MEMORANDUM

DATE:		January 14, 2013

SUBJECT:	RICE NESHAP Reconsideration Final Amendments - Cost and Environmental Impacts

FROM:	Tanya Parise, EC/R, Inc.

TO:		Melanie King, EPA OAQPS/SPPD/ESG
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      The EPA is finalizing amendments to the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines (RICE) in 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ. The purpose of this memorandum is to present the estimated impacts associated with the amendments being promulgated compared to the 2010 final rules (75 FR 9648 and 75 FR 51570) that addressed existing stationary RICE less than or equal to 500 horsepower (HP) located at major sources and existing stationary RICE located at area sources. This memorandum will also discuss amendments that will affect other engines subject to the RICE NESHAP and the effect on impacts for those engines.

      The amendments include alternative compliance options for certain stationary engines, management practices for a subset of existing stationary engines in sparsely populated areas, and alternative monitoring and compliance options for the same engines in populated areas. In addition, the EPA is increasing the demand response (DR) allowance for stationary emergency RICE. The specific amendments being finalized and how these changes will affect emission reduction estimates and the total costs of the rule are discussed in the paragraphs that follow. It should be noted that these impacts are identical to those estimated for the amendments proposed to the RICE NESHAP in June 2012.

Non-Emergency Stationary SI RICE >500 HP Located at Area Sources

	Engines in Sparsely Populated Areas

	Existing stationary non-emergency 4-stroke lean burn (4SLB) and 4-stroke rich burn (4SRB) spark ignition (SI) engines greater than 500 HP at area sources that are in sparsely populated (remote) areas will be subject to management practices under the amendments. A remote area is defined as either: (1) an offshore area that is beyond the line of ordinary low water along that portion of the coast of the United States that is in direct contact with the open seas and beyond the line marking the seaward limit of inland waters; (2) a pipeline segment with 10 or fewer buildings intended for human occupancy and no buildings intended for human occupancy with four or more stories within 220 yards (200 meters) on either side of the centerline of any continuous 1-mile (1.6 kilometers) length of pipeline and that does not lie within 100 yards (91 meters) of either a building or a small, well-defined outside area (such as a playground, recreation area, outdoor theater, or other place of public assembly) that is occupied by 20 or more persons on at least 5 days a week for 10 weeks in any 12-month period; or (3) engines not located on pipelines that have 5 or fewer buildings intended for human occupancy within a 0.25 mile radius around the engine. Under the amendments, these engines are no longer subject to emission standards necessitating the use of aftertreatment, but subject to management practices instead; no emission reductions have been estimated from meeting the management practices. The capital and annual costs for these engines would decrease substantially from those estimated for the 2010 final rule because owners and operators would not have to purchase, operate and maintain a catalyst, plus owners and operators would not be required to monitor the catalyst inlet temperature continuously or record the pressure drop monthly.

	The only costs attributed to engines subject to management practices are for maintaining records of the maintenance conducted on the engine in order to demonstrate that the engine is operated and maintained according to the manufacturer's emission-related operation and maintenance (O&M) requirements or the owner or operator's own maintenance plan. It is expected that the majority of owners and operators are already following some type of O&M requirements and little additional burden is expected. Therefore, minimal recordkeeping costs were estimated at 1 hour per year for each engine at a technical labor rate of $72 per hour. Owners and operators of SI engines that are subject to management practices are not subject to any reporting requirements and therefore no reporting costs were estimated for these engines. Existing non-emergency 4-stroke SI engines greater than 500 HP at area sources are predominantly located in sparsely populated areas; more specifically, according to industry information, about 90 percent of these engines are in Class 1 areas.

      Engines in Populated Areas

	Existing stationary non-emergency 4SLB and 4SRB SI engines greater than 500 HP at area sources that are not in remote areas are subject to an equipment standard under the amendments that would require the use of a catalyst. Under the amendments, existing stationary non-emergency 4SLB SI engines do not have to meet numeric emission limits, but have to demonstrate by testing that the catalyst is achieving a 93 percent carbon monoxide (CO) reduction or that CO emissions at the engine exhaust do not exceed 47 parts per million by volume, dry basis (ppmvd). Existing stationary non-emergency 4SRB engines are required to demonstrate via testing that the catalyst is reducing CO by 75 percent or more, or alternatively that total hydrocarbons (THC) emissions are being reduced by 30 percent or more. Alternatively, 4SRB engines can demonstrate compliance with a CO concentration level of 270 ppmvd at 15 percent O2.

	Given that owners and operators would still have to use add-on controls on their engines and the same catalyst performance is expected as previously estimated, and because pollutant reductions estimated for the 2010 rule are conservatively based on the average control efficiencies observed during EPA's testing program at Colorado State University (CSU) for 4SLB engines and industry testing for 4SRB engines, the same emissions reductions estimated for the 2010 rule are expected under the amendments for existing stationary non-emergency 4SLB and 4SRB SI engines greater than 500 HP at area sources in populated areas. The control efficiencies are documented in the memorandum "Impacts Associated with NESHAP for Existing Stationary SI RICE" available from www.regulations.gov as Document ID Numbers EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-0542,

	The changes are expected to lower costs in terms of monitoring and testing expenses. Under the amendments, owners and operators no longer have to perform monthly measurements of the pressure drop across the catalyst. Owners and operators are still required to monitor the catalyst inlet temperature or use a high temperature shutdown device to protect the catalyst, but they do not have to continuously record the catalyst inlet temperature. High temperature shutdown devices are typical on engines and the EPA has assumed that all the engines will already have such a device installed on their units. Therefore, no cost has been estimated for this requirement. The costs would be further reduced for 4SRB SI engines because the rule will allow less expensive CO and THC testing in place of formaldehyde testing, which is more expensive.

	Non-emergency engines in populated areas will continue to be subject to the same recordkeeping and reporting requirements as required in 2010 rule, such as reading instructions, training personnel, submitting an initial notification, and submitting semi-annual compliance reports. It is estimated that a total of 14 hours will be needed, including 4 hours for reading the rule, 4 hours for training, and 6 hours for preparing and submitting notifications and compliance reports. Existing non-emergency 4-stroke engines greater than 500 HP at area sources in populated areas account for 10 percent of the total population of 4-stroke engines above 500 HP at area sources, according to industry estimates.

THC Compliance Demonstration Option

	In addition to a reduction in testing costs discussed for existing 4-stroke engines at area sources and the estimated cost impacts presented in Table 2, additional savings are expected for owners and operators of existing and new stationary 4SRB engines above 500 HP located at major sources. Owners and operators of these engines currently have the option of either limiting the concentration of formaldehyde or reducing formaldehyde emissions, a requirement that was promulgated as part of the original 2004 RICE NESHAP rulemaking. The amendments provide these owners and operators an alternative THC compliance demonstration option. It is expected that owners and operators will take advantage of the THC testing option as opposed to testing for formaldehyde, but the number of engines that will be tested for THC instead of formaldehyde is unknown. Therefore, the specific cost savings associated with this amendment has not been calculated, however, it is expected that the testing burden will be substantially reduced. The cost of formaldehyde stack testing used to estimate testing costs for the 2004 rule was close to $6,000. Estimates available today indicate that CO or THC testing can be performed for around $1,000. Subsequently, it is possible that cost savings related to performance testing could be as high as 80 percent.

Emergency DR

	The EPA is increasing the limit on operation for DR for stationary emergency engines. The amendments would increase the limit on operation for DR for emergency engines from 15 hours per year (hrs/yr) to 100 hrs/yr that would include operation for maintenance and testing purposes and DR operation. Engines greater than 300 HP that operate or agree to be available for more than 15 hrs/yr for emergency DR must use ultra low sulfur diesel (ULSD) and report on an annual basis the dates and times the engines operated for emergency DR purposes.

	To estimate emissions from emergency engines, the EPA has previously estimated that these types of engines would on average operate for 50 hrs/yr. The average hours of operation for emergency engines is not expected to change based on the amendments and 50 hrs/yr is still believed to be representative of average emergency engine operation. Therefore, the emissions previously calculated remain appropriate. In terms of any revenue generated from participation in DR programs, the EPA expects owners and operators will benefit financially, however, the EPA does not know to what extent. The EPA expects there will be savings and/or income generated through participation in emergency DR programs, but the EPA has not accounted for any potential revenue in estimating the costs and benefits of the amendments. It is uncertain how many engines participate in these programs and how frequently stationary emergency engines would operate if they are called upon. According to data from DR programs in ISO-NE and PJM territories backup generation was dispatched for less than 30 hours during the summers of 2008, 2009 and 2010. Another example of emergency engines operating infrequently for DR programs can be found in Table 1 of a 2010 letter from EnerNOC to EPA that presents a summary of emergency DR events in New England. According to EnerNOC, emergency engines have only been called upon three times in New England, where the duration of the events was 3.75, 5.95 and 16.5 hours in 2006, 2005, and 2003, respectively. Other factors, such as the annual revenue from DR programs (which varies), are also uncertain making it problematic to estimate the economic benefit of such programs. As such, the EPA has not estimated any costs associated with the emergency engine amendments.

	For the final rule, the EPA is requiring that if engines greater than 100 HP exceed or agree to be available for more than15 hrs/yr for emergency DR that the owners/operators use ULSD fuel and report annually the dates and times the engines operated for emergency DR purposes. The rule requires owners/operators to being using ULSD on January 1, 2015. Owners and operators would have to begin tracking engine operation for the 2015 calendar year and submit the first annual report early in 2016 that would cover 2015. The costs associated with other requirements of the rule discussed in this memorandum have been assessed for 2013, the year owners and operators will have to start complying with the rule. However, the costs associated with ULSD fuel and annual reporting would not be incurred in 2013, but will start later in 2015/2016, which for NESHAP is outside the typical time period the EPA presents estimates for.

	With that said, conducting a complete estimate of the total impact of the ULSD requirement associated with operating for more than 15 hrs/yr for emergency DR in any year is still not possible because the number of engines that would be affected by this requirement is unknown. The EPA does not know the number of engines that will be operated for emergency DR and the EPA does not know how many of those engines would operate or agree to be available for more than 15 hrs/yr.

	The EPA believes the ULSD cost would be balanced out by the reduced engine maintenance that is expected from using this fuel. Also, the cost difference between ULSD fuel and higher sulfur fuel is small, especially considering that the yearly operation for emergency DR would be limited to no more than 100 hours per year, and subsequently also the fuel consumption. As of July 2012, the pre-tax cost of ULSD to the end user was $3.003 per gallon.  The cost of other No. 2 diesel fuels ranged from $2.753 to $2.989 per gallon, depending on the sulfur content and other fuel characteristics. The difference in fuel costs could therefore range from 1.4 to 25 cents per gallon between ULSD and various No. 2 diesel fuels. At the end of July 2012, the cost of residual fuel oil was $2.406, which compared to the cost of ULSD is about 60 cents per gallon higher. This cost difference may not reflect the potential for segregating fuels.

	Based on the amount of and heating value of the fuel currently used by these engines, switching to ULSD fuel would have a small cost impact because the engines are used so infrequently. Based on the lower heating value of U.S. conventional diesel of 128,450 Btu/gal, a 300 HP engine operating for 100 hrs/yr may use approximately 1,560 gal diesel/yr. Therefore, the fuel cost differential of switching from No. 2 diesel fuel to ULSD may cost between $22 and $391 on an annual basis for each engine, as a rough estimate. Based on the lower heating value, switching from residual fuel oil to ULSD may cost $860 per year, depending on the residual fuel oil quality, hours of operation, and size of the engine.

	 Regarding the impact of the requirement to report emergency DR operation, the EPA anticipates that in most cases, the entity that dispatches the engines to operate, such as the curtailment service provider or utility, will report the information to EPA on behalf of the facility that owns the engine. Thus, the burden of the reporting requirement will likely be on the entities that dispatch the engines. The number of entities is uncertain, but the EPA was able to obtain estimates from the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association of the number of cooperatives that have engines participating in demand response. The NRECA estimated that approximately 446 local utilities would engage in the reporting requirement. The EPA estimates that each utility would spend approximately 16 hours per year reporting the information to the EPA. As of June 2012, the total compensation for management/professional staff was $51.23 per hour. Adjusting this compensation rate by applying an overhead rate of 167 percent yields a total wage rate of $85.60 per hour. This results in an estimated burden of 7,136 hours at a cost of $611,000 per year, beginning in the year 2015. The EPA also received information from one curtailment service provider, EnerNOC, who estimated the burden of the requirement to be 1,000 hours at a cost of $60,000 in the first year of implementation, 2015, and 250 hours at a cost of $15,000 in subsequent years (using a wage rate of $60 per hour). Using an estimated number of 70 curtailment service providers nationwide that are operating engines for emergency demand response, the burden for curtailment service providers would be 70,000 hours at a cost of $4.2 million in the first year of implementation, 2015, and 17,500 hours at a cost of $1 million in subsequent years. Summing the totals for the cooperatives and curtailment service providers yields a total of 77,136 labor hours at a cost of $4.8 million ($2012) in the first year that reporting is required, 2015, and 24,636 labor hours at a cost of $1.7 million ($2012) in subsequent years.

Stationary Agricultural RICE

	The EPA is specifying that certified Tier 3 existing stationary compression ignition (CI) engines at area sources that were installed before June 12, 2006, are automatically be in compliance with the NESHAP and are not be subject to aftertreatment-forcing standards. This means that these engines will not be required to install add-on controls and subsequently no emission reduction has been estimated for this group of engines. The EPA is no longer accounting for a reduction in emissions from these engines effectively lowering the estimate of emissions reductions previously estimated for the 2010 rule. In California, San Joaquin Valley has identified 17 Tier 3 CI engines installed between January 1 and June 12, 2006, which is the number of engines that EPA has used to estimate the impacts of this amendment.

	In addition, the EPA is specifying that certified Tier 1 and Tier 2 existing stationary CI engines greater than 300 HP at area sources that will be replaced within the next few years due to state/local rules are subject to management practices until 2015, after which the numeric emission limits of the NESHAP apply. In California there are 49 of these Tier 1 engines and 360 of these Tier 2 engines, which are the number of engines the EPA has used to estimate the impacts of this amendment. The EPA has not estimated any emissions reductions or control costs under the RICE NESHAP for these 409 stationary Tier 1 and Tier 2 certified CI engines in the year 2013.

Remote Stationary RICE in Alaska

      The EPA is also broadening the definition of remote area sources of Alaska in the RICE NESHAP. Currently, remote areas are those that are not on the Federal Aid Highway System (FAHS). This change permits existing stationary CI engines at other remote area sources in Alaska to meet management practices as opposed to emission standards likely necessitating aftertreatment. However, the EPA is unable to quantify the number of engines in remote areas of Alaska that would be able to qualify for this provision. Therefore, it was not possible to assess the environmental and economic impacts associated with this amendment. The EPA does not know how many facilities would be considered remote and does not have any information on how many engines are affected.

      While the EPA does not have sufficient information to quantify the total impact of this change, the EPA can provide an example of the impact for an individual facility. For instance, the Bailey Power Plant operated by the Ketchikan Public Utilities has four (4) stationary diesel engines. Two (2) rated at 4,500 kilowatt (KW), one (1) rated at 6,450 KW and one (1) rated at 10,500 KW. If these four engines would be subject to management practices instead of aftertreatment, the lost HAP reductions is estimated to be 1.3 tpy total from the four engines. The lost CO, PM, and VOC emissions are estimated at 1 tpy, 3.7 tpy, and 35 tpy, respectively, in total from these four engines. Under the amendments, the facility would avoid total capital costs associated with required aftertreatment of over $960,000. The facility would avoid annual expenditures related to aftertreatment operating and maintenance costs of more than $176,000 per year, if management practices only are required for these engines.

      A summary of the emission reductions associated with the amendments and those estimated for the 2010 final rule are presented in Table 1.

        Table 1. Summary of Pollutant Reductions for Existing Stationary RICE

                                   Pollutant
                  Emission Reductions (tpy) in the year 2013

                              Previous Estimate
                               (2010 Final Rule)
                             RICE Reconsideration
                               (2012 Amendments)

                                      CI
                                      SI
                                      CI
                                      SI
                                      HAP
                                     1,014
                                     6,008
                                     1,005
                                     1,778
                                      CO
                                    14,342
                                    109,321
                                    14,238
                                    22,211
                                      PM
                                     2,844
                                      N/A
                                     2,818
                                      N/A
                                      NOx
                                      N/A
                                    96,479
                                      N/A
                                     9,648
                                      VOC
                                    27,395
                                    30,907
                                    27,142
                                     9,147

Tables 2 and 3 present the pollutant reductions by HP and by area/major sources for the SI and CI portion of the rule, respectively.
      Table 2. Pollutant Reductions for Existing Stationary SI RICE  -  by HP[b]

                                Size Range (HP)
                  Emission Reductions (tpy) in the year 2013

                                      HAP
                                      CO
                                      NOx
                                      VOC
Major Sources
                                     25-50
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                    50-100
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                    100-175
                                      744
                                     7,124
                                       0
                                     3,826
                                    175-300
                                      277
                                     2,653
                                       0
                                     1,424
                                    300-500
                                      288
                                     2,755
                                       0
                                     1,480
                                    500-600
                                      N/A
                                      N/A
                                      N/A
                                      N/A
                                    600-750
                                      N/A
                                      N/A
                                      N/A
                                      N/A
                                    >750
                                      N/A
                                      N/A
                                      N/A
                                      N/A
                                  Total Major
                                     1,308
                                    12,532
                                       0
                                     6,730
Area Sources
                                     25-50
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                    50-100
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                    100-175
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                    175-300
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                    300-500
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                    500-600
                                      101
                                     2,070
                                     2,063
                                      517
                                    600-750
                                      22
                                      453
                                      452
                                      113
                                    >750
                                      347
                                     7,156
                                     7,133
                                     1,787
                                  Total Area
                                      470
                                     9,679
                                     9,648
                                     2,418
                                                                          Total
                                     1,778
                                    22,211
                                     9,648
                                     9,147

      Table 3. Pollutant Reductions for Existing Stationary CI RICE  -  by HP[b]

                                Size Range (HP)
                  Emission Reductions (tpy) in the year 2013

                                      HAP
                                      CO
                                      PM
                                      VOC
Major Sources
                                    50-100
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                    100-175
                                      44
                                     2,072
                                      123
                                     1,183
                                    175-300
                                      57
                                     1,571
                                      161
                                     1,549
                                    300-500
                                      145
                                     2,362
                                      407
                                     3,923
                                    500-600
                                      18
                                      209
                                      50
                                      478
                                    600-750
                                      11
                                      107
                                      31
                                      300
                                    >750
                                      36
                                      236
                                      102
                                      982
                                  Total Major
                                      312
                                     6,558
                                      874
                                     8,416
Area Sources
                                    50-100
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                    100-175
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                    175-300
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                    300-600
                                      363
                                     5,244
                                     1,017
                                     9,798
                                    600-750
                                      91
                                      879
                                      256
                                     2,463
                                    >750
                                      239
                                     1,557
                                      671
                                     6,466
                                  Total Area
                                      693
                                     7,680
                                     1,944
                                    18,727
                                                                          Total
                                     1,005
                                    14,238
                                     2,818
                                    27,142

	A summary of the costs associated with the amendments and those estimated for the 2010 final rule are presented in Table 4. All costs were converted to 2010 dollars for purposes of presenting costs associated with the rule in present day terms. However, because the costs estimated for the 2010 rule were in 2008 and 2009 dollars for the CI and SI engine portion of the rule, respectively, the costs for the amendments in Table 2 are also shown in those years in order to be able to compare on a consistent basis. Tables 5 and 6 present the cost impacts by NAICS code for the SI and CI portion of the rule, respectively.

       Table 4. Summary of Cost Impacts for Existing Stationary RICE[b]

                                    Engine
                              Previous Estimate
                               (2010 Final Rule)
                             RICE Reconsideration
                               (2012 Amendments)
                               Total Annual Cost
                                      SI
                             $253 million ($2009)
                                 $251 million
                                    ($2010)
                             $115 million ($2009)
                             $115 million ($2010)
                                      CI
                             $373 million ($2008)
                                 $375 million
                                    ($2010)
                             $372 million ($2008)
                             $373 million ($2010)
                              Total Capital Cost
                                      SI
                             $383 million ($2009)
                                 $380 million
                                    ($2010)
                             $103 million ($2009)
                             $103 million ($2010)
                                      CI
                             $744 million ($2008)
                                 $748 million
                                    ($2010)
                             $737 million ($2008)
                             $740 million ($2010)

	Please refer to the memoranda entitled "Impacts Associated with NESHAP for Existing Stationary CI RICE" and "Impacts Associated with NESHAP for Existing Stationary SI RICE" available from www.regulations.gov as Document ID Numbers EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-0329 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-0542 for additional assumptions and further information on the 2010 rule estimates.

      The EPA used  cost indicies in order to convert between 2008, 2009, and 2010 dollars. Specifically, the Marshall & Swift (M&S) Equipment Cost Index for the different years were applied to total cost estimates to convert the costs to a specific year. To convert the 2009 costs associated with the existing SI engine portion of the rule to 2010 dollars, the EPA divided the total cost by the M&S Annual Index for 2009 (1,468.6) and multiplied the resulting cost by the M&S Equipment Cost Index for 2010 (1,457.4). Similarly, to convert from 2008 dollars, which was the year the costs were previously presented for the existing CI engine portion of the rule, the EPA divided the total cost by the M&S Annual Index for 2008 (1,449.3) and multiplied the resulting cost by the M&S Annual Index for 2010 (1,457.4).

      Table 5. Summary of Cost Impacts for Existing Stationary SI RICE  -  by NAICS (2009 Dollars)

                                     NAICS
                                 Major Source
                                  Area Source
                             Total (Major + Area)

                                 Capital Cost
                                  Annual Cost
                                 Capital Cost
                                  Annual Cost
                                 Capital Cost
                                  Annual Cost
                       Electric Power Generation (2211)
                                  $52,905,258
                                  $63,062,494
                                  $11,698,144
                                  $12,138,277
                                  $64,603,403
                                  $75,200,772
                       Natural Gas Transmission (48621)
                                  $1,484,494
                                  $1,462,530
                                  $13,718,381
                                  $6,142,839
                                  $15,202,876
                                  $7,605,369
                 Crude Petroleum & NG Production (211111)
                                  $4,561,236
                                  $6,138,383
                                    $71,439
                                   $951,462
                                  $4,632,675
                                  $7,089,844
                     Natural Gas Liquid Producers (211112)
                                  $4,561,236
                                  $6,138,383
                                    $71,439
                                   $951,462
                                  $4,632,675
                                  $7,089,844
                           National Security (92811)
                                  $5,878,362
                                  $7,006,944
                                  $1,299,794
                                  $1,348,697
                                  $7,178,156
                                  $8,355,641
                          Hydro Power Units (335312)
                                      $0
                                    $25,248
                                      $0
                                    $37,872
                                      $0
                                    $63,120
                           Irrigation Sets (335312)
                                  $3,025,050
                                  $3,230,856
                                  $3,285,890
                                  $4,999,041
                                  $6,310,940
                                  $8,229,896
                               Welders (333992)
                                   $247,440
                                   $679,896
                                      $0
                                   $570,130
                                   $247,440
                                  $1,250,027
                                     Total
                                  $72,663,076
                                  $87,744,734
                                  $30,145,088
                                  $27,139,780
                                 $102,808,163
                                 $114,884,514

      Table 6. Summary of Cost Impacts for Existing Stationary CI RICE  -  by NAICS (2008 Dollars)

                                     NAICS
                                 Major Source
                                  Area Source
                             Total (Major + Area)

                                 Capital Cost
                                  Annual Cost
                                 Capital Cost
                                  Annual Cost
                                 Capital Cost
                                  Annual Cost
                       Electric Power Generation (2211)
                                 $161,766,376
                                  $90,982,105
                                 $464,947,798
                                 $202,463,116
                                 $626,714,174
                                 $293,445,222
                              Hospitals (622110)
                                  $20,220,797
                                  $11,372,763
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                  $20,220,797
                                  $11,372,763
                 Crude Petroleum & NG Production (211111)
                                  $2,374,401
                                  $3,807,478
                                  $1,590,115
                                  $2,597,836
                                  $3,964,516
                                  $6,405,314
                     Natural Gas Liquid Producers (211112)
                                  $2,374,401
                                  $3,807,478
                                  $1,590,115
                                  $2,597,836
                                  $3,964,516
                                  $6,405,314
                           National Security (92811)
                                  $20,220,797
                                  $11,372,763
                                  $51,660,866
                                  $22,495,902
                                  $71,881,663
                                  $33,868,665
                          Hydro Power Units (335312)
                                      $0
                                    $16,637
                                      $0
                                    $22,959
                                      $0
                                    $39,597
                           Irrigation Sets (335312)
                                  $10,294,073
                                  $11,791,567
                                    $34,145
                                  $5,208,084
                                  $10,328,218
                                  $16,999,651
                               Welders (333992)
                                   $108,260
                                  $1,481,447
                                      $0
                                  $1,881,380
                                   $108,260
                                  $3,362,827
                                     Total
                                 $217,359,106
                                 $134,632,238
                                 $519,823,039
                                 $237,267,114
                                 $737,182,145
                                 $371,899,352

Stationary Diesel RICE on OCS Vessels

      In the original assessment of affected sources that would be covered by the amendments, the EPA did not consider that there could be circumstances during which stationary CI RICE on Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) vessels could be considered stationary and consequently subject to the RICE NESHAP. Therefore, impacts from these units were not assessed in the proposed rule impacts analysis dated May 10, 2012 (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-0857). The engines in question would often be larger than 300 HP and would be considered area sources when they become stationary sources during drilling in the OCS. Consequently, under the proposed rule, these engines would have been subject to emission standards outlined in Table 2d of the proposal. Meeting the emission standards under the proposal would likely have required the use of add-on controls, namely oxidation catalyst, in this case.

      Comments received on the June 7, 2012, proposed rule argued that there are feasibility issues with complying with the RICE NESHAP for stationary diesel engines on offshore vessels. Specifically, according to commenters, OCS facilities face strict weight and space constraints for instance, which limit control and testing options. To comply with the requirements of the RICE NESHAP would not be cost effective, according to commenters. Instead, commenters with sources on the OCS affected by the RICE NESHAP requested that stationary engines in these locations be permitted to comply with the rule by following maintenance practices, similar to those required for smaller (less than 300 HP) existing stationary diesel engines.

      Based on information obtained from EPA Regional Offices, the EPA has identified that in 2013 there are expected to be up to 5 drilling vessels operating on the OCS that would be subject to the RICE NESHAP as existing sources. Specifically, based on available information obtained from EPA Regions 4 and 10, there would be one drilling vessel in the Chukchi Sea on the Alaska OCS and four drilling vessels on the OCS of the Gulf of Mexico. The EPA estimated baseline HAP emissions from these units according to information available in their permits. To be conservative and to estimate the worst-case scenario, HAP emissions were estimated based the maximum allowable amount of operation per drilling season. A summary of the estimated HAP emissions for 2013 are presented in Table 7.

      Table 7. Total Baseline HAP Emissions from Stationary Engines on OCS Vessels
                        Based on Projected Activity for 2013

Vessel/Rig
                                    tons/yr
                                     lb/yr
Deepwater Nautilus
                                   2.13E-01
                                      426
Discoverer Spirit
                                   4.76E-03
                                      10
Discoverer
                                   1.13E-01
                                      226
Pathfinder
                                   6.85E-01
                                     1,369
DD1
                                   7.34E-01
                                     1,469

                                                                         Total:
                                     1.75
                                     3,500

As indicated in Table 7, baseline emissions from stationary engines on OCS drilling vessels are low and represent a small amount of total emissions (less than 0.06 percent) from all stationary diesel engines in the U.S. It is unlikely that in the event that the final rule did not allow these engines to comply with the rule by following maintenance practices that these units would be equipped with oxidation catalyst. More than likely, owners and operators of these engines would have sought a technical infeasibility exemption under 40 CFR 55.7, and if granted, these engines would not have been required to use oxidation catalyst or any other HAP-reducing control technology. The exemption would have required the engines to employ a substitute requirement in place of the original RICE NESHAP requirements, which may have involved measures to offset the emissions from these engines. However, the amount of HAP emissions that would have been offset is unknown and the EPA is not able to estimate the magnitude of those emissions in the absence of requiring maintenance practice for these engines. Also, according to Region 4, because the only criteria pollutants the RICE NESHAP requires limits to be met for are CO and formaldehyde as VOC, it is possible that under the exemption only offsets for these pollutants would be required. Also, the EPA has the discretion to set the offset ratio to ensure onshore standards and increments are met. Therefore, it is not possible to quantify the potential offsets that would be required, if the engines were to seek a technical infeasibility exemption under 40 CFR part 55.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 87 (Thursday, May 5, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26798-26799]
[FR Doc No: 2022-09614]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Rule on a Land Release Request for Change in
Use From Aeronautical to Non-Aeronautical at Stafford Regional Airport,
Stafford, VA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) DOT.

ACTION: Notice of request for a change in use of on-airport property.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on
Stafford Regional Airport Authority's request to change 0.886 acres of
federally obligated airport property at Stafford Regional Airport,
Stafford, VA from aeronautical to non-aeronautical use. This acreage
was originally purchased with federal financial assistance through the
Airport Improvement Program. The proposed use of land after the release
will be compatible with the airport and will not interfere with the
airport or its operation.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 6, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Comments on this application may be
mailed or delivered to the following address:

James L. Stover, Airport Director, Stafford Regional Airport, 95
Aviation Way, Fredericksburg, VA 22406,<PHONE_NUMBER>

and at the FAA Washington Airports District Office:

Matthew J. Thys, Manager, Washington Airports District Office, 13873
Park Center Road, Suite 490S, Herndon, VA 20171,<PHONE_NUMBER>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the Wendell H. Ford
Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21),
Public Law 106-181 (Apr. 5, 2000; 114 Stat. 61), this notice must be
published in the Federal Register 30 days before the Secretary may
waive any condition imposed on a federally obligated airport by grant
agreements. The following is a brief overview of the request.
    Stafford Regional Airport Authority has submitted a land release
request seeking FAA approval for the change in use of approximately
0.886 acres of federally obligated airport property from aeronautical
to non-aeronautical use. The property is situated on the southeast side
of Aviation Way. Due to this location, the subject area is unable to be
utilized for aviation purposes because the airport operations area is
located to the west of Aviation Way.

Thus, the subject area is inaccessible to aircraft.
    The 0.886 acres of land to be released was originally purchased as
part of a 60.000-acre parcel and 73.860-acre parcel with federal
financial assistance through the AIP program under Grant Agreement 3-
51-0069-06. As foreseen at the time of the execution of this Grant
Agreement, the only portions of the 60.000-acre parcel and 73.860-acre
parcel that were required for aeronautical use are the portions of the
parcels to the west of Aviation Way. Subsequent to the implementation
of the proposed change in use, monies received by the airport from this
property are considered airport revenue, and will be used in accordance
with 49 U.S.C. 47107(b) and the FAA's Policy and Procedures Concerning
the Use of Airport Revenue published in the Federal Register on
February 16, 1999. The proposed use of the property will not interfere
with the airport or its operation.

    Issued in Herndon, Virginia.
Matthew J. Thys,
Manager, Washington Airports District Office.
[FR Doc. 2022-09614 Filed 5-4-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: November 18, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 223)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 68313-68316]
[DOCID:fr18no08-4]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0265; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-349-AD;
Amendment 39-15732; AD 2008-23-11]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional
Jet Series 100 & 440) Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding an existing airworthiness directive
(AD), which applies to certain Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 airplanes.
That AD currently requires repetitive eddy current inspections for
cracking of the main landing gear (MLG) main fittings, and replacement
with new or serviceable MLG main fittings if necessary. The existing AD
also currently requires servicing the MLG shock struts; inspecting the
MLG shock struts for nitrogen pressure, visible chrome dimension, and
oil leakage; and performing corrective actions, if necessary. For
certain airplanes, this new AD requires replacement of the MLG main
fittings with new improved MLG main fittings, which would terminate the
repetitive inspections of the MLG main fittings and inspection and
servicing of the MLG shock struts. This AD results from premature
failure of the MLG main fittings. We are issuing this AD to prevent
failure of the MLG main fittings, which could result in collapse of the
MLG upon landing.

DATES: This AD becomes effective December 23, 2008.
    On February 16, 2007 (72 FR 1430, January 12, 2007), the Director
of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of
Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-32-093, Revision B, dated July 14,
2005.
    On June 13, 2003 (68 FR 31956, May 29, 2003), the Director of the
Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Bombardier
Alert Service Bulletin A601R-32-079, Revision `E,' dated September 12,
2002; including Appendix 1, Revision `D,' dated September 12, 2002;
including Appendices 2 and 3, dated September 12, 2002.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., Canadair, Aerospace Group, P.O. Box 6087, Station
Centre-ville, Montreal, Quebec H3C 3G9, Canada.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the Document Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pong K. Lee, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE-

171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue,
Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
(516) 794-5531.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to include an AD that supersedes AD 2003-11-11, amendment
39-13170 (68 FR 31956, May 29, 2003). The existing AD applies to
certain Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 airplanes. That NPRM was published
in the Federal Register on March 11, 2008 (73 FR 12901). That NPRM
proposed to require replacement of the main landing gear (MLG) main
fittings with new improved MLG main fittings, which would terminate the
existing repetitive inspections of the MLG main fittings and inspection
and servicing of the MLG shock struts.

Comments

    We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the
development of this AD. We have considered the comments that have been
received on the NPRM.

Request To Clarify Airplanes on Which the Replacement Is Required

    Bombardier notes that the applicability in AD 2007-01-07 (specified
in the NPRM as ``Other Related Rulemaking'') covers the entire fleet of
Model CL-600-2B19 airplanes (serial number (S/N) 7003 through 7067 and
7069 through 8999 inclusive) since S/N 7068 is a hull loss and the
airplane series ends at S/N 8999. Bombardier states that the
applicability specified in the NPRM will not cover additional Model CL-
600-2B19 airplanes. Bombardier adds that every Model CL-600-2B19
airplane equipped with a MLG main fitting having part number (P/N)
601R85001-3/4 (Messier-Dowty P/N 17064-101 through 104) will need to be
in compliance with the replacement required by AD 2007-01-07 by May 16,
2008.
    We infer that Bombardier requests that we clarify which airplanes
are required to do the replacement specified in paragraph (r) of this
AD. We agree that the airplanes affected by paragraph (r) of this AD
should be further clarified. As stated by Bombardier, for Model CL-600-
2B19 airplanes having S/N 7003 through 7067 and 7069 through 8999
inclusive, the replacement is already required in accordance with
paragraph (l) of AD 2007-01-07. Therefore, we have changed paragraph
(r) of this AD to specify that the replacement be accomplished only on
airplanes having S/Ns 9000 and subsequent, which terminates the
requirements of paragraphs (h) through (q) of this AD. We have also
changed paragraph (t) of this AD to specify that, for the other
airplanes on which the replacement required by paragraph (l) of AD
2007-01-07 has been accomplished, it terminates the requirements of
paragraphs (h) through (q) of this AD.
    We disagree with the commenter that the applicability in AD 2007-
01-07 covers the entire fleet. In order to ensure that any future
production airplanes, S/N 9000 and subsequent, meet the compliance
requirements of this AD, the replacement specified in paragraph (r) of
this AD is necessary to address the identified unsafe condition. We
have also revised the Estimated Costs table in the preamble of this AD
by changing the number of U.S.-registered airplanes required to do the
replacement from 618 to 0.

Request To Change Compliance Time

    Bombardier Aerospace asks that we change the compliance time
specified in the NPRM. Bombardier states that AD 2007-01-07 (under
``Related Rulemaking'' in the NPRM) is effective for the same parts and
also mandates incorporation of Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-32-093,
Revision B, dated July 14, 2005. Bombardier notes that AD 2007-01-07
was effective on February 16, 2007, and its compliance date is May 16,
2008. Bombardier adds that this compliance date is 9 months later than
the date agreed to by Messier-Dowty, Bombardier Aerospace, and
Transport Canada, based on careful consideration of fleet safety, MLG
capability/logistics, and operator overhaul facilities capacity.
Bombardier asks that the compliance time be the same as the time in AD
2007-01-07 (i.e., no later than May 16, 2008). Bombardier considers
that different compliance dates for the same service bulletin will
create confusion among U.S. operators and unnecessary burden for all
parties involved.
    We do not agree with the commenter. As stated previously, the new
requirements in this AD apply only to airplanes having S/Ns 9000 and
subsequent. Therefore, we have made no change to the AD in this regard.

Conclusion

    We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the
comments that have been received, and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described
previously. We have determined that these changes will neither increase
the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    The following table provides the estimated costs, at an average
labor rate of $80 per work hour, for U.S. operators to comply with this
AD. Due to other existing ADs, the actions have already been
accomplished on the majority of affected U.S.-registered airplanes;
therefore, the estimated costs will be significantly less than those
specified in the table.

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of U.S.-
            Action               Work            Parts              Cost per       registered       Fleet cost
                                 hours                              airplane        airplanes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Detailed inspection (required         1  None.................  $80, per                    618  $49,440, per
 by AD 2003-11-11).                                              inspection                       inspection
                                                                 cycle.                           cycle.
Eddy current inspection               1  None.................  $80, per                    618  $49,440, per
 (required by AD 2003-11-11).                                    inspection                       inspection
                                                                 cycle.                           cycle.
Fluorescent penetrant                 1  None.................  $80, per                    618  $49,440, per
 inspection (required by AD                                      inspection                       inspection
 2003-11-11).                                                    cycle.                           cycle.
Inspection and servicing of           2  None.................  $160, per                   618  $98,880, per
 shock struts (required by AD                                    inspection                       inspection
 2003-11-11).                                                    cycle.                           cycle.
Replacement (new action).....        56  Up to $35,000........  Up to $39,480..               0  $0.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 have determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866;
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES
section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec.  39.13 by
removing amendment 39-13170 (68 FR 31956, May 29, 2003) and by adding
the following new airworthiness directive (AD):

2008-23-11 Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly Canadair): Amendment 39-15732.
Docket No. FAA-2008-0265; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-349-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD becomes effective December 23, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 2003-11-11.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional
Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes, certificated in any category;
having serial numbers (S/Ns) 7003 and subsequent, equipped with main
landing gear (MLG) main fittings having part numbers (P/Ns)
601R85001-3 and -4 (Messier-Dowty P/Ns 17064-101, -102, -103, and -
104).

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from premature failure of the MLG main
fittings. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the MLG main
fittings, which could result in collapse of the MLG upon landing.

Compliance

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

    Note 1: Where there are differences between the referenced
service bulletin and the AD, the AD prevails.

Restatement of Requirements of AD 2003-11-11

Service Bulletin References

    (f) Accomplishment of the inspections and servicing, as
applicable, specified in paragraphs (h), (l), (m), and (n) of this
AD, per Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A601R-32-079, dated
December 3, 1999; Revision `A,' dated January 7, 2000; Revision `B,'
dated June 1, 2000; Revision `C,' dated October 26, 2000; or
Revision `D,' dated December 1, 2000; prior to June 13, 2003 (the
effective date of AD 2003-11-11), is considered acceptable for
compliance with the requirements of paragraphs (h), (l), (m), and
(n) of this AD.
    (g) The term ``service bulletin,'' as used in paragraphs (h)
through (q) of this AD, means the Accomplishment Instructions of
Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A601R-32-079, Revision `E,' dated
September 12, 2002; including Appendix 1, Revision `D,' dated
September 12, 2002; including Appendices 2 and 3, dated September
12, 2002.

Initial Eddy Current Inspection

    (h) Perform an eddy current inspection to detect cracking of the
MLG main fittings, per PART B of the service bulletin, at the
earlier of the times specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this
AD.
    (1) Prior to the accumulation of 1,500 total flight cycles on
the MLG, or within 150 flight cycles after December 4, 2001 (the
effective date of AD 2001-22-09, amendment 39-12488, which was
superseded by AD 2003-11-11), whichever occurs later.
    (2) Prior to the accumulation of 1,000 total flight cycles on
the MLG, or within 150 flight cycles after June 13, 2003, whichever
occurs later.

Repetitive Eddy Current Inspections

    (i) Repeat the eddy current inspection specified in paragraph
(h) of this AD at the time specified in paragraph (i)(1), (i)(2), or
(i)(3), as applicable, except as provided by paragraph (i)(4) of
this AD, per PART B of the service bulletin.
    (1) For airplanes on which the eddy current inspection required
by paragraph (h) of this AD is accomplished after June 13, 2003:
Repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 500 flight cycles.
    (2) For airplanes on which the repetitive eddy current
inspection required by AD 2001-22-09 has been accomplished, and on
which the repetitive intervals have been increased per paragraph (j)
of AD 2001-22-09 before June 13, 2003: Repeat the inspection within
500 flight cycles after June 13, 2003, or within 1,000 flight cycles
since the last eddy current inspection, whichever occurs first, and
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 500 flight cycles.
    (3) For airplanes on which the repetitive eddy current
inspection required by AD 2001-22-09 has been accomplished, and on
which the repetitive intervals have not been increased per paragraph
(j) of AD 2001-22-09 before June 13, 2003: Repeat the eddy current
inspection at intervals not to exceed 500 flight cycles.
    (4) For airplanes on which an eddy current inspection has been
accomplished to confirm the detailed inspection required by
paragraph (o) of this AD: The next eddy current inspection must be
done within 500 flight cycles following the last detailed inspection
required by paragraph (o) of this AD, and thereafter at intervals
not to exceed 500 flight cycles.

Corrective Actions

    (j) If no cracking of the MLG main fittings is suspected during
the next eddy current inspection required by paragraph (h) or (i) of
this AD, but the paint has been removed: Prior to further flight,
apply a new finish and install the harness clamp on the brake line
with the bolt, washers, nut, and cotter pin; per PART B of the
service bulletin.
    (k) If any cracking of the MLG main fittings is found during any
eddy current inspection required by paragraph (h) or (i) of this AD:
Prior to further flight, replace any cracked MLG main fitting with a
new or serviceable part per the service bulletin.

Servicing the Shock Struts

    (l) Prior to the accumulation of 1,500 total flight cycles on
the MLG shock struts, or

within 500 flight cycles after December 4, 2001, whichever occurs
later: Service (Oil and Nitrogen) the left and right MLG shock
struts per PART C (for airplanes on the ground) or PART D (for
airplanes on jacks) of the service bulletin.

Other Inspections

    (m) Within 500 flight cycles after completing the actions
required by paragraph (l) of this AD: Inspect the MLG left and right
shock struts for nitrogen pressure, visible chrome dimension, and
oil leakage, in accordance with PART E of the service bulletin.
Thereafter, repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 500
flight cycles.

Corrective Actions for Certain Inspections

    (n) If the chrome extension dimension of the shock strut
pressure reading is outside the limits specified in the Airplane
Maintenance Manual, Task 32-11-05-220-801, or any oil leakage is
found during any inspection required by paragraph (m) of this AD:
Prior to further flight, service the MLG shock strut in accordance
with PART C (for airplanes on the ground) or PART D (for airplanes
on jacks) of the service bulletin.

Detailed and Follow-On Inspections and Corrective Action

    (o) Prior to the accumulation of 1,000 total flight cycles on
the MLG, or within 250 flight cycles after June 13, 2003, whichever
occurs later: Accomplish a detailed inspection of the MLG main
fittings to detect signs of cracking (including linear paint cracks
along the circumference of the main fitting tube, lack of paint
(paint peeling) or other paint damage, lack of adhesion or paint
bulging, and signs of corrosion), per PART A of the service
bulletin. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 100 flight cycles.

    Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is
defined as: ``An intensive visual examination of a specific
structural area, system, installation, or assembly to detect damage,
failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally
supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at intensity
deemed appropriate by the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror,
magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface cleaning and elaborate
access procedures may be required.''

    (p) If any linear paint crack along the circumference of the
main fitting tube, lack of paint (paint peeling) or other paint
damage, evidence of paint bulging due to lack of adhesion, or
evidence of corrosion is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (o) of this AD: Prior to further flight, accomplish either
an eddy current inspection to detect cracking, per PART B of the
service bulletin; or a fluorescent penetrant inspection to detect
cracking, per PART F of the service bulletin.
    (1) If no cracking of the MLG main fittings is found during any
inspection required by paragraph (p) of this AD: Prior to further
flight, repaint and/or repair/rework any paint damage per PART B of
the service bulletin.
    (2) If any cracking of the MLG main fittings is found during any
inspection required by paragraph (p) of this AD: Prior to further
flight, replace any cracked MLG main fitting with a new or
serviceable part per the service bulletin.

Reporting Requirement

    (q) Within 30 days after each inspection and servicing required
by paragraphs (h), (i), (l), (m), (o), and (p) of this AD, report
all findings, positive or negative, to: Bombardier Aerospace, In-
Service Engineering, fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the service
bulletin references completion of a ``Service Bulletin Comment
Sheet-Facsimile Reply Sheet,'' this AD does not require that action.
Information collection requirements contained in this regulation
have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and have been assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.

New Requirements of This AD

Replacement

    (r) For airplanes having serial numbers 9000 and subsequent:
Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the MLG
main fittings with new improved MLG main fittings, in accordance
with Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-32-093, Revision `B,' dated
July 14, 2005. Replacing the MLG main fittings terminates the
requirements of paragraphs (h) through (q) of this AD.

Credit for Actions Done According to Previous Issues of the Service
Bulletin

    (s) Replacements done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-32-093, dated
October 17, 2003; or Revision `A,' dated September 21, 2004; are
acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (r) of
this AD.

Credit for AD 2007-01-07

    (t) For airplanes having S/Ns 7003 through 7067 inclusive and S/
Ns 7069 through 8999 inclusive, equipped with MLG main fittings
having P/N 601R85001-3 or -4 (Messier-Dowty P/N 17064-101, -102, -
103, or -104): Accomplishing the replacement required by paragraph
(l) of AD 2007-01-07, amendment 39-14879, terminates the
requirements of paragraphs (h) through (q) of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (u)(1) The Manager, New York 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: Pong K. Lee, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and
Propulsion Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue,
Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
(516) 794-5531. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to
which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking
a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) AMOCs issued to allow escalation of the repetitive intervals
for the eddy current inspections from 500 to 1,000 flight cycles in
accordance with paragraph (e) of AD 2001-22-09 are not approved as
AMOCs with this AD.

    Note 3: Information concerning the existence of AMOCs with this
AD, if any, may be obtained from the New York ACO.

Related Information

    (v) Canadian airworthiness directive CF-1999-32R3, dated
September 21, 2005, also addresses the subject of this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (w) You must use Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-32-093,
Revision `B,' dated July 14, 2005; and Bombardier Alert Service
Bulletin A601R-32-079, Revision `E,' dated September 12, 2002;
including Appendix 1, Revision `D,' dated September 12, 2002;
including Appendices 2 and 3, dated September 12, 2002; as
applicable; to perform the actions that are required by this AD,
unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) On February 16, 2007 (72 FR 1430, January 12, 2007), the
Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-32-093, Revision `B,'
dated July 14, 2005.
    (2) On June 13, 2003 (68 FR 31956, May 29, 2003), the Director
of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of
Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A601R-32-079, Revision `E,' dated
September 12, 2002; including Appendix 1, Revision `D,' dated
September 12, 2002; including Appendices 2 and 3, dated September
12, 2002.
    (3) Contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West,
Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
514-855-7401; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://
www.bombardier.com for a copy of this service information. You may
review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability
of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 4, 2008.
Stephen P. Boyd,
Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E8-26915 Filed 11-17-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 130 (Thursday, July 7, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44210-44212]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16002]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0323; FRL-9948-68-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval and Air Quality Designation; TN; Redesignation
of the Sullivan County Lead Nonattainment Area to Attainment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On July 15, 2015, the State of Tennessee, through the
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), submitted
a request for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to redesignate
the Bristol, Tennessee 2008 lead nonattainment area (hereafter referred
to as the ``Bristol Area'' or the ``Area'') to attainment for the 2008
lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and an associated
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision containing a maintenance plan
and a reasonably available control measures (RACM) determination for
the Area. EPA is taking the following separate final actions related to
the July 15, 2015, redesignation request and SIP revision: Determining
that the Bristol Area is continuing to attain the 2008 lead NAAQS;
approving and incorporating into the SIP the State's plan for
maintaining attainment of the 2008 lead standard; approving and
incorporating into the SIP the State's RACM determination; and
redesignating the Bristol Area to attainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS.

DATES: This rule will be effective August 8, 2016.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0323. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential
Business Information or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Lakeman of the Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Mr. Lakeman may be reached by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On November 12, 2008, EPA promulgated a revised primary and
secondary lead NAAQS of 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\).
See 73 FR 66964. Under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 2008
lead NAAQS are met when the maximum arithmetic 3-month mean
concentration for a 3-year period, as determined in accordance with
appendix R of 40 CFR part 50, is less than or equal to 0.15 [mu]g/m\3\.
See 40 CFR 50.16. Ambient air quality monitoring data for the 3-year
period must meet a data completeness requirement.
    EPA designated the Bristol Area as a nonattainment area for the
2008 lead NAAQS on November 22, 2010 (effective December 31, 2010),
using 2007-2009 ambient air quality data. See 75 FR 71033. This
established an attainment date five years after the December 31, 2010,
effective date for the 2008 lead nonattainment designations pursuant to
CAA section 172(a)(2)(A). Therefore, the Bristol Area's attainment date
is December 31, 2015. EPA determined that Tennessee had attained the
2008 lead NAAQS prior to the attainment date and issued a Clean Data
Determination on August 29, 2012 (77 FR 52232).
    In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on April 26,
2016 (81 FR 24536), EPA proposed to approve four separate but related
actions: (1) To approve Tennessee's RACM determination for the Bristol
Area pursuant to Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) section 172(c)(1) into the
SIP; (2) to determine that the Area is continuing to attain the 2008
lead NAAQS; (3) to approve Tennessee's maintenance plan for maintaining
the 2008 lead NAAQS in the Area into the SIP; and (4) to

redesignate the Area. No comments were received on the April 26, 2016,
proposed rulemaking. The details of Tennessee's submittal and the
rationale for EPA's actions are further explained in the NPRM. See 81
FR 24536 (April 26, 2016).

II. What are the effects of these actions?

    Approval of Tennessee's redesignation request changes the legal
designation of the Bristol Area, found at 40 CFR 81.343, from
nonattainment to attainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS. Approval of
Tennessee's associated SIP revision also incorporates a plan into the
SIP for maintaining the 2008 lead NAAQS in the Sullivan County (Bristol
Area), Tennessee, through 2025 and a RACM determination for the Area.

III. Final Action

    EPA is taking a number of final actions regarding Tennessee's July
15, 2015, request to redesignate the Bristol Area to attainment and
associated SIP revision. First, EPA is determining that the State's
Subpart 1 RACM determination for the Area meets the requirements of CAA
section 172(c)(1) and incorporating this RACM determination into the
SIP.
    Second, EPA is determining, based upon review of quality-assured
and certified ambient monitoring data for the 2012-2014 period and upon
review of preliminary data in Air Quality System for 2015, that the
Area continues to attain the 2008 lead NAAQS following EPA's August 29,
2012, determination of attainment.
    Third, EPA is approving the maintenance plan for the Area and
incorporating it into the SIP.
    Fourth, EPA is approving Tennessee's request for redesignation of
the Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS. As
mentioned above, approval of the redesignation request changes the
official designation of the Bristol Area from nonattainment to
attainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E)
are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not
impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those
imposed by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of
itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the
applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have
been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions
of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to
approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA.
Accordingly, these actions merely approve state law as meeting federal
requirements and do not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason, these proposed actions:
     Are not significant regulatory actions subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not economically significant regulatory actions based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not significant regulatory actions subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Will not have disproportionate human health or
environmental effects under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February
16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by September 6, 2016. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control.

    Dated: June 22, 2016.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart RR--Tennessee

0
2. In Sec.  52.2220, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding
the entry ``2008 Lead Maintenance Plan for the Bristol Area'' at the
end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *

    (e) * * *

                                                    EPA-Approved Tennessee Non-Regulatory Provisions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Name of non-regulatory SIP      Applicable geographic       State
             provision              or nonattainment area  effective date             EPA approval date                         Explanation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
2008 Lead Maintenance Plan for the  Bristol Area.........       7/10/2015  7/7/2016 [insert Federal Register
 Bristol Area.                                                              citation].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES

0
3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart C--Section 107 Attainment Status Designations

0
4. In Sec.  81.343, the table entitled ``Tennessee--2008 Lead NAAQS''
is amended by revising the entry ``Bristol, TN:'' to read as follows:

Sec.  81.343  Tennessee.

* * * * *

                       Tennessee--2008 Lead NAAQS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Designation for the 2008 NAAQS \a\
          Designated area          -------------------------------------
                                       Date \1\             Type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol, TN:
Sullivan County (part)............        7/7/2016  Attainment
Area is bounded by a 1.25 km
 radius surrounding the UTM
 coordinates 4042923 meters E.,
 386267 meters N., Zone 17, which
 surrounds the Exide Technologies
 Facility.

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes Indian Country in each county or area, except as otherwise
  specified.
\1\ December 31, 2011 unless otherwise noted.

[FR Doc. 2016-16002 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P