document (SD1) outlining the subject areas to
be addressed in the EIS were distributed to the parties on the
Commission's mailing list. Copies of the SD1 will be available at the
scoping meeting or may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov
using the ``eLibrary'' link (see item m above).

Environmental Site Review

    Blackstone Hydro and FERC staff will conduct an environmental site
review of the Blackstone Hydroelectric Project beginning at 9:00 a.m.
on May 9, 2019. All interested individuals, organizations, and agencies
are invited to attend. All participants should meet at the project
powerhouse located at 2 Tupperware Drive, North Smithfield, Rhode
Island 02896. All participants interesting in seeing the inside of the
project powerhouse will be required to wear steel-toed safety shoes.
All participants interested in seeing the project dam, which is located
approximately 0.5 mile from the project powerhouse, are responsible for
their own transportation. Directions to the dam from the powerhouse
will be provided during the environmental site review. Anyone planning
to attend the environmental site review should contact Sherri Loon at
(207) 203-3026 or [email protected] by May 3, 2019, and indicate
how many participants will be attending with you.
    The City and FERC staff will conduct a project environmental site
review of the Woonsocket Falls Project beginning at 1:00 p.m. on May 9,
2019. All interested individuals, organizations, and agencies are
invited to attend. All participants should meet at the City Park
located at 0 South Main Street, Woonsocket, RI 02895. The City Park is
located adjacent to the Woonsocket Falls Dam, on the east riverbank,
near the intersection of South Main and River Streets. All participants
are responsible for their own transportation to the site. Anyone
planning to attend the environmental site review should contact Bruce
DiGennaro at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected] by May 3,
2019, and indicate how many participants will be attending with you.

Objectives

    At the scoping meetings, the staff will: (1) Summarize the
environmental issues tentatively identified for analysis in the EA; (2)
solicit from the meeting participants all available information,
especially quantifiable data, on the resources at issue; (3) encourage
statements from experts and the public on issues that should be
analyzed in the EA, including viewpoints in opposition to, or in
support of, the staff's preliminary views; (4) determine the resource
issues to be addressed in the EA; and (5) identify those issues that
require a detailed analysis, as well as those issues that do not
require a detailed analysis.

Procedures

    The meetings are recorded by a stenographer and become part of the
formal record of the Commission proceeding on the projects.
    Individuals, organizations, and agencies with environmental
expertise and concerns are encouraged to attend the meeting and to
assist the staff in defining and clarifying the issues to be addressed
in the EA.

    Dated: April 8, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-07292 Filed 4-11-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


                  UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY                 NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY                              2000 TRAVERWOOD DRIVE                            ANN ARBOR, MI  48105-2498

									     OFFICE OF 									AIR AND RADIATION 3/8/16

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Daimler visit on Phase 2 GEM and Road grade comments

FROM: Houshun Zhang

TO:  Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles - Phase 2 - Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827

This memo documents a phone conference call with Daimler on March 8, 2016 on road grade issues related to the Phase 2 greenhouse gas and fuel efficiency standards for heavy-duty vehicles.  Five people from Daimler are Gerald Freitag, Dave Kayes, and Dod Keski-Hynnila.

During the meeting, Daimler expressed their concerns on the road grade profile called Profile D.  Their data showed that this profile would distort the market and technology development because the vehicle has to run the full throttle position for too long, which is more than 22%.  In contrast, their data shows the real life truck only spent 13% on the 100% loads.  They recommended that the agency consider revising the road grade that can better represent the real life driving condition.