[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 215 (Monday, November 8, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68575-68582]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27894]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 86, 1033, 1039, 1042, 1045, 1054, and 1065

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0142; FRL-9220-7]
RIN 2060-AO69

Revisions To In-Use Testing for Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines and
Vehicles; Emissions Measurement and Instrumentation; Not-to-Exceed
Emission Standards; and Technical Amendments for Off-Highway Engines

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This NPRM proposes to make several revisions to EPA's mobile
source emission programs and test procedures. EPA believes that each of
these is minor and non-controversial in nature. Most of the proposed
changes arise from the results of the collaborative test program and
related technical work we conducted for the highway heavy-duty diesel
in-use testing program. Most noteworthy here is the proposal to adopt a
particulate matter measurement allowance for use with portable emission
measurement systems. Related to this are two provisions to align the
in-use program timing requirements with completion of the program as
required in current regulations and the incorporation of revisions to a
few technical requirements in the testing regulations based on
information learned in this and one other test program. Finally, the
NPRM proposes to modify a few transitional flexibilities for
locomotive, recreational marine, and Tier 4 nonroad engines and
incorporates a handful of minor corrections.

DATES: Written comments must be received by December 8, 2010. Request
for a public hearing must be received by November 23, 2010. If we
receive a request for a public hearing, we will publish information
related to the timing and location of the hearing and the timing of a
new deadline for public comments.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0142, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 2822T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include two
copies.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
Headquarters Library, EPA West Building, Room: 3334, 1301 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. Such deliveries are only accepted during
the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should
be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0142. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/oar/dockets.html.
    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 hard copy at the EPA Docket Center,
EPA West Building, EPA Headquarters Library, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The 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
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202)
566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rich Wilcox, Assessment and Standards
Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, 2000 Traverwood
Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

    In the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal Register,
we are making these revisions as a direct final rule without prior
proposal because we view these revisions as noncontroversial and
anticipate no adverse comment.
    The regulatory text for this proposed rule is included in the
direct final rule and parties should review that rule for the
regulatory text. If we receive no

adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule.
If we receive adverse comment on the rule or any portions of the rule,
we will withdraw the direct final rule or the portion of the rule that
received adverse comment. We will address all public comments in a
subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. We will not
institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties
interested in commenting must do so at this time.

II. Does this action apply to me?

    This action will affect companies that manufacture and certify
heavy-duty diesel engines and vehicles for use on the highway.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Examples of potentially affected
                   Category                           NAICS code \a\                      entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry......................................                     336112  Engine and Truck Manufacturers.
                                                                   336120
Industry......................................                     333112  Manufacturers of lawn and garden
                                                                            tractors.
Industry......................................                     333618  Manufacturers of new engines.
Industry......................................     482110, 482111, 482112  Railroad owners and operators.
Industry......................................             811112, 811198  Independent commercial importers of
                                                                            vehicles and parts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).

    To determine whether particular activities may be affected by this
action, you should carefully examine the regulations. You may direct
questions regarding the applicability of this action as noted in FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

III. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    A. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk
or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM
as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2.
    B. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

IV. Details of the Proposed Rule

A. Revision of 40 CFR Part 86 Subpart T to Revise the In-Use Testing
Program for Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines

1. Background
    The manufacturer-run, in-use testing program for heavy-duty diesel
vehicles that are used on the highway was promulgated in June 2005 to
monitor the emissions performance of the engines used in 2007 and later
model year vehicles when operated under a wide range of real world
driving conditions.\1\ The program is specifically intended to monitor
compliance with the applicable Not-to-Exceed (NTE) exhaust emission
standards for non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC), carbon monoxide (CO),
oxides of nitrogen (NOX), and particulate matter (PM). It
requires each manufacturer of heavy-duty highway diesel engines to
assess the in-use exhaust emissions from their engines using onboard,
portable emission measurement systems (PEMS) during typical operation
while on the road. The PEMS unit must meet the requirements of 40 CFR
1065 Subpart J.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See ``Control of Emissions of Air Pollution From New Motor
Vehicles: In-Use Testing for Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines and Vehicles,
70 FR 34594 (June 14, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The program was amended in March 2008 to delay some of the
implementation dates and reporting deadlines and to adopt final PEMS
measurement ``accuracy'' margins for gaseous emissions (i.e., NMHC, CO,
and NOX).\2\ The development of PEMS accuracy margins are
further described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See ``Control of Emissions of Air Pollution From New Motor
Vehicles; Emission Measurement Accuracy Margins for Portable
Emission Measurement Systems and Program Revisions, 73 FR 13441
(March 13, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The in-use testing program began with a mandatory two-year pilot
program for gaseous emissions in calendar years 2005 and 2006. The
program also included a pilot program for PM emissions in calendar
years 2007 and 2008. The programs are fully enforceable after their
respective pilot program ends, i.e., the 2007 calendar year for gaseous
emissions and the 2009 calendar year for PM emissions. Fully
enforceable means that engines found not compliant after this time
frame could be subject to a compliance action.
    The in-use testing program is based on the NTE emission standards.
For the purposes of the in-use testing program, EPA established a
vehicle pass/fail criterion for each pollutant that compares a
vehicle's measured in-use emissions to a corresponding numerical
compliance limit, i.e., NTE threshold. The NTE threshold for each
pollutant is the sum of the NTE standard, any in-use compliance testing
margin that is already allowed by the regulations, and a new emission
measurement accuracy margin associated with the use of PEMS. The PEMS
accuracy margin is the difference between the emission measurement
``error'' for the portable instrument and the measurement ``error'' for
``laboratory grade'' instruments that are used to test vehicles or
engines on a dynamometer in a laboratory setting. This accuracy margin
is expressed in the same numerical terms as the applicable NTE emission
standards, i.e., grams of pollutant per brake horsepower-hour (g/bhp-
hr).
    When the in-use testing program was first established in June of
2005, there was uncertainty regarding what specific

accuracy margins should be used in the in-use testing program, since
the portable measurement devices that were expected to be used in the
program had not been rigorously tested at that time. As a result, we
originally promulgated interim accuracy margins for use in the pilot
programs.\3\ These interim values were believed to represent an upper
bound of the possible instrumentation variability based on our
experience with portable and laboratory instruments and test methods.
Subsequently, we adopted final values for gaseous pollutants based on
the cooperative research program described below.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The interim additive accuracy margins for the pilot programs
are: NMHC = 0.17 g/bhp-hr, NOX = 0.50 g/bhp-hr, CO = 0.60
g/bhp-hr, and PM = 0.10 g/bhp-hr.
    \4\ The final additive accuracy margins for the enforceable
gaseous programs are: NMHC = 0.01 g/bhp-hr, NOX = 0.15 g/
bhp-hr, and CO = 0.25 g/bhp-hr.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In May of 2005, shortly before the in-use test program was
promulgated, EPA entered into a memorandum of agreement (MOA) with the
California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the manufacturers of heavy-
duty highway diesel engines (through the Engine Manufacturers
Association (EMA)) to develop ``data driven'' emission measurement
allowances through a comprehensive research, development, and
demonstration program for the fully enforceable programs.\5\ The
overall test program was designed to be completed in two phases. The
first phase addressed gaseous emission accuracy margins and the second
phase addressed the PM emission accuracy margin. The remainder of this
discussion focuses on the final PEMS accuracy measurement for PM, since
the final margins for gaseous emissions have already been adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See ``Memorandum of Agreement, Program to Develop Emission
Measurement Accuracy Margins for Heavy-Duty In-Use Testing,'' dated
May 2005. A copy of the memorandum is available in the public docket
for this rule and at the EPA/OTAQ Web site (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/hd-hwy.htm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MOA and the June 2005 final rulemaking addressed the
consequences of failing to complete the accuracy margin development
work in time for the scheduled start of the PM enforceable program.\6
7\ Two provisions in these documents are most relevant to today's rule.
The first provision addresses short term delays in receiving the final
accuracy margins. Specifically, for each month the accuracy margins are
delayed beyond the agreed upon dates, then the affected enforceable
program would be delayed by the same number of months up to three
months. The second provision, which is most relevant to today's action,
addresses delays in excess of three months. In particular, if the final
accuracy margin and documentation were delayed more than three months
from November 1, 2008, then the affected PM enforceable program would
be placed in abeyance for a year and the respective pilot program would
be continued for calendar year 2009 using the interim allowance. If
necessary, this programmatic adjustment would be repeated in subsequent
years until the final PM accuracy margin was identified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See ``Memorandum of Agreement, Program to Develop Emission
Measurement Accuracy Margins for Heavy-Duty In-Use Testing,'' dated
May 2005. A copy of the memorandum is available in the public docket
for this rule and at the EPA/OTAQ Web site (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/hd-hwy.htm).
    \7\ See ``Control of Emissions of Air Pollution From New Motor
Vehicles: In-Use Testing for Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines and
Vehicles,'' 70 FR 34624 (June 14, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Particulate Matter Emission Measurement Margin for Portable Emission
Measurement Systems
    The MOA described above called for development of a comprehensive
test plan for determining the final emission measurement accuracy
margins for the manufacturer-run, in-use testing program.\8\ Generally,
the detailed plan included a methodology that called for: (1)
Comprehensive engine testing in the laboratory to assess the agreed
upon sources of possible error and the resultant measurement
variability between the PEMS and laboratory instrumentation and
measurement methods; (2) the effects of environmental conditions on
PEMS error and the variability in key engine parameters supplied by the
engine's electronic controls to the PEMS; (3) the development of a
statistically-based computer model to simulate effects of all sources
of error on the final measurement accuracy margin; and (4) validation
of the simulation model results and resulting accuracy margin against
data generated through actual in-use field testing using simultaneous
on-vehicle measurements from a mobile emissions laboratory (i.e.,
laboratory-grade instruments mounted inside a trailer) and a PEMS unit.
This validation step is important because it provides confidence that
the simulation model results reflect reasonable accuracy margin. If the
two methods do not statistically agree, then there may be possible
errors in the simulation model, the in-use mobile emissions testing
results, or both. The test plan also contained the statistically-based
algorithms for calculating the data-driven margin for PM from in-use
data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See ``Test Plan to Determine PEMS Measurement Allowance for
the PM Emissions Regulated under the Manufacturer-Run Heavy-Duty
Diesel Engine In-Use Testing Program, for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, California Air Resources Board, and Engine
Manufacturers Association'', dated November 11, 2008 (published by
EPA August 2010), EPA report number: EPA-420-B-10-901. A copy of the
report is available in the public docket for this rule and at the
EPA/OTAQ Web site (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/hd-hwy.htm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the simulation modeling results were completed, the test plan
called for the final accuracy margin to be determined by the following
generalized process. First, select the PEMS with the lowest or minimum
positive value. Second, select the calculation method that has the
lowest or minimum positive value. Third, and finally, use the results
from that method to determine the final measurement accuracy margin.
    The cooperative test program for PM as described in the MOA is
complete and a final report has been issued.\9\ Two PEMS units from
different manufacturers were evaluated in the validation phase. When
the predicted results from the model simulations for one of the PEMS
units was compared to the mobile emissions laboratory results, the
model did not validate for PM. It was determined from analyzing the
results, that the PEMS exhibited a negative bias that was more
pronounced during the validation tests when compared to the model
development tests. The model did validate for the PEMS from the other
manufacturer. Based on these results for that instrument, EPA, ARB, and
EMA selected the final measurement allowance value and agreed to
conclude the test program. We are proposing to adopt the resultant
final emission measurement accuracy margin of 0.006 g/bhp-hr for PM.
The derivation of this value is documented in the final report
referenced above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See ``PM PEMS Measurement Allowance Determination: Final
Report,'' U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, June 2010 (published
by EPA August 2010), EPA report number: EPA-420-R-10-902. A copy of
the report is available in the public docket for this rule and at
the EPA/OTAQ Web site (http://www.epa.gov/otaq.hd-hwy.htm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Delaying the Enforceable PM Program from 2009 to 2011
    As described above, the PM accuracy margin test program has been
completed. However due to unexpected delays in beginning the test
program, issues in the development of PM PEMS technology, and other
challenges in conducting the work, the program took two years longer
than originally anticipated. Accordingly, in-use test program
regulations require that the first two years of the previously adopted
enforceable program, which was originally scheduled for the calendar

year 2009, be placed into abeyance for two years. Hence, we are
proposing that the enforceable PM program will now begin in 2011
calendar year.
    As already noted, the current in-use test program regulations
require that the PM pilot program, which began in the 2007 calendar
year, be continued for an additional two years through calendar year
2010. This would result in four years of pilot testing for PM. However,
our current assessment shows that such extended pilot program testing
is unnecessary as described below.
    The intent of the original two-year pilot program for PM was to
make certain that engine manufacturers had adequate real-world
operational experience, i.e., from recruiting vehicles to submitting
test reports to EPA, to ensure a successful start of the subsequent
fully enforceable program.\10\ Manufacturers have reached the May 31,
2010 reporting deadline for the 2007 calendar year PM pilot program.
Also, engine manufacturers have completed a substantial amount of in-
use testing for gaseous pollutants, i.e., NMHC, CO, and NOX.
More specifically, two years of gaseous emissions pilot testing (2005
and 2006 calendar years) and two years of the fully enforceable program
(2007 and 2008 calendar years) for these pollutants have been
completed. Gaseous pollutant in-use testing is in many ways
complementary to PM in-use testing because nearly all aspects of the
test regime are the same. Even certain parts of the portable emission
measurement system instrumentation are used to measure both types of
pollutants. Engine manufacturers, therefore, have already had a
substantial amount of experience conducting all aspects of in-use
testing. As a result, we have concluded that the original intent for
conducting the PM pilot program will be achieved by retaining the
requirement for two years of pilot testing rather than expanding it to
four years. Therefore, we are proposing not to extend the PM pilot
testing program beyond its initial requirement of two years of testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See ``Control of Emissions of Air Pollution From New Motor
Vehicles: In-Use Testing for Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines and Vehicles,
70 FR 34614 (June 14, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of the proposal to delay the enforceable program for PM
until the 2011 calendar year and the proposal not to extend the two-
year pilot program, we need to reassess the schedule for conducting the
required tests for the pilot program. Two considerations are especially
important here. First, there is no apparent advantage to require that
engine manufacturers conduct testing over a single, consecutive two-
year period, e.g., calendar years 2007 and 2008. Second, there may be a
benefit to allowing each manufacturer to decide which two years out of
the four possible years to conduct its PM pilot testing. This is
because the PM PEMS technology has continued to improve and mature as a
result of the ongoing cooperative test program for developing the final
PM accuracy margin. As result, a manufacturer may benefit from an
additional flexibility in selecting when to complete the PM pilot
program in order to gain experience with PEMS that will be more like
the instrumentation they may use for the proposed 2011 enforceable
program. Therefore, we are proposing to allow each manufacturer to
report test results in any two out of the potentially four calendar
years for completing its testing obligations under the PM pilot
program.
    Finally, we previously designated the engine families for the 2007,
2008, and 2009 calendar years that each engine manufacturer must test,
and we have recently designated engine families for the 2010 calendar
year program. Given the new flexibility in choosing which two of the
four years to fulfill their testing obligations for the PM pilot
program, we are proposing that each engine manufacturer must notify EPA
by letter to the Agency's designated compliance officer to explicitly
identify both: (1) The designated calendar year(s) where in-use PM
pilot program testing will be forgone, and (2) the designated calendar
year(s) when their obligations for PM pilot testing will be completed.
We are proposing that this notification must be provided to the Agency
by January 7, 2011 and must be quickly updated if planned testing
changes for any calendar year.
4. Removing the PM Accuracy Test Program From the Regulations
    We are taking this opportunity to delete the references in Sec.
86.1935 that pertain to the final report for PM emission accuracy
margin and the consequences that would ensue if the report was delayed
beyond certain dates. These provisions are no longer needed because
accuracy margin for PM pollutants are being promulgated in this Direct
Final Rule. This will result in removal of Sec.  86.1935 from the
regulations in its entirety and any references made to Sec.  86.1935
throughout 40 CFR part 86.

B. Revisions to 40 CFR 1033.150 To Allow the Use of Earlier Model Year
Switch Engines With Equivalent Emission Controls

    Section 1033.150(e) allows the use of certified 2008 and later
nonroad engines in switch locomotives. We are proposing to extend the
allowance to include nonroad engines produced in model years before
2008 as long as they were certified to the same standards as 2008
engines. This extension will not have any emissions impact since the
engines will be required to have the same emission controls with or
without the revisions.

C. Revision of 40 CFR Part 1065 To Clarify the Requirements for PM PEMS
Testing

    We are taking this opportunity to propose minor technical
amendments to 40 CFR part 1065 that are mostly related to the
requirements for in-use PM instrumentation and that arose from
knowledge gained during the accuracy margin laboratory and field work
mentioned in Section A. above. The proposed changes are specified in
the following paragraph. The reasons for these proposed revisions are
detailed in a separate document.\11\ The proposed amendments have no
effect on the stringency of the regulations, but simply improve and
increase testing efficiency, allow new measurement techniques, or
otherwise clarify the regulatory requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See ``List of Part 1065 Changes Resulting from HDIUT PM MA
Program'', dated June 2010. A copy of this list is available in the
public docket for this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed amendments are as follows:
    1. We propose to remove the requirement to control dilution air
temperature for in-use testing;
    2. We propose adding an in-use filter face velocity specification;
    3. We propose adding an in-use filter face temperature
specification;
    4. We propose specifying that there is no requirement for control
of humidity control for in-situ PM analyzers;
    5. We propose allowing the use of a fixed molar mass for the dilute
exhaust mixture for field testing;
    6. We propose deleting the frequency and rise/fall time specs for
inertial batch PM analyzers;
    7. We propose adding a statement that field testing applies at any
ambient temperature, pressure and humidity, unless otherwise specified
in the standard setting part (e.g., 40 CFR part 86 for heavy-duty
highway engines);
    8. We propose adding language to state that EPA approves of
electrostatic

deposition technique for PM collection and that the technique must meet
95% collection efficiency, as validated by the manufacturer;
    9. We propose excluding PM PEMS from the system-response and
updating-recording verification requirements;
    10. We propose clarifying when an HC contamination check of the
sampling system should take place;
    11. We propose allowing the use of a PM loss correction to account
for PM loss in the inertial balance, including the sample handling
system for in-use testing only;
    12. We propose making a clarification on how to handle positive
displacement pump (PDP) pressure calibrations at maximum pressure;
    13. We propose allowing a restart of the hot portion of the
transient test if the hot start was void;
    14. We propose making some language changes to make the language
used more consistent throughout the document; and
    15. We propose correcting typographical errors.

D. Revision of 40 CFR 1065.140 To Allow the Use of Partial Flow
Dilution Systems for Laboratory Transient Test Cycle PM Measurement

    We are proposing to make changes to 40 CFR part 1065.140(d) to
allow the use of partial flow sampling systems for measurement of PM
during transient test cycles for laboratory testing.
    PM measurement has been traditionally performed using a full flow
dilution tunnel where the entire amount of engine exhaust gas is
collected and made available for sampling. With this sampling method,
commonly referred to as a constant volume sampler (CVS), the size of
the dilution tunnel depends on the exhaust gas volume, thus the greater
the volume of exhaust gas emitted from the engine, the larger the
dilution tunnel must be. As an alternative, a partial-flow dilution
tunnel allows sampling of part of the total exhaust flow, which reduces
the size of the sampling system. One of the drawbacks to partial flow
sampling systems in the past was that the flow controllers did not have
a fast enough response time to accurately respond to the changing
exhaust flow rates during a transient cycle. Thus partial flow sampling
systems were only allowed for use during steady-state cycle testing.
Recent advancements in the development of fast response flow control
systems, along with the advancement in the understanding of PM
formation characteristics have made partial flow sampling systems a
viable technology for use in transient applications when compared to
the CVS reference method.
    We currently allow the use of partial flow sampling systems for
measurement of PM for steady-state and ramped modal cycle (RMC) testing
and have put specifications in place in 40 CFR 1065.140(e) with respect
to dilution air temperature, minimum dilution ratio, filter face
temperature, and residence time to control PM formation. These
specifications have further worked to improve the accuracy of partial
flow systems when compared to the CVS.
    We initially proposed this allowance in the locomotive and
compression-ignition marine engines less than 30 liters per cylinder
NPRM, but did not finalize it due to concerns over the viability of
partial flow systems in transient applications.12 13 Since
promulgating that rule, EPA has worked with industry to gain a better
understanding of partial flow systems and the improvements that have
been made over the past decade. We have also reviewed additional data
supplied by engine and partial flow system equipment manufacturers
showing comparisons between the traditional CVS and partial flow
systems for PM measurement.\14\ These data have shown that partial flow
measurement of PM is a viable tool for measurement in transient
applications and these systems can meet the dilution parameter control
requirements in 40 CFR 1065.140 as well as the flow rate linearity
requirements in 40 CFR 1065.307, Table 1, and the validation of
proportional flow control requirement in 40 CFR 1065.545. Further,
correlation testing involving partial flow systems and CVS based
systems has shown that the partial flow method is equivalent to the CVS
method via t- and f-test analysis. In light of these recent
disclosures, EPA is proposing to allow the use of this measurement
technique.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See ``Proposed Rule: Control of Emissions of Air Pollution
from Locomotives and Marine Compression-Ignition Engines Less than
30 Liters per Cylinder'', 72 FR 34594 (April 3, 2007).
    \13\ See ``Final Rule: Control of Emissions of Air Pollution
from Locomotives and Marine Compression-Ignition Engines Less Than
30 Liters per Cylinder'', 73 FR (May 6, 2008).
    \14\ See ``Sierra Instruments Model BG-3 vs. CVS Multiple Engine
Correlation Study'', dated November 2009. A copy of this list is
available in the public docket for this rule.
    \15\ Compliance evaluation when conducted by the Administrator,
independent of the method for dilution, become the official results.
Manufacturers should be prepared to demonstrate compliance with the
full flow CVS even if initial certification was conducted using a
partial flow dilution system. EPA will continue to use the CVS-based
PM measurement method for our own compliance testing regardless of
what method the manufacturer used to certify the engine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Revision of 40 CFR 86.1370 To Clarify How To Handle NTE Events
During Regeneration

    We are proposing to further define how to handle regeneration
events that occur during real world in-use NTE tests. The current text
as it exists in 40 CFR 86.1370-2007(d)(2) has caused confusion with
respect to determination of the NTE minimum averaging period.
    This proposed revision would establish a new method to calculate
the minimum averaging period. The intent here is to minimize the number
of voided NTE events due to regeneration for systems that undergo
frequent and/or infrequent regeneration, while ensuring that the NTE
averaging time is appropriate based on the regeneration time.
    The regeneration duty cycle fraction over the course of the entire
test day can be determined by dividing the mean time of the complete
regeneration events (state 2) by the sum of the mean time of the non-
regeneration events (state 0) and the mean time of the complete
regeneration segments including time in those segments where
regeneration is pending (states 1 and 2).
    To determine whether an NTE that includes a regeneration event is
valid, the minimum average time is determined by summing the portion of
the NTE event that occurs during regeneration and dividing by the
fraction of time over the entire sampling period, i.e., shift-day, that
regeneration occurred for complete regeneration events. This latter
term is referred to as the regeneration fraction. If the duration of
the NTE is greater than or equal to this minimum average time, then the
NTE event is valid.\16\ For example, if an NTE event was 125 seconds
long and contained 25 seconds of regeneration, and regeneration
fraction was 0.24, the minimum averaging time for this NTE event is 104
seconds (25/0.24 = 104). In this example, the NTE event would be valid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See, Letter from EMA to EPA, ``Treatment of Overlapping NTE
and Regeneration Events (July 29, 2009). A copy of the report is
available in the public docket for this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Revision of 40 CFR 1065.915 To Allow the Use of ECM Fuel Rate To
Determine NTE Mass Emission Rate

    We are proposing to allow the use of fuel rate data that is
available from the engine's electronic control module (ECM) along with
other information, including the CO2, CO, and hydrocarbon
emissions to calculate the requisite exhaust flow rate for mass
emission rate determination. We believe that all large horsepower
nonroad diesel engines will

be equipped with ECMs that report fuel flow within the time frame
proposed for implementation of the in-use testing program. The ECM fuel
flow rate-based methodology currently requires prior EPA approval under
40 CFR 1065.915(d)(5)(iv). This pre-approval requirement is based on
past concerns with respect to the accuracy of the ECM broadcast fuel
flow rate when calculating brake-specific emission results in the
absence of an exhaust flow measurement. However, more recent
information from the cooperative in-use emission measurement allowance
program for PEMS showed that emission calculations incorporating the
ECM fuel rate yielded results comparable to those using approved
calculation methodology.\17\ Based on that study and the inclusion of
ECM derived BSFC in the determination of the accuracy margin, we are
proposing to eliminate the requirement that a manufacturer must have
EPA approval to use this method to determine exhaust flow rates via an
amendment to 40 CFR 1065.915.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See ``Determination of PEMS Measurement Allowances for
Gaseous Emissions Regulated under the Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine In-
Use Testing Program, dated April, 2007. A copy of the report is
available in the public docket for this rule and at the EPA/OTAQ Web
site (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/hd-hwy.htm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Revision of 40 CFR 1045.145 To Extend the Notification Deadline for
Small-Volume Manufacturers of Marine SI Engines

    Our current regulations for sterndrive/inboard marine SI engines
allow for delayed implementation of emission standards for small-volume
manufacturers making sterndrive/inboard marine SI engines (see Sec.
1045.145(a)). One requirement related to this delay is for the
manufacturer to notify EPA before the standards take effect. However,
we have learned that there are some small-volume engine manufacturers
that have not yet learned about the new emission standards. We believe
it is appropriate to extend the notification deadline for these
manufacturers by one year to allow for further communications related
to the new requirements. To accommodate the proposed later deadline, we
are also proposing to add language in the regulation to clarify that
manufacturers need to notify EPA before introducing such engines into
U.S. commerce for them to have a valid temporary exemption. These
proposed revisions address the logistical challenges related to
implementing the new standards without changing the effective
implementation schedule of the original rule.
    These proposed revisions address the logistical challenges related
to implementing the new standards without changing the effective
implementation schedule of the original rule.

H. Revision of 40 CFR 1039.102 To Enable Phase Out of Tier 3 Diesel
Engines

    When creating 40 CFR 1039.102 (69 FR 39213, June 29, 2004), we
included provisions intended to allow engine manufacturers to use
emission credits to continue producing a small number Tier 3 nonroad
diesel engines after the Tier 4 standards began to apply. However, we
now realize that the provisions may not work as intended because the
Tier 4 averaging programs inadvertently do not allow manufacturers to
show compliance with the applicable 0.19 g/kW-hr NMHC standard using
credits. In today's rulemaking, we are proposing to amend this section
to allow manufacturers to use credits to show compliance with alternate
NOx + HC standards. The alternate NOX + NMHC
standards for each power category would be equal to the numerical value
of the applicable alternate NOX standard of Sec.
1039.102(e)(1) or (2) plus 0.10 g/kW-hr. Engines certified to these
NOX + NMHC standards may not generate emission credits.
Since additional 0.10 g/kW-hr for the combined standard is less than
the otherwise applicable NMHC standard, there would be a small
environmental benefit when manufacturers choose to certify to the
alternate standards.

I. Revision of 40 CFR 1039.625 To Revise TPEM Provisions for Special
High-Altitude Equipment

    We have been made aware of a number of unique challenges involved
in implementing Tier 4 requirements for certain specialized high-
altitude equipment. In setting the Tier 4 standards in 2004, we
anticipated that typical engineering challenges would arise in
redesigning machines to use the new engines, and we restructured our
transition program for equipment manufacturers, first established in
the Tier 2/Tier 3 rule, to help manufacturers deal with these
challenges. This important flexibility program has been highly
successful. We do feel that a minor adjustment is warranted for the
specialized high-altitude equipment identified.
    This equipment is designed for use on snow and, for at least some
of its operating life, at elevations more than 9,000 feet above sea
level. The applications are ski area snow groomers, both alpine and
cross-country, and personnel transporters used in search and rescue
operations, and maintenance of utility lines and towers.
    One manufacturer of this equipment, has identified a number of
technical issues specific to the equipment, including:\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ E-mail from Jean-Claude Perreault, Prinoth Ltd, to Byron
Bunker, U.S. EPA, ``Prinoth technical information'', June 8, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Reliability: The performance of the new engine and
aftertreatment components is untested at high altitudes in winter
conditions. Engine operating temperatures may be elevated at higher
altitudes with potential impacts on engine performance and reliability;
    2. Cold Starting: Diesel cold starting is aggravated at high
altitudes due to lower oxygen availability. No-start situations for
high-altitude equipment may be life threatening;
    3. Engine power: The degree to which a Tier 4 engine's power is
reduced, i.e., derated, with increasing altitude is unproven. Excessive
derate would hinder the vehicles' snow grooming function and
performance;
    4. Particulate filter regeneration: These machines operate for long
periods traveling downhill with little engine load. Regeneration must
be validated;
    5. Functioning in extreme conditions: Snow groomers must
reliability push and grind snow and ice in extreme conditions,
including while moving up and down steep grades; and
    6. Weight: The added weight of Tier 4 aftertreatment and cooling
components will directly affect ground pressure, which can hamper a
snow groomer's essential function.
    In identifying these issues, the manufacturer stated that it
expects two, possibly three, winters of prototype testing are needed to
work through these issues and believes that flexibility in the use of
exemptions provided by the Tier 4 transition program is key to enabling
this. We have evaluated the technical issues, and have concluded there
are likely to be some unique challenges in implementing Tier 4 for
high-altitude equipment of this type.
    In response, to provide modest but meaningful additional
flexibility, we are proposing to remove the single engine family
restriction for the use of the small volume provision allowing 700
exempted units over seven years. This proposed additional flexibility
would only apply for manufacturers of specialized high-altitude
equipment (designed to commonly operate above 9,000 feet), and only in
the first two model years of Tier 4 standards.

Afterward, the single engine family restriction would apply. In no case
would the 700 unit maximum over seven years be exceeded.
    We do not expect that this change will result in a significant
negative impact on any engine or equipment manufacturers. Engine
manufacturers are already expecting to produce some Tier 4 engines for
the transition program, and the number of additional exempted engines
will be relatively small. Equipment manufacturers can either take
advantage of this change, or are already able to exempt the same number
of affected machines for several years under the existing transition
program provisions.
    We also believe the impact of this proposed modification on Tier 4
environmental benefits will be negligible, given that: (1) It only
applies to the small volume portion of the transition program, (2) the
total U.S. annual sales of specialized high-altitude equipment is, at
most, a few hundred, (3) much of this equipment operates for only a
part of the year, (4) the modification only applies in the first two
Tier 4 model years, and does not increase the overall exemption limit
of 700 over seven years.

J. Revision of 40 CFR 1054.101 To Clarify Prohibitions Related to
Handheld Small SI Engines Installed in Nonhandheld Equipment

    The existing regulations related to emission standards for nonroad
spark-ignition engines below 19 kW specifically prohibit the sale of
nonhandheld equipment equipped with handheld engines. The regulations
in Sec.  1054.101 state that handheld engines may not be installed in
nonhandheld equipment, but the regulatory text does not state that this
is prohibited under Sec.  1068.101 or identify which penalty provisions
apply. In this rule we are proposing to add a statement to Sec.
1054.101(e) to describe how this action violates the prohibited acts
identified in Sec.  1068.101, consistent with the regulations under 40
CFR part 90.

K. Revision of 40 CFR 1042 Appendix II To Correct Time Weighting at
Mode for Engines Certifying to the E2 RMC Cycle

    The existing regulations contain an error in the time at mode for
each steady-state point when certifying an engine to the E2 ramped
modal cycle (RMC). When the E2 RMC cycle was generated, the times at
mode were not correct based on the weighting of the discrete-mode
cycle. In this notice we are proposing to correct the time at mode for
all four steady-state portions of the E2 RMC cycle to correspond with
the mode weighting for the discrete-mode test.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under the terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4,
1993) and is therefore not subject to review under the EO. EPA is
taking direct final action on several revisions to EPA's mobile source
emission programs standards and test procedures. This proposed rule
merely contains several minor and noncontroversial technical amendments
to EPA's mobile source emission programs as described in the Summary
and Section IV. Details of the Proposed Rule.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed action does not impose an new information collection
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). It merely contains
several minor and noncontroversial technical amendments to EPA's mobile
source emission programs as described in the Summary and Section IV.
Details of the Proposed Rule. Therefore, there are no new paperwork
requirements associated with this proposed rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that
meet the definition for business based on SBA size standards at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This
proposed rule will not impose any new requirements on small entities.
    EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis in connection with this proposed rule. It merely
contains several minor and noncontroversial technical amendments to
EPA's mobile source emission programs as described in the Summary and
Section IV. Details of the Proposed Rule. We have, therefore, concluded
that today's proposed rule will not affect the regulatory burden for
all small entities and will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This proposed rule contains no federal mandates for state, local,
or tribal governments as defined by the provisions of Title II of the
UMRA. The proposed rule imposes no enforceable duties on any of these
governmental entities. Nothing in the proposed rule would significantly
or uniquely affect small governments. EPA has determined that this
proposed rule contains no federal mandates that may result in
expenditures of more than $100 million to the private sector in any
single year. It merely contains several minor and noncontroversial
technical amendments to EPA's mobile source emission programs as
described in the Summary and Section IV. Details of the Proposed Rule.
We have, therefore, concluded that today's proposed rule will not
effect the regulatory burden for all small entities and will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
See the direct final rule EPA has published in the ``Rules and
Regulations'' section of today's Federal Register for a more extensive
discussion of UMRA policy.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. This proposed rule merely
contains several minor and noncontroversial technical amendments to
EPA's mobile source emission programs as described in the Summary and
Section IV. Details of the Proposed Rule. We have, therefore, concluded
that today's proposed rule will not affect

the regulatory burden for all small entities and will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
See the direct final rule EPA has published in the ``Rules and
Regulations'' section of today's Federal Register for a more extensive
discussion of Executive Order 13132.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
This proposed rule does not uniquely affect the communities of Indian
Tribal Governments. Further, no circumstances specific to such
communities exist that would cause an impact on these communities
beyond those discussed in the other sections of this rule. This
proposed rule merely contains several minor and noncontroversial
technical amendments to EPA's mobile source emission programs as
described in the Summary and Section IV. Details of the Proposed Rule.
We have, therefore, concluded that today's proposed rule will not
affect the regulatory burden for all small entities and will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. See the direct
final rule EPA has published in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section
of today's Federal Register for a more extensive discussion of
Executive Order 13132.

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

    This proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it
is not economically significant, and does not involve decisions on
environmental health or safety risks that may disproportionately affect
children. See the direct final rule EPA has published in the ``Rules
and Regulations'' section of today's Federal Register for a more
extensive discussion of Executive Order 13045.

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

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as
defined in Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy. This
proposed rule merely contains several minor and noncontroversial
technical amendments to EPA's mobile source emission programs as
described in the Summary and Section IV. Details of the Proposed Rule.
We have, therefore, concluded that today's proposed rule will not
affect the regulatory burden for all small entities and will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This proposed rule does not involve technical standards. This
proposed rule merely contains several minor and noncontroversial
technical amendments to EPA's mobile source emission programs as
described in the Summary and Section IV. Details of the Proposed Rule.
We have, therefore, concluded that today's proposed rule will not
affect the regulatory burden for all small entities and will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Thus, we have determined that the requirements of the NTTAA do not
apply. See the direct final rule EPA has published in the ``Rules and
Regulations'' section of today's Federal Register for a more extensive
discussion of NTTAA policy.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. See the direct final rule EPA has published in the ``Rules
and Regulations'' section of today's Federal Register for a more
extensive discussion of Executive Order 13045.

K. Statutory Authority

    The statutory authority for this action comes from 42 U.S.C. 7401-
7671q.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 86

    Environmental protection, NTE, Administrative practice and
procedure, Confidential business information, Labeling, Motor vehicle
pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 1033

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Incorporation by reference,
Labeling, Penalties, Railroads, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

40 CFR Part 1039

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Imports,
Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Penalties, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Warranties.

40 CFR Part 1042

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Imports,
Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Penalties, Vessels, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Warranties.

40 CFR Part 1045

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Imports,
Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Penalties, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Warranties.

40 CFR Part 1054

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Imports,
Labeling, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Warranties.

40 CFR Part 1065

    Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research.

    Dated: October 29, 2010.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-27894 Filed 11-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 226 (Monday, November 23, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 74601-74603]
[FR Doc No: 2020-25701]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0753; Project Identifier 2019-CE-033-AD; Amendment
39-21331; AD 2020-24-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Model PC-24 airplanes. This AD results
from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated
by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an
unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI identifies the unsafe
condition as overheating of the electrical wiring splices close to the
right-hand pitot-static connector on frame 10. The FAA is issuing this
AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective December 28, 2020.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 28,
2020.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., Customer Technical Support (MCC), P.O.
Box 992, CH-6371 Stans, Switzerland; telephone: +41 (0)41 619 67 74;
exception occurred on : 2020-25701.htm
exception occurred on : 2020-25701.htm
fax: +41 (0)41 619 67 73; email: aircraft.com">[email protected]aircraft.com;
internet: https://www.pilatus-aircraft.com/en. You may view this
service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section,
Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816)
329-4148. It is also available at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0753.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0753; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, any
comments received, and other information. The address for

Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Rudolph, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section, International
Validation Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain serial-numbered
Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Model PC-24 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Federal Register on September 2, 2020 (85 FR 54515). The NPRM was
prompted by MCAI originated by the European Union Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of
the European Union. EASA issued AD No. 2019-0166, dated July 15, 2019
(referred to after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Model PC-24 airplanes. The MCAI
states:

    During maintenance it was found that affected parts located
close to the right-hand pitot/static connector on frame 10 showed
signs of overheating.
    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to an uncontrolled
fire in the cockpit area, or loss of probe heating and de-icing
function, possibly resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Pilatus issued the
[service bulletin] SB to provide modification instructions.
    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires
replacement of affected parts with serviceable parts, and prohibits
(re)installation of affected parts.

    The MCAI identifies the ``affected part'' as electrical wiring
splice part number (P/N) 9<IP_ADDRESS>1 and a ``serviceable part'' as
electrical wiring splice P/N 9<IP_ADDRESS>1. EASA identified the root
cause of the overheating as internal corrosion of the affected splices,
which are not immersion-resistant, due to moisture ingress. The
serviceable splices are immersion-resistant. You may examine the MCAI
at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2020-0753.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the costs.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety
requires adopting this AD as proposed in the NPRM. Accordingly, the FAA
is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. has issued Pilatus PC-24 Service Bulletin No.
30-002, dated April 3, 2019. The service information contains
procedures for replacing certain electrical splices and wire for the
pitot and static probes. This service information is reasonably
available because the interested parties have access to it through
their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD will affect 16 products of
U.S. registry. The FAA also estimates that it would take 6 work-hours
per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD.
The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost
about $65 per product.
    Based on these figures, the FAA estimates the cost of the proposed
AD on U.S. operators to be $9,200, or $575 per product.
    The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate.
According to the manufacturer, however, some of the costs of this AD
may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected operators.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2020-24-01 Pilatus Aircraft Ltd.: Amendment 39-21331; Docket No.
FAA-2020-0753; Project Identifier 2019-CE-033-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective December 28,
2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This airworthiness directive (AD) applies to Pilatus Aircraft
Ltd. Model PC-24 airplanes, serial numbers 101 through 125
inclusive, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 30: Ice and Rain
Protection.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as overheating of
the electrical wiring splices close to the right-hand pitot-static
connector on frame 10. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent
overheating of the pitot and static probe electrical splices, which
could lead to loss of probe heating and de-icing function or an
inflight fire.

(f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions in paragraphs
(f)(1) and (2) of this AD:
    (1) Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, for the
pitot and static probes de-ice wiring, replace wire H279A10 with
wire H279A12 and replace each electrical wiring splice part number
(P/N) 9<IP_ADDRESS>1 with electrical wiring splice P/N 9<IP_ADDRESS>1
by following the Accomplishment Instructions--Aircraft, section
3.B., of Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. PC-24 Service Bulletin No. 30-002,
dated April 3, 2019.
    (2) After completing the requirements of paragraph (f)(1) of
this AD, do not install a pitot and static probes de-ice wire
H279A10 or electrical wiring splice P/N 9<IP_ADDRESS>1 on any
airplane.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to Doug Rudolph,
Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, General Aviation & Rotorcraft
Section, International Validation Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301,
Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (816)
329-4090; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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.

(h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Union Aviation Safety Agency AD No. 2019-
0166, dated July 15, 2019. You may examine the MCAI at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2020-0753.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Pilatus PC-24 Service Bulletin No. 30-002, dated April 3,
2019.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. service information identified in
this AD, contact Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., Customer Technical Support
(MCC), P.O. Box 992, CH-6371 Stans, Switzerland; telephone: +41
(0)41 619 67 74; fax: +41 (0)41 619 67 73; email:
exception occurred on : 2020-25701.htm
exception occurred on : 2020-25701.htm
aircraft.com">[email protected]aircraft.com; internet: https://www.pilatus-aircraft.com/en.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901
Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on November 9, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-25701 Filed 11-20-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 189 (Tuesday, September 29, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 60991]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21458]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP20-524-000]

Bradford County Real Estate Partners LLC; Notice of Petition for
Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on September 18, 2020, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2)
of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of
Practice and Procedure, Bradford County Real Estate Partners LLC (BCREP
or Petitioner) filed a petition for declaratory order. The petition
seeks a declaratory order from the Commission stating that BCREP's
construction and operation of a natural gas liquefaction and truck and
rail loading facility (Wyalusing Facility) in Wyalusing Township,
Bradford County, Pennsylvania, would not be subject to the Commission's
jurisdiction under section 3 or section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, 15
U.S.C. 717b and 717f (2018), as more fully explained in BCREP's
petition.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Petitioner.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar
pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street
NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
eLibrary link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits
in the docket number field to access the document. At this time, the
Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public Reference
Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning
the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the President on
March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free, (886) 208-
3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on October 23, 2020.

    Dated: September 23, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-21458 Filed 9-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 79 (Friday, April 24, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22897-22898]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09397]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0247; Airspace Docket No. 14-ASW-1]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Sonora, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace at Sonora, TX.
Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures (SIAP) at JL Bar Ranch Airport. The FAA is taking
this action to enhance the safety and management of Instrument Flight
Rules (IFR) operations for SIAPs at the airport.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, June 25, 2015. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1,
Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at http://www.faa.gov/airtraffic/publications/. The Order is also available for
inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-
741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15. For further
information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and ATC Regulations
Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 29591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Shelby, Central Service
Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration,
Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone:
817-321-7740.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On November 26, 2014, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace at
JL Bar Ranch Airport, Sonora, TX, (79 FR 70482). Interested parties
were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting
written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraphs 6005,
respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014, and effective
September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be
published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Y, airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15,
2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this final rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists Class
A,B,C,D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR),
Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of JL Bar Ranch Airport,
Sonora, TX, to accommodate new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures
at JL Bar Ranch Airport. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the
safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (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) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it establishes controlled airspace at JL Bar Ranch Airport, Sonora,
TX.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E. ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

     Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106 (f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Y,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014 and
effective September 15, 2014, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth

* * * * *

ASW TX E5 Sonora, TX [New]

JL Bar Ranch Airport, TX
    (Lat. 30[deg]34'06'' N., long. 100[deg]26'39'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of JL Bar Ranch Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on April 1, 2015.
Christopher L. Southerland
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2015-09397 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4901-14-P


----- Forwarded by Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US on 08/10/2010 02:30 PM
-----
|------------>
| From:      |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
  |Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| To:        |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Cc:        |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
  |Fred Talcott/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Michael Horowitz/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, RobertJ
Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA                                          |
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Date:      |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
  |08/10/2010 02:15 PM
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Subject:   |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
  |SI RICE NESHAP preamble/reg
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|

Hi Cortney,
Attached is the latest version.  It shows the changes we have made since
yesterday based on OMB's comments, and also some edits to correct typos and
other minor errors that we found.
(See attached file: Final SI RICE NESHAP Preamble-Reg 8-10-10 redline.doc)(See
attached file: Final SI RICE NESHAP Preamble-Reg
8-10-10.doc)

Melanie King
Energy Strategies Group
Sector Policies and Programs Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency

Mail Code D243-01
RTP, NC  27711

Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>