[Federal Register: March 10, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 46)]
[Notices]
[Page 11166-11167]
[DOCID:fr10mr10-78]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OR10-9-000]

Enbridge Pipelines (North Dakota) LLC; Notice of Motion to
Approve Modification of Approved Facilities Surcharge Settlement

March 1, 2010.
    Take notice that on January 29, 2010, Enbridge Pipelines (North
Dakota) LLC (Enbridge), with the support of twelve Shippers and a
Connecting Pipeline, submitted a modification to the Offer of
Settlement (Supplement) approved in Docket No. OR06-9-000 (The Looping
Surcharge), 117 FERC ] 61,131 (2006).
    Any person desiring to intervene and comment on this Supplement to
the Settlement should submit an original and 14 copies of its comments
and motion to intervene with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, no later than 5 p.m.
Eastern time on March 5, 2010. Reply comments will be due no later than
5 p.m. Eastern time on March 12, 2010.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of comments and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. The filings in this proceeding are accessible on-line at
http://www.ferc.gov., using the ``eLibrary'' link and is available for
review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC.
There is an ``eSubcription'' 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>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-4994 Filed 3-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 21, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28373-28375]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12880]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard; Mitsubishi Motors

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.

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

SUMMARY: This document grants in full the Mitsubishi Motors R&D of
America, Inc.'s (Mitsubishi) petition for exemption of the Mitsubishi
[Confidential] vehicle line in accordance with Exemption from the Theft
Prevention Standard. This petition is granted because the agency has
determined that the antitheft device to be placed on the line as
standard equipment is likely to be as effective in reducing and
deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking
requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard.
Mitsubishi also requested confidential treatment for specific
information in its petition. While official notification on granting or
denying Mitsubishi's request for confidential treatment will be
addressed by separate letter, no confidential information provided for
purposes of this document has been disclosed.

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
the 2018 model year.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hisham Mohamed, Office of
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, West
Building, W43-437, 1200 New Jersey

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Mohamed's phone number is (202)
366-0307. His fax number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated March 30, 2017,
Mitsubishi requested exemption from the parts-marking requirements of
the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541) for the Mitsubishi
[Confidential] vehicle line, beginning with MY 2018. The petition
requested an exemption from parts-marking pursuant to 49 CFR 543,
Exemption from Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, based on the
installation of an antitheft device as standard equipment for the
entire vehicle line.
    Under Sec.  543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to grant an
exemption for one vehicle line per model year. In its petition,
Mitsubishi provided a detailed description and diagram of the identity,
design, and location of the components of the antitheft device for the
[Confidential] vehicle line. Mitsubishi will install a passive,
transponder-based, electronic engine immobilizer device as standard
equipment on its [Confidential] vehicle line beginning with MY 2018.
Key components of the antitheft device will include a transponder key,
electronic control unit (ECU), and a passive immobilizer. Mitsubishi
also stated that it will be incorporating an audible and visual alarm
system as standard equipment on these trim-line vehicles. Mitsubishi's
submission is considered a complete petition as required by 49 CFR
543.7, in that it meets the general requirements contained in 543.5 and
the specific content requirements of 543.6.
    Mitsubishi stated that its entry models for the [Confidential]
vehicle line will be equipped with a Wireless Control Module (WCM)
immobilizer. Mitsubishi explained that this is a key entry system in
which the transponder is located in a traditional key that must be
inserted into the key cylinder in order to activate the ignition. All
other models of the [Confidential] vehicle line are equipped with a
One-touch Starting System (OSS), which utilizes a keyless system that
allows the driver to press a button located on the instrument panel to
activate and deactivate the ignition (instead of using a traditional
key in the key cylinder) as long as the transponder is located in close
proximity to the driver.
    Once the ignition switch is turned (pushed) to the ignition-on
position, the transceiver module reads the specific ignition key code
for the vehicle and transmits an encrypted message containing the key
code to the electronic control unit (ECU). The immobilizer receives the
key code signal transmitted from either type of key (WCM or OSS) and
verifies that the key code signal is correct. The immobilizer then
sends a separate encrypted start-code signal to the engine ECU to allow
the driver to start the vehicle. The engine only will function if the
key code matches the unique identification key code previously
programmed into the ECU. If the codes do not match, the engine and fuel
system will be disabled.
    In addressing the specific content requirements of 543.6,
Mitsubishi provided information on the reliability and durability of
its proposed device. To ensure reliability and durability of the
device, Mitsubishi conducted tests based on its own specified
standards. Mitsubishi provided a detailed list of the tests conducted
and believes that the device is reliable and durable since the device
complied with its specific requirements for each test. Mitsubishi
additionally stated that its immobilizer system is further enhanced by
several factors making it very difficult to defeat. Specifically,
Mitsubishi stated that communication between the transponder and the
ECU are encrypted and its WCM and OSS have over 4.3 billion different
possible key codes that make successful key code duplication virtually
impossible. Mitsubishi also stated that its immobilizer system and the
ECU share security data during vehicle assembly that make them a
matched set. These matched modules will not function if taken out and
reinstalled separately on other vehicles. Mitsubishi also stated that
it is impossible to mechanically override the system and start the
vehicle because the vehicle will not be able to start without the
transmission of the specific code to the electronic control module.
Lastly, Mitsubishi stated that the antitheft device is extremely
reliable and durable because there are no moving parts, nor does the
key require a separate battery.
    Mitsubishi also informed the agency that its Eclipse vehicle line
has been equipped with the antitheft device beginning with its MY 2000
vehicles. Mitsubishi stated that the theft rate for the MY 2000 Eclipse
decreased by almost 42% when compared with that of its MY 1999
Mitsubishi Eclipse (unequipped with an immobilizer device). Mitsubishi
also revealed that the Galant, Endeavor, Outlander, Lancer, Outlander
Sport, i-MiEV and Mirage vehicle lines have been equipped with a
similar type of immobilizer device since January 2004, April 2004,
September 2006, March 2007, September 2010, October 2011 and July 2013,
respectively. All eight vehicle lines have been granted parts-marking
exemptions by the agency. The average theft rates for the Mitsubishi
Galant, Endeavor, Outlander and Lancer vehicle lines using an average
of 3 MY's data are 3.6664, 1.7721, 0.7253 and 0.9747 respectively.
Therefore, Mitsubishi has concluded that the antitheft device proposed
for its vehicle line is no less effective than those devices in the
lines for which NHTSA has already granted full exemption from the
parts-marking requirements.
    Based on the supporting evidence submitted by Mitsubishi on the
device, the agency believes that the antitheft device for the
[Confidential] vehicle line is likely to be as effective in reducing
and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking
requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541). The
agency concludes that the device will provide the five types of
performance listed in Sec.  543.6(a)(3): Promoting activation; attract
attention to the efforts of an unauthorized person to enter or move a
vehicle by means other than a key; preventing defeat or circumvention
of the device by unauthorized persons; preventing operation of the
vehicle by unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the reliability and
durability of the device.
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.7(b), the agency grants
a petition for an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of part
541 either in whole or in part, if it determines that, based upon
substantial evidence, the standard equipment antitheft device is likely
to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of part 541. The agency
finds that Mitsubishi has provided adequate reasons for its belief that
the antitheft device for the Mitsubishi [Confidential] vehicle line is
likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft
as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541). This conclusion is based on the
information Mitsubishi provided about its device.
    For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full
Mitsubishi's petition for exemption for the [Confidential] vehicle line
from the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541, beginning with
its MY 2018 model year vehicles. The agency notes that 49 CFR part 541,
Appendix A-1, identifies those lines that are exempted from the Theft
Prevention Standard for a given model year. 49 CFR part 543.7(f)
contains publication requirements incident to the disposition of all
part 543 petitions. Advanced listing, including the release of future
product

nameplates, the beginning model year for which the petition is granted
and a general description of the antitheft device is necessary in order
to notify law enforcement agencies of new vehicle lines exempted from
the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard.
Mitsubishi stated that an official nameplate for the vehicle has not
yet been determined. However, as a condition to the formal granting of
Mitsubishi's petition for exemption from the parts-marking requirements
of 49 CFR part 541 for the MY 2018 [Confidential] vehicle line, the
agency fully expects Mitsubishi to notify the agency of the nameplate
for the vehicle line prior to its introduction into the United States
commerce for sale.
    If Mitsubishi decides not to use the exemption for this line, it
must formally notify the agency. If such a decision is made, the line
must be fully marked as required by 49 CFR parts 541.5 and 541.6
(marking of major component parts and replacement parts).
    NHTSA notes that if Mitsubishi wishes in the future to modify the
device on which this exemption is based, the company may have to submit
a petition to modify the exemption. Part 543.7(d) states that a part
543 exemption applies only to vehicles that belong to a line exempted
under this part and equipped with the antitheft device on which the
line's exemption is based. Further, Sec.  543.9(c)(2) provides for the
submission of petitions ``to modify an exemption to permit the use of
an antitheft device similar to but differing from the one specified in
that exemption.''
    The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that part
543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and itself.
The agency did not intend part 543 to require the submission of a
modification petition for every change to the components or design of
an antitheft device. The significance of many such changes could be de
minimis. Therefore, NHTSA suggests that if the manufacturer
contemplates making any changes, the effects of which might be
characterized as de minimis, it should consult the agency before
preparing and submitting a petition to modify.

    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
part 1.95.
Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2017-12880 Filed 6-20-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 109 (Thursday, June 6, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 34091]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13401]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 2161-034; 2207-045]

Wausau Paper Mills, LLC; Specialty Papers Acquisition, LLC;
Notice of Application for Transfer of Licenses, and Soliciting Comments
and Motions To Intervene

    On April 22, 2013, Wausau Paper Mills, LLC (transferor) and
Specialty Papers Acquisition, LLC (transferee) filed an application for
transfer of licenses for the Rhinelander Hydroelectric Project, FERC
No. 2161 and the Mosinee Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2207. The
Rhinelander Hydroelectric Project is located on the upper Wisconsin
River in Oneida County, Wisconsin. The Mosinee Hydroelectric Project is
located on the Wisconsin River in Marathon County, Wisconsin.
    Applicants seek Commission approval to transfer the licenses for
Rhinelander Hydroelectric Project and the Mosinee Hydroelectric Project
from transferor to transferee.
    Applicants' Contact: Transferor: Ms. Elizabeth W. Whittle, Partner,
Nixon Peabody LLP, 401 Ninth Street NW., Suite 900, Washington, DC
20004, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. For Transferee: Mr. Carl L. Reisner,
Partner, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, 1285 Avenue of
the Americas, New York, NY 10019-6064, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Patricia W. Gillis<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments and motions to intervene: 30 days from
the issuance date of this notice by the Commission. Comments and
motions to intervene may be filed electronically via the Internet. See
18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original plus seven
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. More
information about this project can be viewed or printed on the eLibrary
link of Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket numbers (P-2161 or P-2207) in the docket
number field to access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-
866-208-3372.

    Dated: May 30, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-13401 Filed 6-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 11, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44126-44127]
[FR Doc No: 2023-14648]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2023-0345; FRL-11141-01-OCSPP]

Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee; Request for Nominations to
the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Office of
Pesticide Programs is inviting nominations from a diverse range of
qualified candidates to be considered for appointment to the Pesticide
Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC). The PPDC is chartered to provide
policy advice, information, and recommendations to the EPA on a wide
variety of pesticide regulatory developments and reform initiatives,
evolving public policy, and program implementation issues associated
with evaluating and reducing risks from pesticide use. To maintain the
representation outlined by the charter, nominees will be selected to
represent: environmental/public interest and animal rights groups; farm
worker organizations; pesticide industry and trade associations;
pesticide user, grower, and commodity groups; federal/state/local and
tribal governments; academia; and public health organizations.
Vacancies are expected to be filled by December 2023. Sources in
addition to this Federal Register Notice may be utilized in the
solicitation of nominees.

DATES: Nominations should be submitted no later than August 10, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit nominations electronically with the subject line
``PPDC Membership 2023'' to [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Chang, Designated Federal
Officer for the PPDC, telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER> email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
particular interest to persons who work in in agricultural settings or
if you are concerned about implementation of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.); the
Federal Food, Drug, and

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.); the Pesticide
Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) (which amends FIFRA section 33);
and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Potentially affected entities may include but are not limited to:
Agricultural workers and farmers; pesticide industry and trade
associations; environmental, consumer, and farm worker groups;
pesticide users and growers; animal rights groups; pest consultants;
state, local, and tribal governments; academia; public health
organizations; and the public. If you have questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2023-0345, is available online at https://www.regulations.gov. Additional instructions on visiting the docket,
along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background

    The PPDC is a federal advisory committee chartered under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2 et seq.).
EPA established the PPDC in September 1995 to provide policy advice,
information and recommendations to the EPA Administrator through the
Director of the Office of Pesticide Programs, Office of Chemical Safety
and Pollution Prevention. The PPDC provides a public forum to discuss a
wide variety of pesticide regulatory developments and reform
initiatives, evolving public policy and program implementation issues
associated with evaluating and reducing risks from the use of
pesticides. The EPA will consider candidates from the following
sectors: environmental/public interest and animal rights groups; farm
worker organizations; pesticide industry and trade associations;
pesticide user, grower, and commodity groups; federal and state/local/
tribal governments; the general public; academia; and public health
organizations.
    The PPDC usually meets face-to-face twice a year, generally in the
spring and the fall. Additionally, members may be asked to serve on
work groups to develop recommendations to address specific policy
issues. The average workload for members is approximately 4 to 6 hours
per month. PPDC members may receive travel and per diem allowances
where appropriate and according to applicable federal travel
regulations. Additional information about the PPDC can be accessed at
https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-advisory-committees-and-regulatory-partners/pesticide-program-dialogue-committee-ppdc.

III. Nominations

    In accordance with Executive Order 14035, entitled ``Diversity,
Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Federal Workforce'' and
dated June 25, 2021 (86 FR 34593, June 30, 2021), and consistent with
law, EPA values and welcomes opportunities to increase diversity,
equity, inclusion, and accessibility on its federal advisory
committees. EPA's federal advisory committees have a workforce that
reflects the diversity of the American people. In an effort to obtain
nominations of diverse candidates, the agency encourages nominations of
women and men of all racial and ethnic groups. All nominations will be
fully considered, but applicants need to be aware of the specific
representation sought as outlined in the Summary above. Any interested
person or organization may nominate qualified persons to be considered
for appointment to this advisory committee. Individuals may self-
nominate. Nominations may be submitted in electronic format (preferred)
or mailed to Jeffrey Chang at the address listed under ADDRESSES.
    To be considered, all nominations should include:
     Current contact information for the nominee, including the
nominee's name, organization (and position within that organization),
current business address, email address, and daytime telephone number;
     Brief Statement describing the nominee's interest and
availability in serving on the PPDC;
     R[eacute]sum[eacute] or CV;
     Short biography (no more than 2 paragraphs) describing the
professional and educational qualifications of the nominee, including a
list of relevant activities, or any current or previous experience on
advisory committees; and
     Letter[s] of recommendation from a third party supporting
the nomination. The letter(s) should describe how the nominee's
experience and knowledge will bring value to the work of the PPDC.
    Other sources, in addition to this Federal Register notice, may
also be utilized in the solicitation of nominees.
    Authority: 5 U.S.C. Appendix 2 et seq., 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq., 16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq., and 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.

    Dated: July 5, 2023.
Michael Goodis,
Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2023-14648 Filed 7-10-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: May 17, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 94)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 27489-27491]
[DOCID:fr17my10-25]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0245; Directorate Identifier 2010-NE-15-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. PW615F-A
Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    A PW617F-E engine powered twin engined aircraft had recently
experienced an uncommanded power reduction on one of its engines.
Investigation showed that the Fuel Filter Bypass Valve poppet in the
Fuel Oil Heat Exchanger (FOHE) on that engine had worn through the
housing seat, allowing unfiltered fuel and debris to contaminate the
Fuel Metering Unit (FMU), resulting in fuel flow drop and subsequent
power reduction. Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. has confirmed that
this is a dormant failure that could result in an unsafe condition.
    The PW615F-A engine Fuel Filter Bypass Valve is very similar to
that of PW617F-E, but so far there have been no operational
abnormalities reported due to subject valve failure on PW615F-A
engines. However, evaluation by Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. has
confirmed similar dormant failure of worn through poppets of the
subject valve on some 615F-A engine installations, which could
affect both engines at the same time on an aircraft and may result
in an unsafe condition.

    We are proposing this AD to prevent uncommanded power reduction,
which could result in the inability to continue safe flight and safe
landing.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 1, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Contact Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp., 1000 Marie-Victorin,
Longueuil, Quebec, Canada, J4G 1A1; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 450-
647-2888; Web site: www.pwc.ca; for the service information identified
in this proposed AD.

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ian Dargin, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park; Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2010-0245;
Directorate Identifier 2010-NE-15-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact
with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search
function of the Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any
of our dockets, including, if provided, the name of the individual who
sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete

Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

Discussion

    Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has
issued Canada AD CF-2010-03, dated January 20, 2010 (referred to after
this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified
products. The MCAI states:

    A PW617F-E engine powered twin engined aircraft had recently
experienced an uncommanded power reduction on one of its engines.
Investigation showed that the Fuel Filter Bypass Valve poppet in the
FOHE on that engine had worn through the housing seat, allowing
unfiltered fuel and debris to contaminate the FMU, resulting in fuel
flow drop and subsequent power reduction. Pratt & Whitney Canada
Corp. has confirmed that this is a dormant failure that could result
in an unsafe condition.
    The PW615F-A engine Fuel Filter Bypass Valve is very similar to
that of PW617F-E, but so far there have been no operational
abnormalities reported due to subject valve failure on PW615F-A
engines. However, evaluation by Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. has
confirmed similar dormant failure of worn through poppets of the
subject valve on some 615F-A engine installations, which could
affect both engines at the same time on an aircraft and may result
in an unsafe condition.
    On December 9, 2009, Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. issued an ASB
No. PW600-72-A63071 that introduced a new Fuel Filter Bypass Valve
Assembly with an improved design poppet to help alleviate the
subject poppet wear problem. This AD is issued to mandate
replacement of FOHE Fuel Filter Bypass Valve on all PW615F-A engines
as per the Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. ASB No. PW600-72-A63071
instructions.

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. has issued ASB No. PW600-72-A63071,
Revision 1, dated January 7, 2010. The actions described in this
service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition
identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of Canada
and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our
bilateral agreement with Canada, they have notified us of the unsafe
condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced
above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information
provided by Transport Canada and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type
design. This proposed AD would require replacing the FOHE fuel filter
bypass poppet valve with a larger fuel filter bypass poppet valve
within 25 hours of the effective date of the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 378 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it would take about 3.5 work-hours per engine to
comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-
hour. Required parts would cost about $22,582 per engine. Based on
these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S.
operators to be $8,648,451.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. (formerly Pratt & Whitney Canada,
Inc.): Docket No. FAA-2010-0245; Directorate Identifier 2010-NE-15-
AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by July 1, 2010.

Affected Airworthiness Directives (ADs)

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. PW615F-A
turbofan engines with fuel/oil heat exchanger (FOHE) part number (P/
N) 35C3778-01 or P/N 35C3778-02 installed. These engines are
installed on, but not limited to, Cessna 510 (Mustang) airplanes.

Reason

    (d) This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    A PW617F-E engine powered twin engined aircraft had recently
experienced an uncommanded power reduction on one of its engines.
Investigation showed that the Fuel Filter Bypass Valve poppet in the
FOHE on that engine had worn through the housing seat, allowing
unfiltered fuel and debris to contaminate the Fuel Metering Unit,
resulting in fuel flow drop and subsequent power reduction. Pratt &
Whitney Canada Corp. has confirmed that this is a dormant failure
that could result in an unsafe condition.
    The PW615F-A engine Fuel Filter Bypass Valve is very similar to
that of PW617F-E, but so far there have been no operational
abnormalities reported due to subject valve failure on PW615F-A
engines. However,

evaluation by Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. has confirmed similar
dormant failure of worn through poppets of the subject valve on some
615F-A engine installations, which could affect both engines at the
same time on an aircraft and may result in an unsafe condition.

    We are issuing this AD to prevent uncommanded power reduction,
which could result in the inability to continue safe flight and safe
landing.

Actions and Compliance

    (e) Unless already done, replace the FOHE fuel filter bypass
poppet valve with a larger fuel filter bypass poppet valve within 25
hours of the effective date of the AD. Use paragraph 3.A. of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. ASB No.
PW600-72-A63071, Revision 1, dated January 7, 2010, to do the
replacement.

Previous Credit

    (f) A fuel filter bypass poppet valve replacement performed
before the effective date of this AD using Pratt & Whitney Canada
Corp. ASB No. PW600-72-A63071, dated December 9, 2009, satisfies the
replacement requirement of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

    (g) The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI Transport Canada AD CF-2010-03, dated January
20, 2010, and Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. ASB No. PW600-72-A63071,
Revision 1, dated January 7, 2010, for related information. Contact
Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp., 1000 Marie-Victorin, Longueuil,
Quebec, Canada, J4G 1A1; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
Web site: http://www.pwc.ca, for a copy of this service information.
    (i) Contact Ian Dargin, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification
Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England
Executive Park; Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for more information
about this AD.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on May 10, 2010.
Peter A. White,
Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-11644 Filed 5-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


PUBLIC HEARING ATTENDANCE LIST Interstate Air Quality Proposed Rule Utility Mercury Reduction Proposed Rule Holiday Inn Raleigh Durham Airport 4810 Old Page Road Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 February 26, 2004 8: 00 a. m. to 10: 00 p. m.

NAME / EMAIL AFFILIATION / ADDRESS PHONE RULE Heidi Alderman heidilynnTA@ msn. c om East Carolina University 404 N. Howell Science Complex Department of Biology Greenville, NC 27858 252 327 2860 David Armstrong d_ a_ armstrong@ yah oo. com 3 Pagemore Ct.

Durham 919 598 3692 Mercury Andrew M. Ballard aballard@ bna. com The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.

1224 Stonecreek Way Raleigh, NC 27615 919 841 1240 Julie and Mike Barnes Citizens Mercury Teresa Sue Bratton,

MD tbratton@ pal. net 1021 E. Wendover Ave., Suite 101 Greensboro, NC 27405 336 275 1318 Mercury Alastair Browne alastair@ mindspring . com 1009 B Iredell St.

Durham, NC 27705 919 416 3898 PUBLIC HEARING ATTENDANCE LIST Interstate Air Quality Proposed Rule Utility Mercury Reduction Proposed Rule Holiday Inn Raleigh Durham Airport 4810 Old Page Road Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 February 26, 2004 8: 00 a. m. to 10: 00 p. m.

NAME / EMAIL AFFILIATION / ADDRESS PHONE RULE Laurie Fox Dorothy Goodman NC State Raleigh, NC 919 327 5781 Marc Guerra mguerra@ email. unc.

edu UNC Chapel Hill 919 914 7484 Mercury Ed Hoffman ehoffman@ adironda ckcouncil. org The Adirondack Council 103 Hand Ave.

P. O. Box d 2 Elizabethtown, NY 12932 919 873 2240 Lib Hutchby libhutchby@ earthlin k. net 401 S. West St.

Cary, NC 27511 919 460 8161 Mercury Toni Hutchins ToniLHutchins@ aol . com USANA Health Sciences 919 785 2770 PUBLIC HEARING ATTENDANCE LIST Interstate Air Quality Proposed Rule Utility Mercury Reduction Proposed Rule Holiday Inn Raleigh Durham Airport 4810 Old Page Road Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 February 26, 2004 8: 00 a. m. to 10: 00 p. m.

NAME / EMAIL AFFILIATION / ADDRESS PHONE RULE J. Ron Jernigan,

P. E., DEE ron. jernigan@ therm o. com Thermo Electron Corporation 113 Spring Hollow Lane Cary, NC 27511 919 858 7384 Zach Keyler zkeyler@ unity. ncsu.

edu NCSU Student 919 836 6302 Mercury Robert A. Manning rmanning@ hgslaw. c om Hopping Green & Sams Attorneys and Counselors Post Office Box 6526 123 South Calhoun St.

Tallahassee, Fl 32314 850 222 7500 C. V. Mathai, Ph. D.,

QEP C. Mathai@ pinnacle west. com PinnacleWest Capital Corporation APS 400 N 5 Street Phoenix, AZ 85004 602 250 3569 Both Tom McCollough tmcc2@ rr. nc. com Duke University 919 384 2770 PUBLIC HEARING ATTENDANCE LIST Interstate Air Quality Proposed Rule Utility Mercury Reduction Proposed Rule Holiday Inn Raleigh Durham Airport 4810 Old Page Road Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 February 26, 2004 8: 00 a. m. to 10: 00 p. m.

NAME / EMAIL AFFILIATION / ADDRESS PHONE RULE Jesse O'Neal joneal@ enviro

scipol com Environmental Science & Policy, Inc.

208 Beckley Court Raleigh, NC 27615 919 676 1713 Robert T. Osborn rosborn@ nc. rr. com Duke University Durham, NC 919 489 2756 Carol Rawleigh crawleigh@ familser vice_ piedmont. org Family Service of the Piedmont 315 Washington St.

Greensboro, NC 27401 336 387 6161 Mercury Joey Shea 1 Buttons Ln.

Chapel Hill, NC 919 933 2899 Jessica Smith Sierra Club 858 Roads End Pittsboro, NC 27312 919 819 5678 Geoff Stohmer 1418 Geneva St.

Raleigh, NC 919 233 2068 Teresa Sue Bratton,

MD tbratton@ pal. net 1020 E. Wendover Ave.

Suite 101 Greensboro, NC 27405 336 275 1318 Mercury PUBLIC HEARING ATTENDANCE LIST Interstate Air Quality Proposed Rule Utility Mercury Reduction Proposed Rule Holiday Inn Raleigh Durham Airport 4810 Old Page Road Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 February 26, 2004 8: 00 a. m. to 10: 00 p. m.

NAME / EMAIL AFFILIATION / ADDRESS PHONE RULE Lisa Sutton sutton. lisa@ ecrweb.

com EC/ R Inc.

Chapel Hill, NC 919 484 0222 x 333 IAQR Thomas C. Williams tcwillia@

dukeenergy com Duke Power EC12X P. O. Box 1006 Charlotte, NC 28201 1006 704 373 4743 TS Wilson hwilson@ wingate. ed u P. O. Box 2093 Wingate, NC 28174 828 728 8177 Mercury Dana P. Yeganian dana. yeganian@ pgn mail. com Progress Energy Service Company, LLC 410 S. Wilmington Street PEB 14A Raleigh, NC 27602 919 546 4960


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 92 (Thursday, May 13, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26888-26889]
[FR Doc No: 2010-11423]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 92 / Thursday, May 13, 2010 /
Proposed Rules

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0490; Directorate Identifier 2010-SW-037-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation
(Sikorsky) Model S-70A and S-70C Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This document proposes adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD) for the Sikorsky Model S-70A and S-70C helicopters. This proposal
would require an ultrasonic test (UT) inspection of the tail gearbox
output bevel gear (gear) for a crack. If you find a crack, replacing
the gear with an airworthy gear before further flight would be
required. This proposal is prompted by three gear cracking incidents,
one of which resulted in the tail rotor separating from the helicopter.
The actions specified by this proposed AD are intended to detect a
crack in the gear to prevent a tail rotor separating, loss of tail
rotor control, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 12, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on
this proposed AD:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    You may get the service information identified in this proposed AD
from Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Attn: Manager, Commercial Technical
Support, mailstop s581a, 6900 Main Street, Stratford, CT, telephone
(203) 383-4866, e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or at http://www.sikorsky.com.
    You may examine the comments to this proposed AD in the AD docket
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Fahr, Aviation Safety Engineer,
Boston Aircraft Certification Office, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, MA 01803, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to submit any written data, views, or arguments
regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to the address listed
under the caption ADDRESSES. Include the docket number ``FAA-2010-0490,
Directorate Identifier 2010-SW-037-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the
proposed AD in light of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact
with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Using the
search function of our docket web site, you can find and read the
comments to any of our dockets, including the name of the individual
who sent or signed the comment. You may review the DOT's complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

Examining the Docket

    You may examine the docket that contains the proposed AD, any
comments, and other information in person at the Docket Operations
office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
located in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building at the
street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

Discussion

    This document proposes adopting a new AD for the Sikorsky Model S-
70A and S-70C helicopters. This proposal would require a UT inspection
of the gear for a crack. If you find a crack, replacing the gear with
an airworthy gear would be required before further flight. This
proposal is prompted by three gear crack incidents, one of which
resulted in the tail rotor separating from the helicopter. The tail
gearbox on the helicopter where the tail rotor separated from the
helicopter experienced a fracture of the output shaft spline that
drives the tail rotor blades. An investigation into the cause of the
cracks is ongoing. The unsafe condition described previously, if not
corrected, could result in a tail rotor separating, loss of tail rotor
control, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
    We have reviewed Sikorsky Alert Service Bulletin No. 70-06-28A,
Revision A, dated May 21, 2009 (ASB), which refers to procedures for a
UT inspection of the gear in accordance with Special Service
Instructions (SSI) No. 70-121A or latest revision.
    This unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other
helicopters of the same type design. Therefore, the proposed AD would
require a UT inspection of the gear, part number 70358-06620, for a
crack. If you find a crack, the AD requires replacing the gear with an
airworthy gear before further flight. The actions would be required to
be to be done by following the SSI described previously.
    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 5 helicopters of
U.S. registry, and the proposed actions would take about 4 work hours
per helicopter at an average labor rate of $85 per work hour. Required
parts would cost about $20,000 for each gear. Based on these figures,
we estimate the total cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators
to be $101,700, assuming the gear is replaced on the entire fleet.

Regulatory Findings

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as
follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding a new airworthiness directive
to read as follows:

Sikorsky Aircraft Corp.: Docket No. FAA-2010-0490; Directorate
Identifier 2010-SW-037-AD.

Applicability

    Model S-70A and S-70C helicopters, tail gearbox output bevel
gear (gear), part number 70358-06620, certificated in any category.

Compliance

    Required as indicated.
    To prevent a tail rotor separating, loss of tail rotor control,
and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter, do the following:
    (a) Within 500 hours time-in-service (TIS), unless accomplished
previously, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 500 hours TIS,
remove the tail rotor servo control and pitch beam shaft, and using
a Level II Ultrasonic Testing Technician or equivalent, ultransonic
inspect the gear for a crack. Ultrasonic inspect the gear by
following paragraphs A.(5)a. through A(5)n., Note 7, Special Service
Instructions (SSI) No. 70-121A, Revision A, dated May 21, 2009. If
you find a crack, before further flight, replace the gear with an
airworthy gear.
    (b) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Contact the Manager, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, FAA,
ATTN: Terry Fahr, Aviation Safety Engineer, Boston Aircraft
Certification Office, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA
01803, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for information
about previously approved alternative methods of compliance.
    (c) The Joint Aircraft System/Component (JASC) Code is: 6520:
Tail rotor gearbox.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 3, 2010.
Mark R. Schilling,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-11423 Filed 5-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: August 1, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 149)]
[Notices]
[Page 44988-44990]
[DOCID:fr01au08-60]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2008-0230; FRL-8699-6]

Clean Water Act Class II: Proposed Administrative Settlement,
Penalty Assessment and Opportunity To Comment Regarding Windstream
Corporation

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has entered into a Consent Agreement with Windstream
Corporation (Windstream) to resolve violations of the Clean Water Act
(CWA) and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
(EPCRA), and their implementing regulations.
    The Administrator is hereby providing public notice of this Consent
Agreement and proposed Final Order, and providing an opportunity for
interested persons to comment on this Consent Agreement, in accordance
with CWA Section 311(b)(6)(C), 33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(6)(c).

DATES: Comments are due on or before September 2, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or
through hand delivery/courier. Follow the detailed instructions as
provided in Section I.B of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beth Cavalier, Special Litigation and
Projects Division (2248-A), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone (202) 564-
3271; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this
action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OECA-2008-0230.
    The official public docket consists of the Consent Agreement,
proposed Final Order, and any public comments received. Although a part
of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of
materials that is available for public viewing at the Enforcement and
Compliance Docket Information Center (ECDIC) in the EPA Docket Center,
(EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the ECDIC is<PHONE_NUMBER>. A reasonable fee may
be charged by EPA for copying docket materials.
    2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may
use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public
comments, access the index listing of the contents

of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the
public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system,
select ``search,'' then key in the appropriate docket identification
number.
    Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets.
Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public
docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic
public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be
placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in
printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent
feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in
EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the
index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the
document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket.
Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you
may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through
the docket facility identified in Section I.A.1.
    For public commentors, it is important to note that EPA's policy is
that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper,
will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public
docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment
contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment
containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that
material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's
electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the
copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.
    Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or
delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public
docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will
be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where
practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph
will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief
description written by the docket staff.

B. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments?

    You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand
delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the
appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the
first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are
submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after
the close of the comment period will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not
required to consider these late comments.
    1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as
prescribed below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing
address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body
of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside
of any disk or CD-ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying
the disk or CD-ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further
information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA
will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information
provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the
comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made
available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to
submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for
receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/
edocket and follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
Once in the system, select ``search,'' and then key in Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OECA-2008-0230. The system is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
    ii. E-mail. Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OECA-2008-0230. In
contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not
an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an e-mail comment directly
to the Docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket,
EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail
addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.
    iii. Disk or CD-ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD-ROM
that you mail to the mailing address identified in Section I.A.1. These
electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file
format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption.
    2. By Mail. Send your comments to: Enforcement and Compliance
Docket Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode:
2201T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC, 20460, Attention
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OECA-2008-0230.
    3. By Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to the
address provided in Section I.A.1., Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OECA-2008-0230. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's
normal hours of operation as identified in Section I.A.1.

C. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency?

    Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI
electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. You
may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part
or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD-ROM,
mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify
electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that
is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2.
    In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not
contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion
in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit
the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD-ROM, mark the outside
of the disk or CD-ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information
not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's
electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any
questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

II. Background

    Windstream Corporation is a telecommunications company providing
voice, broadband, and entertainment services to customers in sixteen
(16) states, and is incorporated in the State of Delaware. Windstream
disclosed,

pursuant to EPA's policy entitled ``Incentives for Self-Policing:
Discovery, Disclosure, Correction and Prevention of Violations'' (Audit
Policy), 65 FR 19618 (April 11, 2000), violations of the CWA and EPCRA,
and their implementing regulations.
    Specifically, Windstream disclosed that it failed to prepare and
implement a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan
for its Concord, NC facility in violation of CWA Section 311(j), 33
U.S.C. 1321(j), and 40 CFR part 112. EPA, as authorized by CWA Section
311(b)(6), 33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(6), has assessed a civil penalty for this
violation.
    In addition, Respondent disclosed that it had failed to comply with
EPCRA Section 312, 42 U.S.C. 11022, and the regulations found at 40 CFR
370.25, when it failed to prepare and submit emergency and chemical
inventory forms to the Local Emergency Planning Commission (LEPC), the
State Emergency Response Committee (SERC), and the fire department with
jurisdiction over each facility, at the following facilities:
Brownfield, TX; Dalhart, TX; Dimmitt, TX; Dumas, TX; Hubbard, TX;
Levelland, TX; Glen Rose, TX; Littlefield, TX; Crockett, TX; DeKalb,
TX; Spearman, TX; Seymour, TX; Pecos, TX; Newton, TX; Lubbock, TX;
Trinity, TX; Texarkana, TX; New Boston, TX; Memphis, TX; Fairfield, TX;
Crosbyton, TX; Higgins, TX; Follett, TX; Darrouzett, TX; Panhandle, TX;
Lamesa, TX; Claude, TX; MoBeetie, TX; Burkeville, TX; Baird, TX; Hart,
TX; Orla, TX; Perryton, TX; Cuba, NM; Ruidoso, NM; White City, NM;
Hobbs, NM; Espanola, NM; Checotah, OK; Wagoner, OK; Barnsdall, OK;
Lindsay, OK; Albemarle, NC; Charlotte, NC; Concord, NC; and Harrisburg,
NC. EPA, as authorized by EPCRA Section 325, 42 U.S.C. 11045, has
assessed a civil penalty for these violations.
    EPA determined that Respondent met the criteria set out in the
Audit Policy for a 100% waiver of the gravity component of the penalty
for the CWA and EPCRA violations. Therefore, EPA proposes to waive the
gravity-based penalty of $414,290 and proposes a settlement penalty
amount of $11,333. This is the amount of the economic benefit gained by
Respondent, attributable to its delayed compliance with the CWA and
EPCRA regulations. Of this amount, $861 is attributable to the CWA-SPCC
violation, and $10,472 is attributable to the EPCRA violations.
    The total civil penalty assessed for settlement purposes is eleven
thousand three hundred and thirty-three dollars ($11,333). Respondent
has agreed to pay this amount. EPA and Respondent negotiated and signed
an administrative Consent Agreement, following the Consolidated Rules
of Practice, 40 CFR 22.13(b), on June 27, 2008 (In Re: Windstream
Corporation, Docket Nos. CWA-HQ-2008-8001, EPCRA-HQ-2008-8001). This
Consent Agreement is subject to public notice and comment under CWA
Section 311(b)(6), 33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(6).
    Under CWA Section 311(b)(6)(A), 33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(6)(A), any owner,
operator, or person in charge of a vessel, onshore facility, or
offshore facility from which oil is discharged in violation of CWA
Section 311(b)(3), 33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(3), or who fails or refuses to
comply with any regulations that have been issued under CWA Section
311(j), 33 U.S.C. 1321(j), may be assessed an administrative civil
penalty of up to $157,500 by EPA. Class II proceedings under CWA
Section 311(b)(6), 33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(6), are conducted in accordance
with 40 CFR Part 22.
    Under EPCRA Section 325, 42 U.S.C. 11045, the Administrator may
issue an administrative order assessing a civil penalty against any
person who has violated applicable emergency planning or right-to-know
requirements, or any other requirement of EPCRA. Proceedings under
EPCRA Section 325, 42 U.S.C. 11045, are conducted in accordance with 40
CFR Part 22.
    The procedures by which the public may comment on a proposed Class
II penalty order, or participate in a CWA Class II penalty proceeding,
are set forth in 40 CFR 22.45. The deadline for submitting public
comment on this Consent Agreement is September 2, 2008. All comments
will be transferred to the Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) of EPA for
consideration. The powers and duties of the EAB are outlined in 40 CFR
22.4(a).
    Pursuant to CWA Section 311(b)(6)(C), 33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(6)(C), EPA
will not issue an order in this proceeding prior to the close of the
public comment period.

    Dated: July 17, 2008.
Bernadette Rappold,
Director, Special Litigation and Projects Division, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.
[FR Doc. E8-17724 Filed 7-31-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 133 (Thursday, July 13, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32284-32287]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14692]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0189; FRL-9964-52-Region 6]

Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of
Arkansas; Regional Haze and Interstate Visibility Transport Federal
Implementation Plan; Revision of Federal Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
revise the Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) that was published in the
Federal Register on September 27, 2016, to address certain regional
haze and visibility transport requirements under the Federal Clean Air
Act (the Act, or CAA) for the State of Arkansas. The specific portions
of the Arkansas Regional Haze FIP that the EPA is proposing to revise
are the compliance dates for the nitrogen oxide (NOX)
emission limits for the Entergy White Bluff Plant (White Bluff) Units 1
and 2, the Entergy Independence Plant (Independence) Units 1 and 2, and
the American Electric Power (AEP) Flint Creek Unit 1. EPA is proposing
to extend the compliance dates for the NOX emission limits
for these five electric generating units (EGUs) by 21 months to January
27, 2020.

DATES: Comments: Comments must be received on or before September 22,
2017.
    Public Hearing: We are holding an information session--for the
purpose of providing additional information and informal discussion for
our proposal, and a public hearing--to accept oral comments into the
record, as follows:
    Date: Wednesday, August 23, 2017
    Time: Information Session: 2:00 p.m.-2:45 p.m.
    Public hearing: 3:00 p.m.-7:00 p.m. (including break from 5:00
p.m.-5:30 p.m.)
    Please see the ADDRESSES section for the location of the hearing in
North Little Rock, AR.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2015-0189, at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact Dayana Medina, (214) 665-
7241<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), and some may not be publicly available at either location
(e.g., CBI).
    Hearing location: Arkansas Public Service Commission, Public
Service Commission Building, 1000 Center Street, Little Rock, Arkansas
72201-4314.
    The public hearing will provide interested parties the opportunity
to present information and opinions to us concerning our proposal.
Interested parties may also submit written comments, as discussed in
the proposal. Written statements and supporting information submitted
during the comment period will be considered with the same weight as
any oral comments and supporting information presented at the public
hearing. We will not respond to comments during the public hearings.
When we publish our final action, we will provide written responses to
all significant oral and written comments received on our proposal. To
provide opportunities for questions and discussion, we will hold an
information session prior to the public hearing. During the information
session, EPA staff will be available to informally answer questions on
our proposed action. Any comments made to EPA staff during an
information session must still be provided orally during the public
hearing, or formally in writing within 30 days after completion of the
hearings, in order to be considered in the record. At the public
hearings, the hearing officer may limit the time available for each
commenter to address the proposal to three minutes or less if the
hearing officer determines it to be appropriate. We will not be
providing equipment for commenters to show overhead slides or make
computerized slide presentations. Any person may provide written or
oral comments and data pertaining to our proposal at the public
hearings. Verbatim English language transcripts of the hearing and
written statements will be included in the rulemaking docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dayana Medina,<PHONE_NUMBER>;
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

I. Background

    On September 27, 2016, we published a rule titled ``Promulgation of
Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Arkansas; Regional Haze and
Interstate Visibility Transport Federal

Implementation Plan'' (Arkansas Regional Haze FIP or FIP) addressing
certain requirements of the Regional Haze Rule and interstate
visibility transport.\1\ Among other things, the final FIP established
NOX emission limits for White Bluff, Independence, and Flint
Creek, and required compliance with these emission limits within 18
months of the effective date of our final action (i.e., April 27,
2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 81 FR 66332; see also 81 FR 68319 (October 4, 2016)
(correction).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State of Arkansas, through the Arkansas Department of
Environmental Quality (ADEQ), submitted a petition to the EPA dated
November 22, 2016, seeking reconsideration and an administrative stay
of specific portions of the final Arkansas Regional Haze FIP pursuant
to section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA and section 705 of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Petitions dated November 23, 2016,
seeking reconsideration and administrative stay of the FIP were also
submitted by Entergy Arkansas Inc., Entergy Mississippi Inc., and
Entergy Power LLC (collectively ``Entergy'') and the Arkansas Electric
Cooperative Corporation (AECC), which are owners of Flint Creek, White
Bluff, and Independence. The Energy and Environmental Alliance of
Arkansas (EEAA), which is an ad-hoc association that has members who
own or operate Flint Creek, White Bluff, and Independence, also
submitted a petition dated November 28, 2016, seeking reconsideration
and administrative stay of the FIP.\2\ The petitioners raised a number
of issues, including EPA's decision to shorten the compliance dates for
the NOX emission limits for Flint Creek, White Bluff, and
Independence from the proposed 3 years to 18 months in the final FIP
without specifically requesting comment on the shorter 18-month
compliance dates. Entergy, AECC, and EEAA also stated in their
petitions for reconsideration and administrative stay that the 18-month
NOX compliance dates required by the FIP are infeasible and
do not allow sufficient time for the owners and operators of the
facilities to develop, plan, obtain prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) permits, install, tune, and test the low
NOX burner control equipment that is needed to comply with
the NOX emission limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Please see the docket for this rulemaking for a copy of the
petitions for reconsideration and administrative stay submitted by
ADEQ, Entergy, AECC, and EEAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a letter dated April 14, 2017, EPA announced the convening of a
proceeding to reconsider the appropriate compliance dates for the
NOX emission limits for Flint Creek, White Bluff, and
Independence.\3\ EPA determined that the petitioners raised objections
to the NOX compliance timeframes that were impracticable to
raise during the comment period and that are of central relevance to
the rule under 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA also
published a notice in the Federal Register on April 25, 2017,
administratively staying the effectiveness of the 18-month
NOX compliance dates in the FIP for a period of 90 days.\4\
In that action, we also stated that reconsideration would allow for
additional public comment on the 18-month NOX compliance
deadlines. We are proposing to revise the NOX compliance
deadlines for the 5 affected units as part of the reconsideration
process and requesting comment on our proposed decision to extend these
dates by 21 months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See letter dated April 14, 2017, regarding ``Convening a
Proceeding for Reconsideration of Final Rule, `Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; State of Arkansas; Regional Haze and
Interstate Visibility Transport Federal Implementation Plan,'
published September 7, 2016. 81 FR 66332.'' A copy of this letter is
included in the docket, Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0189.
    \4\ 82 FR 18994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also note that in a letter dated June 7, 2017, the State
committed to develop and submit to EPA this summer a Regional Haze SIP
revision to replace our FIP, which would include NOX
requirements for the EGUs. Our action today revising the compliance
dates for NOX does not preclude the State from submitting
and EPA acting on a SIP revision addressing that element. As we have
previously stated,\5\ we remain committed to work with the State on a
SIP revision that would replace our FIP. We are proposing a revision to
our FIP at this time to address the impending April 27, 2018
NOX compliance deadlines required by the FIP for Flint
Creek, White Bluff, and Independence, prior to the anticipated SIP
submittal by the State and to provide the owners of the units with
regulatory certainty regarding their compliance deadlines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 81 FR 66333.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Petitions for Reconsideration of the NOX Compliance
Deadlines and EPA's Proposed Action

    We have carefully reviewed and taken into consideration the
petitions for reconsideration and administrative stay submitted by the
State of Arkansas, Entergy, AECC, and EEAA regarding the 18-month
compliance date for the NOX emission limits at Flint Creek
Unit 1, White Bluff Units 1 and 2, and Independence Units 1 and 2. We
have determined that the petitions for reconsideration raise certain
arguments related to the 18-month NOX compliance dates that
have merit, provide site-specific information regarding the
infeasibility of an 18-month compliance date, and warrant proposing a
revision to the FIP with regard to the 18-month NOX
compliance deadlines.
    The State of Arkansas, Entergy, AECC, and EEAA stated in their
petitions that EPA proposed a 3-year NOX compliance deadline
for the affected units and that we did not indicate in the proposed
rulemaking that we were considering a shorter compliance date.
Additionally, the petitioners stated that EPA failed to provide an
opportunity to comment on the owners' ability to comply with a
shortened compliance date. EEAA pointed out that if EPA would have
afforded the owners and operators adequate notice and opportunity to
comment on the shortened NOX compliance deadlines, they
would have provided comment and supporting information concerning why
an 18-month compliance deadline is inadequate. The petitioners also
argued that because we did not provide notice and an opportunity to
comment on shortened compliance deadlines, the 18-month NOX
compliance deadlines are not a logical outgrowth of the FIP proposal.
    We agree with the petitioners that our FIP proposal did not
specifically state that we were soliciting public comment on shorter
NOX compliance dates for the five units. We recognize that
the wording in our proposed rulemaking was not clear with respect to
this issue, but our intent was to solicit public comment on all aspects
of our FIP proposal. This includes even those aspects of our FIP
proposal for which we did not specifically state that we were
soliciting public comment. However, in consideration of the
petitioners' comments, we are proposing to extend the NOX
compliance dates for the 5 affected units and providing notice and
opportunity for public comment on the proposed revisions to the
compliance dates. Other issues raised by the petitioners concerning the
inadequacy of an 18-month NOX compliance deadline are
discussed in the subsections that follow.

A. Petitioners' Claims Regarding the Infeasibility of 18-Month
NOX Compliance Deadlines

    Entergy's petition, which was incorporated by reference by both
AECC and EEAA, asserted that the comments

submitted by environmental groups,\6\ on which we based our decision to
shorten the NOX compliance deadlines for the five units,
relied on an expert report and a 10-year-old vendor association report
that did not take into account site-specific considerations that could
affect the installation and deployment time of low NOX
burner controls.\7\ EEAA also asserted that the 10-year old vendor
association report did not take into account permitting considerations,
a company's internal project development and approval process, site-
specific factors, or reliability concerns. Entergy and EEAA asserted
that the 18-month compliance deadline for installation of the low
NOX burner and separated overfire air equipment at White
Bluff and Independence is not feasible because it does not allow the
owners and operators sufficient time to prepare and submit an air
permit application, obtain the permit through the public notice and
participation process, comply with the affected companies' internal
planning and prudence review procedures, complete a request for
proposal process, select a vendor, procure equipment, schedule outages,
install the control equipment, conduct equipment tuning and testing,
and train staff on the operation of the control equipment. AECC also
asserted in its petition that the 18-month NOX compliance
deadlines for the five units are extremely difficult, if not
impossible, to meet and are unprecedented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See comments submitted by Earthjustice, National Parks
Conservation Association, and Sierra Club, dated August 7, 2015, on
the Arkansas Regional Haze FIP proposal. These comments can be found
in Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0189.
    \7\ AECC and EEAA's petitions address Flint Creek, White Bluff,
and Independence. Entergy's petition focuses on White Bluff and
Independence, but many of the arguments raised by Entergy are also
applicable to Flint Creek.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Entergy and EEAA pointed out that the installation of the
NOX control equipment requires that the company first
develop a prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permit
application for each facility and submit to ADEQ. Entergy's petition
explains that the processing of the permit application by ADEQ is
expected to take no less than 6--8 months, but could take longer
depending on a number of factors outside of the company's control. The
State's permitting process involves a public notice and participation
process, and the length of time it takes to issue the permit is
dependent upon the volume and complexity of the comments received as
well as on ADEQ's resources. Additionally, Entergy pointed out that any
member of the public could appeal issuance of the final permit to the
Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission and, absent
additional regulatory proceedings, could result in an automatic stay of
the permit pending resolution of the appeal. Entergy stated in its
petition that it has obtained the necessary PSD permit for installation
of the NOX control equipment at White Bluff, but is still in
the process of developing the PSD permit application for Independence.
    Entergy and EEAA also explained in their petitions that the
affected companies have internal planning procedures that affect their
schedule for installation of the NOX controls. These
internal planning procedures include risk and prudence reviews, as well
as a process for obtaining competitive bids from multiple vendors.
Entergy asserted that these internal planning procedures are in place
to attempt to ensure cost recovery, and that circumventing these
procedures places the owners at risk of making investments that the
Arkansas Public Service Commission later determines are not in the
public interest and therefore not eligible for cost recovery. Entergy
explained that once a vendor is selected, the company must negotiate
the final contract and that it would then take the vendor approximately
8 months to design and fabricate the equipment. Each unit will then
have to be taken offline for approximately 6-7 weeks for installation
of the control equipment. Entergy explained that after installation of
the control equipment, the company must conduct boiler tuning,
performance verification testing, a final phase of fine-tuning of the
equipment, staff training, and must validate operating configurations
to determine which combinations result in the best load profile. In its
petition for reconsideration, Entergy stated that in light of these
site-specific considerations, the owners and operators need 3 years to
install the control equipment and comply with their NOX
emission limits. Entergy and EEAA stated that requiring the affected
units to comply with shorter NOX compliance deadlines would
force the owners to undertake an accelerated schedule that involves
non-compliance with company prudence procedures and increases the cost
and financial risk incurred by the owners, with no guarantee that the
units will actually be able to meet their NOX emission
limits by the shorter compliance date.
    AECC asserted in its petition that a 3-year NOX
compliance deadline is as expeditiously as practicable for the affected
units, especially taking into consideration that the four units at
White Bluff and Independence are within the same regional transmission
organization system that would be affected by outages related to
installation of the NOX control equipment. AECC also
asserted that a NOX compliance schedule less than 3 years
would require an accelerated construction schedule such that the
controls could not be optimally scheduled to minimize the cost of
replacement energy and system reliability could potentially be
compromised. EEAA expressed similar concerns, stating that an 18-month
compliance schedule for the 5 affected units is inadequate for the
installation of the controls, in particular when required for multiple
units that represent a significant amount of baseload generating
capacity within the State.

B. EPA's Assessment of Petitioners' Claims and EPA's Proposed Action

    We agree with the petitioners that the comments submitted by
environmental groups on which we based our decision to shorten the
NOX compliance deadlines for the five units relied on an
expert report and a 10-year-old vendor association report that did not
take into account site-specific considerations that could affect the
installation and deployment time of low NOX burner
equipment. Since our proposed rulemaking did not specifically state a
range of compliance dates that we were soliciting comment on for the
NOX emission limits for the five units, we accept the
owners' claims that they did not anticipate that we might finalize
shorter compliance dates and therefore did not comment on site-specific
factors that affect their ability to meet shorter compliance dates. We
also acknowledge that the owners of the affected units raise a valid
point that the compliance date needs to account for the PSD permitting
process required for the installation of the NOX control
equipment, including the possibility of delays in the regulatory
permitting process that could affect the owners' ability to meet an 18-
month compliance deadline.
    We acknowledge that we were not aware of and thus could not take
into consideration the companies' internal planning and prudence review
procedures when we shortened the NOX compliance deadlines.
We find that the steps and processes Entergy, AECC, and EEAA discussed
in their petitions that must be taken by the owners and operators of
the affected units in order to install and begin operating the
NOX control equipment are reasonable and

warrant proposing to extend the NOX compliance dates for the
affected units. It is not our intent to require a compliance timeframe
that could force the owners to expedite the planning, installation, and
deployment of the NOX control equipment in such a way that
would require omitting company planning procedures and other important
processes the owners and operators have in place for projects such as
this. We also believe it is prudent to establish compliance deadlines
that allow the installation of the NOX controls to be
optimally scheduled so as to not compromise system reliability,
especially taking into consideration that four of the affected units
are within the same regional transmission organization system. Entergy,
AECC, and EEAA asserted that 3 years are needed to develop, plan,
permit, install, tune, and test the equipment at the affected units,
which is consistent with the compliance deadline we proposed in our
April 8, 2015 FIP proposal.\8\ Additionally, as we noted in the
``Background'' section of this proposed rulemaking, we published a
notice in the Federal Register on April 25, 2017, administratively
staying the effectiveness of the 18-month NOX compliance
deadlines in the FIP for a period of 90 days as part of our
reconsideration process for the NOX compliance deadlines.\9\
To also account for the 90 day stay of the effectiveness of these
NOX compliance deadlines, we are proposing to extend the
NOX compliance deadlines for Flint Creek Unit 1, White Bluff
Units 1 and 2, and Independence Units 1 and 2 by a total of 21 months
to January 27, 2020. We believe this is consistent with the requirement
under the CAA section 169A(b)(2) and (g)(4) and the Regional Haze Rule
under section 51.308(e)(1)(iv) to install and operate BART as
expeditiously as practicable, but in no event later than 5 years after
approval of the implementation plan revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 80 FR 18944.
    \9\ 82 FR 18994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Proposed Action

    After carefully considering the petitions for reconsideration of
the NOX compliance deadlines submitted by Arkansas, Entergy,
AECC, and EEAA, we are proposing to revise the Arkansas Regional Haze
FIP by extending the NOX compliance deadlines for Flint
Creek, White Bluff, and Independence. After carefully considering the
information presented by the petitioners and to account for the 90 day
stay of the effectiveness of these NOX compliance deadlines,
we are proposing to extend the NOX compliance deadlines for
Flint Creek Unit 1, White Bluff Units 1 and 2, and Independence Units 1
and 2 by a total of 21 months to January 27, 2020. Upon finalization of
this proposed action, the reconsideration process for the 18-month
NOX compliance deadlines will conclude.
    The revisions to the Arkansas Regional Haze FIP we are proposing at
this time are limited to the NOX compliance dates for the
five aforementioned units. We are not proposing to revise any other
portions of the FIP in this proposed action. As such, we are not
accepting public comment at this time on any issues unrelated to the
NOX compliance dates for these units. However, we note that
the reconsideration process under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) for other
portions of the FIP, as discussed in our April 14, 2017 letter, is
ongoing.\10\ If EPA determines through the ongoing reconsideration
process that revisions to other parts of the FIP are warranted, we will
propose such revisions in a future rulemaking action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See letter dated April 14, 2017, regarding ``Convening a
Proceeding for Reconsideration of Final Rule, `Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; State of Arkansas; Regional Haze and
Interstate Visibility Transport Federal Implementation Plan,'
published September 7, 2016. 81 FR 66332.'' A copy of this letter is
included in the docket, Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0189.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Best available
retrofit technology, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Interstate transport of pollution, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Regional haze, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur dioxides, Visibility.

    Dated: June 30, 2017.
Samuel Coleman,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    Title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed
to be amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart E--Arkansas

0
2. Amend Sec.  52.173 by revising (c) (7) and (25) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.173   Visibility protection.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (c)(7) Compliance dates for AEP Flint Creek Unit 1 and Entergy
White Bluff Units 1 and 2. The owner or operator of AEP Flint Creek
Unit 1 must comply with the SO2 emission limit listed in
paragraph (c)(6) of this section by April 27, 2018, and with the
NOX emission limit listed in paragraph (c)(6) by January 27,
2020. The owner or operator of White Bluff Units 1 and 2 must comply
with the SO2 emission limit listed in paragraph (c)(6) of
this section by October 27, 2021, and must comply with the
NOX emission limits listed in paragraph (c)(6) of this
section by January 27, 2020.
* * * * *
    (c)(25) Compliance dates for Entergy Independence Units 1 and 2.
The owner or operator of each unit must comply with the SO2
emission limit in paragraph (c)(24) of this section by October 27,
2021, and with the NOX emission limits by January 27, 2020.

[FR Doc. 2017-14692 Filed 7-12-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 68 (Tuesday, April 9, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 14189]
[FR Doc No: 2019-07072]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2000-7257, Notice No. 88]

Railroad Safety Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: FRA announces the fifty-eighth meeting of the RSAC, a Federal
Advisory Committee that develops railroad safety regulations through a
consensus process.

DATES: The RSAC meeting is scheduled for Wednesday and Thursday, April
24 and 25, 2019. On both days, the meeting will commence at 9:30 a.m.
and will adjourn by 3:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The RSAC meeting will be held at the National Association of
Home Builders, National Housing Center, located at 1201 15th Street NW,
Washington, DC 20005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenton Kilgore, RSAC Designated
Federal Officer/RSAC Coordinator, FRA Office of Railroad Safety, (202)
493-6286; or Larry Woolverton, Executive Officer, FRA Office of
Railroad Safety,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), FRA is giving notice of a
meeting of the RSAC. The RSAC is composed of 40 voting representatives
from 29 member organizations representing various rail industry
perspectives. The diversity of the Committee ensures the requisite
range of views and expertise necessary to discharge its
responsibilities. Please see the RSAC website for additional
information at http://rsac.fra.dot.gov/.
    Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public on a first-
come, first-served basis, and is accessible to individuals with
disabilities. The U.S. Department of Transportation and the Federal
Railroad Administration are committed to providing equal access to this
meeting for all participants. If you need alternative formats or
services because of a disability, please contact either of the
individuals listed in the For Further Information Contact section below
and submit your request at least five business days in advance of the
meeting.
    Persons who wish to submit written comments for consideration by
RSAC during the meeting must submit them no later than April 19, to
ensure transmission to RSAC members prior to the meeting. Comments
received after that date and time will be distributed to the members
but may not be reviewed prior to the meeting.
    Agenda Summary: The RSAC meeting will include opening remarks from
the FRA Administrator, as well as an update on the railroad industry's
implementation of positive train control. FRA will present reports from
the Passenger Safety Working Group and the Tourist and Historic
Railroads Working Group. The Committee will also discuss proposed
procedures for conducting future RSAC activities. This agenda is
subject to change.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of Railroad Safety.
[FR Doc. 2019-07072 Filed 4-5-19; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P