[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 42 (Friday, March 5, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12938-12940]
[FR Doc No: 2021-04590]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Number: PR21-33-000.
    Applicants: Enable Oklahoma Intrastate Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b),(e)+(g): Enable Revised
Fuel Percentages April 1, 2021 through March 31, 2022 to be effective
4/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 2/25/2021.
    Accession Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>91.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/18/2021.
    284.123(g) Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/26/2021.

    Docket Number: PR21-34-000.
    Applicants: Enable Oklahoma Intrastate Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b)(2)+(: EOIT 2021 Petition
for Section 311 Rate Approval to be effective 4/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 2/26/2021.
    Accession Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>06.
    Comments/Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/19/2021.

    Docket Number: PR21-35-000.
    Applicants: Bay Gas Storage Company, LLC.
    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b),(e)/: 2021 Annual
Adjustment to Company Use Percentage to be effective 3/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 2/26/2021.
    Accession Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>09.
    Comments/Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/19/2021.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-525-000.
    Applicants: Midwestern Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: Midwestern Gas Transmission Company submits tariff
filing per 154.312: 2021 NGA Section 4 Rate Case to be effective 4/1/
2021.
    Filed Date: 02/26/2021.
    Accession Number: 20210226-5027.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/2021.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-526-000.
    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.
    Description: Equitrans, L.P. submits tariff filing per 154.203:
Refund Report--Hastings Outage September 2020.
    Filed Date: 02/26/2021.
    Accession Number: 20210226-5045.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/2021.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-527-000.
    Applicants: Midship Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Midship Pipeline Company, LLC submits tariff filing
per 154.403(d)(2): Transportation Retainage Adjustment Effective 4/1/
2021 to be effective 4/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 02/26/2021.
    Accession Number: 20210226-5059.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/2021.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-528-000.
    Applicants: Cheniere Creole Trail Pipeline, L.P.
    Description: Cheniere Creole Trail Pipeline, L.P. submits tariff
filing per 154.403(d)(2): Transportation Retainage Adjustment--
Effective April 2021 to be effective 4/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 02/26/2021.
    Accession Number: 20210226-5063.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/2021.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-529-000.
    Applicants: Cheniere Corpus Christi Pipeline, LP.
    Description: Cheniere Corpus Christi Pipeline, LP submits tariff
filing per 154.204: Electric Power Costs Adjustment Effective April 1,
2021 to be effective 4/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 02/26/2021.
    Accession Number: 20210226-5073.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/2021.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-530-000.
    Applicants: Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C.
    Description: Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C. submits tariff
filing per 154.204: Negotiated Rate--Northern Utilities 210363 eff 3-1-
2021 to be effective 3/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 02/26/2021.
    Accession Number: 20210226-5087.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/2021.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-531-000.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Northern Natural Gas Company submits tariff filing per
154.204: 20210226 Negotiated Rate to be effective 3/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 02/26/2021.
    Accession Number: 20210226-5099.

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/2021.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-532-000.
    Applicants: Colorado Interstate Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Colorado Interstate Gas Company, L.L.C. submits tariff
filing per 154.403(d)(2): Qtrly LUF & Semi-Annual ML Fuel Filing to be
effective 4/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 02/26/2021.
    Accession Number: 20210226-5100.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/2021.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-533-000.
    Applicants: Tallgrass Interstate Gas Transmission, LLC
    Description: Tallgrass Interstate Gas Transmission, LLC submits
tariff filing per 154.403(d)(2): TIGT 2021-02-26 Fuel and L&U
Reimbursement and Power Cost Tracker to be effective 4/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 02/26/2021.
    Accession Number: 20210226-5101.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/2021.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-534-000.
    Applicants: Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.
    Description: Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. submits
tariff filing per 154.204: Fuel Filing--Eff. April 1, 2021 to be
effective 4/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 02/26/2021.
    Accession Number: 20210226-5118.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/2021.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-535-000.
    Applicants: Kern River Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: Kern River Gas Transmission Company submits tariff
filing per 154.204: 2021 Daggett Surcharge Filing to be effective 4/1/
2021.
    Filed Date: 02/26/2021.
    Accession Number: 20210226-5141.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/2021.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-536-000.
    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C. submits tariff
filing per 154.204: Volume No. 2--Connecticut Natural SP64028 to be
effective 3/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 02/26/2021.
    Accession Number: 20210226-5158.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/2021.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-537-000.
    Applicants: High Island Offshore System, L.L.C.
    Description: 2020 Annual Fuel Tracker Filing of High Island
Offshore System, L.L.C.
    Filed Date: 02/26/2021.
    Accession Number: 20210226-5180.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/2021.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-538-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C. submits tariff
filing per 154.204: Non-Conforming Agreements (SWG) to be effective 4/
1/2021.
    Filed Date: 02/26/2021.
    Accession Number: 20210226-5183.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/2021.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-539-000.
    Applicants: TransColorado Gas Transmission Company LLC.
    Description: TransColorado Gas Transmission Company LLC submits
tariff filing per 154.403(d)(2): FLU Update FIling to be effective 4/1/
2021.
    Filed Date: 02/26/2021.
    Accession Number: 20210226-5214.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/2021.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-540-000.
    Applicants: LA Storage, LLC.
    Description: LA Storage, LLC submits tariff filing per 154.204: LA
Storage 2021 Annual Adjustment of Fuel Retainage Percentage to be
effective 4/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 02/26/2021.
    Accession Number: 20210226-5228.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/2021.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-541-000.
    Applicants: Northwest Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Northwest Pipeline LLC submits tariff filing per
154.204: North Seattle and South Seattle Annual Charges Update Filing
2021 to be effective 4/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 02/26/2021.
    Accession Number: 20210226-5229.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/2021.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-542-000
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC.
    Description: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC submits
tariff filing per 154.204: Negotiated Rates--Cherokee AGL--Replacement
Shippers--Mar 2021 to be effective 3/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 02/26/2021.
    Accession Number: 20210226-5276.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/2021.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-543-000.
    Applicants: Northwest Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Northwest Pipeline LLC submits tariff filing per
154.204: New Rate Schedule TPAL & Revise Existing Rate Schedule PAL to
be effective 4/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 02/26/2021.
    Accession Number: 20210226-5280.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/2021.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-544-000.
    Applicants: Cove Point LNG, LP.
    Description: Cove Point LNG, LP submits tariff filing per 154.403:
Cove Point--2021 Annual EPCA to be effective 4/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 02/26/2021.
    Accession Number: 20210226-5281.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/2021.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-545-000.
    Applicants: Cove Point LNG, LP.
    Description: Cove Point LNG, LP submits tariff filing per
154.403(d)(2): Cove Point--2021 Annual Fuel Retainage and Request for
Waiver to be effective 4/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 02/26/2021.
    Accession Number: 20210226-5290.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/2021.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-546-000.
    Applicants: Hardy Storage Company, LLC.
    Description: Hardy Storage Company, LLC submits tariff filing per
154.203: Annual Report on Operational Transactions 2021.
    Filed Date: 02/26/2021.
    Accession Number: 20210226-5291.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/2021.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-547-000.
    Applicants: Crossroads Pipeline Company.
    Description: Crossroads Pipeline Company submits tariff filing per
154.203: Annual Report on Operational Transactions 2021.
    Filed Date: 02/26/2021.
    Accession Number: 20210226-5294.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/2021.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-548-000.
    Applicants: Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company submits tariff
filing per 154.204: Capital Cost Surcharge #1 True-Up to be effective
4/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 02/26/2021.
    Accession Number: 20210226-5297.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/2021.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-549-000.
    Applicants: NEXUS Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: NEXUS Gas Transmission, LLC submits tariff filing per
154.403(d)(2): 2021 Nexus ASA Filing to be effective 4/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 02/26/2021.
    Accession Number: 20210226-5305.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/2021.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-550-000.
    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC submits tariff filing per
154.204: REX 2021-02-26 Negotiated Rate Agreements to be effective 3/1/
2021.
    Filed Date: 02/26/2021.
    Accession Number: 20210226-5333.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/2021.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-551-000.
    Applicants: Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.
    Description: Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. submits
tariff filing per 154.204: Vol. 2--Negotiated Rate

Agreement--Scout Energy Group III to be effective 3/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 02/26/2021.
    Accession Number: 20210226-5370.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/2021.

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

    Dated: March 1, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-04590 Filed 3-4-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 167 (Wednesday, August 28, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53033-53038]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20749]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0148; FRL-9843-8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Nevada; Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan; Extension of BART
Compliance Date for Reid Gardner Generating Station

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to extend the compliance date for NOX emission
limits, under the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
requirements of the Regional Haze Rule, for Units 1, 2, and 3 at the
Reid Gardner Generating Station (RGGS) by 18 months from January 1,
2015, to June 30, 2016. EPA's BART determination was promulgated in a
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) on August 23, 2012. On March 26,
2013, EPA granted reconsideration of the compliance date and proposed
to extend the compliance date for the NOX emission limits
applicable to Units 1, 2, and 3 at RGGS.

DATES: This rule is effective on September 27, 2013.

ADDRESSES: EPA established a docket for this action at EPA-R09-OAR-
2013-0148. Generally, documents in the docket are available
electronically at www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Region
9 office. Documents from EPA's final BART determination and FIP for
RGGS, promulgated on August 23, 2012, are generally available
electronically in a different docket: EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0130. Please
note that while many of the documents in the docket are available
electronically at www.regulations.gov, some information may not be
specifically listed in the index to the docket or may be publicly
available only in hard copy at the EPA Region 9 office (e.g.,
copyrighted material, large maps, multi-volume reports, or otherwise
voluminous materials), and some may not be publicly available in
electronic or hard copy form (e.g., confidential business information).
To view the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during
normal business hours with the contact person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anita Lee, U.S. EPA, Region 9, 75
Hawthorne Street (AIR-2), San Francisco, CA 94105. Anita Lee can also
be reached at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we'', ``us'',
and ``our'' refer to the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA).

Table of Contents

I. Background and Purpose
II. EPA Responses to Public Comments
III. Summary of EPA Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    EPA provided a detailed description of the BART requirements of the
Regional Haze Rule and our analysis of the Nevada Division of
Environmental Protection's (NDEP) BART determination for RGGS
elsewhere. See 77 FR 21896 (April 12, 2012). EPA took final action on
the BART determination for NOX emissions from Unit 1, 2, and
3 at RGGS on August 23, 2012 (77 FR 50936). On October 19, 2012, Nevada
Energy (NV Energy, also known as Nevada Power Company), filed a
petition to the EPA Administrator for reconsideration of the BART
compliance date. On March 26, 2013, EPA granted the petition for
reconsideration and also proposed to extend the BART compliance date
for NOX for the affected units by 18 months, from January 1,
2015 to June 30, 2016. The notice of proposed rulemaking published on
March 26, 2013, provides additional detail regarding the history of EPA
actions related to BART for RGGS, the petition for reconsideration, a
summary of supplemental information submitted by NV Energy to
demonstrate that the extended compliance date of June 30, 2016, is as
expeditious as practicable, and EPA's demonstration that the extension
does not interfere with attainment, reasonable further progress, or any
other applicable requirement of the Clean Air Act (CAA). This
information is not restated here. See 78 FR 18280 (March 26, 2013).

II. EPA Responses to Public Comments

    EPA provided a 60-day public comment period for our proposed
rulemaking that was scheduled to close on May 28, 2013. On April 4,
2013, EPA provided notice in the Federal Register of a public hearing
and a short extension of the comment period to May 30, 2013 (78 FR
20290). The public hearing was held on April 29, 2013, in Moapa,
Nevada. EPA received oral comments from 12 individuals during the
public hearing. Prior to the close of the public comment period, EPA
also received three written comment letters.
    Oral comments made during the public hearing are summarized below
and are followed by EPA's responses to those comments. In general,
comments made during the public hearing expressed concerns related to
the health impacts on the Moapa community from RGGS and expressed
opposition to the proposed extension of the BART compliance date for
NOX. Members of the Moapa Band of Paiute Indians (Moapa
Band) and the Sierra Club, as well as legal counsel representing the
Moapa Band and the Sierra Club, provided oral testimony during the
public hearing.\1\ Subsequent to the public hearing, and prior to the
close of the comment period, the legal counsel representing the Moapa
Band, the Sierra Club, and the National Parks Conservation Association,
submitted a written comment letter stating that the groups took no
position on the proposed compliance date extension.\2\ EPA also
received comment letters in support of the proposed extension of the
compliance date, from NV Energy and NDEP.\3\ NDEP noted that the
extended compliance date would still result in the installation and
operation of new NOX controls more than 1 year earlier than
the 5-year maximum period allowed for BART under the Clean Air Act and
the Regional Haze Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The transcript for the April 29, 2013 public hearing is
available as document 0014 in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-
R09-OAR-2013-0148).
    \2\ See comment letter from Dan Galpern, Law Offices of Charles
M. Tebbutt, on behalf of the Sierra Club, the National Parks
Conservation Association, and the Moapa Band of Paiute Indians, to
EPA, dated May 28, 2013, available as document 0013 in the docket
for this rulemaking.
    \3\ See comment letter from Starla Lacy, NV Energy, to EPA,
dated May 14, 2013, available as document 0010 in the docket for
this rulemaking. See also comment letter from Rob Bamford, NDEP, to
EPA, dated May 15, 2013, available as document number 0009 in the
docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its comment letter to EPA dated May 14, 2013, NV Energy also
provided additional information regarding an amendment to Senate Bill
123 introduced to the Nevada Legislature in April, 2013 (known as
``NVision''). NVision proposed to retire some of the coal-fired units
owned by NV Energy on an accelerated schedule and to replace retired
generation with energy from new natural gas-fired units and renewable
sources. NVision would require early retirement of Units 1, 2, and 3 at
RGGS by the end of 2014, prior to the original compliance date in our
August 23, 2012 final rulemaking and the extended compliance date we
proposed on March 26, 2013. Because NV Energy must also file its plan
to the Nevada Public Utilities Commission for review and approval, NV
Energy states that the earliest date it would receive a decision on the
plan would be in the first quarter of 2014. Given the current
uncertainty regarding approval of NVision, NV Energy stated in its
letter that it will continue to move forward on an expeditious schedule
to comply with BART emission limits for NOX at RGGS by June
30, 2016.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The schedule for compliance with BART emission limits for
NOX is outlined in greater detail in the letter from
Starla Lacy, NV Energy to Anita Lee, EPA, dated January 31, 2013,
available as document 0004 in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All written comments submitted to EPA express either no position
on, or are in support of, our proposed action to extend the BART
compliance date. Because our final action extends the compliance date
as proposed, we are not providing any further responses to those
written comments. Oral comments made during the public hearing express
additional concerns related to RGGS and the proposed compliance date
extension. We respond below to the comments received during the public
hearing that are relevant to our proposed action.
    Comment 1: In general, the commenters opposed extending the
compliance date for meeting the NOX emission limits at RGGS.
A number of

commenters indicated that the plant has been in operation for many
years and should no longer be allowed to operate without controls. Some
commenters stated that an extension is not necessary in light of the
plan to shut the plant down next year, and one added that maintaining
the current compliance schedule will give NV Energy added incentive to
go through with the shutdown.
    Response 1: EPA disagrees with the comment that RGGS is operating
without controls. RGGS currently operates with SO2 and
particulate matter controls, as well as older low-NOX
burners with overfire air. Units 1, 2, and 3 at RGGS are subject to
BART based on their age, emissions of visibility-impairing pollutants,
and their impact on visibility at Class I areas. The CAA and the
Regional Haze Rule require BART controls to be installed as
expeditiously as practicable, but in no event later than five years
from the date of the final rulemaking. As discussed in greater detail
in our notice of reconsideration and proposed rulemaking, our proposed
extension of the compliance date by 18 months, from January 1, 2015 to
June 30, 2016, is consistent with the CAA and the Regional Haze Rule.
The extension is justified by an expeditious schedule for the
installation of multiple control technologies that require detailed
engineering, procurement, construction, installation, and testing of
new controls, as well as regulatory approvals from the Nevada Public
Utilities Commission and the Nevada Division of Environmental
Protection, with an average time of 14 months per unit to meet new BART
emission limits. RGGS is following its plan to install new controls to
comply with BART emission limits as expeditiously as practicable and
within a timeframe that is less than five years from the final BART
rulemaking.
    As stated previously, although NV Energy plans to retire Units 1,
2, and 3 at RGGS by the end of 2014, NV Energy must also file its plan
to the Nevada Public Utilities Commission for review and approval. NV
Energy states that the earliest date it would receive a decision on the
plan would be in the first quarter of 2014. Given the current
uncertainty regarding the approval of NVision, NV Energy stated in its
letter that it continues to move forward on its expeditious schedule to
comply with BART emission limits for NOX at RGGS by June 30,
2016. Therefore, EPA's action is still necessary despite NV Energy's
plans to retire Units 1, 2 and 3 at RGGS. This final action requires
that in the event Units 1, 2, and 3 continue operation and are not
retired by the end of 2014, these units must comply with BART emission
limits by June 30, 2016, a date which is as expeditious as practicable
and within five years of the final rule.
    Comment 2: Some commenters expressed skepticism about NV Energy's
pledge to retire its coal-fired boilers at RGGS and the passage of
pending state legislation, which would codify the proposed retirement
schedule. These commenters encouraged the EPA to follow through with
the existing compliance schedule in the event that NV Energy does not
retire the plant voluntarily or at the behest of state legislation.
    Response 2: EPA understands that the NVision plan has been approved
by the Nevada Legislature and signed by Governor Brian Sandoval on June
11, 2013.\5\ NV Energy must also file its plan that includes early
retirement of Units 1, 2, and 3 at RGGS to the Nevada Public Utilities
Commission for review and approval.
     As stated in Response 1, EPA is taking final action to extend the
compliance date by 18 months based on our determination that the
schedule for compliance that provides approximately 14 months per unit
for the procurement, installation, and testing of new BART controls, is
reasonable and as expeditious as practicable. For this reason, the
extended compliance date of June 30, 2016 is consistent with the CAA
and the Regional Haze Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/77th2013/Reports/history.cfm?billname=SB123.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 3: Several commenters stated that residents of southern
Nevada and the Moapa Band of Paiute Indians suffer from a variety of
health issues, including asthma attacks, lung disease, cancer, and
heart disease, which they believe are attributable to emissions from
RGGS. A few commenters recounted their personal experiences with
deteriorating health or the health problems of loved ones. Two
commenters argued that emissions produced by the RGGS are not
restricted to the area around the plant, but impact neighboring cities
and states as well.
    Response 3: EPA understands that the health of the Moapa community
is an important issue. Our final BART determination for RGGS is
expected to significantly reduce emissions of NOX.\6\ Ozone
and fine particles are formed in the atmosphere from reactions between
NOX and other pollutants. Nitrogen dioxide, or
NO2, is a component of NOX. Ozone, fine particles
and NO2 have all been associated with various effects on
human health and the environment. As discussed in our proposed
rulemaking, EPA has promulgated standards, known as the national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), for seven pollutants, including
NO2, ozone and particulate matter with a diameter less than
or equal to 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5).\7\ The primary NAAQS
standards protect public health, including the health of ``sensitive''
populations, such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly, while the
secondary NAAQS standards protect public welfare, including damage to
animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. Using a process that
considers air quality data and other factors, EPA designates areas as
``nonattainment'' if those areas cause or contribute to violations of a
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 77 FR 50936 (August 23, 2012).
    \7\ The other pollutants are sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide,
lead, and PM10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    RGGS is located in Clark County, Nevada. Portions of Clark County
(the Las Vegas Valley) have previously been designated nonattainment
for PM10, carbon monoxide, and the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard. RGGS is not located in the portion of Clark County that was
designated nonattainment for PM10. Additionally, Clark
County is now in attainment with the NAAQS for carbon monoxide and
ozone.\8\ This means that the air quality in the area surrounding RGGS
is meeting all the NAAQS set by EPA to protect human health.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See: ``Determination of Attainment for PM10 for
the Las Vegas Valley Nonattainment Area, NV,'' 75 FR 45485 (August
3, 2012); ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and
Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of
Nevada; Redesignation of Las Vegas Valley to Attainment for the
Carbon Monoxide Standard,'' 75 FR 59090 (September 27, 2010); and
``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of Nevada;
Redesignation of Clark County to Attainment for the 1997 8-Hour
Ozone Standard,'' 78 FR 1149 (January 8, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 4: Two commenters urged the EPA to consider the broader
ramifications of BART controls, warning that more stringent control of
air emissions would lead to an increased waste stream and more
contaminants flowing into wastewater ponds and eventually into nearby
landfills that burden the Moapa community.
    Response 4: EPA understands that impacts from the landfills near
the Moapa community are important issues. However, EPA's proposed
rulemaking addressed only the compliance date by which the affected
units at RGGS must meet emission limits required under the BART
provisions of the CAA and Regional Haze Rule. Therefore, comments
related to additional waste resulting from emission control
technologies are not relevant to our current action. Discussions and

considerations of non-air quality environmental impacts of potential
controls were addressed in the proposed rule dated April 12, 2012 (77
FR 21896) and in the final rulemaking dated August 23, 2012 (77 FR
50942).
    Comment 5: Two commenters discussed how emissions from the RGGS
have impacted local vegetation and wildlife, making it difficult for
the tribal community to exercise its cultural practices (e.g., herbal
medicine).
    Response 5: EPA understands that the health of local vegetation and
wildlife are important issues to the Moapa community. In addition to
ozone production, emissions of NOX also contribute to acid
and nutrient deposition. These processes can affect the health of
terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems through acidification or
eutrophication.\9\ Our final BART determination for RGGS is expected to
significantly reduce emissions of NOX. In addition, EPA sets
secondary standards to protect public welfare, including damage to
animals and vegetation. In general, the secondary standards for the
criteria pollutants are less stringent than, or equal to, the primary
standards. Because RGGS is not located in an area that is designated
nonattainment for any NAAQS, air quality in the area surrounding RGGS
is meeting the NAAQS set by EPA to protect human health and public
welfare, including animals and vegetation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See, for example, 77 FR 20218 (April 3, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of EPA Action

    EPA is taking final action to extend the date by which Units 1, 2,
and 3 at RGGS must comply with NOX emission limits under the
BART requirement of the Regional Haze Rule, by 18 months, from January
1, 2015 to June 30, 2016.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review 13563

    This final action extends the compliance date for a single source
to comply with the emission limits in an existing FIP. This type of
action is exempt from review under Executive Orders (EO) 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993) and EO 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final action does not impose an information collection burden
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Because the action merely
extends a compliance date, it does not impose an information collection
burden and the Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this final action on
small entities, I certify that this final action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The owner of the affected units at Reid Gardner Generating Station,
Nevada Energy, also known as Nevada Power Company, is not a small
entity and the final extended compliance date is supported by this
entity. See Mid-Tex Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. FERC, 773 F.2d 327
(D.C. Cir. 1985).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2
U.S.C. 1531-1538, requires Federal agencies, unless otherwise
prohibited by law, to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on
State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Federal
agencies must also develop a plan to provide notice to small
governments that might be significantly or uniquely affected by any
regulatory requirements. The plan must enable officials of affected
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates and must inform, educate, and advise small
governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    This final rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result
in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year.
This action merely finalizes an 18-month extension of a compliance
date. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections
202 or 205 of UMRA.
    This final rule is also not subject to the requirements of section
203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This rule does not
impose regulatory requirements on any government entity.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This final action does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship
between the national government and the states, or in the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. This action finalizes an 18-
month extension of a compliance date. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does
not apply to this action. EPA further notes that we received a comment
letter from the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection in support
of the extended compliance date for RGGS.

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

    Under Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), EPA
may not issue a regulation that has tribal implications, that imposes
substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by
statute, unless the federal government provides the funds necessary to
pay the direct compliance costs incurred by tribal governments, or EPA
consults with tribal officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation and develops a tribal summary impact statement.
    EPA has concluded that this final rule may have tribal implications
because the Reid Gardner Generating Station is located adjacent to
reservation lands of the Moapa Band of Paiute Indians. However, it will
neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on tribal
governments, nor preempt tribal law.
    During a telephone call on March 15, 2013, and in a letter of the
same date, Regional Administrator Blumenfeld invited Chairman William
Anderson of the Moapa Band of Paiute Indians to

consult on our proposed action to extend the compliance date for Reid
Gardner. On April 29, 2013, EPA held a public hearing in the
Administration Building of the Moapa Band of Paiute Indians, in Moapa,
Nevada, to accept comment on the proposed action. During the public
hearing, EPA received comments from 12 individuals, including Chairman
Anderson, several members of the Moapa Band, and the Sierra Club. A
letter from the attorney jointly representing the Moapa Band of Paiute
Indians, the Sierra Club, and the National Parks Conservation
Association, expressed no position on our action to extend the
compliance date for RGGS by 18 months. EPA did not receive a response
regarding government-to-government consultation from Chairman Anderson.
    Additionally, for prior actions related to regional haze and the
Reid Gardner Generating Station, EPA consulted with Chairman Anderson
and other tribal representatives early in the process to allow the
Moapa Band of Piute Indians to have meaningful and timely input into
its development. During the comment period for those prior actions, the
Moapa Band raised concerns to EPA about the environmental impacts of
this facility. For those previous rulemakings, EPA consulted the Moapa
Band regarding these concerns and visited the reservation and the
facility. Additional details of our consultation with the Moapa Band
are provided in section IV.F of our final rulemaking published on
August 23, 2012 (77 FR 50936).

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

    EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying
only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks,
such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO has the
potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO
13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended
to mitigate health or safety risks. This final action addresses
regional haze and visibility protection.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)), because it is exempt under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, 12(10) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures and
business practices) that are developed or adopted by the VCS bodies.
The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through annual reports to
OMB, with explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable VCS.
    This final rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any VCS.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because, while the final
rule provides an 18-month extension in the compliance date, the
facility will still achieve significant reductions in NOX
emissions. The new compliance date for reducing emissions is less than
five years from the effective date of the final BART determination,
consistent with the BART provisions under the CAA.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types
of rules (1) rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to
agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization,
procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or
obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required
to submit a rule report regarding today's final action under section
801 because this is a rule of particular applicability and only applies
to one facility, the Reid Gardner Generating Station.

L. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by October 28, 2013. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See CAA section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide.

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

    Dated: August 16, 2013.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, Part 52, chapter I, title
40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart DD--Nevada

0
2. Section 52.1488 is amended by revising paragraph (f)(3) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1488  Visibility protection.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (3) Compliance date. The owners and operators subject to this
section shall comply with the emission limitations

and other requirements of this section by June 30, 2016, and
thereafter.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-20749 Filed 8-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 229 (Friday, November 27, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 75838-75840]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26046]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0788; Product Identifier 2020-NM-091-AD; Amendment
39-21327; AD 2020-23-11]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus SAS Model A300 series airplanes; and Airbus SAS Model A300 B4-
600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Airbus SAS Model A300
C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series
airplanes). This AD was prompted by reports of cracking at a certain
hole location on the left-hand (LH) side of a certain frame (FR). This
AD requires repetitive inspections for discrepancies of certain areas
in and around the fuselage, as specified in two European Union Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) ADs, which are incorporated by reference. The FAA
is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective January 4, 2021.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of January 4,
2021.

ADDRESSES: For material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this AD,
contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany;
telephone +49 221 8999 000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet
www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this IBR material on the EASA website
at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this IBR material at the
FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in
the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0788.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0788; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, any comments received, and other information. The
address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, Large
Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2020-0110R1, dated May 27, 2020; and
EASA AD 2020-0111R2, dated June 16, 2020 (``EASA AD 2020-0110R1'' and
``EASA AD 2020-0111R2'') (also

referred to as ``the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information,''
or ``the MCAI''); to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS
Model A300 series airplanes and Airbus SAS Model A300-600 series
airplanes.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus SAS Model
A300 series airplanes and Airbus SAS Model A300-600 series airplanes.
The NPRM published in the Federal Register on September 1, 2020 (85 FR
54286). The NPRM was prompted by reports of cracking at hole location
#10 on the LH side of FR4. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive
inspections for discrepancies of certain areas in and around the
fuselage, as specified in two EASA ADs.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to address fatigue cracking, which could
result in reduced structural integrity of the fuselage. See the MCAI
for additional background information.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The FAA has considered the comment
received. FedEx indicated its support for the NPRM.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment
received, and determined that air safety and the public interest
require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor
editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2020-0110R1 describes procedures for repetitive special
detailed inspections for discrepancies (i.e., cracking) of the fuselage
internal structure at certain frames, windshield frame lower section
and closing panel, fuselage skin lap joint, and center wing bottom skin
internal angle; and applicable corrective actions (repairing
discrepancies).
    EASA AD 2020-0111R2 describes procedures for repetitive special
detailed inspections for discrepancies of the outer wing bottom skin
internal joint plate, outer wing bottom skin, fuselage internal
structure at certain frames, and windshield frame lower section and
closing panel; and applicable corrective actions (repairing
discrepancies).
    This material is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 118 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
90 work-hours x $85 per hour = $7,650........................              $0           $7,650         $902,700
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has received no definitive data that would enable the
agency to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified
in this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

2020-23-11 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-21327; Docket No. FAA-2020-0788;
Product Identifier 2020-NM-091-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective January 4, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Airbus SAS airplanes identified in
paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this AD, certificated in any category.
    (1) Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, B2-203, B4-2C, B4-103, and
B4-203 airplanes.
    (2) Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes;
Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes; Model A300 F4-605R and F4-
622R airplanes; and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage;
57, Wings.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracking at hole location #10
on the left-hand side of frame 4. The FAA is issuing this AD to
address fatigue cracking, which could result in reduced structural
integrity of the fuselage.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    (1) For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(1) of this AD:
Except as specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (3) of this AD, comply
with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2020-0110R1, dated May 27, 2020 (``EASA AD 2020-0110R1'').
    (2) For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(2) of this AD:
Except as specified in paragraphs (h)(2) and (3) of this AD, comply
with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, EASA AD 2020-0111R2, dated June 16, 2020 (``EASA AD
2020-0111R2'').

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2020-0110R1 and EASA AD 2020-0111R2

    (1) Where EASA AD 2020-0110R1 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) Where paragraph (4) of EASA AD 2020-0111R2 refers to June 3,
2020 (``the effective date of this [EASA] AD at original issue''),
this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (3) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2020-0110R1 and EASA AD
2020-0111R2 does not apply to this AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, has
the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or responsible Flight
Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to
the Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, send it
to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j) of this
AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, Large Aircraft
Section, International Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus
SAS's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the
DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by
paragraph (i)(2) of this AD, if any service information contains
procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and
tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests
that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and
tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using
accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or
inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided
the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the
airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any
substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC
require approval of an AMOC.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina,
Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2020-0110R1,
dated May 27, 2020.
    (ii) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2020-
0111R2, dated June 16, 2020.
    (3) For EASA AD 2020-0110R1 and EASA AD 2020-0111R2, contact the
EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49
221 8999 000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet www.easa.europa.eu.
You may find this EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St.,
Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This material may be found in the AD
docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0788.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on November 4, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-26046 Filed 11-25-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 79 (Monday, April 25, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24267-24270]
[FR Doc No: 2022-08694]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 79 / Monday, April 25, 2022 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0828; Project Identifier AD-2021-00303-T;
Amendment 39-21973; AD 2022-06-07]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2016-09-
01, which applied to certain The Boeing Company Model 777-200 and -300
series airplanes. AD 2016-09-01 required repetitive inspections for
cracking of the left- and right-side forward outer chords of the pivot
bulkhead, and related investigative and corrective actions if
necessary. AD 2016-09-01 also provided a modification of the pivot
bulkhead, which terminated the repetitive inspections. This AD was
prompted by reports of fatigue cracking of the forward outer chord of
the station (STA) 2370 pivot bulkhead, and the determination that the
compliance times need to be reduced, post-modification inspections must
be done, and the inspections areas need to be expanded due to
additional cracking found prior to the inspection times required by AD
2016-09-01. This AD retains certain requirements of AD 2016-09-01. This
AD also requires doing repetitive detailed and high frequency eddy
current (HFEC) inspections of the longeron fitting, and, for post-
repair and post-modification inspections, the bulkhead assembly
structure, for any cracking, and doing all applicable on-condition
actions. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on
these products.

DATES: This AD is effective May 31, 2022.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 31,
2022.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data
Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA
90740-5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available at
https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2021-0828.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0828; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, any
comments received, and other information. The address for Docket
Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Cortez-Muniz, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2016-09-01, Amendment 39-18499 (81 FR
26109, May 2, 2016) (AD 2016-09-01). AD 2016-09-01 applied to certain
The Boeing Company Model 777-200 and -300 series airplanes. The NPRM
published in the Federal Register on October 14, 2021 (86 FR 57078).
The NPRM was prompted by reports of fatigue cracking of the forward
outer chord of the STA 2370 pivot bulkhead, and the determination that
the compliance times need to be reduced, post-modification inspections
must be done, and the inspections areas need to be expanded due to
additional cracking found prior to the inspection times required by AD
2016-09-01. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to retain certain
requirements of AD 2016-09-01. The NPRM also proposed to require doing
repetitive detailed and HFEC inspections of the longeron fitting and,
for certain airplanes, the bulkhead assembly structure, for any
cracking and doing all applicable on-condition actions. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address fatigue cracking of the outer flanges of the
left and right side forward outer chords of the STA 2370 pivot
bulkhead, which could result in a severed forward outer chord and
consequent loss of horizontal stabilizer control.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received comments from an anonymous commenter, The Air Line
Pilots Association, International (ALPA), and United Airlines who
supported the NPRM without change.
    The FAA received additional comments from three commenters,
including Air France, Boeing, and an individual. The following presents
the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each
comment.

Request To Revise the Compliance Time

    Air France requested that Boeing and the FAA increase the
inspection threshold to 1,000 flight cycles in the proposed AD. Air
France stated that the proposed AD specifies that operators accomplish
the nondestructive testing inspection within 500 flight cycles and that
this threshold is not compatible in case of findings; this drives an
operator to ground the airplane for a long period of time if a
corrective action needs to be accomplished before further flight. Air
France commented that a minimum of 300 man-hours are required to
accomplish the corrective actions specified in Boeing Service Bulletin
777-53-0076 [which is referenced in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-
53A0075, Revision 2, dated February 22, 2021].

    Air France stated that its request allows operators to plan a C-
check maintenance visit during a time when a repair or the terminating
action specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 777-53-0076 can be
performed without disturbing airplane operations.
    The FAA disagrees with the commenter's request. As specified in
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0075, Revision 2, dated February
22, 2021, the compliance time of 500 flight cycles is a grace period
and is only applicable when the airplane exceeds the inspection
threshold. In addition, in developing an appropriate compliance time,
the FAA coordinated with the manufacturer to provide a compliance time
that maintains an acceptable level of safety. However, under the
provisions of paragraph (i) of this AD, the FAA will consider requests
for approval of an extension of the compliance time, if sufficient data
are submitted to substantiate that the change would provide an
acceptable level of safety. The FAA has not changed this final rule in
this regard.

Request To Increase Frequency of Testing and Nondestructive Examining
(NDE) Techniques

    An individual requested that Boeing increase the frequency of its
testing in addition to exploring additional NDE techniques (e.g.,
ultrasonic testing) for identifying early indication of high cycle
fatigue. The commenter stated that when looking at probability of
failure, Boeing has identified at least 32 instances of cracking under
the current inspection frequency; however, one of the biggest issues
with the high cyclic fatigue cracking is that it is self-identifying.
The individual commented that while there are various NDE tools and
techniques that can be used to identify cracks once they have started
to propagate, it is incredibly difficult to identify degraded
conditions prior to fracture propagation. The commenter concluded that
the probability of a crack developing unnoticed under the current
inspection frequency should be considered moderate to high.
    While the FAA acknowledges the commenter's concern, this AD already
incorporates reduced compliance times for the repetitive detailed and
HFEC inspections, adds new inspection areas for any cracking and also
adds repetitive post-modification inspections to the previous
requirements of AD 2016-09-01. The determination of the mitigating
actions and compliance times were coordinated with the manufacturer and
determined to provide an appropriate interval of time while maintaining
an acceptable level of safety. The FAA has not changed this AD in this
regard.

Request To Clarify Certain Inspection Requirements

    Boeing requested that the SUMMARY section of the NPRM be revised to
change the words, ``for certain airplanes, the bulkhead assembly
structure'' to ``for post-repair and post-modification inspections, the
bulkhead assembly structure.'' Boeing stated that the requested change
is to clarify that the inspection of the bulkhead assembly structure is
only required for airplanes that have accomplished the small crack
repair option using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0075, Revision
1, dated December 14, 2015, or the modification using Boeing Service
Bulletin 777-53-0076.
    The FAA agrees that the proposed wording provides clarity and has
revised the SUMMARY section of this AD accordingly.

Request To Correct Typographical Error

    Boeing requested that the FAA remove the words ``of the'' in the
first sentence under the ``Proposed AD Requirements in this NPRM''
paragraph in the NPRM. Boeing stated that the sentence should be
revised from ``retain certain of the requirements of AD 2016-09-01,''
to ``retain certain requirements of AD 2016-09-01.''
    The FAA acknowledges that ``of the'' in the first sentence under
the ``Proposed AD Requirements in this NPRM'' paragraph in the NPRM
should be removed; however, that paragraph is not carried over into
this final rule.

Request To Revise Exception Language

    Boeing requested that the FAA revise paragraph (h)(1) of the
proposed AD, which specifies using the effective date of this AD rather
than the Revision 2 date of the service information, to remove the
reference to the ``Effectivity'' paragraph and the Condition columns in
the ``Compliance'' paragraph. Boeing stated that the phrase ``the
Revision 2 date of this Service Bulletin'' is not used in those
locations of the service information.
    The FAA agrees with the commenter's request and has revised
paragraph (h)(1) of this AD accordingly.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments
received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as
proposed. Except for minor editorial changes, and any other changes
described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None
of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0075,
Revision 2, dated February 22, 2021. This service information specifies
procedures for, depending on configuration, doing repetitive detailed
and HFEC inspections of the STA 2370 pivot bulkhead forward outer chord
and the longeron fitting for any cracking; doing repetitive post-repair
inspections of the pivot bulkhead forward outer chord, longeron
fitting, and bulkhead assembly structure for any cracking; doing
repetitive post-modification inspections of the pivot bulkhead forward
outer chord, longeron fitting, and bulkhead assembly structure for any
cracking; and doing all applicable on-condition actions. On-condition
actions include modifying the left and right forward outer chords and
upper splice angles, and repair.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in ADDRESSES.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 63 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost        Parts cost    Cost per product          operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Detailed and HFEC inspections of   Up to 15 work-hours            $0  Up to $1,275 per      Up to $80,325 per
 the longeron fitting and pivot     x $85 per hour = Up                inspection cycle.     inspection cycle.
 bulkhead forward chord.            to $1,275 per
                                    inspection cycle.

Post-repair inspections..........  Up to 13 work-hours            $0  Up to $1,105 per      Up to $69,615 per
                                    x $85 per hour = Up                inspection cycle.     inspection cycle.
                                    to $1,105 per
                                    inspection cycle.
Post-modification inspections....  18 work-hours x $85            $0  $1,530 per            $96,390 per
                                    per hour = $1,530                  inspection cycle.     inspection cycle.
                                    per inspection
                                    cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary
modifications that would be required based on the results of the
inspection. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft
that might need this modification:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost           Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modification......................  Up to 137 work-hours x $85       $34,086  Up to $45,731.
                                     per hour = Up to $11,645.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost
estimates for the repairs specified in this AD.
    The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate.
According to the manufacturer, however, all of the costs of this AD may
be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected
operators.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2016-09-01, Amendment 39-18499
(81 FR 26109, May 2, 2016); and
0
b. Adding the following new AD:

2022-06-07 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-21973; Docket No. FAA-
2021-0828; Project Identifier AD-2021-00303-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective May 31, 2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2016-09-01, Amendment 39-18499 (81 FR 26109,
May 2, 2016) (AD 2016-09-01).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 777-200 and -300
series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0075, Revision 2, dated
February 22, 2021.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of fatigue cracking of the
forward outer chord of the station (STA) 2370 pivot bulkhead, and
the determination that the compliance times need to be reduced,
post-modification inspections must be done, and the inspections
areas need to be expanded due to additional cracking found prior to
the inspection times required by AD 2016-09-01. The FAA is issuing
this AD to address fatigue cracking of the outer flanges of the left
and right side forward outer chords of the STA 2370 pivot bulkhead,
which could result in a severed forward outer chord and consequent
loss of horizontal stabilizer control.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    Except as specified by paragraph (h) of this AD: At the
applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0075, Revision 2, dated
February 22, 2021, do all applicable actions identified as ``RC''
(required for compliance) in, and in accordance with, the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-
53A0075, Revision 2, dated February 22, 2021.

(h) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    (1) Where the Compliance Time columns of the tables in the
``Compliance'' paragraph of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-
53A0075, Revision 2, dated February 22, 2021, use the phrase ``the
Revision 2 date of this Service Bulletin,'' this AD requires using
``the effective date of this AD.''
    (2) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0075, Revision 2,
dated February 22, 2021, specifies contacting Boeing for repair
instructions: This AD requires doing the repair using a method
approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(i) of this AD.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request
to your principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office,
as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of
the certification office, send it to the attention of the person
identified in Related Information. Information may be emailed to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by The Boeing Company Organization Designation
Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle
ACO Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair
method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet
the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) Except as specified by paragraph (h) of this AD: For service
information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for
Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (i)(4)(i) and (ii) of
this AD apply.
    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step
and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply
with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled ``RC Exempt,'' then the
RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is
required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and
identified figures.
    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted
methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection
program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC
steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done
as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Luis Cortez-Muniz,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: (206) 231-
3958; email: [email protected].

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0075, Revision 2, dated
February 22, 2021.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-
5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email [email protected], or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on March 10, 2022.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-08694 Filed 4-22-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


-----Forwarded by Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US on 05/13/2010 08:49PM -----
To: Gary McAlister/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA
From: Thomas McGrath<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Date: 05/13/2010 05:10PM
cc: Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lisa Beal
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Matt Todd<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Jeffrey A. Panek"
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Jim McCarthy<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: EPA Method 323 and EPA Method 320 Formadehyde Measurements Comparison: 1
of 3

Gary – per your request, the attached report provides the results of side-by-side formaldehyde
measurements by Proposed EPA Method 323 and EPA Method 320 (extractive FTIR).  The report was
prepared by Innovative Environmental Solutions and the project was sponsored by the American
Petroleum Institute (API) and the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA).

In summary, a total of five test series (3 or 4 test runs per series) were conducted on rich-burn and lean-
burn gas-fired reciprocating engines.  The Method 323 measurements were higher than the Method 320
measurements for all of the test series with the average difference ranging from 12 to 47 percent.  For
these tests, all of the Method 320 QA spike recoveries were less than 100% suggesting a low bias to the
measurements.  When the Method 320 measurements are adjusted for the QA spike recoveries, there is
very good agreement with the Method 323 measurements with the average difference ranging from -4 to
8 percent, well within the uncertainties of these test methods.  These data suggest that a low bias in the
Method 320 measurements, indicated by the low spike recoveries, contributed to the difference between
the Method 323 and Method 320 measurements for this test program.

Based on accepted statistical evaluations to validate method performance, the results demonstrate
acceptable performance for Method 323 and support the conclusion that Method 323 should be included
in the RICE NESHAP (40 CFR 63, Subpart ZZZZ) as an approved test method for formaldehyde
measurement.  In addition, anomalous Method 323 results reported by EPA in the March 2009 proposed
RICE NESHAP amendments have been investigated and determined to be a result of testing errors (i.e.,
human error).  Therefore, Method 323 should be accepted for formaldehyde measurement from gas-fired
reciprocating engines and promulgated as an accepted EPA test method when the final rule that amends
40 CFR 63 Subpart ZZZZ is published, which is planned for late summer or fall 2010.

Please note that, because of the size of the files, some report attachments will be sent separately.

Please call me if you have any questions or would like additional information.

Thank you –

Tom

--
Thomas McGrath
Innovative Environmental Solutions
610 California Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>714.315.4040


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 244 (Friday, December 19, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 75798]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29704]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP15-18-000]

Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company; Notice of Application for
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity

    Take notice that on November 21, 2014 Eastern Shore Natural Gas
Company (Eastern Shore), 1110 Forrest Avenue, Dover, Delaware, 19904,
filed in the above referenced docket an application pursuant to section
7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the Commission's
regulations, requesting a certificate of public convenience and
necessity authorizing Eastern Shore to construct, own, operate and
maintain the White Oak Mainline Expansion Project. The Project is
designed to provide 45,000 Dekatherms per day (Dth/d) of firm
transportation service for Calpine Energy Services, L.P. Eastern Shore
proposes to construct approximately 7.2 miles of 16-inch diameter
pipeline looping in Chester County, PA and 3,550 horsepower (hp) of
additional compression at Eastern Shore's existing Delaware City
Compressor Station in New Castle County, DE. Eastern Shore requests a
predetermination for rolled-in rate treatment, all as more fully set
forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open
to public inspection.
    The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov
using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last
three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to
William Rice, King & Spalding LLP, 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite
200, Washington, DC 20006, by phone<PHONE_NUMBER>, by fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or by email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Specifically, the pipeline loop will be constructed in two
segments: (1) Approximately 3.9 miles in Kemblesville, PA and (2)
approximately 3.3 miles near Cochranville, PA, just north of Eastern
Shore's existing Daleville Compressor Station. Eastern Shore states
that the new compressor facilities required at the Delaware Compressor
Station will consist of two new natural-gas fired reciprocating
internal combustion engines with state of the art air pollution control
equipment and silencers with an oxygen catalyst to reduce air
emissions. Eastern Shore also states that they are negotiating with
landowners regarding two different parcels for Delaware City Compressor
Station expansion. Eastern Shore requests that the Commission issue the
requested authorizations on or before May 1, 2015, in order to allow
Eastern Shore sufficient time to meet the October 1, 2015 in-service
date set forth in the precedent agreement. The estimated cost of the
project is $29,750,000.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 7 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    This filing is 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 ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on December 29, 2014.

    Dated: December 8, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-29704 Filed 12-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P