The question I had for you was what kind of water is it. Is it reconstituted R O treated water?

DR. TIETGE: No. The water we use is for the most part unmodified Lake Superior water, which is a relatively low conductivity water.

It goes through several treatment  well, filtration steps and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 312 UV sterilization. But beyond that, it is Lake Superior water.

DR. GREEN: It is potable, chlorinated, filtered water that goes through UV sterilization?

DR. TIETGE: It is not chlorinated.

DR. GREEN: Chloraminated?

DR. TIETGE: It is not chloraminated.

This is taken from the bottom of Lake Superior. We're located right on the lake. And we have an intake that's about a quarter of a mile, I think, from the laboratory out into the lake where there is a specialized filter system that is built into the lake.

And then the water comes in, and then there is further filtration, and then the final step is UV sterilization. There is no chemical additives in the water whatsoever.

DR. GREEN: I know this is being detailed, but if we were to try and reproduce this system or recommend that something like this be used, when you talk about filtered, do you know  you are filtering particulates. Do you know what size  the reason being is all the runoff that goes into the lake you want to make sure you get pathogens like

DR. TIETGE: We have several types of filters involved in our system. First of all, in the lake itself, there is a graded, gravel 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 313 sandbag that has fairly crude, I think maybe, 25 micron, I think, is the cutoff range for that. But when it comes into the building, it goes through some five micron filters, at which point it is UV sterilized.

And then prior to introduction to the system, it goes through a more typical laboratory filter that I think is probably two and a half or five microns or in that range.

One thing I meant to mention earlier in terms of efficiency is from experience, I can tell you that these systems require much less labor. And we actually elected to conduct a static renewal study about two years ago for very specific purposes.

And after we got into it, we really regretted it because it was so much work. These systems require very low maintenance.

DR. GREEN: That's what makes me a bigger fan too, low maintenance.

DR. TIETGE: There are numerous universities and contract laboratories that use these. It isn't necessary to use our lake water supply. There is numerous examples of waters.

Of course, I think that, if you wanted to, you could modify a water with additives, salts, whatever using the appropriate technology.

DR. ROBERTS: Dr. Kloas. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 314 DR. KLOAS: Did you perform  not just for the performance of the animals, this is quite convincing. I agree that it would grow and so on.

But do you have any comparative study using positive controls for instance in endocrine disruption, estradiol treatment, something like this, where you can compare static renewal system with flow through and the sensitivity of both exposure regimes?

DR. TIETGE: No, because we don't do static renewal. Our work primarily is focused on thyroid axis disruption. So we've used numerous chemicals to inhibit or to stimulate metamorphosis.

But we have also run a couple of chemicals, nonaromatizable androgen, and we have also  we did see androgenic effects. We have also run estradiol where we do see  off the top of my head, I don't remember the concentrations of the study, but I know that we do have feminization in that case.

DR. KLOAS: Because there is always some concern about if it's the same or if you lose sometimes  maybe you can also lose by permanent loading of humero ( ph) compliments, you may lose a little bit sensitivities.

DR. TIETGE: Loss of sensitivity based on what? I'm sorry.

DR. KLOAS: In comparison to static renewal system. I can't 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 315 compare. We don't have flow through. But if you compare, some people found  I'm aware of one or two studies in a lab with a flow through. They use same concentrations of estradiol but are getting much lower sensitivity concerning feminization of xenopus and also ranid species.

DR. TIETGE: I think I'm familiar with at least some of the work you are talking about. I'm not sure if they used  that was a positive control. I'm not sure that they had analytical verification of that.

We can talk about that. But I'm not sure.

One of the things that also I should mention has to do with the rate of development in some of the studies that we reviewed for the white paper. The developmental rates for xenopus were very long, in our opinion.

And in our laboratory, using the flow through systems, we typically have metamorphosis well underway at seven weeks. About 50 days post fertilization. And it is usually completed within three or four days after that.

Certainly, within 56 days, we are generally done with metamorphosis at that point, unless there is a chemical effect, and then, of course, that is another story. But I'm referring to controls in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 316 that case.

DR. ROBERTS: Dr. LeBlanc.

DR. LEBLANC: Joe, I agree with your recommendations for a flow through system as well as recommending the proportional diluters.

But it seems that proportional diluters scare a lot of people. It must be all those tubes and boxes or something. I was just wondering if there are alternatives that you are aware of in terms of peristaltic pump systems

DR. TIETGE: Yeah. During the period that those were designed, pump systems weren't quite as reliable as they are today.

There are many, many reliable pump systems that can be used.

And some of our newer designs do not use the proportional flow through devices. They have simple dilution or, I should say, solution cells that serve as a stock for a peristaltic pump that might have six or eight lines coming out of it or other pumps.

We have very many systems in our laboratory that represent different design ideas.

I think when you get into a more complex exposure paradigm,

then the system has to be more complicated to accomplish it. But pumps work fine, actually. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 317 DR. ROBERTS: Any other comments? Dr. Skelly.

DR. SKELLY: Just real quickly, Dr. Tietge.

We're talking about this I assume because this is going to be what EPA recommends as people go forward or requires.

I think Dr. Bradbury or somebody said before that there doesn't necessarily need to be a requirement that people that want to do experiments that are going to be evaluated and used by EPA to make judgments will use one method or another.

I thought it would be helpful if you could comment on that.

DR. TIETGE: I think in the absence of a validated protocol,

one needs to adhere to a standard. And the standard is right now this most appropriate ASTM. There is the flow through recommendation.

And there is the static renewal recommendation.

I think if you take a look at the two, it is more efficient to do the flow through. Because for ends that you need to utilize for your statistical design, I think you would be in a lot of trouble with a static test.

DR. ROBERTS: Dr. Skelly I think wanted to respond.

DR. SKELLY: Just to follow up. Maybe the economics of working in a government agency versus a university can be a little bit different where labor can be quite cheap in a university setting, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 318 people getting credits or whatever, whereas equipment costs whatever it costs.

I guess what I'm wondering is will the EPA have an all flowers can bloom sort of attitude towards this? Or are they going to say flow through or nothing.

DR. STEEGER: I think one of the things we're looking to see happen is that the studies that are conducted for regulatory purposes are consistent or as consistent as they can be with our guidelines.

And although we don't have any guidelines right now for amphibian studies, we do have the A 50 guidelines for water quality standards. And we would hope that whatever studies are conducted adhere to those guidelines.

DR. BRADBURY: I think some of the sort of minimal issues in terms of data quality that we're talking about are the ASTM guidelines. They are measured concentrations.

As Dr. LeBlanc mentioned earlier today, if it is a static renewal, you probably need to do more analytical chemistry in terms of numbers of samples over time than one would have to do in a flow through test to ensure that you really know what your concentrations are. Because that's one of the other challenges of a static renewal,

can be, depending on the chemical and toxicokinetics, that aspect. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 319 So I think it is more of the, if you will, performance issues,

loading, DO, ammonia, measuring the concentrations that are the real important issues to the extent that some studies would be done because people read these documents and think they would be like

they would like to pursue some research, they will have some ideas on the kinds of quality indicators that would be important for the agency to use  looking at  when they look at the open literature to the extent the registrant may be performing some of these studies.

That's sort of a different venue in which some of these studies potentially could be done, if they are done, which gets at what Tom was saying in terms of the kind of guidelines the agency requires for data that's submitted as part of registration or reregistration.

DR. ROBERTS: Dr. Kloas.

DR. KLOAS: Concerning atrazine effect, obtained up to now they have been just obtained in static renewal systems. Maybe metabolism of atrazine and so on could also play a role for getting the effect.

If there is really concern about atrazine and  I agree with several advantages. And from a logical point of view, I agree completely. I would also like to have flow through in my lab to try doing that. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 320 But there is concern about what was done and results obtained up to now. I think to repeat this should contain both at least static renewal and maybe an advance study using the flow through. Because otherwise, we cannot rule out if there is no effect in a flow through anymore.

DR. BRADBURY: One point. I guess we would be curious to hear the panel's response in terms of ASTM loading guidelines,

ammonia, D O, those kind of attributes that have to be met in terms of evaluating the quality of the study regardless if it was done flow through or static renewal.

I think the agency in putting out the document to get a response was first understanding your impressions about basic data quality parameters. How you get there. It could be static renewal. It could be flow through.

DR. ROBERTS: Dr. Delorme, then Dr. Green.

DR. DELORME: Dr. Bradbury just answered my question. He said that you had to meet the water quality standards that have been set out.

But just as another note for the panel, as somebody who does risk assessments and gets studies in, typically, when you get a study in on fish or invertebrates, they have to provide information on the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 321 water, which includes the presence of other contaminants, be they heavy metals, pesticides or whatnot.

So the water is characterized typically at the labs that do the studies, whether it be an industry lab or a contracting company.

DR. ROBERTS: Dr. Green.

DR. GREEN: I think Dr. Kloas's point is well taken too. There may be something inherent with the static renewal system that mimics wildlife pond situations closer than the flow through. Particularly,

with regards to ammonia and other things in the water at higher levels.

And some of the studies we looked at yesterday clearly had higher levels of ammonia. And that might play a role in interaction with atrazine that if we put them in flow through systems and we adhere to the guidelines, we might not see that.

If it's feasible, it seems a reasonable thing to, if you don't get results in the flow through system that are repeatable, that perhaps a static renewable system would be on a smaller scale something to look at as well.

DR. ROBERTS: Dr. Bradbury.

DR. BRADBURY: I want to get clarification.

If our question at hand is to evaluate the hypothesis that 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 322 atrazine can cause developmental effects, sort of putting on my toxicology hat, I would like to try to get a system that gives me the cleanest possible way to interpret whether or not I'm getting a toxicological signal. And then I'll get more complex as I need to.

I guess I would like to get a response to that.

DR. ROBERTS: I think Dr. Green's point is if the answer is if you get a negative response, it is possible that atrazine under conditions, under something less than clean conditions that may be more relevant, in fact, to the environment might give a positive response, you might want to check that before you stop, I guess.

I'm not speaking for Dr. Green. But that's what I think the point is.

DR. GREEN: I think that's right. Otherwise, we'll be open scientifically to the criticism that it wasn't a static and you get negative results on a flow through, and we're back to phase one again.

DR. BRADBURY: Hopefully if some of our discussions about the hill criteria hold up, we'll

DR. ROBERTS: Dr. Richards.

DR. RICHARDS: This is partly a question, partly response.

I think maybe to step back a bit, some of the people I have heard over the last few days express that the static was more 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 323 appropriate because maybe it more mimicked a pond type situation.

I was trying to think back. I don't know a great deal about the development of the ASTM standards, but when I think of all the species of fish that have been used in the development of those standards, how many of them might you place into the category of being species that might inhabit these mesotrophic or eutrophic sorts of ponds be exposed to relatively high ammonia levels, and that might be considered a normal environment, as would be xenopus and possibly rana pipiens too.

DR. STEEGER: Our test species are chosen again because of their ability to be raised under laboratory conditions.

There are large mouth bass and blue gill sunfish. There are other choices we get. Fathead minnows.

They can live under eutrophic conditions. But those are challenges that can impact the signal that Steve is talking about in terms of just trying to create a situation where we have removed as many of those variables as possible to have as clean a signal as possible, is what the agency uses for regulatory purposes.

Otherwise, it gets to be very difficult to sort out what the real cause of effect was.

DR. RICHARDS: In partial response, am I hearing, then, that, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 324 yes, other organisms like fatheads and so forth that do live often times in mesotrophic or eutrophic situations seem to respond very well and repeatably in flow through conditions.

DR. ROBERTS: I guess in response I would just say that if you find yourself in the situation where you use flow through and you don't get a response, the question will be, and I think I would be sort of compelled to go back and see whether or not the reason you don't get a response has something to do with flow through versus static conditions, and then the question will come up, which is more relevant.

I don't know  of course, until you understand the basis for the difference between static and flow through, I don't suppose you could answer that question, but we can envision the situation where you would be sort of drawn down that path.

And if you can't duplicate it in static conditions, you can just say, well, we can't duplicate it under static or flow through.

If you get it under static, you don't get it under flow through,

then you are going to have to figure out why and figure out which one is more relevant.

I guess we're just saying that.

DR. BRADBURY: Can I ask one more question? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 325 Let's say we go down a path, you do a flow through and you don't get the effect. Maybe that has something to do with the physics of a static renewal is what is important to triggering whatever event occurs.

This is just because I couldn't remember the dialogue. Would it still be the recommendation of the panel that one would try to meet ASTM standards in running that static renewal?

DR. ROBERTS: Dr. Kloas.

DR. KLOAS: I think it should be the same conditions whereas people obtained the effect.

I'm completely surprised if I can  25 animals and 75 fetus or something. It is hard to handle. But the effect already observed have been used in volumes of four liters or something like that.

I think it wouldn't make sense to use another static renewal system. Really in agreement with ASTM standards. I'm a dirty endocrinologist. I'm sorry. I would like to have a study repeated under the same conditions. Whatever it might make any difference.

I would like to have flow through and to see that there are results. But if you change in another way and doing static renewal under different conditions and you can't repeat again, it is the same question. If you can't repeat it in flow through, then you are again 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 326 next step and one step backwards.

DR. BRADBURY: I just have this  I get a feeling that I'm going down a path that gets us back to some of the white paper's analysis that it was very difficult to interpret the responses from the previous studies because of concern over the ammonia levels, the feeding issues, the DO issues.

Then we're being asked to try to replicate scenarios that  I'm trying to track the  I feel like we've started getting into a do loop.

DR. ROBERTS: I guess Dr. Green can respond.

We got I think some responses by at least a couple different labs. I don't know they all had real high ammonia levels. I don't know that that  I don't know that you're going to have to really make awful conditions to get

DR. BRADBURY: I think some guidance on, if not ASTM guidelines, where do you feel a reasonable static renewal in terms of those issues, at least bracket that.

DR. ROBERTS: Sure. Dr. Green.

DR. GREEN: I don't think our intent was to recreate the dirty water with a static renewal system. That wasn't it at all.

We have static renewal systems that house 400 and 500 adult frogs. No matter how hard we work on it, we cannot produce ASTM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 327 clean water to that degree.

I think what is important is the dynamics of the animal sitting and reabsorbing the drug that they are absorbing and excreting for the few hours that they do it in between water changes and for the gradual increase in ammonia.

And certainly they don't have to go up to the toxic lethal levels that one of those papers, I believe, had in it, but that system alone would be something I think  would be a justifiable attempt to reproduce the results they got in the static system.

Try to keep the water as clean as possible. But you are never going to get it as clean as you would with the flow through system. I would say change the water as they did in the static renewal system,

as frequently as you need to to keep the ammonia down and all that stuff.

And it is still going to go up enough that it is only speculative that the interactions in the water chemistry dynamics will be there in a way that they are not there in the flow through system.

DR. ROBERTS: Dr. LeBlanc.

DR. LEBLANC: It just seems like we're getting into the realm of what if, what if we don't  what if we get a negative result, what do we do. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 328 I just don't know that we should be crossing that bridge. I recognize you need recommendations and you are looking for advice and help. But I think we should proceed with the assumption that we will replicate the results.

And if we don't, at that point we have to look at the new data as compared to the old data and make some judgments as to why perhaps we can't replicate the results. And then design some basic experiments to address those variables. Leave it at that.

DR. ROBERTS: I want to ask if there are there other comments by panel members regarding any of the topics  this topic and the discussions we have had over the last few days, any points that are important you think that have not been made as yet but that would be important to make and introduce into the minutes.

Dr. LeBlanc.

DR. LEBLANC: Quick technical point. The experimental design that was up there, you had a positive control of estradiol. We have seen some experiments with DHT. I don't see any reason why we would be looking at DHT as a positive control.

But we are interested, I think, in some anti androgenic effects,

not necessarily due to the ability of atrazine to compete at the receptor level, but perhaps to interfere with conversion of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 329 testosterone to DHT or just to overall cripple the synthesis of hormones.

So you might give consideration to a control for anti androgenic properties. I guess you would have to look at an anti androgen. And one that I have seen in the literature with frogs and I think Darcy or Sherril mentioned, it was cyproterone acetate.

That would be something to consider.

DR. ROBERTS: Dr. Kloas.

DR. KLOAS: I can add three suggestions. You can use cyproterone acetate, which works as an anti androgen, or you can use para para DDE. Also, vinclozolin would work also.

DR. ROBERTS: Dr. Gibbs.

DR. GIBBS: I still have lingering concerns that far too individuals use the found, the experimental larval populations in some of these laboratory studies.

It is not my area of expertise, but as a population geneticist, it really concerns me when three pairs are used. One onymous individual with three pairs will potentially skew an entire experiment.

I think boosting numbers up into the 10s of pairs, I think it seems like a good idea to me.

DR. SKELLY: Just a point that has been touched on a little bit, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 330 but I wanted to make sure it made it clearly into the record.

That is that it may be standard practice in toxicology, but I was struck by the kind of fluctuating use of different levels of statistical units.

In some cases, people were using individuals. In some places,

people are using tanks as their units of analysis, even though all the individuals are raised in group tanks.

And in ecology, that's just totally tabu. You don't do that. If things are raised in a tank, they can influence each other. And you don't use individuals as replicates in analysis if they came out of the same tanks.

I don't pretend an SAP can change practice in an entire field.

But if that is standard operating practice and if we are going to get into ecological relevance at some point and ecologists are going to be evaluating this stuff, they are going to care about that a whole lot.

That alone will eliminate a paper from peer reviewed literature in ecology.

DR. ROBERTS: Any other suggestions from panel members?

Dr. Bradbury, I think the panel has given you our best advice on this subject. Are there any final clarifications or follow up questions? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 331 DR. BRADBURY: No. I think it has been a very helpful discussion this afternoon and mid morning. I appreciate all the hard work and input.

DR. ROBERTS: I think as came through in our comments, I think the panel was very impressed with the job that the agency had done on the white paper and your analysis and your thoughts on how to move forward.

I think we thought in general you did a very good job with that.

We had some suggestions here and there for things maybe to add and consider. But overall, we thought the agency did an excellent job on a very difficult subject area.

Before we close the meeting, I would also like to thank our public commenters. We had many of them that travelled sometimes a great distance to come and speak to us and share with us their data and their viewpoints on this subject. We always welcome different perspectives and viewpoints on the issues that we face. And we thank the public commenters.

I would also like to thank the hearty soles in the audience who have stayed with us now for a number of days through our presentations and our discussions. I like to thank you.

And of course, always, I would like to thank the SAP staff for 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 332 putting this meeting together. They assembled an outstanding panel of experts, got us all here, got us all the documents we needed and have been very supportive.

Finally, I would like to thank the panel members, a very impressive panel. Your expertise was obvious. The fact you came prepared was obvious. We have had excellent discussion. Excellent questions right from the beginning. I think you guys did a terrific job.

Do we have any other announcements before we close the session? Paul, anything you need to say?

MR. LEWIS: Just a few remarks. I want to first thank Dr.

Roberts for serving as our chair for the past three days. Did an excellent job in managing the process for this meeting.

Members of the panel, it was a pleasure working with all of you. And looking forward as we work in writing our report that for the public's interest will be available in about four weeks, available on our SAP web site and also in the docket.

And I thank the members of the public for listening to our discussion and for the contributions they made as part of the deliberations that we had in the past three days.

Finally, my colleagues at EPA, both in EFED ( ph) and my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 333 colleagues with the SAP staff in working with me, pleasure working with you in getting this meeting off the ground. Thank you.

Dr. Roberts.

DR. ROBERTS: Immediately following the close of this session, I would like the panel to meet in the meeting room for a short closed session just to discuss the logistics of writing up our minutes.

As soon as we're finished here, if we could convene there for a short meeting, that would be great.

If there no other announcements or no other topics to discuss, I would like to now close this session of the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel.

( Thereupon, the session concluded at 6 p. m.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 334 CERTIFICATE OF STENOTYPE REPORTER I, Frances M. Freeman, Stenotype Reporter, do hereby certify that the foregoing proceedings were reported by me in stenotypy, transcribed under my direction and are a verbatim record of the proceedings had.

_______________________________

FRANCES M. FREEMAN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36  335 I N V O I C E**** **** I N V O I C E****

FRANCES M. FREEMAN 43773 Sunset Terrace Ashburn, VA 20147 703/ 726 6944 TODAY'S DATE: 6/ 29/ 03 DATE TAKEN: 6/ 19/ 03 CASE NAME: Fifra conf DEPONENTS:

TOTAL: PAGES: 481, plus 59 pgs OT ATTORNEY TAKING DEPO:

COPY SALES To: Mr.

DELIVERY: 7 COMPRESSED:

DISK:

E MAIL: no EXHIBITS: none TRIAL DATE:

** SIGNATURE:


[Federal Register: July 30, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 145)]
[Notices]
[Page 37996-37997]
[DOCID:fr30jy09-45]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

July 21, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1228-000.
    Applicants: Phibro LLC.
    Description: Phibro LLC submits notice of cancellation of Phibro's
Third Revised Rate Schedule FERC No. 1.
    Filed Date: 07/17/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090720-0025.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 07, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-824-004.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection LLC.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits an errata tariff
sheet to correct a ministerial error in one of the tariff sheets that
it previously filed.
    Filed Date: 07/21/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090721-0336.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 31, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1297-002; ER01-1071-013; ER02-1903-010; ER02-
2559-009; ER03-1104-009; ER03-1105-009; ER03-34-012; ER06-1261-007;
ER06-9-008; ER07-1157-004; ER07-174-007; ER07-875-003; ER08-1293-002;
ER08-1294-002; ER08-1296-002; ER08-1300-002; ER08-197-006; ER08-250-
003.
    Applicants: Ashtabula Wind, LLC; Badger Windpower, LLC; FPL Energy
Marcus Hook, L.P.; Backbone Mountain Windpower, LLC; FPL Energy North
Dakota Wind, LLC; FPL Energy North Dakota Wind II, LLC; FPL Energy
Hancock County Wind, LLC; FPL Energy Mower County, LLC; FPL Energy
Burleigh County Wind, LLC; Logan Wind Energy LLC; Osceola Windpower,
LLC; Peetz Table Wind Energy, LLC; Crystal Lake Wind, LLC; Crystal Lake
Wind II, LLC; Osceola Windpower II, LLC; Story Wind, LLC; FPL Energy
Oliver Wind II, LLC; Langdon Wind, LLC.
    Description: NextEra Companies submits revisions to their MBR
schedules to include tariff provision to allow market-based rate
sellers to sell ancillary services in the Ancillary Services Market
etc.
    Filed Date: 07/17/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090720-0104.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 07, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1462-000.
    Applicants: Lake Benton Power Partners II, LLC.
    Description: Lake Benton Power Partners II, LLC submits request for
authorization to sell energy and capacity at market based rates and CD
containing work papers of Julie Solomon.
    Filed Date: 07/17/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090720-0220.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 07, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1463-000.
    Applicants: Xcel Energy Services Inc.
    Description: Public Service Company of Colorado submits the
proposed termination of various Umbrella Service Agreements for the
Sale, Assignment or Transfer of Transmission Rights under FERC Electric
Tariff, Original Volume 5.
    Filed Date: 07/17/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090720-0004.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 07, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1464-000.
    Applicants: Phibro LLC.
    Description: Phibro LLC submits notice of cancellation of Phibro's
Third Revised Rate Schedule FERC No. 1.
    Filed Date: 07/17/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090720-0025.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 07, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1465-000.
    Applicants: Deseret Generation & Transmission Co-operative, Inc.
    Description: Deseret Generation & Transmission Co-operative, Inc.
submits certain amendments to a cost-based Wholesale Power Contract
dated 4/1/96, providing requirements service to one if members Garkane
Energy Coop, Inc.
    Filed Date: 07/17/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090720-0020.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 07, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1466-000.
    Applicants: Deseret Generation & Transmission Co-operative, Inc.
    Description: Deseret Generation & Transmission Co-operative, Inc
submits annual Information Filing setting forth updated approved costs
for member-own generation for 2009, and the resulting reimbursements by
Desert.
    Filed Date: 07/17/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090720-0021.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 07, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1467-000.
    Applicants: Carolina Power & Light Company.
    Description: Carolina Power and Light Company submits Notice of
Cancellation of Rate Schedules.
    Filed Date: 07/17/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090720-0022.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 07, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1468-000.
    Applicants: American Electric Power Service Corporation.
    Description: AEP Operating Companies submits Interconnection and
Local Delivery Service Agreement between AEP and the City of Auburn.
    Filed Date: 07/17/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090720-0023.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 07, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1469-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, LLC.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits an executed
interconnection service agreement among PJM etc.
    Filed Date: 07/17/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090720-0024.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 07, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1470-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc. & New England Power Pool.
    Description: ISO New England Inc et al submits a consolidated and
revised ISO Financial Assurance Policy.
    Filed Date: 07/17/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090720-0226.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 07, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1471-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Pacific Gas and Electric Company submits letter of
agreement for Phase 2 of a temporary project by PG&E and the City and
County of San Francisco.
    Filed Date: 07/20/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090720-0224.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 10, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1472-000.

    Applicants: Viridian Energy, Inc.
    Description: Viridian, Inc submits notice of succession.
    Filed Date: 07/20/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090720-0221.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 10, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1473-000.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: NorthWestern Corp submits an executed Large Generator
Interconnection Agreement with NaturEner Glacier Wind Energy 2, LLC.
    Filed Date: 07/20/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090721-0252.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 10, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1474-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: PacifiCorp submits Revision No 7 to Appendix A of
First Revised Rate Schedule FERC No 297 et al.
    Filed Date: 07/20/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090721-0250.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 10, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1475-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: PacifiCorp submits Original Sheet 1 et al to FERC
Electric Tariff, 7th Revised Volume 11, Original Agreement No 580.
    Filed Date: 07/20/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090721-0249.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 10, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1476-000; ER09-1477-000; ER04-1113-002; ER06-
270-002; ER06-271-002.
    Applicants: Solios Asset Management LLC; Pythagoras Global
Investors L.P.; Solios Asset Management LLC; Solios Power, LLC.
    Description: Solios Power, LLC et al (Relinquishing Marketers)
submits Notice of Non-Material Change in Status and Notice of
Cancellation of Rate Schedules.
    Filed Date: 07/20/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090721-0248.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 10, 2009.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following open access
transmission tariff filings:

    Docket Numbers: OA08-35-004.
    Applicants: Xcel Energy Services, Inc.
    Description: Compliance Filing of Xcel Energy Services, Inc.
    Filed Date: 07/20/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090720-5126.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 10, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: OA08-42-002.
    Applicants: American Transmission System Operator, Inc; Midwest
Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: American Transmission System Operator, Inc et al
submits their compliance filing with the changes directed by the
Commission to the transmission planning principles in Attachment FF-
ATCLLC.
    Filed Date: 07/20/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090721-0292.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 10, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: OA08-53-002.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
submits compliance filing revising its Open Access Transmission, Energy
and Operating Reserve Markets Tariff and Open Access Transmission and
Energy Markets Tariff.
    Filed Date: 07/20/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090721-0291.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 10, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: OA08-62-005.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: California Independent System Operator Corp. submits
filing to comply with the Commission's 5/21/09 Order Denying Rehearing
and on Compliance and conditional accepting the ISO's 10/31/08
compliance filing.
    Filed Date: 07/20/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090721-0293.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 10, 2009.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. 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. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-18101 Filed 7-29-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


     UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

                             OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFTEY
AND POLLUTION PREVENTION

RE:  	Meeting with LORD Corporation and EPA to discuss conditions of use for phthalates and phthalic anhydride

List of Documents
 Meeting Summary
 Attendees
Meeting Summary
On January 21st, 2020, EPA spoke with LORD Corporation to discuss use information on butyl benzyl phthalate (CASRN 85-68-7), di-ethylhexyl phthalate (CASRN 117-81-7), dibutyl phthalate (CASRN 84-74-2), di-isobutyl phthalate (CASRN 84-69-5), di-isononyl phthalate (CASRN 68515-48-0), and phthalic anhydride (CASRN 85-44-9). EPA provided a general overview of gathering use information under TSCA section 6 and the prioritization and risk evaluation processes. LORD Corporation shared information about a variety of products the above listed chemicals are used in, their functionalities, and applications among other things.

Attendees
EPA:
Alex Smith
Bethany Masten
Claire Brisse
Doug Parsons
Eva Cappuccilli
Jordan Garbin
Lea Carmichael
Sarah Cox
Nicholas Suek

Lord:
Kevin Otteni


[Federal Register: December 11, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 237)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 65692-65696]
[DOCID:fr11de09-10]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 51 and 52

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0014: FRL-9089-4]
RIN 2060-AP73

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment
New Source Review (NSR): Inclusion of Fugitive Emissions; Interim Final
Rule; Stay

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Interim final rule; Stay.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is making an interim final determination to provide an
additional stay of the regulations concerning the inclusion of fugitive
emissions.

DATES: The amendments to 40 CFR parts 51 and 52 in this rule are
effective from December 31, 2009 through March 31, 2010. Effective
December 31, 2009, the following CFR sections are administratively
stayed until March 31, 2010: 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(v)(G),
(a)(1)(vi)(C)(3), (a)(1)(ix), (a)(1)(xxviii)(B)(2),
(a)(1)(xxviii)(B)(4), (a)(1)(xxxv)(A)(1), (a)(1)(xxxv)(B)(1),
(a)(1)(xxxv)(C), (a)(1)(xxxv)(D), (a)(2)(ii)(B), (a)(6)(iii),
(a)(6)(iv), and (f)(4)(i)(D); 40 CFR 51.166, (a)(7)(iv)(b), (b)(2)(v),
(b)(3)(iii)(c), (b)(3)(iii)(d), (b)(20), (b)(40)(ii)(b),
(b)(40)(ii)(d), (b)(47)(i)(a), (b)(47)(ii)(a), (b)(47)(iii),
(b)(47)(iv), (r)(6)(iii) and (r)(6)(iv), and (w)(4)(i)(d); 40 CFR part
51, Appendix S, paragraphs II.A.5(vii), II.A.6(iii), II.A.9,
II.A.24(ii)(b), II.A.24(ii)(d), II.A.30(i)(a), II.A.30(ii)(a),
II.A.30(iii), II.A.30(iv), IV.I.1(ii), IV.J.3, IV.J.4, and
IV.K.4(i)(d); and 40 CFR 52.21, (a)(2)(iv)(b), (b)(2)(v),
(b)(3)(iii)(b), (b)(3)(iii)(c), (b)(20), (b)(41)(ii)(b),
(b)(41)(ii)(d), (b)(48)(i)(a), (b)(48)(ii)(a), (b)(48)(iii),
(b)(48)(iv), (r)(6)(iii), (r)(6)(iv), and (aa)(4)(i)(d).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0014. All documents in the docket are listed in the
Federal Docket Management System index at http://www.regulations.gov.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., confidential business information or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through http://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket,
EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., 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<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the
Air and Radiation Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carrie Wheeler, Air Quality Policy
Division, (C504-03), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number
(919) 541-5509; or e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated entities. Entities potentially
affected by this action include sources in all industry groups. The
majority of sources potentially affected are expected to be in the
following groups.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Industry group               SIC \a\             NAICS \b\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Services.............  491..............  221111, 221112,
                                                    221113, 221119,
                                                    221121, 221122.
Petroleum Refining............  291..............  324110.
Industrial Inorganic Chemicals  281..............  325181, 325120,
                                                    325131, 325182,
                                                    211112, 325998,
                                                    331311, 325188.
Industrial Organic Chemicals..  286..............  325110, 325132,
                                                    325192, 325188,
                                                    325193, 325120,
                                                    325199.
Miscellaneous Chemical          289..............  325520, 325920,
 Products.                                          325910, 325182,
                                                    325510.
Natural Gas Liquids...........  132..............  211112.
Natural Gas Transport.........  492..............  486210, 221210.
Pulp and Paper Mills..........  261..............  322110, 322121,
                                                    322122, 322130.
Paper Mills...................  262..............  322121, 322122.
Automobile Manufacturing......  371..............  336111, 336112,
                                                    336211, 336992,
                                                    336322, 336312,
                                                    336330, 336340,
                                                    336350, 336399,
                                                    336212, 336213.
Pharmaceuticals...............  283..............  325411, 325412,
                                                    325413, 325414.
Mining........................  211, 212, 213....  21.
Agriculture, Fishing and        111, 112, 113,     11.
 Hunting.                        115.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Standard Industrial Classification.
\b\ North American Industry Classification System.

    Entities potentially affected by this action also include state,
local, and tribal governments.
    World Wide Web. In addition to being available in the docket, an
electronic copy of this final rule will also be available on the World
Wide Web. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, a copy of this
final rule will be posted in the regulations and standards section of
our New Source Review (NSR) home page located at http://www.epa.gov/
nsr.
    Organization of this Document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. Background Information
II. What Action Is EPA Taking?
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act
IV. Statutory Authority

I. Background Information

    On December 19, 2008, the EPA (``we'') issued a final rule revising
our requirements of the major NSR programs regarding the treatment of
fugitive emissions (``Fugitive Emissions Rule''). 73 FR 77882. The
final rule required fugitive emissions to be included in determining
whether a physical or operational change results in a major
modification only for sources in industries that have been designated
through rulemaking under section 302(j) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The
final rule amended all portions of the major NSR program regulations:
Permit requirements, the PSD program, and the emission offset
interpretive ruling.
    On February 17, 2009, the Natural Resources Defense Council
submitted a petition for reconsideration of the December 2008 final
rule as provided for in CAA 307(d)(7)(B).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ John Walke, NRDC, EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0014-0060.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 24, 2009, we responded to the February 17, 2009 petition
by letter indicating that we were convening a reconsideration
proceeding for the inclusion of fugitive emissions challenged in the
petition and granting a 3-month administrative stay of the rule
contained in the federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
program at 40 CFR Parts 51 and 52. The letter also indicated that we
would publish a notice of proposed rulemaking ``in the near future'' to
address the specific issues for which we are granting
reconsideration.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Lisa Jackson, U.S. EPA, EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0014-0062
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The administrative stay of the Fugitive Emissions Rule became
effective on September 30, 2009. See 74 FR 50115, FR Doc. E9-23503. As
noted above, our authority under section 307(d)(7)(B) to stay a rule or
portion thereof solely under the Administrator's discretion is limited
to 3 months.

II. What Action Is EPA Taking?

    We are making an interim final determination to provide an
additional stay for 3 months. The 3-month stay that began on September
30, 2009 expires on December 30, 2009. At that time, facilities will be
required to comply with the final rule as published [73 FR 77882]
unless an additional stay is set in place. EPA intends to publish a
notice in the near future that will propose an additional stay of the
Fugitive Emissions during the time period while EPA reconsiders the
rule. Since that proposed rule has not yet published, any resulting
final action that EPA takes will likely occur after December 30, 2009.
EPA is invoking the good cause exception under the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA) in not providing an opportunity to comment before
this action takes effect (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)).
    EPA believes that notice-and-comment rulemaking before the
effective date of this action is impracticable and contrary to the
public interest. EPA has stated in the reconsideration and stay notices
(74 FR 188) the reason for granting the 3-month stay. As this reason
remains valid, we believe it is still appropriate for a stay to be in
effect until we have reached a final decision on the reconsideration.
The initial stay expires on December 30, 2009, and EPA does not believe
it can complete notice and comment rulemaking to provide an additional
stay before that date. It is not in the public's best interest to
require compliance with the rules as published during the gap between
the two dates. Therefore, EPA believes that it is necessary to use the
interim final rulemaking process to provide an additional stay while
the public has an opportunity to comment on the upcoming proposed
action. EPA anticipates completing that action by March 31, 2010.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is, therefore,
not subject to review under the Executive Order.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an 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). This action only provides an
additional stay of the regulations at 40 CFR parts 51 and 52 concerning
the inclusion of fugitive emissions.
    However, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously
approved the information collection requirements contained in the
existing regulations under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and has assigned OMB control number 2060-
0003. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are
listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This interim final rule is not subject to the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA), which generally requires an agency to prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule that will have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The RFA applies only to rules subject to notice and comment rulemaking
requirements under the APA or any other statute. This rule is not
subject to notice and comment requirements under the APA or any other
statute because, although the rule is subject to the APA, the Agency
has invoked the ``good cause'' exemption under 5 U.S.C. 553(b);
therefore, it is not subject to the notice and comment requirement.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action does not contain a federal mandate under the provisions
of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2
U.S.C. 1531-1538 for state, local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or the private sector. This action only provides for an
additional stay of the regulations at 40 CFR parts 51 and 52 concerning
the inclusion of fugitive emissions. Thus, this rule is not subject to
the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.
    This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203
of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action only
provides an additional stay of the regulations at 40 CFR parts 51 and
52 concerning the inclusion of fugitive emissions and does not impose
any additional enforceable duty.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action 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 EO 13132. This action only provides an additional stay of
the regulations at 40 CFR parts 51 and 52 concerning the inclusion of
fugitive emissions. Thus, EO 13132 does not apply to this rule.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in EO
13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action will not impose any
new

obligations or enforceable duties on tribal governments. Thus, EO 13175
does not apply to this action.

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

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because this action only
provides an additional stay of the regulations at 40 CFR parts 51 and
52 concerning the inclusion of fugitive emissions.

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

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (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 action only provides an additional
stay of the regulations at 40 CFR parts 51 and 52 concerning the
inclusion of fugitive emissions.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is
not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this action will not have a
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low income populations because it only provides
an additional stay of the regulations at 40 CFR parts 51 and 52
concerning the inclusion of fugitive emissions.

K. Congressional Review Act

    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. Section 808 allows the issuing agency to
make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the
agency makes a good cause finding that notice and public procedure is
impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. This
determination must be supported by a brief statement, 5 U.S.C. 808(2).
As stated previously, EPA has made such a good cause finding, including
the reasons therefore, and established an effective date of December
31, 2009. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the United States Senate, the United States
House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This
action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

IV. Statutory Authority

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by section
301(a) of the CAA as amended (42 U.S.C. 7601(a)).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 51

    Administrative practices and procedures, Air pollution control,
Carbon monoxide, Fugitive emissions, Intergovernmental relation, Lead,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Transportation, Volatile
organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 52

    Administrative practices and procedures, Air pollution control,
Carbon monoxide, Fugitive emissions, Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relation, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Transportation, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: November 30, 2009.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR parts
51 and 52 as follows:

PART 51--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Sec.  51.165  [Amended]

0
2. Effective December 31, 2009, 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(v)(G),
(a)(1)(vi)(C)(3), (a)(1)(ix), (a)(1)(xxviii)(B)(2),
(a)(1)(xxviii)(B)(4), (a)(1)(xxxv)(A)(1), (a)(1)(xxxv)(B)(1),
(a)(1)(xxxv)(C), (a)(1)(xxxv)(D), (a)(2)(ii)(B), (a)(6)(iii),
(a)(6)(iv), and (f)(4)(i)(D) are stayed until March 31, 2010.

0
3. Effective December 31, 2009 through March 31, 2010, amend 40 CFR
51.165 to add paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows:

Sec.  51.165  Permit requirements.

    (a) * * *
    (4) Each plan may provide that the provisions of this paragraph do
not apply to a source or modification that would be a major stationary
source or major modification only if fugitive emission to the extent
quantifiable are considered in calculating the potential to emit of the
stationary source or modification and the source does not belong to any
of the following categories:
    (i) Coal cleaning plants (with thermal dryers);
    (ii) Kraft pulp mills;
    (iii) Portland cement plants;
    (iv) Primary zinc smelters;
    (v) Iron and steel mills;
    (vi) Primary aluminum ore reduction plants;
    (vii) Primary copper smelters;
    (viii) Municipal incinerators capable of charging more than 250
tons of refuse per day;
    (ix) Hydrofluoric, sulfuric, or citric acid plants;

    (x) Petroleum refineries;
    (xi) Lime plants;
    (xii) Phosphate rock processing plants;
    (xiii) Coke oven batteries;
    (xiv) Sulfur recovery plants;
    (xv) Carbon black plants (furnace process);
    (xvi) Primary lead smelters;
    (xvii) Fuel conversion plants;
    (xviii) Sintering plants;
    (xix) Secondary metal production plants;
    (xx) Chemical process plants--The term chemical processing plant
shall not include ethanol production facilities that produce ethanol by
natural fermentation included in NAICS codes 325193 or 312140;
    (xxi) Fossil-fuel boilers (or combination thereof) totaling more
than 250 million British thermal units per hour heat input;
    (xxii) Petroleum storage and transfer units with a total storage
capacity exceeding 300,000 barrels;
    (xxiii) Taconite ore processing plants;
    (xxiv) Glass fiber processing plants;
    (xxv) Charcoal production plants;
    (xxvi) Fossil fuel-fired steam electric plants of more than 250
million British thermal units per hour heat input;
    (xxvii) Any other stationary source category which, as of August 7,
1980, is being regulated under section 111 or 112 of the Act.
* * * * *

Sec.  51.166  [Amended]

0
4. Effective December 31, 2009, 40 CFR 51.166 (a)(7)(iv)(b), (b)(2)(v),
(b)(3)(iii)(c), (b)(3)(iii)(d), (b)(20), (b)(40)(ii)(b),
(b)(40)(ii)(d), (b)(47)(i)(a), (b)(47)(ii)(a), (b)(47)(iii),
(b)(47)(iv), (r)(6)(iii) and (r)(6)(iv), and (w)(4)(i)(d) are stayed
until March 31, 2010.

0
5. Effective December 31, 2009 through March 31, 2010, amend 40 CFR
51.166 to add paragraph (i)(l)(ii) to read as follows:

Sec.  51.166  Prevention of significant deterioration of air quality.

* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) The source or modification would be a major stationary source
or major modification only if fugitive emissions, to the extent
quantifiable, are considered in calculating the potential to emit of
the stationary source or modification and such source does not belong
to any following categories:
    (a) Coal cleaning plants (with thermal dryers);
    (b) Kraft pulp mills;
    (c) Portland cement plants;
    (d) Primary zinc smelters;
    (e) Iron and steel mills;
    (f) Primary aluminum ore reduction plants;
    (g) Primary copper smelters;
    (h) Municipal incinerators capable of charging more than 250 tons
of refuse per day;
    (i) Hydrofluoric, sulfuric, or nitric acid plants;
    (j) Petroleum refineries;
    (k) Lime plants;
    (l) Phosphate rock processing plants;
    (m) Coke oven batteries;
    (n) Sulfur recovery plants;
    (o) Carbon black plants (furnace process);
    (p) Primary lead smelters;
    (q) Fuel conversion plants;
    (r) Sintering plants;
    (s) Secondary metal production plants;
    (t) Chemical process plants--The term chemical processing plant
shall not include ethanol production facilities that produce ethanol by
natural fermentation included in NAICS codes 325193 or 312140;
    (u) Fossil-fuel boilers (or combination thereof) totaling more than
250 million British thermal units per hour heat input;
    (v) Petroleum storage and transfer units with a total storage
capacity exceeding 300,000 barrels;
    (w) Taconite ore processing plants;
    (x) Glass fiber processing plants;
    (y) Charcoal production plants;
    (z) Fossil fuel-fired steam electric plants of more than 250
million British thermal units per hour heat input;
    (aa) Any other stationary source category which, as of August 7,
1980, is being regulated under section 111 or 112 of the Act; or
* * * * *

Appendix S to 40 CFR Part 51 [Amended]

0
6. Effective December 31, 2009, 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S, paragraphs
II.A.5(vii), II.A.6(iii), II.A.9, II.A.24(ii)(b), II.A.24(ii)(d),
II.A.30(i)(a), II.A.30(ii)(a), II.A.30(iii), II.A.30(iv), IV.I.1(ii),
IV.J.3, IV.J.4, and IV.K.4(i)(d) are stayed until March 31, 2010.

0
7. Effective December 31, 2009 through March 31, 2010, amend Appendix S
to part 51 to add II.F to read as follows:

Appendix S to Part 51--Emission Offset Interpretative Ruling

* * * * *
    II. * * *
    F. Fugitive emission sources. Section IV.A. of this Ruling shall
not apply to a source or modification that would be a major
stationary source or major modification only if fugitive emissions,
to the extent quantifiable, are considered in calculating the
potential to emit of the stationary source or modification and such
source does not belong to any following categories:
    (1) Coal cleaning plants (with thermal dryers);
    (2) Kraft pulp mills;
    (3) Portland cement plants;
    (4) Primary zinc smelters;
    (5) Iron and steel mills;
    (6) Primary aluminum ore reduction plants;
    (7) Primary copper smelters;
    (8) Municipal incinerators capable of charging more than 250
tons of refuse per day;
    (9) Hydrofluoric, sulfuric, or nitric acid plants;
    (10) Petroleum refineries;
    (11) Lime plants;
    (12) Phosphate rock processing plants;
    (13) Coke oven batteries;
    (14) Sulfur recovery plants;
    (15) Carbon black plants (furnace process);
    (16) Primary lead smelters;
    (17) Fuel conversion plants;
    (18) Sintering plants;
    (19) Secondary metal production plants;
    (20) Chemical process plants--The term chemical processing plant
shall not include ethanol production facilities that produce ethanol
by natural fermentation included in NAICS codes 325193 or 312140;
    (21) Fossil-fuel boilers (or combination thereof) totaling more
than 250 million British thermal units per hour heat input;
    (22) Petroleum storage and transfer units with a total storage
capacity exceeding 300,000 barrels;
    (23) Taconite ore processing plants;
    (24) Glass fiber processing plants;
    (25) Charcoal production plants;
    (26) Fossil fuel-fired steam electric plants of more than 250
million British thermal units per hour heat input;
    (27) Any other stationary source category which, as of August 7,
1980, is being regulated under section 111 or 112 of the Act.
* * * * *

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Sec.  52.21  [Amended]

0
9. Effective December 31, 2009, 40 CFR 52.21, (a)(2)(iv)(b), (b)(2)(v),
(b)(3)(iii)(b), (b)(3)(iii)(c), (b)(20), (b)(41)(ii)(b),
(b)(41)(ii)(d), (b)(48)(i)(a), (b)(48)(ii)(a), (b)(48)(iii),
(b)(48)(iv), (r)(6)(iii), (r)(6)(iv), and (aa)(4)(i)(d) are stayed
until March 31, 2010.

0
10. Effective December 31, 2009 through March 31, 2010, amend 40 CFR
52.21 to add (i)(l)(vii) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.21  Prevention of significant deterioration of air quality.

* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (1) * * *

    (vii) The source or modification would be a major stationary source
or major modification only if fugitive emissions, to the extent
quantifiable, are considered in calculating the potential to emit of
the stationary source or modification and the source does not belong to
any of the following categories:
    (a) Coal cleaning plants (with thermal dryers);
    (b) Kraft pulp mills;
    (c) Portland cement plants;
    (d) Primary zinc smelters;
    (e) Iron and steel mills;
    (f) Primary aluminum ore reduction plants;
    (g) Primary copper smelters;
    (h) Municipal incinerators capable of charging more than 250 tons
of refuse per day;
    (i) Hydrofluoric, sulfuric, or nitric acid plants;
    (j) Petroleum refineries;
    (k) Lime plants;
    (l) Phosphate rock processing plants;
    (m) Coke oven batteries;
    (n) Sulfur recovery plants;
    (o) Carbon black plants (furnace process);
    (p) Primary lead smelters;
    (q) Fuel conversion plants;
    (r) Sintering plants;
    (s) Secondary metal production plants;
    (t) Chemical process plants--The term chemical processing plant
shall not include ethanol production facilities that produce ethanol by
natural fermentation included in NAICS codes 325193 or 312140;
    (u) Fossil-fuel boilers (or combination thereof) totaling more than
250 million British thermal units per hour heat input;
    (v) Petroleum storage and transfer units with a total storage
capacity exceeding 300,000 barrels;
    (w) Taconite ore processing plants;
    (x) Glass fiber processing plants;
    (y) Charcoal production plants;
    (z) Fossil fuel-fired steam electric plants of more than 250
million British thermal units per hour heat input;
    (aa) Any other stationary source category which, as of August 7,
1980, is being regulated under section 111 or 112 of the Act; or
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E9-29068 Filed 12-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 26, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 207)]
[Notices]
[Page 66313-66314]
[DOCID:fr26oc11-67]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2011-0975]

National Maritime Security Advisory Committee; Meeting

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The National Maritime Security Advisory Committee (NMSAC) will
meet via teleconference on November 15, 2011 to discuss the results of
a working group tasked with reviewing the Draft Certain Dangerous Cargo
(CDC) Security Strategy. This meeting will be open to the public.

DATES: The Committee will meet on Tuesday, November 15, 2011 from 11
a.m. to 1 p.m. This meeting may close early if all business is
finished.
    All written material and requests to make oral presentations should
reach the Coast Guard on or before November 7, 2011.

ADDRESSES: The Committee will meet via telephone conference, on
November 15, 2011. As there are only 100 teleconference lines, public
participation will be on a first come basis. To participate via
teleconference, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT Section.
    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request special assistance at the teleconference,
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section as soon as possible.
    To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment
on the issues to be considered by the committee as listed in the
``Agenda'' section below. You may submit written materials and requests
to make oral presentations no later than November 7, 2011, and
identified by docket number [USCG-2011-0975] using one of the following
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instruction for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department
of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. We encourage use of
electronic submissions because security screening may delay delivery of
mail.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Hand Delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the words
``Department of Homeland Security'' and docket number [USCG-2011-0975].
All submissions received will be posted without alteration at http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. You
may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the
January 17, 2008 issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).
    Docket: Any background information or presentations available prior
to the meeting will be published in the docket. For access to the
docket to read background documents or submissions received by the
NMSAC, go to http://www.regulations.gov ``USCG-2011-0975) in the
``Keyword'' box, and then click ``Search''.
    Public comment period will be held during the meeting on November
15, 2011 from 12:30 p.m. to 1 p.m. Speakers are requested to limit
their comments to 2 minutes. Please note that the public comment period
will end following the last call for comments. Contact the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to register as a
speaker.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ryan Owens, Alternate Designated
Federal Officer (ADFO) of NMSAC, 2100 2nd Street, SW., Stop 7581,
Washington, DC 20593-7581; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have any questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is given under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. NMSAC operates under the
authority of 46 U.S.C. 70112. NMSAC provides advice, consults with, and
makes recommendations to the Secretary of Homeland Security, via the
Commandant of the Coast Guard, on matters affecting national maritime
security.

Agenda of Meeting

    As a result of the report issued by NMSAC at its April 2011 meeting
and public listening sessions held by the Coast Guard in August 2011,
the Coast Guard has developed a Certain Dangerous Cargo (CDC) Security
Strategy. A NMSAC working group was created to review the following
five goals of the strategy. The committee will review the information
presented on each issue, deliberate on any recommendations presented in
the Work Group reports, and formulate the recommendations for the
Department's consideration.
    a. Provide to internal and external stakeholders real-time
national, regional, and local awareness of the risk of intentional
attacks on the CDC Marine Transportation System.
    b. Consistently assess vulnerability to threats of intentional
attacks on the CDC Marine Transportation System and mitigate the
vulnerability to an acceptable level.
    c. Dynamically assess the potential consequences of an intentional
attack on the CDC Marine Transportation System and capably mitigate,
through coordinated response, the impact of a successful attack.
    d. Lead the development of national, regional, and local
resiliency/recovery capability from successful attacks on the CDC
Marine Transportation System.
    e. Establish the internal organization and processes, and external
stakeholder

relationships, to manage the national maritime CDC security program to
an acceptable risk level.

    Dated: October 20, 2011.
K.C. Kiefer,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Office of Port and Facility Activities,
Designated Federal Official, NMSAC.
[FR Doc. 2011-27724 Filed 10-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 5, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60570-60573]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19162]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-1809; Project Identifier MCAI-2023-00945-E;
Amendment 39-22539; AD 2023-17-13]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; BRP-Rotax GmbH & Co KG (Formerly BRP-
POWERTRAIN GMBH & CO KG and Bombardier-Rotax GmbH) Engines and Various
Aircraft

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
BRP-Rotax GmbH & Co KG (Rotax) Model 912 F2, 912 F3, 912 F4, 912 iSc2
Sport, 912 iSc3 Sport, 912 S2, 912 S3, 912 S4, 914 F2, 914 F3, and 914
F4 engines; and Model 912 A, 912 A2, and 912 A3 engines included as
part of the type certificated aircraft type design for various
aircraft. This AD was prompted by a report of surface abnormalities on
the affected propeller shaft, which could lead to increased wear of the
propeller shaft bearings. This AD requires initial and repetitive
inspections of the magnetic plug for the accumulation of metal chips to
assess the condition of the propeller gearbox for wear of the propeller
shaft bearings and removal of the affected propeller shaft from service
and replacement with a part eligible for installation as a terminating
action either immediately or at a certain time depending on inspection
findings. This AD also prohibits installation of the affected propeller
shaft on any engine. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective September 20, 2023.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of September 20,
2023.
    The FAA must receive comments on this AD by October 20, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room

W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-1809; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this final rule, the mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), any comments received, and other information. The
street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For service information identified in this final rule,
contact BRP-Rotax GmbH & Co KG, Rotaxstrasse 1, A-4623 Gunskirchen,
Austria; phone: +43 7246 601 0; website: flyrotax.com.
     You may view this service information at the FAA
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is
also available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1809.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Caufield, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments
about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under
ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2023-1809; Project Identifier MCAI-
2023-00945-E'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the final rule, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this final rule because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this final rule.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this AD contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Barbara
Caufield, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite
410, Westbury, NY 11590. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is
not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket
for this rulemaking.

Background

    The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the
Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued
EASA Emergency AD 2023-0156-E, dated August 2, 2023 (referred to after
this as the MCAI), to address an unsafe condition on Rotax 912 A, 912
F, 912 S and 912 iSc Sport (series) engines, all models, all serial
numbers; and Rotax 914 F (series) engines, all models, all serial
numbers. The MCAI states that the manufacturer reported an occurrence
of surface abnormalities on certain propeller shafts. Further
investigation by the manufacturer revealed that this abnormality was
caused by a deviation in the machining process. The manufacturer
determined on which engines the affected propeller shafts were
initially installed and that several of the affected propeller shafts
were delivered as spare parts. The manufacturer published service
information that identifies the affected propeller shafts and specifies
instructions for inspection and replacement of the propeller shaft.
This condition, if not addressed, could lead to increased wear of the
propeller shaft bearings, which could lead to failure of the propeller
shaft bearings, propeller shaft, and engine. This could result in
engine in-flight shutdown, and (for a single-engine airplane)
consequent emergency landing or loss of control of the airplane.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-1809.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Rotax Service Bulletin (SB) SB-912-078/SB-914-059/
SB-912 i-014, dated July 25, 2023 (published as a single document).
This service information identifies the serial numbers of the affected
engines and spare parts and specifies procedures for inspecting the
magnetic plug and replacing the propeller shaft with a part eligible
for installation.
    The FAA also reviewed Rotax SB SB-912-078UL/SB-914-059UL/SB-912 i-
014iS, dated July 25, 2023 (published as a single document). This
service information identifies the serial numbers of the affected
engines and spare parts.
    These documents are distinct since they apply to different engine
models. 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 ADDRESSES.

FAA's Determination

    These products have been approved by the aviation authority of
another country and are approved for operation in the United States.
Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design
Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in
the MCAI and service information referenced above. The FAA is issuing
this AD after determining that the unsafe condition described
previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires initial and repetitive inspections of the magnetic
plug for the accumulation of metal chips to assess the condition of the
propeller gearbox for wear of the propeller shaft bearings and removal
of the affected propeller shaft from service and replacing it with a
part eligible for installation as a terminating action either
immediately or at a certain time depending on inspection findings. This
AD also prohibits the installation of the affected propeller shaft on
any engine.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI

    The MCAI applies to all Rotax 912 A, 912 F, 912 S and 912 iSc Sport
(series) engines, all models, all serial numbers; and Rotax 914 F
(series) engines, all models, all serial numbers. Rotax Model

912 A, 912 A2, and 912 A3 engines are not type certificated in the
United States but are part of the type design for certain aircraft.
This AD applies to all Rotax Model 912 F2, 912 F3, 912 F4, 912 iSc2
Sport, 912 iSc3 Sport, 912 S2, 912 S3, 912 S4, 914 F2, 914 F3, and 914
F4 engines; and Model 912 A, 912 A2, and 912 A3 engines included as
part of the type design for Aeromot-Ind[uacute]stria Mec[acirc]nico-
Metal[uacute]rgica Ltda Model AMT-200 (Super Ximango); Diamond Aircraft
Industries Model HK 36 R ``SUPER DIMONA''; Diamond Aircraft Industries
GmbH Models HK 36 TC and HK 36 TS; Diamond Aircraft Industries Inc.
Model DA20-A1; HOAC-Austria Model DV 20 KATANA; Magnaghi Aeronautica
S.p.A Model Sky Arrow 650 TC; and SCHEIBE-Flugzeugbau GmbH Model SF 25C
aircraft, as applicable.

Justification for Immediate Adoption and Determination of the Effective
Date

    Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5
U.S.C. 551 et seq.) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and
comment procedures for rules when the agency, for ``good cause,'' finds
that those procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to
the public interest.'' Under this section, an agency, upon finding good
cause, may issue a final rule without providing notice and seeking
comment prior to issuance. Further, section 553(d) of the APA
authorizes agencies to make rules effective in less than thirty days,
upon a finding of good cause.
    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to
adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public
justifies forgoing notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule
because the presence of material anomalies on the propeller shaft could
lead to wear of the propeller shaft bearings, which could lead to
failure of the propeller shaft bearings, propeller shaft, and engine,
which could result in engine in-flight shutdown, and (for a single-
engine airplane) consequent emergency landing or loss of control of the
airplane. Since this condition happens rapidly and without warning, the
initial inspection must be done before further flight with repetitive
inspections done every 10 flight hours (FHs) with terminating
replacement before further flight if wear of the propeller shaft
bearings is found or 50 FHs if no wear is found. These compliance times
are shorter than the time necessary for the public to comment and for
publication of the final rule.
    Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are
impracticable and contrary to the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(3)(B).
    In addition, the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days,
for the same reasons the FAA found good cause to forgo notice and
comment.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) do not
apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt
a rule without prior notice and comment. Because the FAA has determined
that it has good cause to adopt this rule without prior notice and
comment, RFA analysis is not required.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 287 engines installed on
aircraft of U.S. registry.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection............................  1 work-hour x $85 per                 $0             $85         $24,395
                                         hour = $85.
Replace propeller shaft...............  3 work-hours x $85 per             1,437           1,692         485,604
                                         hour = $255.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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, and
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2023-17-13 BRP-Rotax GmbH & Co KG (formerly BRP-POWERTRAIN GMBH & CO
KG and Bombardier-Rotax GmbH) and Various Aircraft: Amendment 39-
22539; Docket No. FAA-2023-1809; Project Identifier MCAI-2023-00945-
E.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective September 20,
2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to BRP-Rotax GmbH & Co KG (formerly BRP-
POWERTRAIN GMBH & CO KG and Bombardier-Rotax GmbH) (Rotax) Model 912
F2, 912 F3, 912 F4, 912 iSc2 Sport, 912 iSc3 Sport, 912 S2, 912 S3,
912 S4, 914 F2, 914 F3, and 914 F4 engines; and Model 912 A, 912 A2,
and 912 A3 engines installed on the aircraft identified in Table 1
to paragraph (c) of this AD that were included as part of the
aircraft's type certification basis; with a propeller shaft having
part number (P/N) 937047 and meeting at least one of the criteria of
paragraphs (c)(1) or (2) of this AD.

                            Table 1 to Paragraph (c)--Airplanes With Affected Engines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Type certificate holder                   Aircraft model                       Engine model
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aeromot-Industria Mecanico-Metalurgica    AMT-200 (Super Ximango).........  912 A2.
 Ltda.
Diamond Aircraft Industries.............  HK 36 R ``SUPER DIMONA''........  912 A.
Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH........  HK 36 TC & HK 36 TS.............  912 A3.
Diamond Aircraft Industries Inc.........  DA20-A1.........................  912 A3.
HOAC-Austria............................  DV 20 KATANA....................  912 A3.
Magnaghi Aeronautica S.p.A..............  Sky Arrow 650 TC................  912 A2.
SCHEIBE-AIRCRAFT-GMBH...................  SF 25C..........................  912 A2 or 912 A3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Installed initially (on delivery) on engines having a serial
number identified in paragraph 1.1) Applicability, Criterion A)
Engine Serial number, of Rotax Service Bulletin (SB) SB-912-078/SB-
914-059/SB-912 i-014, dated July 25, 2023 (published as a single
document) (Rotax SB SB-912-078/SB-914-059/SB-912 i-014); or
paragraph 1.1) Applicability, Criterion A) Engine Serial number, of
Rotax SB SB-912-078UL/SB-914-059UL/SB-912 i-014iS, dated July 25,
2023 (published as a single document) (SB-912-078UL/SB-914-059UL/SB-
912 i-014iS); or
    (2) Delivered as a spare part and having a serial number
identified in paragraph 1.1) Applicability, Criterion B) Spare
parts, of Rotax SB SB-912-078/SB-914-059/SB-912 i-014; or paragraph
1.1) Applicability, Criterion B) Spare parts, of Rotax SB SB-912-
078UL/SB-914-059UL/SB-912 i-014iS.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 8510, Reciprocating
Engine Front Section.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of surface abnormalities on the
affected propeller shaft, which could lead to increased wear of the
propeller shaft bearings. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent
failure of the propeller shaft bearings. The unsafe condition, if
not addressed, could result in failure of the propeller shaft,
failure of the engine, engine in-flight shutdown, and (for a single-
engine airplane) consequent emergency landing of the airplane or
loss of control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    (1) Before further flight after the effective date of this AD
and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 10 flight hours (FHs),
inspect the magnetic plug on the crankcase for the accumulation of
metal chips. If the accumulation of metal chips is 3mm or greater,
before further flight, remove the affected propeller shaft from
service and replace with a part eligible for installation.
    (2) Before exceeding 50 FHs since engine first operation or
since first installation of the affected propeller shaft on an
engine, as applicable; or within 10 days after the effective date of
this AD, whichever occurs later; remove the affected propeller shaft
from service and replace with a part eligible for installation.
    (3) Replacement of the affected propeller shaft with a part
eligible for installation constitutes terminating action for any
inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.

(h) Installation Prohibition

    After the effective date of this AD, do not install a propeller
shaft having P/N 937047 on any engine.

(i) No Return of Parts

    Where Rotax SB SB-912-078/SB-914-059/SB-912 i-014 specifies
returning certain parts to the manufacturer, this AD does not
include that requirement.

(j) Definition

    For the purpose of this AD, a ``part eligible for installation''
is any propeller shaft that does not have P/N 937047.

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the International Validation Branch, send
it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (l)(2) of
this AD and email to [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(l) Additional Information

    (1) Refer to European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
Emergency AD 2023-0156-E, dated August 2, 2023, for related
information. This EASA Emergency AD may be found in the AD docket at
regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1809.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Barbara
Caufield, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite
410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

(m) 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) BRP-Rotax GmbH & Co KG Service Bulletin SB-912-078/SB-914-
059/SB-912 i-014, dated July 25, 2023 (published as a single
document).
    (ii) BRP-Rotax GmbH & Co KG Service Bulletin SB-912-078UL/SB-
914-059UL/SB-912 i-014iS, dated July 25, 2023 (published as a single
document).
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact BRP-
Rotax GmbH & Co KG, Rotaxstrasse 1, A-4623 Gunskirchen, Austria;
phone: +43 7246 601 0; website: flyrotax.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. 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 protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on August 25, 2023.
Victor Wicklund,
Deputy Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-19162 Filed 8-31-23; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P