[Federal Register: February 22, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 36)]
[Notices]
[Page 9797-9798]
[DOCID:fr22fe08-61]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8531-6; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-1145]

Draft Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen and
Sulfur--Environmental Criteria and Annexes

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of an extension of the public comment period for draft
Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen and Sulfur--
Environmental Criteria and Annexes.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is announcing an extension of the public comment
period for the draft document titled, ``Integrated Science Assessment
for Oxides of Nitrogen and Sulfur--Environmental Criteria; First
External Review Draft'' (EPA 600/R-07/145A), and ``Annexes for the
Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen and Sulfur--
Environmental Criteria; First External Review Draft'' (EPA 600/R-07/
145bA).
    The draft document was prepared by the National Center for
Environmental Assessment within EPA's Office of Research and
Development as part of the Agency's review of the secondary (welfare-
based) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for nitrogen
dioxide (NO2) and sulfur dioxide (SO2). EPA is
releasing this draft document solely for the purpose of seeking comment
from the public and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
(CASAC).
    The document is being distributed solely for the purpose of pre-
dissemination review under applicable information quality guidelines.
It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any
Agency policy, viewpoint, or determination. EPA will consider any
public comments submitted in accordance with this notice when revising
the document.

DATES: The public comment period began on December 21, 2007. This
notice announces the extension of the deadline for public comment from
February 21, 2008, to March 28, 2008. Comments must be received on or
before March 28, 2008.

ADDRESSES: The draft, ``Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of
Nitrogen and Sulfur--Environmental Criteria and Annexes 1-10; First
External Review Draft,'' are available primarily via the Internet on
the National Center for Environmental Assessment's home page under the
Recent Additions and Publications menus at http://www.epa.gov/ncea. A
limited number of CD-ROM or paper copies will be available. Contact Ms.
Emily Lee by phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>to request either of the documents. Please provide
your name, your mailing address, and the draft document title,
``Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen and Sulfur--
Environmental Criteria; First External Review Draft'' (EPA/600/R-07/
145A) to facilitate processing of your request. Comments may be
submitted electronically via http://www.regulations.gov, by mail, by
facsimile, or by hand delivery/courier. Please follow the detailed
instructions provided in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Emily Lee, NCEA; telephone: 919-
541-4169, facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For
technical information, contact Tara Greaver, Ph.D., NCEA; telephone:
919-541-2435; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Information About the Document

    Section 108(a) of the Clean Air Act directs the Administrator to
identify certain pollutants which ``may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health and welfare'' and to issue air quality criteria
for them. These air quality criteria are to ``accurately reflect the
latest scientific knowledge useful in indicating the kind and extent of
all identifiable effects on public health or welfare which may be
expected from the presence of [a] pollutant in the ambient air.''
    Under section 109 of the Act, EPA is then to establish national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for each pollutant for which EPA
has issued criteria. Section 109(d) of the Act subsequently requires
periodic review and, if appropriate, revision of existing air quality
criteria to reflect advances in scientific knowledge on the effects of
the pollutant on public health and welfare. EPA is also to revise the
NAAQS, if appropriate, based on the revised air quality criteria.
    Oxides of nitrogen and sulfur are two of six principal (or
``criteria'') pollutants for which EPA has established air quality
criteria and NAAQS. EPA periodically reviews the scientific basis for
these standards by preparing an Integrated Science Assessment (ISA)
(formerly called an Air Quality Criteria Document). The ISA and
supplementary annexes, in conjunction with additional technical and
policy assessments, provide the scientific basis for EPA decisions on
the adequacy of a current NAAQS and the appropriateness of new or
revised standards. The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC),
an independent science advisory committee established pursuant to
section 109 of the Clean Air Act and part of the EPA's Science Advisory
Board (SAB), provides independent scientific advice on NAAQS matters,
including advice on EPA's draft ISAs.
    EPA formally initiated its current review of the criteria for
oxides of nitrogen and sulfur in December 2005 (70 FR 73236) and May
2006 (71 FR 28023) respectively, requesting the submission of recent
scientific information on specified topics. In the initial stages of
the criteria reviews, EPA recognized the merit of integrating the
science assessment for these two pollutants due to their combined
effects on atmospheric chemistry, deposition processes, and
environment-related public welfare effects. In July 2007 (72 FR 34004),
a workshop was held to discuss, with invited scientific experts,
initial draft materials prepared in the

development of the ISA and supplementary annexes for oxides of nitrogen
and sulfur. EPA's ``Draft Plan for Review of the Secondary National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Nitrogen Dioxide and Sulfur Dioxide''
was made available in September 2007 for public comment and was
discussed by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) via a
publicly accessible teleconference consultation on October 30, 2007 (72
FR 57568). The Plan is available on EPA's Web site: http://www.epa.gov/
ttn/naaqs/standards/no2so2sec/cr_pd.html.
    The draft, ``Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen
and Sulfur--Environmental Criteria; First External Review Draft,'' will
be discussed by CASAC at a future public meeting; public comments that
have been received prior to the public meeting will be provided to the
CASAC review panel. A future Federal Register notice will inform the
public of the exact date and time of that CASAC meeting.

II. How To Submit Information to the Docket

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-
1145 by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket
(Mail Code: 2822T), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. The phone number is
202-566-1752.
     Hand Delivery: The OEI Docket is located in the EPA
Headquarters Docket Center, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Such deliveries are only accepted during
the docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should
be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    If you provide comments by mail or hand delivery, please submit one
unbound original with pages numbered consecutively, and three copies of
the comments. For attachments, provide an index, number pages
consecutively with the comments, and submit an unbound original and
three copies.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2007-1145. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the
specified comment period. Comments received after the closing date will
be marked ``late,'' and may only be considered if time permits. It is
EPA's policy to include all comments it receives in the public docket
without change and to make the comments available online at http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless a 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.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hardcopy at the OEI Docket in the
EPA Headquarters Docket Center.

    Dated: February 12, 2008.
Rebecca Clark,
Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment.
[FR Doc. E8-3370 Filed 2-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 150 (Friday, August 3, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46428-46430]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18979]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG12-93-000.
    Applicants: Spinning Spur Wind LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Spinning Spur Wind LLC.
    Filed Date: 7/27/12.
    Accession Number: 20120727-5038.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/17/12.

    Docket Numbers: EG12-94-000.
    Applicants: Laurel Hill Wind Energy, LLC.
    Description: Self-Certification of EWG of Laurel Hill Wind Energy,
LLC.
    Filed Date: 7/27/12.
    Accession Number: 20120727-5069.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/17/12.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2669-005; ER10-2670-005; ER10-2671-006; ER10-
2673-005; ER10-2253-006; ER10-3319-007; ER10-2674-005; ER10-1544-005;
ER10-2627-006; ER10-2629-007; ER10-1547-005; ER10-1549-005; ER10-2675-
006; ER10-1546-007; ER10-2676-005; ER10-2636-006; ER10-1550-006; ER10-
1974-007; ER10-1975-007; ER11-2424-008; ER10-2677-005; ER10-1551-005;
ER10-2678-004; ER10-2638-005.
    Applicants: Hopewell Cogeneration Ltd Partnership, Troy Energy,
LLC, MT. Tom Generating Company LLC, ANP FUNDING I, LLC, Astoria Energy
LLC, FirstLight Power Resources Management, LLC, Calumet Energy Team,
LLC, Pleasants Energy, LLC, Waterbury Generation LLC, Choctaw
Generation Limited Partnership, Hot Spring Power Company, LLC, Syracuse
Energy Corporation, IPA Trading, LLC, Northeastern Power Company,
Astoria Energy II LLC, Pinetree Power-Tamworth, Inc., ANP Blackstone
Energy Company, LLC, ANP Bellingham Energy Company, LLC, Milford Power
Limited Partnership, Northeast Energy Associates, North Jersey Energy
Associates, IPR-GDF SUEZ Energy Marketing North America, Inc.,
Armstrong Energy Limited Partnership, L.L.L.P., FirstLight Hydro
Generating Co.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status for ANP
Bellingham Energy Company, LLC, et. al.
    Filed Date: 7/27/12.
    Accession Number: 20120727-5062.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/17/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-1933-002; ER10-2441-002.
    Applicants: Green Mountain Power Corporation, Central Vermont
Public Service Corporation.
    Description: Notice of Material Change in Status of Green Mountain
Power Corporation and Central Vermont Public Service Corporation.
    Filed Date: 7/27/12.
    Accession Number: 20120727-5112.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/17/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4106-003.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
35: Compliance Filing per 6/28/2012 Order in ER11-4106 (sections
effective 4/1/2012) to be effective 4/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 7/27/12.
    Accession Number: 20120727-5058.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/17/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4106-004.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
35: Compliance Filing per 6/28/2012 Order in ER11-4106 (sections
effective 7/1/2012) to be effective 7/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 7/27/12.
    Accession Number: 20120727-5064.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/17/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2007-001.
    Applicants: Algonquin Windsor Locks LLC.
    Description: Amendment to Pending Tariff to be effective 1/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 7/27/12.
    Accession Number: 20120727-5111.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/17/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2252-001.
    Applicants: Public Power (PA), LLC.
    Description: Public Power (PA), LLC submits tariff filing per
35.17(b): Amended Proposed Market-Based Rate Tariff to be effective 8/
17/2012.
    Filed Date: 7/27/12.
    Accession Number: 20120727-5059.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/17/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2313-000.
    Applicants: Laurel Hill Wind Energy, LLC.
    Description: Laurel Hill Wind Energy, LLC submits tariff filing per
35.1: MBR Application and Tariff Filing to be effective 9/10/2012.
    Filed Date: 7/27/12.
    Accession Number: 20120727-5029.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/17/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2314-000.
    Applicants: Spinning Spur Wind LLC.
    Description: Spinning Spur Wind LLC submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: Spinning Spur Wind MBR Application Filing to be
effective 9/27/2012.
    Filed Date: 7/27/12.
    Accession Number: 20120727-5040.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/17/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2315-000.
    Applicants: Florida Power Corporation.
    Description: Florida Power Corporation submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii): Rate Schedule No. 206 of Florida Power Corp. to be
effective 9/25/2012.
    Filed Date: 7/27/12.
    Accession Number: 20120727-5046.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/17/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2316-000.
    Applicants: Florida Power Corporation.
    Description: Florida Power Corporation submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii): Rate Schedule No. 218 of Florida Power Corp. to be
effective 9/25/2012.
    Filed Date: 7/27/12.
    Accession Number: 20120727-5047.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/17/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2317-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: New York Independent System Operator, Inc. submits
tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): NYISO filing on behalf of NYPA:
NYPA Revised Transmission Revenue Requirement to be effective 8/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 7/27/12.
    Accession Number: 20120727-5056.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/17/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2318-000.
    Applicants: Carolina Power & Light Company.
    Description: Carolina Power & Light Company submits tariff filing
per 35: Revised Market-Based Rates of Carolina Power and Light to be
effective 7/2/2012.
    Filed Date: 7/27/12.
    Accession Number: 20120727-5061.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/17/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2319-000.
    Applicants: Florida Power Corporation.
    Description: Florida Power Corporation submits tariff filing per
35: Revised Market-Based Rates of Florida Power Corp. to be effective
7/2/2012.
    Filed Date: 7/27/12.
    Accession Number: 20120727-5070.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/17/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2320-000.
    Applicants: Cimarron Windpower II, LLC.
    Description: Merger-Related MBR Tariff Filing to be effective 7/2/
2012.
    Filed Date: 7/27/12.
    Accession Number: 20120727-5078.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/17/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2321-000.
    Applicants: CinCap V, LLC.
    Description: Merger-Related MBR Tariff Filing to be effective 7/2/
2012.
    Filed Date: 7/27/12.
    Accession Number: 20120727-5079.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/17/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2322-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
    Description: Merger-Related MBR Tariff Filing to be effective 7/2/
2012.
    Filed Date: 7/27/12.
    Accession Number: 20120727-5080.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/17/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2323-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Commercial Asset Management.
    Description: Merger-Related MBR Tariff Filing to be effective 7/2/
2012.
    Filed Date: 7/27/12.
    Accession Number: 20120727-5081.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/17/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2324-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Commercial Enterprises, Inc.
    Description: Merger-Related MBR Tariff Filing to be effective 7/2/
2012.
    Filed Date: 7/27/12.
    Accession Number: 20120727-5082.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/17/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2325-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Indiana, Inc.
    Description: Merger-Related MBR Tariff Filing to be effective 7/2/
2012.
    Filed Date: 7/27/12.
    Accession Number: 20120727-5083.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/17/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2326-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc.
    Description: Merger-Related MBR Tariff Filing to be effective 7/2/
2012.
    Filed Date: 7/27/12.
    Accession Number: 20120727-5086.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/17/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2327-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Ohio, Inc.
    Description: Merger-Related MBR Tariff Filing to be effective 7/2/
2012.
    Filed Date: 7/27/12.
    Accession Number: 20120727-5090.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/17/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2328-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Retail Sales, LLC.
    Description: Merger-Related MBR Tariff Filing to be effective 7/2/
2012.
    Filed Date: 7/27/12.
    Accession Number: 20120727-5094.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/17/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2329-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Fayette II, LLC.
    Description: Merger-Related MBR Tariff Filing to be effective 7/2/
201.
    Filed Date: 7/27/12.
    Accession Number: 20120727-5098.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/17/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2330-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Hanging Rock II, LLC.
    Description: Merger-Related MBR Tariff Amendments to be effective
7/2/2012.
    Filed Date: 7/27/12.
    Accession Number: 20120727-5101.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/17/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2331-000.
    Applicants: Happy Jack Windpower, LLC.
    Description: Merger-Related MBR Tariff Filing to be effective 7/2/
2012.
    Filed Date: 7/27/12.
    Accession Number: 20120727-5102.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/17/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2332-000.
    Applicants: Ironwood Windpower, LLC.
    Description: Merger-Related MBR Tariff Filing to be effective 7/2/
2012.
    Filed Date: 7/27/12.
    Accession Number: 20120727-5104.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/17/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2333-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Lee II, LLC.
    Description: Merger-Related MBR Tariff Filing to be effective 7/2/
201.
    Filed Date: 7/27/12.
    Accession Number: 20120727-5105.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/17/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2334-000.
    Applicants: North Allegheny Wind, LLC.
    Description: Merger-Related MBR Tariff Filing to be effective 7/2/
2012.
    Filed Date: 7/27/12.
    Accession Number: 20120727-5106.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/17/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2335-000.

    Applicants: Silver Sage Windpower, LLC.
    Description: Merger-Related MBR Tariff Filing to be effective 7/2/
2012.
    Filed Date: 7/27/12.
    Accession Number: 20120727-5108.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/17/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2336-000.
    Applicants: St. Paul Cogeneration, LLC.
    Description: Merger-Related MBR Tariff Filing to be effective 7/2/
2012.
    Filed Date: 7/27/12.
    Accession Number: 20120727-5114.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/17/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2337-000.
    Applicants: Three Buttes Windpower, LLC.
    Description: Merger-Related MBR Tariff Filing to be effective 7/2/
2012.
    Filed Date: 7/27/12.
    Accession Number: 20120727-5116.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/17/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2338-000.
    Applicants: Top of the World Wind Energy, LLC.
    Description: Merger-Related MBR Tariff Filing to be effective 7/2/
2012.
    Filed Date: 7/27/12.
    Accession Number: 20120727-5118.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/17/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2339-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Washington II, LLC.
    Description: Duke Energy Washington II, LLC submits tariff filing
per 35: Merger-Related MBR Tariff Filing to be effective 7/2/2012.
    Filed Date: 7/27/12.
    Accession Number: 20120727-5120.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/17/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2340-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: 1166R17 Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority NITSA NOA
to be effective 7/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 7/27/12.
    Accession Number: 20120727-5121.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/17/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2341-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., American Electric Power
Service Corporate.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: AEPSC submits 34th Revised SA No. 1336 among AEPSC &
Buckeye to be effective 6/18/2012.
    Filed Date: 7/27/12.
    Accession Number: 20120727-5151.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/17/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2342-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: Original Service Agreement No. 3352; Queue No. W1-029
to be effective 6/27/2012.
    Filed Date: 7/27/12.
    Accession Number: 20120727-5152.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/17/12.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following land
acquisition reports:

    Docket Numbers: LA12-2-000.
    Applicants: BP Energy Company, BP West Coast Products LLC, Cedar
Creek Wind Energy, LLC, Cedar Creek II, LLC, Flat Ridge 2 Wind Energy
LLC, Flat Ridge Wind Energy, LLC, Fowler Ridge II Wind Farm LLC, Fowler
Ridge III Wind Farm LLC, Fowler Ridge Wind Farm LLC, Goshen Phase II,
LLC, Long Island Solar Farm LLC, Rolling Thunder I Power Partners, LLC,
Watson Cogeneration Company, and Whiting Clean Energy, Inc.
    Description: Quarterly Land Acquisition Report of BP Energy
Company, et. al. under LA12-2.
    Filed Date: 7/27/12.
    Accession Number: 20120727-5077.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/17/12.

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

    Dated: July 27, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-18979 Filed 8-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 4, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 149)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 46868-46873]
[DOCID:fr04au10-12]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0402; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-165-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Model 747 Airplanes
and Model 767 Airplanes Equipped With General Electric Model CF6-80C2
or CF6-80A Series Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

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

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

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive
(AD) for certain Model 747 airplanes and Model 767 airplanes. The
original NPRM would have required revising the airplane flight manual
(AFM) to advise the flightcrew to use certain procedures during descent
in certain icing conditions. The original NPRM resulted from reports of
several in-flight engine flameouts, including multiple dual engine
flameout events and one total power loss event, in ice-crystal icing
conditions. This action revises the original NPRM by revising the text
of the proposed AFM revision. We are proposing this supplemental NPRM
to ensure that the flightcrew has the proper procedures to follow in
certain icing conditions. These certain icing conditions could cause a
multiple engine flameout during flight with the potential inability to
restart the engines, and consequent forced landing of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this supplemental NPRM by August 30,
2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    You may review copies of the referenced service information at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret Langsted, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 917-6500; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2008-0402;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-165-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (the ``original
NPRM'') to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an airworthiness directive
(AD) that would apply to certain Model 747 airplanes and Model 767
airplanes. That original NPRM was published in the Federal Register on
April 7, 2008 (73 FR 18721). That original NPRM proposed to require
revising the airplane flight manual (AFM) to advise the flightcrew to
use certain procedures during descent in certain icing conditions.

Actions Since Original NPRM Was Issued

    Since we issued the original NPRM, we have received a report of
another significant flameout event on a Model 747 airplane. As a result
of this latest event, Boeing has revised the AFM instructions to
include the activation of wing anti-ice for those altitudes where wing
anti-ice can be used while still ensuring that other systems that use
bleed air are adequately supplied with bleed air. Therefore, we have
revised the AFM text specified in paragraph (g) of this supplemental
NPRM to include this new text.

Other Relevant Rulemaking

    Related NPRM, Docket FAA-2008-0403, Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-
166-AD (73 FR 18719, April 7, 2008), proposed to require similar
actions for Model MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes, certified in any
category, equipped with General Electric (GE) CF6-80C2 series engines.
These airplanes have been determined to be subject to the identified
unsafe condition addressed in this supplemental NPRM.

Support for the Original NPRM

    The Air Line Pilots Association, International supports the intent
and language of the original NPRM. The National Transportation Safety
Board (NTSB), based on the success of similar AFM requirements to
address this unsafe condition on Hawker Beechcraft Corporation Model
400, 400A, and 400T series airplanes, and Model MU-300 airplanes,
supports the adoption of the proposed requirements.

Request for FAA To Actively Pursue Research to Develop a Permanent
Solution

    The NTSB notes that the original NPRM is intended as interim
action, and points out that it has issued Safety Recommendation A-06-
59, dated August 25, 2006. In this safety recommendation the NTSB asked
the FAA to ``* * * work with engine and airplane manufacturers and
other industry personnel as well as appropriate international
authorities to actively pursue research to develop an ice detector that
would alert pilots to internal engine icing and require that it be
installed on new production turbojet engines, as well as retrofitted to
existing turbojet engines.'' Therefore, the NTSB hopes the FAA pursues
research in concert with the multi-national Aircraft Icing Research
Alliance that might develop an ice detector to alert flightcrews to the
accretion of ice crystals on internal engine surfaces, so that
flightcrews can take the appropriate actions.
    We partially agree with the commenter's request. We agree that the
GE CF6-80C2 series engine needs to be modified to mitigate the risk of
flameouts caused by ice crystal accretion. However, at this time, we do
not agree to pursue research to develop an ice detector that would
alert flightcrews to the internal engine icing, or with requiring
manufacturers to install ice detectors internal to the engines. In
addition, no such designs have been proposed to the FAA. Instead, for
future designs, we are developing rulemaking to show acceptable engine
operation in an ice crystal environment. For engines that currently
demonstrate a susceptibility to ice crystals, we are working with
manufacturers to develop engine design changes to make engines more
robust during ice crystal accumulation and shedding encounters. We will
continue to provide feedback to the NTSB through the established
process for addressing safety recommendations. For this AD, if
different methods to address the unsafe condition are developed, under
the provisions of paragraph (i) of this AD, we will consider requests
for approval of an AMOC if sufficient data are submitted to
substantiate that the method would provide an acceptable level of
safety. No change to the supplemental NPRM is necessary in this regard.

Request to Require Demonstration of Non-Susceptibility in Future
Designs

    The NTSB states that it hopes the FAA will require future engine
designs to demonstrate that they will not be susceptible to the
accretion of ice crystals on internal surfaces. The NTSB points out
that this request is in keeping with information provided to the NTSB
by the FAA's icing expert during a briefing with the NTSB.
    From these statements, we infer that the NTSB is requesting that we
revise the original NPRM to include a statement of our intent to
require manufacturers to demonstrate that future engine designs are not
susceptible to the accretion of ice crystals. We partially agree. We
agree that current FAA regulations addressing engine and airplane icing
do not apply to the ice crystal environment; therefore, we are working
with the aviation industry to develop appropriate regulations that
address operation in an ice crystal environment. As we determine the
necessary requirements to address this issue, we will consider
additional rulemaking. We do not agree to revise this AD to include a
statement regarding future regulations that have not yet been
determined. No change to the supplemental NPRM is necessary in this
regard.

Request to Withdraw the Original NPRM

    GE acknowledges that a small number of inclement weather or
significant weather system encounters have resulted in short-duration
multiple engine power loss. GE points out that these few events
occurred out of 14 million flights over 20 years of total service
experience on the Model CF6-80C2 series engine. GE states that a forced
landing resulting from one of these in-flight ice-crystal icing events
is extremely improbable (including demonstrated relight performance).
Therefore, GE asserts that the proposed condition does not meet the
definition of ``unsafe condition,'' as defined by FAA Advisory Circular
39-8, ``Continued Airworthiness Assessments of Powerplant and Auxiliary
Power Unit Installations of Transport Category Airplanes,'' dated
September 8, 2003.
    From these statements, we infer that GE requests that we withdraw
the original NPRM. We do not agree. We have evaluated the unsafe
condition and find that sufficient data exist to demonstrate that the
environment that causes the engine flameout would likely cause engine
damage that potentially would prevent an engine from relighting. The
condition could exist on all of an airplane's engines, resulting in a
forced landing. The advisory circular referenced by the commenter
merely provides guidance. We have determined that an unsafe condition
exists, and the appropriate vehicle for correcting an unsafe condition
is an AD. We have not changed the supplemental NPRM regarding this
issue.

Request to Delay Issuance of AD Until New Software Modification Is
Implemented

    Lufthansa Technik (Lufthansa) suggests that the AD be postponed
until a new electronic control unit (ECU) software modification has
been implemented, and GE can present data to operators to show the need
to mandate the proposed procedures. Lufthansa asserts that GE did not
provide data to the airlines on how many flameout events have occurred.
Consequently, Lufthansa states that its flightcrews have not used the
procedure specified in the original NPRM. Lufthansa points out that it
is usually common sense to use the proposed procedure; therefore, it is
hard to understand why the proposed procedure will now be mandatory.
    We do not agree to delay issuance of this action. We do not
consider that delaying this action until after the release of a
possible software revision is warranted. As Lufthansa points out, while
the proposed procedure might be common sense to some, most flightcrews
are not using the proposed procedure; therefore, as stated previously,
we have found that ECU software logic alone does not provide an
acceptable level of safety. We have determined that the in-flight anti-
ice activation procedures in combination with the electronic engine
control (EEC) software are necessary to mitigate the unsafe condition.
However, under the provisions of paragraph (i) of the supplemental
NPRM, we will consider requests for approval of an AMOC if sufficient
data are submitted to substantiate that the change would provide an
acceptable level of safety. We find that delaying this action would be
inappropriate in light of the identified unsafe condition, and have
made no change to this supplemental NPRM in this regard.

Request to Revise Related AD To Reduce Compliance Time

    Global Supply Systems (Global) requests that we revise AD 2007-12-
07, Amendment 39-15085 (72 FR 31174, June 6, 2007), to require a much
earlier compliance time for the software update required by that AD.
That AD applies to GE Model CF6-80C2B series turbofan engines with ECUs
installed on Model 747 and 767 airplanes. Global explains that GE has
two engine software revisions to the EEC bleed scheduling, which, while
not preventing flameouts

from occurring, do appear to mitigate the effect. Global notes that the
later software revision is subject to AD 2007-12-07, which requires
compliance by July 10, 2012. Global reasons that software upgrades are
required only on workshop visits for unserviceability or engine change,
and with current serviceability levels, the mandatory upgrading of
current equipment is extremely slow, leading to substantial levels of
unmodified software installed on airplanes. Global asserts that, while
this problem increases pressure to introduce procedures to alleviate
the problem, it does not adequately address the improvement in safety
that would be incumbent on bringing the compliance date of AD 2007-12-
07 forward to require use of a programmed upgrade of the EEC software.
    We do not agree to change the compliance time for the actions
required by AD 2007-12-07. In developing an appropriate compliance time
for the requirements of that AD, we considered the safety implications,
parts availability, and normal maintenance schedules for timely
accomplishment of the requirements of that AD. In consideration of all
of these factors, we determined that the compliance time required by
that AD represents an appropriate interval in which the software can be
updated in a timely manner within the fleet, while still maintaining an
adequate level of safety. However, operators are always permitted to
accomplish the requirements of an AD at a time earlier than the
specified compliance time; therefore, an operator may choose to update
the software, as required by that AD, before the required compliance
date specified in that AD. If additional data are presented that would
justify a shorter compliance time, we might consider further rulemaking
on this issue. We have made no change to this supplemental NPRM in this
regard.

Request to Remove GE Model CF6-80A Series Engines

    GE Aviation (GE) suggests removing all references to GE Model CF6-
80A series engines from the original NPRM. GE states that it is not
aware of any confirmed engine flameout events related to GE Model CF6-
80A series engines due to ice-crystal icing conditions. GE explains
that this might be due to several factors:
     A significantly different type-design booster from that of
the GE Model CF6-80C2 series engines (GE Model CF6-80A series engines
have fewer rotor and booster stages, with 30 percent fewer airfoils,
resulting in significantly reduced potential accretion sites than the
GE Model CF6-80C2 series engines);
     A significantly different variable bleed valve system
(especially the exit path); and
     A purely hydro-mechanical (power management control with
mechanical engine control) fuel control system, where as GE Model CF6-
80C2 series engines have predominantly FADEC control with different
fueling schedules and response characteristics.
    From these statements, we infer that GE is requesting that we
remove airplanes equipped with GE Model CF6-80A series engines from the
applicability of this supplemental NPRM. We do not agree. Although
there have been no recorded flameout events related to GE Model CF6-80A
series engines, flightcrews are not required to determine which model
of engine is installed on the airplane. Therefore, it is possible that
the flightcrew would not perform the necessary AFM procedure because
the flightcrew is unaware of the engine model that is installed on the
airplane they are flying. However, under the provisions of paragraph
(i) of this supplemental NPRM, we will consider requests for approval
of an AMOC for airplanes equipped with GE Model CF6-80A series
airplanes if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate an
acceptable level of safety. We have made no change to this supplemental
NPRM in this regard.

Request to Acknowledge No Flameout Events on GE Model CF6-80A Series
Engines

    Boeing states that the FAA should revise the Discussion section of
the original NPRM to acknowledge that there have been no flameout
events recorded on GE Model CF6-80A series engines. While this engine
has a similar compressor design, Boeing believes it has certain design
features (including the VBV door geometry and schedule), which might
explain why it does not have flameout events. Boeing asserts that
operators of airplanes equipped with GE Model CF6-80A series engines
might desire to ask for an AMOC with this AD for those airplanes.
    We partially agree. We agree that there have been no recorded
flameout events to date on GE Model CF6-80A series engines during ice-
crystal icing conditions. However, as previously noted, the Discussion
section in the original NPRM is not restated in this supplemental NPRM;
therefore, there is no need to revise the supplemental NPRM in this
regard.

Request to Revise Wording in the Discussion Section of the Original
NPRM

    GE suggests that we revise the wording of the Discussion section of
the original NPRM to remove the word ``core,'' or, if that is not
acceptable, to change ``core flow path'' to ``booster and core flow
path.'' GE points out that the term ``core'' can be interpreted to mean
just the high-pressure spool portion of a turbofan.
    We partially agree. We do not agree with GE's suggestion to remove
the word ``core'' from the Discussion section. We do agree that the
phrase ``booster and core flow path'' is more accurate; however,
because the Discussion section of the original NPRM is not restated in
this supplemental NPRM, there is no need to revise the supplemental
NPRM in this regard.
    GE also suggests that we revise the Discussion section of the NPRM
to remove the following sentence: ``The GE CF6-80C2 and CF6-80A series
engines models have similar compressor designs.'' GE suggests removing
this sentence for the same reasons it requests that we remove GE Model
CF6-80A series engines from the applicability of the original NPRM. Or,
if we do not agree to remove that sentence, GE proposes that we revise
that sentence to clarify the statement of similarity of compressor
designs of the GE Model CF6-80A and CF6-80C2 series engines. GE
proposes changing the sentence to read, ``The GE CF6-80C2 and CF6-80A
series engines models have different booster and VBV system designs,
but similar compressor designs.''
    We partially agree. We do not agree with GE's suggestion to remove
the subject sentence from the Discussion section. We do agree that the
revised wording suggested by GE is more accurate; however, as
previously noted, the Discussion section in the original NPRM is not
restated in this supplemental NPRM, therefore, there is no need to
revise the supplemental NPRM in this regard.
    GE also believes that, in the Discussion section of the original
NPRM, the reference to ``-40 [deg]C'' in the explanation of conditions
for activating engine anti-ice on airplanes equipped with a primary in-
flight ice detection system should be changed to ``SAT -40 [deg]C.''
    From this statement, we infer that GE is requesting that we revise
the Discussion section of the original NPRM to clarify the referenced
temperature. We partially agree. We agree that the temperature should
be ``SAT -40 [deg]C.'' However, as previously noted, the

Discussion section in the original NPRM is not restated in this
supplemental NPRM, there is no need to revise the supplemental NPRM in
this regard.

Request to Revise the Costs of Compliance Section of the NPRM

    GE suggests that there should be an operational cost of compliance
included in the proposed Costs of Compliance provided in the original
NPRM. GE states that, while increasing engine off-take or bleed does
provide additional margin against flameout, doing so requires somewhat
increased fuel burn. GE believes the proposed procedure would be
required on a significant percentage of flights, and estimates that the
incremental fuel required is around 100 pounds of fuel per flight for
Model 747 airplanes, but less for Model 767 airplanes.
    We do not agree to include an operational cost. The cost
information in AD actions describes only the direct costs of the
specific actions required by the AD: an AFM revision in this case. The
estimated cost of this action represents the time necessary to perform
only the actions actually required by this supplemental NPRM. We
recognize that, in doing the actions required by an AD, operators might
incur operational costs in addition to the direct costs. The cost
analysis in AD rulemaking actions, however, typically does not include
incidental or operational costs such as the time required for planning
or other administrative actions, and, in this case, possible additional
fuel costs. Those costs, which might vary significantly among
operators, are almost impossible to calculate. Additionally, we have
determined that the additional fuel burn necessitated by the AFM
procedure would be insignificant. We have not changed the supplemental
NPRM in this regard.

Request to Remove Nacelle Anti-Ice Requirement in Certain Icing
Conditions

    Global requests that we revise the original NPRM to remove the
proposed requirement to select manual nacelle anti-ice in visible
moisture below a total air temperature (TAT) of 10 [deg]Celsius (C)
during descent at lower altitudes (e.g., Flight Level (FL) 100). Global
states that its primary area of operation includes a high proportion of
flights in regions that have been particularly affected by ice crystal
accretion incidents, so it is concerned about the risks involved with
the identified unsafe condition. However, although Global understands
and supports measures to reduce the risks associated with ice-crystal
icing, it considers forcing use of manual nacelle anti-ice during
descent in visible moisture to be too prescriptive and deleterious to
safety.
    First, Global points out that the proposed procedure is required
irrespective of altitude, and that nacelle anti-ice will frequently be
unnecessarily required to be selected ``ON,'' particularly at lower
altitudes where ice crystal ingestion and subsequent flameout have not
been experienced.
    Second, Global explains that its flightcrews have become accustomed
to using automatic ice detection and are therefore less familiar with
the detection of conditions requiring the manual selection of nacelle
anti-ice. For this reason, Global asserts that there will be an
increase in the flightcrew's workload during descent as the external
ambient conditions are assessed more frequently, especially at lower
altitudes where air traffic control and approach procedures generate a
higher workload.
    Third, Global states that increase in idle thrust level dependant
on engine anti-ice increases the required descent distance. Global
declares that the use of the flight management computer's (FMC's)
descent predictions is essential for environmental and economic reasons
to minimize fuel usage. Because descent is predicated on not using the
nacelle anti-ice, requiring use of the nacelle anti-ice will negate
this prediction. Although the FMC can be programmed to account for the
effect of using nacelle anti-ice below an entered altitude, this method
is not efficient and would either cause the airplane to become high and
fast because of inadequate distance for descent, or, conversely, cause
the airplane to descend too early, increasing fuel usage and noise
disturbance.
    Fourth, Global states that it is aware of a similar process
requiring manual activation of nacelle anti-ice on a different
airplane/engine combination, which also suffers from ice crystal
accretion. Global points out that process allows reversion to auto
nacelle anti-ice below 10,000 feet.
    We do not agree to remove the proposed requirement to select manual
nacelle anti-ice in visible moisture below a TAT of 10 [deg]C during
descent at lower altitudes (e.g., 10,000 feet). Contrary to Global's
assertion that flameout caused by ice-crystal icing has not been
experienced at lower altitudes, flameouts at altitudes lower than
10,000 feet have occurred as a result of ice-crystal icing.
    We recognize that the descent phase of flight requires a higher
level of workload for the flightcrew; however, icing can occur at any
altitude at any time, and is most common in descents as the airplane
passes through visible moisture. As we explained in the original NPRM,
ice-crystal icing does not appear on radar due to its low reflectivity,
and the airplane ice detector does not detect the presence of these
specific icing conditions. Therefore, ice-crystal icing is often
undetected by the flightcrew. Although these specific icing conditions
are difficult to detect, all pilots should know what visible moisture
is and how to recognize it without significant impact to flightcrew
workload. In fact, all pilots need be cognizant of the conditions they
are flying in and be capable of reacting to those conditions,
regardless of the phase of flight.
    The requirement to activate the engine anti-ice prior to descent in
visible moisture with TAT less than 10 [deg]C and greater than
saturated air temperature (SAT) -40 [deg]C already exists for airplanes
that are not equipped with a primary in-flight ice detection system,
which is designed to automatically activate wing anti-ice and engine
anti-ice when the airplane is in icing conditions. However, the primary
in-flight ice detection system does not detect ice-crystal icing;
therefore, the engine anti-ice would not be activated during these
icing encounters. There is no requirement to activate engine anti-ice
at temperatures below SAT -40 [deg]C, and this proposed AD would
require activation of engine anti-ice at temperatures below SAT -40
[deg]C. Activating the engine anti-ice increases the flameout margin
and reduces the potential for multiple engine flameouts by increasing
bleed flow and idle speed. As far as Global's assertion that use of
manual nacelle anti-ice will increase fuel usage, we have confirmed
that any increase in fuel usage caused by use of manual nacelle anti-
ice would be insignificant. Engine anti-ice also assists with
relighting the engines by turning on the igniters on airplanes that are
not equipped with autorelight. We have determined that FMC software
logic alone does not provide an adequate level of safety in lieu of
manual anti-ice activation in ice-crystal icing conditions.
    For the reasons discussed previously, we have concluded that
requiring selection of manual nacelle anti-ice in visible moisture
below a TAT of 10 [deg]C during descent at lower altitudes does
increase safety and does not impose undue burdens on operators. We have
made no change to the supplemental NPRM in this regard.

FAA's Determination and Proposed Requirements of the Supplemental NPRM

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

Interim Action

    We consider this proposed AD interim action. If final action is
later identified, we might consider further rulemaking then.

Explanation of Additional Paragraph in the Supplemental NPRM

    We have added a new paragraph (d) to this supplemental NPRM to
provide the Air Transport Association (ATA) of America subject code 30:
Ice and rain protection. This code is added to make this supplemental
NPRM parallel with other new AD actions. We have reidentified
subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

Explanation of Change Made to the Supplemental NPRM

    We have revised this supplemental NPRM to identify the legal name
of the manufacturer as published in the most recent type certificate
data sheet for the affected airplane models.

Explanation of Change to Costs of Compliance

    Since issuance of the original NPRM, we have increased the labor
rate used in the Costs of Compliance from $80 per work-hour to $85 per
work-hour. The Costs of Compliance information, below, reflects this
increase in the specified hourly labor rate.

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 1,064 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for
U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD.

                                                                     Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of U.S.-
                      Action                           Work hours     Average labor        Parts           Cost per        registered       Fleet cost
                                                                      rate per hour                        airplane        airplanes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFM revision......................................               1              $85               $0              $85              340          $28,900
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2008-0402; Directorate Identifier
2007-NM-165-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by August 30, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747 airplanes
and Model 767 airplanes, certified in any category, equipped with
General Electric Model CF6-80C2 or CF6-80A series engines.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 30: Ice and
rain protection.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD results from reports of several in-flight engine
flameouts, including multiple dual engine flameout events and one
total power loss event, in ice-crystal icing conditions. We are
issuing this AD to ensure that the flightcrew has the proper
procedures to follow in certain icing conditions. These certain
icing conditions could cause a multiple engine flameout during
flight with the potential inability to restart the engines, and
consequent forced landing of the airplane.

Compliance

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

Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) Revision

    (g) Within 14 days after the effective date of this AD, revise
the Limitations Section of the Boeing 747 or 767 AFM, as applicable,
to include the following statement. This may be

done by inserting a copy of this AD into the AFM.

    ``Prior to descent in visible moisture and TAT less than 10
[deg]C, including SAT less than -40 [deg]C, nacelle anti-ice switch
must be in the ON position. At or below 22,000 ft, wing anti-ice
selector must be in the ON position.''

    Note 1: When a statement identical to that in paragraph (g) of
this AD has been included in the general revisions of the AFM, the
general revisions may be inserted into the AFM, and the copy of this
AD may be removed from the AFM.

Special Flight Permits

    (h) Special flight permits, as described in Section 21.197 and
Section 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197
and 21.199), may be issued to operate the airplane to a location
where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished provided the
operational requirements defined in the Limitations Section of the
AFM are used if icing is encountered.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (i)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to
Attn: Margaret Langsted, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-
140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue,
SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
(425) 917-6590. Information may be e-mailed to: 9-ANM-Seattle-ACO-
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.
The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 27, 2010.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-19154 Filed 8-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 76 (Monday, April 20, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21874-21875]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08228]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4493-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2020-0001]

Puerto Rico; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (FEMA-4493-DR), dated
March 27, 2020, and related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued March 27, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated March 27, 2020, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the emergency conditions in the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico resulting from the Coronavirus Disease
2019 (COVID-19) pandemic beginning on January 20, 2020, and
continuing, are of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a
major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster
exists in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide assistance for emergency
protective measures (Category B), including direct Federal
assistance, under the Public Assistance program throughout the
State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order

12148, as amended, Alexis Amparo, of FEMA is appointed to act as the
Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
    The following areas of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico have been
designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Emergency protective measures (Category B) not authorized under
other Federal statutes, including direct Federal assistance, under
the Public Assistance program at 75 percent federal funding for all
areas in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

Pete Gaynor,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2020-08228 Filed 4-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


P-20-0103 Sanitized Support Documents Index:
 P-20-0103 Sanitized Determination Document (linked)
 P-20-0103 Sanitized CHEM Report (attached)
 P-20-0103 Sanitized ECO Report (attached)
 P-20-0103 Sanitized ENG Report (attached)
 P-20-0103 Sanitized EXP Report (attached)
 P-20-0103 Sanitized Fate Report (attached)
 P-20-0103 Sanitized HLTH Report_POST-FOCUS FINAL (attached)