[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 246 (Wednesday, December 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 79912]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32252]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0873]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Bar Code Label Requirement for Human Drug and
Biological Products; Correction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a notice
entitled ``Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed
Collection; Comment Request; Bar Code Label Requirement for Human Drug
and Biological Products'' that appeared in the Federal Register of
December 15, 2015 (80 FR 77637). The document solicited comments on the
bar code label requirements for human drug and biological products. The
document was published with an incorrect docket number. This document
corrects that error.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Granger, Office of Policy and
Planning, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
32, rm. 3330, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of Tuesday, December
15, 2015, in FR Doc. 2015-31402, the following correction is made:
    1. On page 77637, in the second column, the docket number is
corrected to read FDA-2012-N-0873.

    Dated: December 15, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-32252 Filed 12-22-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


October 4, 2006

	Sent via E-Mail

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Regarding: Vapor Balancing Provisions of the National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air pollutants from the Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry and Other Processes Subject to the Negotiated
Regulation for Equipment Leaks

Related to: Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0475; National Emission
Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Organic Hazardous Air
Pollutants from the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry

Dear Mr. McDonald:

On December 23, 2004, EPA issued direct final rule amendments to the
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air pollutants from the
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (HON) and Other
Processes Subject to the Negotiated Regulation for Equipment Leaks.
Specifically, EPA adopted amendments that allowed the use of vapor
balancing as a control technique for storage tanks.  In doing so, EPA
also required that certain actions were required of facilities that are
neither subject to the HON nor any other Maximum Achievable Control
Technology standard.

The Dow Chemical Company (Dow), as an owner and operator of numerous
synthetic organic chemical facilities throughout the United States (US),
is hereby submitting comments concerning the vapor balancing provisions
of the HON.  Although not directly related to the HON Residual Risk Rule
proposal, the timing for making changes to the HON regulation is
appropriate while the rule is being addressed.  If EPA cannot address
these comments as part of the residual risk amendments, it may be
feasible and acceptable for EPA to address these vapor balancing
comments as a direct final rule as was done when the vapor balancing
provisions were first promulgated in the December 23, 2004 amendments.

Dow believes that vapor balancing emissions generated during storage
tank filling operations back to the delivery vehicle (rail car, tank
truck, marine vessel) is an effective “control technology” for
controlling storage tank working loss emissions.  There are virtually no
emissions generated at the source during vapor balancing.  The owner or
operator of storage tanks in which working loss emissions are controlled
via vapor balancing should be exempt from any further control,
recordkeeping or reporting requirements in the rule applicable to that
storage tank.  In addition, EPA should not impose any further emission
reduction, recordkeeping or reporting requirements on reloading /
cleaning facilities.

For this reason, Dow recommends that EPA eliminate the vapor balancing
provisions in 63.119(g) all together and not impose any additional
requirements on the vapors remaining in the delivery vehicle, either at
the time of transfer or when the vehicle leaves the HON process unit to
be returned to the reloading / cleaning facility.

The attached comments further explain Dow’s position on this issue.
Should EPA choose to keep the vapor balancing provisions in HON, Dow is
suggesting alternative language to improve the usability and flexibility
of these provisions.

Thank you in advance for your consideration of our comments. If you have
questions, concerning the following comments, please contact me at (225)
353-8844 or email me at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Sincerely,

Bruce J. Alexius

EH&S Operations Regulatory Management

The Dow Chemical Company

P. O. Box 150, Building 3502

Plaquemine, LA 70765-0150

Vapor Balancing Provisions of the National Emission Standard for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants from the
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry

The Dow Chemical Company (Dow) thanks EPA for consideration of comments
relative to the vapor balancing provisions of the National Emission
Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Organic Hazardous Air
Pollutants from the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry.
Dow strongly believes that reducing regulatory burden or eliminating
regulatory hurdles associated with emission controls is a highly
effective way of promoting the employment of emission reduction
strategies.

In addressing the vapor balancing requirements of the HON, Dow maintains
that:

Vapor balancing during tank filling operations creates virtually no
emissions to the atmosphere at the source.  Storage tanks using vapor
balancing for tank filling operations should be exempt from the storage
tank provisions in the rule and any associated recordkeeping and
reporting requirements.  There is no basis for regulating an activity
that has no associated emissions. Therefore, it is not necessary to
include vapor balancing in the regulatory text to address working loss
emissions.  Note:  Any breathing losses from the storage tank would
still be subject to the storage vessel provisions.

Reloading / cleaning operations located at areas sources or outside of
the United States should not be regulated under MACT rules that apply to
U.S. plant sites located at major sources as defined in section 112(a)
of the Act.  Reloading / cleaning operations still must comply with
state and/or local requirements for reloading and cleaning.  In
addition, reloading facilities in the U.S. that are located at major
sources are properly regulated under the Organic Liquids Distribution
source category if reloading an organic liquid containing > 5% Table 1
OHAP, as defined in 40 CFR 63 Subpart EEEE.

If EPA chooses to maintain vapor balancing provisions complete with
requirements for reloading / cleaning facilities, then Dow proposes
language that will make the HON, Pharma MACT and PAIP MACT more
flexible. Please note that several MACT standards such as P&R I, P&R IV,
Polyether Polyol MACT, etc. reference the HON for storage tank control
options.  The recommendations outlined in these comments will also
improve the flexibility in these rules.

Discussion

There are virtually no emissions from vapor balancing itself and no
additional emissions from tank cars as compared to unloading without
vapor balancing.  Dow maintains that whether vapor balancing has been
employed or not during an offloading operation, the transport vehicle is
left with a saturated vapor space that contains the same amount of
residual HAP content.

The following illustrations depict normal unloading operations to
further demonstrate the point.  In the illustrations below, a typical
unloading operation is depicted.  Rather than draw identical pictures,
one showing a vapor recovery line and one showing a line to a control
device such as a flare from the top of the storage tank, the lines are
depicted on one drawing to be concise.  Please note that the only
difference between Figure 1 and Figure 2 is that the rail car is full in
the case of Figure 1 and “empty’ in the case of Figure 2.

When using a standard pump to unload a transport vehicle such as a rail
car, the pump will draw down the liquid level in the car until the point
where the pump no longer has sufficient suction head (level of liquid
above the pump suction) to continue pumping.  At this stage in time,
pumping is discontinued leaving a slight level of liquid in the
transport vehicle.  The vapor space above the liquid is saturated with
the chemical being unloaded and remains saturated unless extraordinary
means are taken to evacuate or wash the car.  In fact, even with a
“full” car of liquid, there must be a vapor space and this vapor
space is saturated with the chemical being unloaded.

It does not matter whether vapors from the storage are being returned to
the transport vehicle during the unloading process or whether the vapors
from the storage tank are being directed to a control device.  When
liquid transfer is complete, regardless of how the vapors were handled
during transfer, the transport vehicle is left with the same amount of
residual chemical in the vehicle.  The amount in the vapor space is
equivalent to how much chemical the vapor space can contain at the given
pressure and temperature of the vehicle being unloaded.  Therefore,
there is no technical reason for regulatory differentiation between
unloading with vapor recovery and unloading while directing vapors to a
control device.

Additional certifications required under the current HON language for
the cases discussed above have no technical basis and only serve to
discourage the use of vapor balancing which essentially has no emissions
during the unloading process.  EPA should remove the requirements that
may discourage vapor balancing and actually promote the use of this very
effective technology.

Should EPA decide to keep the vapor balancing provisions, then the
following changes would provide additional flexibility to improve the
usability of these provisions.

(A) The HON should be updated to exclude off-site reloading / cleaning
facilities from additional notification and reporting  obligation.

Section 63.119(g)(7)(ii) of HON requires compliance with §§63.119
through 63.123 of HON.  Section 63.122(c) requires submittal of a
Notification of Compliance Status and 63.122(g) contains periodic
reporting requirements for storage tanks using a closed vent system and
control device.  Therefore, if the reloading / cleaning facility chooses
to use a closed vent system and control device to reduce emissions of
HAP by 95% by weight or greater in accordance with 63.119(g)(6)(i), then
Dow assumes that the reloading / cleaning facility will be subject to
all notification and reporting obligations contained or referenced
within §§63.119 through 63.123.

Both the MON and the OLD MACT were recently amended to exclude the owner
or operator of the reloading / cleaning facility from any notification
or periodic reporting obligation other than the initial certification.

The MON was amended on July 14, 2006 [71 FR 40316].  In the Preamble on
page 40318, EPA states:  The final amendments eliminate reporting
requirements for offsite cleaning and reloading facilities that control
emissions from rail cars and tank trucks that are used in vapor
balancing for storage tanks at the affected source.   Section
63.2470(e)(2)(i) states that “The reporting requirements in 63.2520 do
not apply to the owner or operator of the offsite cleaning or reloading
facility.”

The vapor balancing option was recently added to the OLD MACT as part of
the July 28, 2006 amendments [71 FR 42898].  The OLD MACT excludes the
owner or operator of the offsite reloading / cleaning facility from the
notification requirements and the reporting requirements.  Section
63.2346(a)(4)(vii)(B) states:  “(B) If complying with paragraph
(a)(4)(vi)(A) of this section, comply with the requirements for a closed
vent system and control device as specified in this subpart EEEE. The
notification requirements in §63.2382 and the reporting requirements in
§63.2386 do not apply to the owner or operator of the offsite cleaning
or reloading facility.”

Therefore, Dow requests that EPA waive all notification / reporting
obligations referenced in §63.122 imposed on the facilities reloading
and/or cleaning transport vehicles that have been vapor balanced at
process units subject to HON.

Dow recommends that the following language be added to 63.119(g)(7)(ii)
that states:

“(7) The owner or operator of the facility where the railcar, tank
truck, or barge is reloaded or cleaned must comply with paragraphs
(g)(7)(i) through (iii) of this section.

(i)…

(ii) If complying with paragraph (g)(6)(i) of this section, comply with
the requirements for a closed vent system and control device specified
in §§63.119 through 63.123.  The notification and reporting
requirements in §63.122 do not apply to the owner or operator of the
offsite cleaning or reloading facility.”

(B)  The HON should be updated to allow off-site reloading / cleaning
facilities to comply with other Part 63 standards.

The MON and the OLD MACT also now allow the reloading / cleaning
facility to comply with other applicable Part 63 NESHAPs - and not just
the MON or OLD MACT.

In the final amendments to the MON promulgated on July 14, 2006, EPA
states in the Preamble:  “The final amendments eliminate reporting
requirements for offsite cleaning and reloading facilities that control
emissions from rail cars and tank trucks that are used in vapor
balancing for storage tanks at the affected source. For an offsite
cleaning or reloading facility that is subject to any other NESHAP under
40 CFR part 63, the final amendments specify that compliance with the
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the other rule
demonstrates compliance with the requirements in subpart FFFF of 40 CFR
part 63.  [71 FR 40318]

Section 63.2535(a)(2) of the MON states:  “2) After the compliance
dates specified in §63.2445, at an offsite reloading or cleaning
facility subject to §63.1253(f), as referenced from §63.2470(e),
compliance with the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting provisions
of any other subpart of this part 63 constitutes compliance with the
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting provisions of
§63.1253(f)(7)(ii) or §63.1253(f)(7)(iii). You must identify in your
notification of compliance status report required by §63.2520(d) the
subpart of this part 63 with which the owner or operator of the offsite
reloading or cleaning facility complies.

Section 63.2346(a)(4)(vii)(D) of the OLD MACT states:  “After the
compliance dates specified in §63.2342, at an offsite reloading or
cleaning facility subject to §63.2346(a)(4), compliance with the
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting provisions of any other subpart
of this part 63 that has monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
provisions constitutes compliance with the monitoring, recordkeeping and
reporting provisions of §63.2346(a)(4)(vii)(B) or
§63.2346(a)(4)(vii)(C). You must identify in your notification of
compliance status report required by §63.2382(d) the subpart of this
part 63 with which the owner or operator of the offsite reloading or
cleaning facility complies.”  [Added July 28, 2006, 71 FR 42908]

Therefore, Dow requests that EPA add a similar overlap provision to HON
to allow the reloading / cleaning facility to comply with other Part 63
standards in lieu of the HON or the subpart referencing HON.

Dow recommends that EPA add the following paragraph as a new section in
63.119(g)(7)(iv) that states:

“After the compliance dates specified in §63.100(k) or the
referencing Part 63 NESHAP at a reloading or cleaning facility subject
to §63.119(g)(6)-(g)(7), compliance with the monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting provisions of any other subpart of this part 63 that has
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting provisions constitutes
compliance with the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting provisions
of §63.119(g)(7)(ii) or §63.119(g)(7)(iii).  You must identify in your
notification of compliance status report required by §63.152(b) or
notification of compliance status report of the Part 63 NESHAP
referencing Subpart G, the Part 63 subpart with which the owner or
operator of the reloading or cleaning facility complies.”

(C)  Flexibility should be written into the HON concerning U.S.
Department of Transportation certifications of railcars and tank trucks.

The vapor balancing provisions of HON, Section 63.119(g)(2) requires
that (2) Tank trucks and railcars must have a current certification in
accordance with the U.S. Department of Transportation pressure test
requirements of 49 CFR part 180 for tank trucks and 49 CFR 173.31 for
railcars. Barges must have a current certification of vapor-tightness
through testing in accordance with 40 CFR 63.565.

Section 63.123(i)(1) further requires that:  “

(i) An owner or operator who elects to comply with §63.119(g) shall
keep the records specified in paragraphs (i)(1) through (3) of this
section.

(1) A record of the U.S. Department of Transportation certification
required by §63.119(g)(2).”

The transfer rack provisions of HON have a similar requirement related
to DOT certification that states:

“(e) For each Group 1 transfer rack the owner or operator shall load
organic HAP's into only tank trucks and railcars which:

(1) Have a current certification in accordance with the U. S. Department
of Transportation pressure test requirements of 49 CFR part 180 for tank
trucks and 49 CFR 173.31 for railcars; or

(2) Have been demonstrated to be vapor-tight within the preceding 12
months, as determined by the procedures in §63.128(f) of this subpart.
Vapor-tight means that the truck or railcar tank will sustain a pressure
change of not more than 750 pascals within 5 minutes after it is
pressurized to a minimum of 4,500 pascals.”

However, the transfer rack recordkeeping provisions in 63.130(e) provide
much greater flexibility on the various methods of verification that can
be used.  Section 63.130(e) provides that:

“The owner or operator of a Group 1 transfer rack shall record that
the verification of DOT tank certification or Method 27 testing,
required in §63.126(e) of this subpart, has been performed. Various
methods for the record of verification can be used, such as: A check off
on a log sheet; a list of DOT serial numbers or Method 27 data; or a
position description for gate security, showing that the security guard
will not allow any trucks on site that do not have the appropriate
documentation.

Obtaining copies of the actual U.S. DOT certifications from suppliers
can be very burdensome especially if the rail cars or tank trucks are
not dedicated to a particular facility.  EPA should add flexibility to
the vapor balancing provisions of HON in 63.119(g) to allow various
methods for the record of verification for DOT tank certification.

Dow recommends that amend the language in 63.123(i)(1) as follows:

(i) An owner or operator who elects to comply with §63.119(g) shall
record that the verification of DOT tank certification, required in
§63.119(g)(2) of this subpart, has been performed. Various methods for
the record of verification can be used, such as: A check off on a log
sheet; a list of DOT serial numbers or Method 27 data; or a position
description for gate security, showing that the security guard will not
allow any trucks on site that do not have the appropriate documentation.

(D)  EPA does not have the authority to impose Part 63 NESHAP
requirements on a facility that is not a major source of HAP emissions,
that is not inclusive in a source category being addressed by a
standard, and that is not a facility located in the United States.

Under 40 CFR § 63.119(g) the owner or an operator of the facility where
the railcar or tank truck is reloaded or cleaned after vapor balancing
is subject to the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (“MACT”)
requirements under the HON.  See  40 CFR §§ 63.119(g)(6) and (7).  The
EPA is also imposing MACT requirements for the same type of facilities
under other NESHAPs where vapor balancing is a control option.  Imposing
MACT requirements on these sources is outside of EPA’s authority under
the Clean Air Act (CAA) for three reasons.

First, the majority of these cleaning or reloading facilities are area
sources and EPA doesn’t have the authority to impose MACT requirements
on area sources.  Under §112(d) of the CAA, the EPA has the authority
to impose on new and existing major sources the maximum degree of
reduction which for new sources may not be less stringent than the
emission control that is achieved in practice by the best controlled
similar source.  This type of emission control technology is the MACT.
However, for area sources MACT doesn’t apply.  EPA only has authority
under § 112(d)(5) of the CAA to promulgate emission standards for area
sources which provide for the use of generally available control
technologies (GACT) or management practices.  Applying MACT standards
for area sources is outside of EPA CAA authority.

Second, EPA has the authority only to promulgate emission standards
under § 112(d) of the CAA for sources listed in each category or
subcategory identified under § 112(c).  Further, EPA cannot apply the
emissions standards promulgated for one source category to another
category of sources without performing an additional MACT analysis under
§§ 112(d)(2) and (3).  However, that is exactly what has occurred with
the vapor balancing option under the HON and other NESHAPs.

The EPA under the HON vapor balancing option applies the MACT
requirements promulgated for HON sources to non-HON sources.  The HON
applies to chemical manufacturing process units (CMPUs) that are located
at major sources and manufacture as a primary product a SOCMI chemical.
See 40 CFR § 63.100(b).   Under the vapor balance option, the EPA has
applied the HON standards to cleaning or reloading facilities which
generally don’t manufacture anything much less SOCMI chemicals.
Additionally, there is a category for reloading facilities for which EPA
chose to regulate only major sources, not area sources, for certain HAPs
under the OLD MACT.    EPA, if it wishes to properly regulate area
sources that are cleaning and reloading facilities, must perform a GACT
analysis and propose the rule for public comment.  EPA has done neither.

Third, some of the cleaning and reloading facilities used by Dow are
located outside of the United States.  EPA is imposing under the vapor
balance option, MACT requirements to area sources which are outside of
its regulatory reach.  The CAA provides a program to enhance and protect
the quality of the Nation’s air resources.  While Congress has adopted
and incorporated into the CAA international treaties, such as the
Montreal Protocol, it was never Congress’s intent to extend its
national air program to international borders.  Therefore, EPA has no
authority to require facilities located outside the United States to
certify compliance with a § 112(d) emission standard.

(E)  Reloading / cleaning facilities should not have to amend their
Title V permits to indicate that they are now subject to the vapor
balancing provisions of a Part 63 NESHAP applicable to their customers.

Many reloading / cleaning facilities will not have Title V permits to
amend as they are not major sources of emissions nor or they subject to
U. S. based regulations.  However, should a reloading / cleaning
facility have a Title V permit, it should not be required to amend the
permit to indicate that they are now subject to the vapor balancing
provisions of a Part 63 NESHAP applicable to their customers.  Part 63
standards are applicable to source categories as defined by EPA and
driven by section 112 (d) of the Clean Air Act.  EPA does not have the
authority to regulate sources that are not applicable nor part of the
source category being regulated.

EPA has stated that vapor balancing increases the amount of chemical
left in the transport and therefore it is appropriate that requirements
be added to the reloading / cleaning facilities as the source category
is responsible for increased emissions at the reloading / cleaning
facilities.  As illustrated above in the technical discussion, there are
no additional emissions from the transport vehicle due to using vapor
balancing.  Hence, it is inappropriate for these facilities to be
governed by a part 63 NESHAP and further inappropriate that the
reloading / cleaning facility include any such provisions in their Title
V permit.

The Dow Chemical Company	Page   PAGE  12  of   NUMPAGES  12
        Comments Concerning HON Vapor Balancing Requirements

  DATE \@ "M/d/yyyy"  10/4/2006

Figure 1

Flare

Pump

Rail Car

Storage Tank A

Load Line

Line to Control Device

Vapor Return Line

Rail Car

Storage Tank A

Load Line

Line to Control Device

Vapor Return Line

Flare

Pump

Figure 2


WordPerfect Document Compare Summary Original document: G:\ USER\ SHARE\ ESD\ Combustion Group\ Boilers\ OMB 2004\ Appendix A Rule. wpd Revised document: G:\ USER\ SHARE\ ESD\ Combustion Group\ Boilers\ Promulgation 2004\ Appendix A Rule. wpd Deletions are shown with the following attributes and color: Strikeout, Blue RGB( 0,0,255). Deleted text is shown as full text. Insertions are shown with the following attributes and color: Double Underline, Redline, Red RGB( 255,0,0).

The document was marked with 27 Deletions, 31 Insertions, 0 Moves. Appendix A to Subpart DDDDD   Methodology and Criteria for Demonstrating Eligibility for the Health Based Compliance Alternatives Specified for the Large Solid Fuel Subcategory 1. Purpose/ Introduction This appendix provides the methodology and criteria for demonstrating that your affected source is eligible for the compliance alternative for the HCl emission limit and/ or the total selected metals ( TSM) emission limit. This appendix specifies emissions testing methods that you must use to determine HCl, chlorine, and manganese emissions from the affected units and what parts of the affected source facility must be included in the eligibility demonstration.

You must demonstrate that your affected source is eligible for the health based compliance alternatives using either a look up table analysis ( based on the look up tables included in this appendix) or site specific compliance demonstration performed according to the criteria specified in this appendix. This appendix also specifies how and when you file any eligibility demonstrations for your affected source and how to show that your affected source remains eligible for the health based compliance alternatives in the future.

2. Who is eligible to demonstrate that they qualify for the health based compliance alternatives?

Each new, reconstructed, or existing affected source may demonstrate that they are eligible for the health based compliance alternatives. Section 63.7490 of subpart DDDDD defines the affected source and explains which affected sources are new, existing, or reconstructed.

3. What parts of my facility have to be included in the health based eligibility demonstration?

If you are attempting to determine your eligibility for the compliance alternative for HCl, you must include every appropriate emission point within the affected source facility that emits a significant quantity of one or more of the following HAP, which are referred to as respiratory toxicants, in the eligibility demonstration:

Respiratory Toxicants Pollutant CAS Number Chlorine 7782 50 5 Propylene oxide 75 56 9 Styrene oxide 96 09 3 Acrolein 107 02 8 Titanium tetrachloride 7550 45 0 Triethylamine 121 44 8 2,4 Toluene diisocyanate 26471 62 5 Acrylic acid 79 10 7 Acrylonitrile 107 13 1 Vinyl acetate 108 05 4 Toluene 108 88 3 Methyl isocyanate 624 83 9 n Hexane 110 54 3 Hydrochloric acid 7647 01 0 Maleic anhydride 108 31 6 Methyl bromide 74 83 9 Phthalic anhydride 85 44 9 2 Chloroacetophenone 532 27 4 Cobalt 7440 48 4 Methyl methacrylate 80 62 6 Methylene diphenyl diisocyanate 101 68 8 Naphthalene 91 20 3 Phosgene 75 44 5 1,3 dichloropropene 542 75 6 Propylene dichloride 78 87 5 Ethylene glycol 107 21 1 Chloroprene 126 99 8 Hexamethylene 1,6 diisocyanate 822 06 0 Nickel compounds Antimony compounds Beryllium compounds Hexavalent Chromium compounds If you are attempting to determine your eligibility for the compliance alternative for TSM, you must include every appropriate emission point within the affected source facility that emits a significant quantity of one or more of the following HAP, which are referred to as central nervous system ( CNS) toxicants, in the eligibility demonstration.

Central nervous system ( CNS) toxicants Pollutant CAS Number 1,1,1 Trichloroethane 71 55 6 Ethylene oxide 75 21 8 Styrene 100 42 5 Methyl chloride 74 87 3 Cyanide compounds Selenium compounds Lead compounds Mercury compounds Manganese compounds 4. How do I determine HAP emissions from my affected source?

( a) You must conduct HAP emissions tests for every emission point covered under subpart DDDDD within the affected source facility according to the requirements in paragraphs ( b) through ( f) of this section and the methods specified in Table 1 of this appendix.

If you are attempting to determine your eligibility for the compliance alternative for HCl, you must test the subpart DDDDD units at your facility for both HCl and Cl2.

In addition to the emissions of HCl and Cl2 from your subpart DDDDD units, the eligibility demonstration must address any significant emissions of the respiratory toxicants ( listed in section 4 of this appendix) from all other emission points at your facility. These may be obtained either through emission testing or through the development and documentation of best engineering estimates of maximum emissions for those sources.

If you are attempting to determine your eligibility for the compliance alternative for TSM, you must test the subpart DDDDD units at your facility for manganese. In addition to the emissions of manganese from your subpart DDDDD units, the eligibility demonstration must address any significant emissions of CNS toxicants ( listed in section 4 of this appendix) from all other emission points at your facility. These may be obtained either through emission testing or through the development and documentation of best engineering estimates of maximum emissions for those sources.

( b) Periods when emissions tests must be conducted.

( 1) You must not conduct emissions tests during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction, as specified in § 63.7( e)( 1).

( 2) You must test under worst case operating conditions as defined in this appendix. You must describe your worst case operating conditions in your performance test report for the process and control systems ( if applicable) and explain why the conditions are worst case.

( c) Number of test runs. You must conduct three separate test runs for each test required in this section,

as specified in § 63.7( e)( 3). Each test run must last at least 1 hour.

( d) Sampling locations. Sampling sites must be located at the outlet of the control device and prior to any releases to the atmosphere.

( e) Collection of monitoring data for HAP control devices. During the emissions test, you must collect operating parameter monitoring system data at least every 15 minutes during the entire emissions test and establish the site specific operating requirements in Tables 3 or 4, as appropriate, of subpart DDDDD using data from the monitoring system and the procedures specified in § 63.7530 of subpart DDDDD.

( f) Nondetect data. You may treat emissions of an individual HAP as zero if all of the test runs result in a nondetect measurement and the condition in paragraph ( 1) is met for the manganese test method. Otherwise nondetect data for individual HAP must be treated as one half of the method detection limit.

( 1) For manganese measured using Method 29 in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, you analyze samples using atomic MaxHourlyEmissions ER Hm = × absorption spectroscopy ( AAS).

( g) You must determine the maximum hourly emission rate for each appropriate emission point according to equation 1.

( Eq. 1 )

Where:

MaxHourly = Maximum hourly emissions for Emissions hydrogen chloride, chlorine, or manganese, in units of pounds per hour.

Er = Emission rate ( the 3 run average as calculateddetermined according to Table 1 of this appendix) for hydrogen chloride, chlorine, or manganese, in units of pounds per million Btu of heat input.

Hm = Maximum rated heat input capacity of appropriate emission point, in units of million Btu per hour.

5. What are the criteria for determining if my facility is eligible for the health based compliance alternatives?

( a) Determine the HAP emissions from each appropriate emission point within the affected source facility using the procedures specified in section 4 of this appendix.

( b) Demonstrate that your facility is eligible for either of the health based compliance alternatives using one of the methods described in section 6 of this appendix ( look up table analysis) and section 7 of this appendix ( site specific compliance demonstration).

( c) Your facility is eligible for the health based compliance alternative for HCl if 1 of the following 2 statements is true:

( 1) The calculated HCl equivalent emissionsemission rate for your entire facility is below the appropriate value in the look up table;

( 2) Your site specific compliance demonstration indicates that your total facility maximum respiratory HI is less than or equal to 1.0;

( d) Your facility is eligible for the health based compliance alternative for TSM if 1 of the following 2 statements is true:

( 1) The calculated manganese equivalent emissionsemission rate for your entire facility is below the appropriate value in the look up table;

( 2) Your site specific compliance demonstration indicates that your total facility maximum central nervous system HI is less than or equal to 1.0; 6. How do I conduct a look up table analysis?

You may use look up tables to demonstrate that your facility is eligible for either the compliance alternative for the HCl emission limit or the compliance alternative for TSM emission limit.

( a) HCl health based compliance alternative. To calculate the total toxicity weighted HCl equivalent emission rate for your facility, first calculate the totalfacility emission rate of HCl by summing the maximum hourly HCl emission rates ( as measured or estimated according to section 4 of this appendix) from all sources within the facility property boundary line. Then, similarly, calculate the total facility emission rate for Cl2. Next, calculate the total facility emission rate for each of the respiratory toxicants emitted by your facility by summing the emissions for each respiratory toxicant across all emission points within the facilityproperty boundary line except those covered by subpart DDDDD. Finally, calculate the toxicityweighted emission rate ( expressed in HCl equivalents)

according to equation 2 of this appendix.

ERtw =

( ERi x ( RfCHCl/ RfCi)) Eq. 2 where: ERtw is toxicity weighted emission rate, lb/ hr ERi is the emission rate of HAP i in lbs/ hr RfCi is the reference concentration of HAP i RfCHCl is the reference concentration of HCl ( RfCs and other appropriate dose response values can be found at http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ atw/ toxsource/ summary. html)

The calculated toxicity weighted HCl equivalent emission rate will then be compared to the appropriate allowable toxicity weighted emission rate in Table 2 of this appendix. To determine the correct value from the table, a subpart DDDDD average value should be used for stack height and the minimum distance between any subpart DDDDD stack at the facility and the closestproperty boundary of the nearest residential ( or residentially zoned) area should be used for fencelineproperty boundary distance. If one or both of these values do not match the exact values in the lookup tables then use the next lowest table value. Your facility is eligible to comply with the health based alternative HCl emission limit if your toxicity weighted HCl equivalent emission rate, determined using the methods specified in this appendix, does not exceed the appropriate value in Table 2 of this appendix.

( b) TSM Compliance Alternative. To calculate the total toxicity weighted manganese equivalent emission rate for your facility, first sum the maximum hourly manganese emission rates ( as measured or estimated according to section 4 of this appendix) for all sources within the facilityproperty boundary line. Next, calculate the total facility emission rates for each additional central nervous system toxicants emitted by your facility by summing the maximum hourly emission rates for all emission points within the facility property boundary line except those covered by subpart DDDDD. Finally, calculate the toxicity weighted emission rate expressed in manganese equivalents according to equation 3 of this appendix.

ERtw =

( ERi x ( RfCMn/ RfCi)) Eq. 3 where: ERtw is toxicity weighted emission rate, lb/ hr ERi is the emission rate of HAP i in lbs/ hr RfCi is the reference concentration of HAP i RfCMn is the reference concentration of manganese ( RfCs and other appropriate dose response values can be found at http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ atw/ toxsource/ summary. html)

The calculated toxicity weighted manganese equivalent emission rate will then be compared to the appropriate allowable toxicity weighted emission rate in the Table 3 of this appendix. To determine the correct value from the table, a subpart DDDDD average value should be used for stack height and the minimum distance between any subpart DDDDD stack at the facility and the closestproperty boundary of the nearest residential ( or residentially zoned) area should be used for fencelineproperty boundary distance. If one or both of these values do not match the exact values in the lookup tables then use the next lowest table value.

Your facility may exclude manganese when demonstrating compliance with the TSM emission limit if your toxicityweighted manganese equivalent emission rate, determined using the methods specified in this appendix, does not exceed the appropriate value specified in Table 3 of this appendix.

7. How do I conduct a site specific compliance demonstration?

If you fail to demonstrate that your facility is able to comply with one or both of the alternative health based emission standards using the lookup table approach, you may choose to perform a site specific compliance demonstration for your entire facility. You may use any scientificallyaccepted peer reviewed risk assessment methodology for your site specific compliance demonstration. An example of one approach for performing a site specific compliance demonstration for air toxics can be found in the EPA's " Air Toxics Risk Assessment Reference Library, Volume 2, Site Specific Risk Assessment Technical Resource Document", which may be obtained through the EPA's Air Toxics Website at www. epa. gov/ ttn/ atw.

( a) Your facility is eligible for the HCl alternative compliance option if your site specific compliance demonstration shows that the maximum HI from respiratory HAP, listed in section 3, is less than 1.0.

( b) Your facility is eligible for the TSM alternative compliance option if your site specific compliance demonstration shows that the maximum HI from CNS HAP, listed in section 3, is less than 1.0.

( c) Your site specific compliance demonstration must:

( 1) estimate long term inhalation exposures through the estimation of annual or multi year average ambient concentrations;

( 2) estimate the inhalation exposure and lifetime cancer risk for the individual most exposed to the facility's emissions;

( 3) use site specific, quality assured data wherever possible;

( 4) use health protective default assumptions wherever site specific data are not available, and;

( 5) contain adequate documentation of the data and methods used for the assessment so that it is transparent and can be reproduced by an experienced risk assessor. ( d) Your site specific compliance demonstration need not:

( 1) assume any attenuation of exposure concentrations due to the penetration of outdoor pollutants into indoor exposure areas;

( 2) assume any reaction or deposition of the emitted pollutants during transport from the emission point to the point of exposure;

8. What must my health based eligibility demonstration contain?

( a) Your health based eligibility demonstration must contain, at a minimum, the information specified in paragraphs ( a)( 1) through ( 6) of this section.

( 1) Identification of each appropriate emission point at the affected source facility, including the maximum rated capacity of each appropriate emission point.

( 2) Stack parameters for each appropriate emission point including, but not limited to, the parameters listed in ( a)( 2)( i) through ( iv) below:

( i) Emission release type ( ii) Stack height, stack area, stack gas temperature,

and stack gas exit velocity ( iii) Plot plan showing all emission points, nearby residences, and fenceline.

( iv) Identification of any control devices used to reduce emissions from each appropriate emission point.

( 3) Emission test reports for each pollutant and appropriate emission point which has been tested using the test methods specified in Table 1 of this appendix,

including a description of the process parameters identified as being worst case. For those emissions which are not measured but are included in the assessment, the calculation method used, the inputs and outputs of any estimation developed, and any supporting references should be included in the documentation.

( 4) Identification of the RfC values used in your lookup table analysis or site specific compliance demonstration.

( 5) Calculations used to determine the toxicityweighted emission rates expressed in HCl equivalents or manganese equivalent according to sections 6( a) or ( b) of this appendix, including emission rates of each appropriate respiratory or CNS toxicants. ( Note: this information need only be included if a look up table analysis is performed.)

( 6) Identification of the controlling process factors ( including, but not limited to, fuel type, heat input rate,

type of control devices, process parameters documented as worst case conditions during the emissions testing used for your eligibility demonstration) that will become Federally enforceable permit conditions used to show that your facility remains eligible for the health based compliance alternatives.

( b) If you use the look up table analysis in section 6 of this appendix to demonstrate that your facility is eligible for either health based compliance alternative,

your eligibility demonstration must contain, at a minimum,

the information in paragraphs ( a) and ( b)( 1) through ( 3) of this section.

( 1) Calculations used to determine the average stack height of the subpart DDDDD emission points.

( 2) Identification of the subpart DDDDD emission point with the nearest distance to the closest boundary of the facility used for fenceline distance.

( 3) Comparison of the values in the look up tables ( Tables 2 and 3 of this appendix) to your maximum toxicityweighted HCl equivalent or manganese equivalent hourly emission rates.

( c) If you use a site specific compliance demonstration as described in section 7 of this appendix to demonstrate that your facility is eligible, your eligibility demonstration must contain, at a minimum, the information in paragraphs ( a) and ( c)( 1) through ( 7) of this section:

( 1) Identification of the risk assessment methodology used.

( 2) Documentation of the fate and transport model used.

( 3) Documentation of the fate and transport model inputs, including the information described in paragraphs ( a)( 1) through ( 5) of this section converted to the dimensions required for the model and all of the following that apply: meteorological data; building, land use, and terrain data; receptor locations and population data; and other facility specific parameters input into the model.

( 4) Documentation of the fate and transport model outputs.

( 5) Documentation of any exposure assessment and risk characterization calculations.

( 6) Comparison of the maximum chronic respiratory and/ or CNS HI to the HI limit of 1.0.

9. When do I have to complete and submit my health based eligibility demonstration?

( a) If you have an existing affected source, you must complete and submit your eligibility demonstration to your permitting authority, along with a signed certification that the demonstration is an accurate depiction of your facility,

no later than the date one year prior to the compliance date of subpart DDDDD.

( b) If you have a new or reconstructed affected source that starts up before the effective date of subpart DDDDD,

or an affected source that is an area source that increases its emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a major source of HAP before the effective date of subpart DDDDD, then you must comply with the requirements of subpart DDDDD until your eligibility demonstration is completed and submitted to your permitting authority.

( c) If you have a new or reconstructed affected source that starts up after the effective date for subpart DDDDD,

or an affected source that is an area source that increases its emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a major source of HAP after the effective date for subpart DDDDD, then you must follow the schedule in paragraphs ( 1)

and ( 2) of this section.

( 1) You must complete and submit a preliminary eligibility demonstration based on the information ( e. g.,

equipment types, estimated emission rates, etc.) used to obtain your title V permit. You must base your preliminary eligibility demonstration on the maximum emissions allowed under your title V permit. If the preliminary eligibility demonstration indicates that your affected source facility is eligible for either compliance alternative, then you may start up your new affected source and your new affected source will be considered in compliance with the alternative HCl standard and subject to the compliance requirements in this appendix or, in the case of manganese, your compliance demonstration with the TSM emission limit is based on 7 metals ( excluding manganese).

( 2) You must conduct the emission tests specified in section 4 of this appendix upon initial startup and use the results of these emissions tests to complete and submit your eligibility demonstration within 180 days following your initial startup date. To be eligible, you must meet the criteria in section 11 of this appendix within 18 months following initial startup of your affected source.

10. When do I become eligible for the health based compliance alternatives?

To be eligible for either health based compliance alternative, the parameters that defined your affected source as eligible for the health based compliance alternatives ( including, but not limited to, fuel type, type of control devices, process parameters documented as worstcase conditions during the emissions testing used for your eligibility demonstration) must be incorporated as Federally enforceable limits into your title V permit. If you do not meet these criteria, then your affected source is subject to the applicable emission limits, operating limits, and work practice standards in Subpart DDDDD.

11. How do I ensure that my facility remains eligible for the health based compliance alternatives?

( a) You must update your eligibility demonstration and resubmit it each time you have a process change, such that any of the parameters that defined your affected source changes in a way that could result in increased HAP emissions ( including, but not limited to, fuel type, change in type of control device, changes in process parameters documented as worst case conditions during the emissions testing used for your approved eligibility demonstration).

( b) If you are updating your eligibility demonstration to account for an action in paragraph ( a) of this section,

then you must perform emission testing according to section 4 of this appendix for the subpart DDDDD emission points that may have increased HAP emissions beyond the levels reflected in your previously approved eligibility demonstration due to the process change. You must submit your revised eligibility demonstration to EPA prior to revising your permit to incorporate the process change. If your updated eligibility demonstration indicates that your affected source is no longer eligible for the health based compliance alternatives, then you must comply with the applicable emission limits, operating limits, and compliance requirements in Subpart DDDDD prior to making the process change and revising your permit.

13. What records must I keep?

You must keep records of the information used in developing the eligibility demonstration for your affected source, including all of the information specified in section 8 of this appendix.

14. Definitions. The definitions in § 63.7575 of subpart DDDDD apply to this appendix. Additional definitions applicable for this appendix are as follows:

Appropriate emission point means a process unit that is reasonably expected to emit the HAP of concern ( HCl,

chlorine, manganese, respiratory toxicants, or central nervous system toxicants).

Hazard Index ( HI) means the sum of more than one hazard quotient for multiple substances and/ or multiple exposure pathways.

Hazard Quotient ( HQ) means the ratio of the predicted media concentration of a pollutant to the media concentratation at which no adverse effects are expected.

For inhalation exposures, the HQ is calculated as the air concentration divided by the RfC.

Look up table analysis means a risk screening analysis based on comparing the HAPHAP equivalent emission rate ( or toxicity weighted HAP emission rate) from the affected source to the maximum allowable HAPHAP equivalent emission rates specified in Tables 2 and 3 of this appendix.

Reference Concentration ( RfC) means an estimate ( with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous inhalation exposure to the human population ( including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime. It can be derived from various types of human or animal data, with uncertainty factors generally applied to reflect limitations of the data used.

Worst case operating conditions means operation of an affected unit during emissions testing under the conditions that result in the highest HAP emissions or that result in the emissions stream composition ( including HAP and non HAP)

that is most challenging for the control device if a control device is used. For example, worst case conditions could include operation of an affected unit firing solid fuel likely to produce the most HAP. Table 1 to Appendix B of Subpart DDDDD. Emission Test Methods.

For... You must... Using...

( 1) each subpart DDDDD emission point for which you choose to use a compliance alternative select sampling ports' location and the number of traverse points Method 1 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.

( 2) each emission DDDDD emission point for which you choose to use a compliance alternative determine velocity and volumetric flow rate; Method 2, 2F, or 2G in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60.

( 3) each emission DDDDD emission point for which you choose to use a compliance alternative conduct gas molecular weight analysis Method 3A or 3B in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60.

( 4) each emission DDDDD emission point for which you choose to use a compliance alternative measure moisture content of the stack gas Method 4 in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60.

( 5) each emission DDDDD emission point for which you choose to use the HCl compliance alternative measure the hydrogen chloride and chlorine emission concentrations Method 26 or 26A in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60.

( 6) each emission DDDDD emission point for which you choose to use the TSM compliance alternative measure the manganese emission concentration Method 29 in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60. ( 7) each emission DDDDD emission point for which you choose to use a compliance alternative convert emissions concentration to lb per MMBtu emission rates. Method 19 F factor methodology in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. Table 2 to Appendix A of Subpart DDDDD. Allowable toxicity weighted emission rate expressed in HCl equivalents ( lbs/ hr) fencelinedistance to property boundary ( m)

Stack ht.( m) 50 100 150 200 250 500 1000 1500 2000 3000 5000 5 114.9 114.9 114.9 114.9 114.9 144.3 287.3 373.0 373.0 373.0 373.0 10 188.5 188.5 188.5 188.5 188.5 195.3 328.0 453.5 434.4 434.4 434.4 20 386.1 386.1 386.1 386.1 386.1 386.1 425.4 580.0 602.7 602.7 602.7 30 396.1 396.1 396.1 396.1 396.1 396.1 436.3 596.2 690.6 807.8 816.5 40 408.1 408.1 408.1 408.1 408.1 408.1 448.2 613.3 715.5 832.2 966.0 50 421.4 421.4 421.4 421.4 421.4 421.4 460.6 631.0 746.3 858.2 1002.8 60 435.5 435.5 435.5 435.5 435.5 435.5 473.4 649.0 778.6 885.0 1043.4 70 450.2 450.2 450.2 450.2 450.2 450.2 486.6 667.4 813.8 912.4 1087.4 80 465.5 465.5 465.5 465.5 465.5 465.5 500.0 685.9 849.8 940.9 1134.8 100 497.5 497.5 497.5 497.5 497.5 497.5 527.4 723.6 917.1 1001.2 1241.3 200 677.3 677.3 677.3 677.3 677.3 677.3 682.3 919.8 1167.1 1390.4 1924.6 Table 3 to Appendix A of Subpart DDDDD. Allowable Toxicity Weighted Emission Rate Expressed in Manganese Equivalents ( lbs/ hr)

fencelinedistance to property boundary ( m)

Stack ht.( m) 50 100 150 200 250 500 1000 1500 2000 3000 5000 5 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.36 0.72 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 10 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.49 0.82 1.13 1.09 1.09 1.09 20 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 1.06 1.45 1.51 1.51 1.51 30 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.09 1.49 1.73 2.02 2.04 40 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.12 1.53 1.79 2.08 2.42 50 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.15 1.58 1.87 2.15 2.51 60 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.18 1.62 1.95 2.21 2.61 70 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.22 1.67 2.03 2.28 2.72 80 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.25 1.71 2.12 2.35 2.84 100 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.32 1.81 2.29 2.50 3.10 200 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.71 2.30 2.92 3.48 4.81


"Schwab, Margo"<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 07/13/2007 01:17 PM

To

Marjorie Jones/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, "Johansson, Robert" <EMAIL_ADDRESS> cc

Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lisa Conner/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

RE: Your proposed footnote language on PM expert elicitation

We are fine with these edits.  The footnote is needed because this

paragraph is in Chapter 8, whereas the discussion of the elicitation is

in Chapter 6.  By the same token, the last sentence is needed so that

readers know why you are referring to Experts E and K - as in, why these

experts?  By saying they represent the bounds on the range of the 12 you

are providing that information.  I think that it is clearer to say

succinctly state that one is the weakest and one is the strongest than

to explain the concept of bounding and what is being bounded in a

footnote.

Margo Schwab

Statistical and Science Policy

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

Office of Management and Budget

Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

-----Original Message-----

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 1:00 PM

To: Johansson, Robert

Cc: Schwab, Margo<EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject: Your proposed footnote language on PM expert elicitation

Margo/Rob:

Attached below, pls find Lisa Conner's recommended edits to the language

you asked us to add to the footnote.

Our question about the last sentence is:  why is it needed?

FN #3: As discussed in Chapter 6, one way in which we characterize the

model uncertainty associated with the relationship between particulate

matter and premature mortality was to conduct an expert elicitation.

The elicitation yielded twelve different functions, generated by asking

12 experts a structured set of questions, leading each to articulate a

functional form for the relationship, in a probabilistic estimate of

uncertainty.  Among the twelve experts, Expert K's function

characterizes the weakest relationship between PM and premature

mortality, whereas Expert E's function characterizes the strongest

relationship.

Marjorie C. Jones

Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards Air Benefit and Cost Group,

Mail Code C439-02 Health and Environmental Impacts Division RTP, NC

27711

voice:<PHONE_NUMBER>

fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Shipping/receiving: 4930 Old Page Rd.

Durham, NC 27709


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 25 (Thursday, February 6, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6945-6947]
[FR Doc No: 2020-02370]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-10004-93-OAR]

Alternative Methods for Calculating Off-Cycle Credits Under the
Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Program: Applications From
Ford Motor Company, American Honda Motor Company, and Nissan North
America, Inc.

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is requesting comment on applications from Ford Motor
Company (``Ford''), Honda Motor Company (``Honda''), and Nissan North
America, Inc. (Nissan) for off-cycle carbon dioxide (CO2)
credits under EPA's light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas emissions
standards. ``Off-cycle'' emission reductions can be achieved by
employing technologies that result in real-world benefits, but where
that benefit is not adequately captured on the test procedures used by
manufacturers to demonstrate compliance with emission standards. EPA's
light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas program acknowledges these benefits
by giving automobile manufacturers several options for generating
``off-cycle'' CO2 credits. Under the regulations, a
manufacturer may apply for CO2 credits for off-cycle
technologies that result in off-cycle benefits. In these cases, a
manufacturer must provide EPA with a proposed methodology for
determining the real-world off-cycle benefit. Ford, Honda, and Nissan
have submitted applications that describe methodologies for determining
off-cycle credits from technologies described in their applications.
Pursuant to applicable regulations, EPA is making these off-cycle
credit calculation methodologies available for public comment.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 9, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2020-0015, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. 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, 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roberts French, Environmental
Protection Specialist, Office of Transportation and Air Quality,
Compliance Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000
Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Fax:
(734) 214-4869. Email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    EPA's light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas (GHG) program provides
three pathways by which a manufacturer may accrue off-cycle carbon
dioxide (CO2) credits for those technologies that achieve
CO2 reductions in the real world but where those reductions
are not adequately captured on the test used to determine compliance
with the CO2 standards, and which are not otherwise
reflected in the standards' stringency. The first pathway is a
predetermined list of credit values for specific off-cycle technologies
that may be used beginning in model year 2014.\1\ This pathway allows
manufacturers to use conservative credit values established by EPA for
a wide range of technologies, with minimal data submittal or testing
requirements, if the technologies meet EPA regulatory definitions. In
cases where the off-cycle technology is not on the menu but additional
laboratory testing can demonstrate emission benefits, a second pathway
allows manufacturers to use a broader array of emission tests (known as
``5-cycle'' testing because the methodology uses five different testing
procedures) to demonstrate and justify off-cycle CO2
credits.\2\ The additional emission tests allow emission benefits to be
demonstrated over some elements of real-world driving not adequately
captured by the GHG compliance tests, including high speeds, hard
accelerations, and cold temperatures. These first two methodologies
were completely defined through notice and comment rulemaking and
therefore no additional process is necessary for manufacturers to use
these methods. The third and last pathway allows manufacturers to seek
EPA approval to use an alternative methodology for determining the off-
cycle CO2 credits.\3\ This option is only available if the
benefit of the technology cannot be adequately demonstrated using the
5-cycle methodology. Manufacturers may also use this option to
demonstrate reductions that exceed those available via use of the
predetermined list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 40 CFR 86.1869-12(b).
    \2\ See 40 CFR 86.1869-12(c).
    \3\ See 40 CFR 86.1869-12(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the regulations, a manufacturer seeking to demonstrate off-
cycle credits with an alternative methodology (i.e., under the third
pathway described above) must describe a methodology that meets the
following criteria:
     Use modeling, on-road testing, on-road data collection, or
other approved analytical or engineering methods;
     Be robust, verifiable, and capable of demonstrating the
real-world emissions benefit with strong statistical significance;
     Result in a demonstration of baseline and controlled
emissions over a wide range of driving conditions and number of
vehicles such that issues of data uncertainty are minimized;
     Result in data on a model type basis unless the
manufacturer demonstrates that another basis is appropriate and
adequate.
    Further, the regulations specify the following requirements
regarding an application for off-cycle CO2 credits:

     A manufacturer requesting off-cycle credits must develop a
methodology for demonstrating and determining the benefit of the off-
cycle technology and carry out any necessary testing and analysis
required to support that methodology.
     A manufacturer requesting off-cycle credits must conduct
testing and/or prepare engineering analyses that demonstrate the in-use
durability of the technology for the full useful life of the vehicle.
     The application must contain a detailed description of the
off-cycle technology and how it functions to reduce CO2
emissions under conditions not represented on the compliance tests.
     The application must contain a list of the vehicle
model(s) which will be equipped with the technology.
     The application must contain a detailed description of the
test vehicles selected and an engineering analysis that supports the
selection of those vehicles for testing.
     The application must contain all testing and/or simulation
data required under the regulations, plus any other data the
manufacturer has considered in the analysis.
    Finally, the alternative methodology must be approved by EPA prior
to the manufacturer using it to generate credits. As part of the review
process defined by regulation, the alternative methodology submitted to
EPA for consideration must be made available for public comment.\4\ EPA
will consider public comments as part of its final decision to approve
or deny the request for off-cycle credits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 40 CFR 86.1869-12(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Off-Cycle Credit Applications

A. Valeo Air Conditioning Compressor With Variable Bleed Valve

    Using the alternative methodology approach discussed above, Ford is
applying for credits for an air conditioning compressor manufactured by
Valeo that results in air conditioning efficiency credits beyond those
provided in the regulations. Valeo's air conditioning compressor with
variable bleed valve improves energy consumption compared to the
current generation compressor technology. Current technology is a
compromise of all load conditions. The variable bleed valve improves
the coefficient of performance under low and mid load conditions
decreasing CO2 emissions. The variable bleed valve is
designed to vary the bleed valve diameter, making it smaller to control
internal control gas for improved coefficient of performance, but also
be able to increase for liquid start up conditions. The optimized
valves reduce losses within the A/C compressor increasing efficiency.
The additional variable bleed valve improves the compressor over
previous externally-controlled variable displacement compressor
designs.
    The credits calculated for the Valeo air conditioning compressor
with variable bleed valve would be in addition to the credits of 1.7
grams/mile for variable-displacement A/C compressors already allowed
under EPA regulations.\5\ However, it is important to note that EPA
regulations place a limit on the cumulative credits that can be claimed
for improving the efficiency of A/C systems, and EPA has typically
required that A/C-related technologies for which credits are sought
through the off-cycle program must also comply with these limits. The
rationale for the limits is that the additional fuel consumption of A/C
systems can never be reduced to zero, and the limits established by
regulation reflect the maximum possible reduction in fuel consumption
projected by EPA for a typical A/C system. To date, EPA has required
that these limits, or caps, on credits for A/C efficiency be applied to
A/C efficiency credits granted under the off-cycle credit approval
process. In other words, EPA has required that cumulative A/C
efficiency credits for an A/C system--from the A/C efficiency
regulations and those granted via the off-cycle regulations--comply
with the stated limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 40 CFR 86.1868-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Ford application contains a detailed analysis supporting their
conclusion that the variable bleed valve is complementary to other A/C
efficiency technologies and, as such, should not be limited by the cap.
However, the fundamental approach of the A/C efficiency improvement
program is premised on limits to the overall impact of the A/C system
on CO2 and fuel economy, and EPA therefore established caps
based on a finite level of improvement (i.e. A/C operation will always
use some energy, fuel or electric power) that is achievable. These caps
or limits to improvements in A/C efficiency were considered when
establishing the GHG standards. Had the Agency believed that
improvements beyond the menu were possible, the caps may have been
different and the level of the final GHG standard may have been set to
a different stringency level. While we still believe that the
opportunity for improvements has a theoretical limit, we understand
that technologies may exist outside of the A/C credit menu that go
beyond the current cap limits and that provide real-world
CO2 reductions.
    Since both the total impact of the A/C system on CO2
used to establish the GHG standards was premised on some nominal car
and truck levels not specific to any vehicle, it is difficult to use
the test results on any individual technology to determine what a new
cap or limit should be, since the A/C system operates with interactions
across all A/C components and parts of the system. This is consistent
with Ford's identification of system interactions with the Denso SAS
and Valeo VBV compressors and the A/C menu technologies. The Agency
believes a reasonable balance may be to continue to use the nominal
values for the total impact of the A/C system (11.9 grams per mile for
cars and 17.2 grams per mile for truck), but then use AC17 test results
to establish a higher cap or limit on the additional technologies
beyond the menu technologies. The results of the AC17 test could be
used to establish a ratio of CO2 emissions or energy used
with the technology improvements to total A/C usage without the
technologies. This ratio could then be used with the previously
established values mentioned above for the average car or truck A/C
usage impacts to establish a new, A/C system-specific, cap that
accounts for the actual A/C-related emissions of the system and all the
A/C efficiency technologies. This is a conceptual framework that
manufacturers might use to support off-cycle petitions for A/C system
credits. The Agency requests comment on this or similar approaches that
make use of the AC17 test procedure to demonstrate A/C-related credits
and determine an expanded cap on credits. EPA continues to evaluate
Ford's rationale and will make a final decision after evaluating any
public comments received on this issue.

B. High-Efficiency Alternators

    Using the alternative methodology approach discussed above, Honda
and Nissan are applying for credits for model years 2017 and later for
off-cycle credits using the alternative demonstration methodology
pathway for high-efficiency alternators. Automotive alternators convert
mechanical energy from a combustion engine into electrical energy that
can be used to power a vehicle's electrical systems. Alternators
inherently place a load on the engine, which results in increased fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions. High efficiency alternators
use new technologies to reduce the overall load on the engine yet
continue

to meet the electrical demands of the vehicle systems, resulting in
lower fuel consumption and lower CO2 emissions. Some
comments on EPA's proposed rule for GHG standards for the 2016-2025
model years suggested that EPA provide a credit for high-efficiency
alternators on the pre-defined list in the regulations. While EPA
agreed that high-efficiency alternators can reduce electrical load and
reduce fuel consumption, and that these impacts are not seen on the
emission test procedures because accessories that use electricity are
turned off, EPA noted the difficulty in defining a one-size-fits-all
credit due to lack of data. Since then, however a methodology has been
developed that scales credits based on the efficiency of the
alternator; alternators with efficiency (as measured using an accepted
industry standard procedure) above a baseline value could get credits.
EPA has previously approved credits for high-efficiency alternators
using this methodology for Ford Motor Company, General Motors
Corporation, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, Hyundai, Kia, and Toyota Motor
Company. Details of the testing and analysis can be found in the
manufacturer's applications.

III. EPA Decision Process

    EPA has reviewed the applications for completeness and is now
making the applications available for public review and comment as
required by the regulations. The off-cycle credit applications
submitted by the manufacturer (with confidential business information
redacted) have been placed in the public docket (see ADDRESSES section
above) and on EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/vehicle-and-engine-certification/compliance-information-light-duty-greenhouse-gas-ghg-standards.
    EPA is providing a 30-day comment period on the applications for
off-cycle credits described in this notice, as specified by the
regulations. The manufacturers may submit a written rebuttal of
comments for EPA's consideration, or may revise an application in
response to comments. After reviewing any public comments and any
rebuttal of comments submitted by manufacturers, EPA will make a final
decision regarding the credit requests. EPA will make its decision
available to the public by placing a decision document (or multiple
decision documents) in the docket and on EPA's website at the same
manufacturer-specific pages shown above. While the broad methodologies
used by these manufacturers could potentially be used for other
vehicles and by other manufacturers, the vehicle specific data needed
to demonstrate the off-cycle emissions reductions would likely be
different. In such cases, a new application would be required,
including an opportunity for public comment.

    Dated: January 27, 2020.
Byron J. Bunker,
Director, Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air
Quality, Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2020-02370 Filed 2-5-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 88 (Tuesday, May 9, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21467-21469]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08829]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-9569; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-052-AD;
Amendment 39-18865; AD 2017-09-03]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2013-03-12 for
all Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50 airplanes. AD 2013-03-12
required revising the maintenance program to incorporate certain
maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. This AD
requires revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable,
to incorporate new or revised maintenance requirements and
airworthiness limitations. This AD was prompted by issuance of a
revision to the airplane maintenance manual (AMM) that introduces new
or more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness
limitations. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on
these products.

DATES: This AD is effective June 13, 2017.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of June 13,
2017.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of March
19, 2013 (78 FR 9798, February 12, 2013).

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box
2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet
http://www.dassaultfalcon.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2016-9569.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
9569; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone
800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to supersede AD 2013-03-12, Amendment 39-17347 (78 FR 9798,
February 12, 2013) (``AD 2013-03-12''). AD 2013-03-12 applied to all
Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50 airplanes. The NPRM published
in the Federal Register on January 6, 2017 (82 FR 1621). The NPRM was
prompted by the issuance of a revision to the AMM that introduced new
or more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness
limitations. The NPRM proposed to require revising the maintenance or
inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or revised
maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. We are issuing
this AD to prevent reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2016-0067, dated April 7, 2016 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for all Dassault Aviation
Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    The airworthiness limitations and maintenance requirements for
the Myst[egrave]re Falcon 50 type design are included in DA
Myst[egrave]re Falcon 50 Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) chapter
5-40 and are approved by EASA.
    Failure to implement these limitations or accomplish these tasks
could result in an unsafe condition [reduced structural integrity of
the airplane]. Consequently, compliance with these actions has been
identified as mandatory for continued airworthiness.
    Consequently, EASA issued AD 2011-0246 [which corresponds to FAA
AD 2013-03-12] to require accomplishment of the maintenance tasks,
and implementation of the airworthiness limitations, as specified in
DA Myst[egrave]re Falcon 50 AMM chapter 5-40 Revision 21.
    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, DA issued revision 23 of the
Mystere Falcon 50 AMM chapter 5-40 (hereafter referred to as `the
ALS' in this [EASA] AD), which introduces new and more restrictive
maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness limitations.
    The ALS introduces, among others, the following changes:

--Addition of more detailed data regarding SSIP program,
--Task 53-50-35-220-802 ``Detailed inspection of the frame 35 upper
and lower sections'', replacing Task 53-50-35-220-801,
--Task 55-00-00-270-801 ``Ultrasonic inspection for stress corrosion
in stabilizer hinges'', replacing Task 55-00-00-250-801, and
--Task 78-31-00-250-802 ``Special detailed inspection (fluorescent
penetrant) of thrust reverser door hinge fittings'', replacing Task
78-31-00-250-801.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD, retains the
requirements of EASA AD 2011-0246, which is superseded, and requires
the implementation of the maintenance tasks and airworthiness
limitations, as specified in the ALS.

    This AD requires revising the maintenance or inspection program, as

applicable, to incorporate new or revised maintenance requirements and
airworthiness limitations. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on
the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9569.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for
minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting 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

    We reviewed Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations, of the Erratum
to Dassault Falcon 50/50EX Maintenance Manual, Revision 23, dated July
2015. This service information describes maintenance requirements and/
or airworthiness limitations. This service information is reasonably
available because the interested parties have access to it through
their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 249 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance program revision (retained  1 work-hour x $85 per                 $0             $85         $21,165
 action from AD 2013-03-12).             hour = $85.
Maintenance or inspection program       1 work-hour x $85 per                  0              85          21,165
 revision (new action).                  hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. 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 (AD):

2017-09-03 Dassault Aviation: Amendment 39-18865; Docket No. FAA-
2016-9569; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-052-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective June 13, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    (1) This AD replaces AD 2013-03-12, Amendment 39-17347 (78 FR
9798, February 12, 2013) (``AD 2013-03-12'').
    (2) This AD affects AD 2010-26-05, Amendment 39-16544 (75 FR
79952, December 21, 2010) (``AD 2010-26-05''), and AD 2012-02-18,
Amendment 39-16941 (77 FR 12175, February 29, 2012) (``AD-2012-02-
18'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50
airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial
numbers.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Periodic
inspections.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a manufacturer revision to the airplane
maintenance manual (AMM) that introduces new or more restrictive
maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness limitations. We are
issuing this AD to prevent reduced structural integrity of the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Maintenance Program Revision, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD
2013-03-12, with no changes. Within 30 days after March 19, 2013
(the effective date of AD 2013-03-12): Revise the maintenance
program to incorporate all airworthiness limitations and maintenance
tasks specified in Section 05-40/00,

Airworthiness Limitations, of Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness
Limitations, of the Dassault Falcon 50/50EX Maintenance Manual,
Revision 21, dated June 2011. The initial compliance times for the
tasks are at the applicable times specified in Section 05-40/00,
Airworthiness Limitations, of Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness
Limitations, of the Dassault Falcon 50/50EX Maintenance Manual,
Revision 21, dated June 2011, or within 30 days after March 19,
2013, whichever occurs later.

(h) Retained Provision Regarding Alternative Actions, Intervals, and
Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs), With New
Exception

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD
2013-03-12, with a new exception. Except as required by paragraph
(i) of this AD: After accomplishing the revisions required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g.,
inspections), intervals, and/or CDCCLs may be used other than those
specified in Section 05-40/00, Airworthiness Limitations, of Chapter
5-40, Airworthiness Limitations, of the Dassault Falcon 50/50EX
Maintenance Manual, Revision 21, dated June 2011, unless the
actions, intervals, and/or CDCCLs are approved as an alternative
methods of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures
specified in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD.

(i) New Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision

    Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise the
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate
airworthiness limitations, maintenance tasks, and associated
thresholds and intervals specified in Section 05-40/00,
Airworthiness Limitations, of Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness
Limitations, of the Erratum to Dassault Falcon 50/50EX Maintenance
Manual, Revision 23, dated July 2015. The initial compliance times
for the tasks are at the applicable times specified in Section 05-
40/00, Airworthiness Limitations, of Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness
Limitations, of the Erratum to Dassault Falcon 50/50EX Maintenance
Manual, Revision 23, dated July 2015, or within 30 days after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later. Accomplishing the
revision of the maintenance or inspection program required by this
paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.

(j) New Provision Regarding Alternative Actions and Intervals

    After the maintenance or inspection program has been revised as
required by paragraph (i) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g.,
inspections) or intervals may be used unless the actions and
intervals are approved as an AMOC in accordance with the procedures
specified in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD.

(k) Terminating Action for Certain ADs

    Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) or (i) of
this AD terminates all requirements of AD 2010-26-05 and AD 2012-02-
18 for the Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50 airplanes
specified in those ADs.

(l) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Tom
Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. 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 local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office. The
AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Dassault Aviation's EASA
Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the
approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(m) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0067, dated April 7, 2016,
for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on
the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9569.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez,
Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information may be
emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (3) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (n)(5) and (n)(6) of this AD.

(n) 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.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR as of
June 13, 2017.
    (i) Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations, of the Erratum to
Dassault Falcon 50/50EX Maintenance Manual, Revision 23, dated July
2015.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on
March 19, 2013 (78 FR 9798, February 12, 2013).
    (i) Section 05-40/00, Airworthiness Limitations, of Chapter 5-
40, Airworthiness Limitations, of the Dassault Falcon 50/50EX
Maintenance Manual, Revision 21, dated June 2011.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (5) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000,
South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com.
    (6) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (7) 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, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 24, 2017.
Paul Bernado,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-08829 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 232 (Thursday, December 3, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 75676]
[FR Doc No: 2015-30568]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-3168-015; ER10-2400-005.
    Applicants: ArcLight Energy Marketing, LLC, Blue Canyon Windpower
LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of ArcLight
Energy Marketing, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 11/25/15.
    Accession Number: 20151125-5438.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-3168-016; ER10-2532-005; ER10-2722-005.
    Applicants: ArcLight Energy Marketing, LLC, Crescent Ridge LLC,
Eurus Combine Hills I LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of ArcLight
Energy Marketing, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 11/25/15.
    Accession Number: 20151125-5439.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-404-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Letter Agreement Silver
State Solar Power South, LLC & NEER to be effective 11/26/2015.
    Filed Date: 11/25/15.
    Accession Number: 20151125-5385.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-405-000.
    Applicants: Allegheny Ridge Wind Farm, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Category 2 Seller Notice re
NE to be effective 11/26/2015.
    Filed Date: 11/25/15.
    Accession Number: 20151125-5392.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-406-000.
    Applicants: Aragonne Wind LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Category 2 Seller re SW to
be effective 11/26/2015.
    Filed Date: 11/25/15.
    Accession Number: 20151125-5393.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-407-000.
    Applicants: Dominion Bridgeport Fuel Cell, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing--DBFC Removal of
Affiliate Waiver to be effective 11/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 11/25/15.
    Accession Number: 20151125-5394.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-408-000.
    Applicants: Crescent Ridge LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Category 2 Seller Notice re
NE to be effective 11/26/2015.
    Filed Date: 11/25/15.
    Accession Number: 20151125-5395.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-409-000.
    Applicants: Buena Vista Energy, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Category 2 Seller Notice re
SW to be effective 11/26/2015.
    Filed Date: 11/25/15.
    Accession Number: 20151125-5396.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-410-000.
    Applicants: GSG, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Category 2 Seller Notice re
NE to be effective 11/26/2015.
    Filed Date: 11/25/15.
    Accession Number: 20151125-5397.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-411-000.
    Applicants: Kumeyaay Wind LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Category 2 Seller Notice re
SW to be effective 11/26/2015.
    Filed Date: 11/25/15.
    Accession Number: 20151125-5398.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-412-000.
    Applicants: Mendota Hills, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Category 2 Seller Notice re
NE to be effective 11/26/2015.
    Filed Date: 11/25/15.
    Accession Number: 20151125-5399.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-413-000.
    Applicants: NRG Wholesale Generation LP, Seward Generation, LLC.
    Description: NRG Wholesale Generation LP and Seward Generation, LLC
Joint Request for Waiver and Request for Expedited Consideration.
    Filed Date: 11/25/15.
    Accession Number: 20151125-5424.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or 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: November 27, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-30568 Filed 12-2-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P