NOX, CO, AND NMOC EMISSIONS

TESTING REPORT

North Carolina Air Permit No. 08634T03

UNITS 1 & 2

IREDELL TRANSMISSION, LLC

STATESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA

December, 2008

CONTENTS

Section	Page

  TOC \o "1-3" \h \z    HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216057638"  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY	  PAGEREF _Toc216057638 \h  iv

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216057641"  1. 0 	INTRODUCTION	  PAGEREF _Toc216057641 \h  1

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216057642"  2.0	SOURCE DESCRIPTION	  PAGEREF _Toc216057642 \h  1

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216057643"  3.0	SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES	  PAGEREF _Toc216057643 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216057644"  3.1	STACK GAS VELOCITY AND FLOWRATES (USEPA METHODS 1-2)	  PAGEREF _Toc216057644 \h  3

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216057645"  3.1.1	Sampling Method	  PAGEREF _Toc216057645 \h  3

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216057646"  3.1.2	Method 2 Sampling Equipment	  PAGEREF _Toc216057646 \h  3

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216057647"  3.2	OXYGEN AND CARBON DIOXIDE (USEPA METHODS 3A)	  PAGEREF _Toc216057647 \h  3

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216057648"  3.2.1	Sampling Method	  PAGEREF _Toc216057648 \h  3

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216057649"  3.2.2	O2 / CO2 Sampling Train	  PAGEREF _Toc216057649 \h  3

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216057650"  3.2.3	Sampling Train Calibration	  PAGEREF _Toc216057650 \h  4

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216057651"  3.3	MOISTURE DETERMINATION (USEPA METHOD 4)	  PAGEREF _Toc216057651 \h  4

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216057652"  3.3.1	Sampling Method	  PAGEREF _Toc216057652 \h  4

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216057653"  3.4	OXIDES OF NITROGEN AND CARBON MONOXIDE (USEPA METHODS 7E AND 10)	  PAGEREF _Toc216057653 \h  4

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216057654"  3.4.1	Sampling Method	  PAGEREF _Toc216057654 \h  4

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216057655"  3.4.2	NOx, and CO Sampling Train	  PAGEREF _Toc216057655 \h  4

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216057656"  3.4.3	Sampling Train Calibration	  PAGEREF _Toc216057656 \h  5

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216057657"  3.5	METHANE (USEPA METHOD 18)	  PAGEREF _Toc216057657 \h  5

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216057658"  3.5.1	Sampling Method	  PAGEREF _Toc216057658 \h  5

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216057659"  3.5.2	CH4 Sampling Train	  PAGEREF _Toc216057659 \h  5

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216057660"  3.5.3	Sampling Duration & Frequency	  PAGEREF _Toc216057660 \h  6

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216057661"  3.6	TOTAL HYDROCARBON COMPOUNDS (USEPA METHOD 25A)	  PAGEREF _Toc216057661 \h  6

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216057662"  3.6.1	Sampling Method	  PAGEREF _Toc216057662 \h  6

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216057663"  3.6.2	THC Sampling Train	  PAGEREF _Toc216057663 \h  6

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216057664"  3.6.3	Sampling Train Calibration	  PAGEREF _Toc216057664 \h  6

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216057665"  3.6.4	Sampling Duration & Frequency	  PAGEREF _Toc216057665 \h  6

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216057666"  3.7	QA/QC AND POST TEST PROCEDURES	  PAGEREF _Toc216057666 \h  7

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216057667"  3.7.1	Quality Control and Assurance (O2, CO2, NOx, and CO)	  PAGEREF _Toc216057667 \h  7

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216057668"  3.7.2	Quality Control and Assurance (NMOC)	  PAGEREF _Toc216057668 \h  7

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216057669"  3.8	DATA  REDUCTION	  PAGEREF _Toc216057669 \h  8

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216057670"  4.0	OPERATING PARAMETERS	  PAGEREF _Toc216057670 \h  8

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216057671"  5.0	RESULTS	  PAGEREF _Toc216057671 \h  9

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216057674"  6.0	CERTIFICATION STATEMENT	  PAGEREF _Toc216057674 \h  10

Result Table

Emissions Testing Results: Unit 1

Emissions Testing Results: Unit 2

Figures

Units 1 & 2 Stack Drawing & Exhaust Sampling Point Location

USEPA Method 3A/7E/10 Sampling Train

USEPA Method 25A Sampling Train

USEPA Method 18 Sampling Train

Appendices

A	NCDER Test Plan and Approval Letter

B	Equipment and Analyzer Calibration Data

C	Example Calculations

D	Flowrate and Moisture Data

E	Raw Analyzer Data

F	Operational Data

G	Analytical Data

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

DTE Energy Corporate Services, LLC (DECS), a DTE Energy Company (DTE) performed emissions testing at Iredell Transmission, LLC, located in Statesville, North Carolina.  The fieldwork, performed on November 5, 2008 was conducted to satisfy requirements of the North Carolina Air Permit No. 08634T03 and EPA Subpart JJJJ.  Emissions tests were performed on Units 1 & 2 for oxides of nitrogen (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and non-methane organic compounds (NMOC).

The results of the emissions testing are highlighted below:

Emissions Testing Summary

Iredell Transmission, LLC

Statesville, NC

Units 1 & 2

November 5, 2008

Unit 1	Load

(%)	Oxides of Nitrogen(1)

(ppm)	Carbon Monoxide(1)

(ppm)	NMOC(1)

(ppm)

Test 1	97.0	56.1	410.6	10.5

Test 2	96.7	55.9	403.6	12.2

Test 3	96.9	56.5	410.3	12.2

Average

56.2	408.1	11.6

Unit 2	Load

(%)	Oxides of Nitrogen(1)

(ppm)	Carbon Monoxide(1)

(ppm)	NMOC(1)

(ppm)

Test 1	96.9	54.8	426.6	15.4

Test 2	97.1	55.1	429.4	13.9

Test 3	97.5	54.7	427.6	19.6

Average

54.9	427.9	16.3

Permit Limit(1)

160	540	86

(1) ppm, corrected to 15% O2

1. 0 	INTRODUCTION

DTE Energy Corporate Services, LLC (DECS), a DTE Energy Company (DTE) performed emissions testing at Iredell Transmission, LLC, located in Statesville, North Carolina.  The fieldwork, performed on November 5, 2008, was conducted to satisfy requirements of the North Carolina Air Permit No. 08634T03 and EPA sub-part JJJJ.

Testing was performed pursuant to Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 60, Appendix A (40 CFR §60 App. A), Methods 1-4, 7E, 10, 18, and 25A.

The fieldwork was performed in accordance with EPA Reference Methods and DECS Intent to Test1, which was approved by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDER) on October 27, 20082.  The following DECS personnel participated in the testing program: Mr. Mark Grigereit, Environmental Specialist, and Mr. Fred Meinecke, Environmental Technician.  Mr. Grigereit was the project leader.  Mr. Grigereit has 20 years of source testing experience testing for DTE Energy and private consulting firms and Mr. Meinecke has 15 years of source testing experience testing for DTE Energy and private consulting firms.

Mr. Thomes Durham, Environmental Engineer, DTE Energy Services, LLC, provided the process coordination for the testing program.  Mr. Jeffery Johnson, DTE Biomass Energy, provided on-site operation of the units.  Mr. Gregg O’Neal with the Technical Services Section of the NCDER reviewed the Test Plan.  Mr. Jim Westmoreland, NCDER-Mooresville Regional Office, observed the testing.

2.0	SOURCE DESCRIPTION

The Iredell Transmission, LLC power generating facility, located at 356 Twin Oaks Road, Statesville NC is a power generating facility.  The facility consists of two (2) landfill gas-fired internal combustion engines with associated electrical generators.

The systems are Caterpillar G3520C – 1200 RPM 1600 kW Gas Generator Sets.  The purpose of the source is to utilize land fill gas from the Iredell County Landfill to produce energy to be sent to the electrical grid.

See Figure 1 for diagrams of the units’ sampling locations and stack dimensions.

3.0	SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES

DTE Energy obtained emissions measurements in accordance with procedures specified in the USEPA Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources.  The sampling and analytical methods used in the testing program are indicated in the table below

Sampling Method	Parameter	Analysis

USEPA Methods 1-2	Exhaust Gas Flow rates

Field data analysis and reduction

USEPA Method 3A	Oxygen & CO2

Instrumental Analyzer Method

USEPA Method 4	Moisture content

Field data analysis and reduction

USEPA Method 7E	Oxides of Nitrogen	Chemilumenecent

Instrumental Analyzer Method

USEPA Method 10	Carbon Monoxide	NDIR

Instrumental Analyzer Method

USEPA Method 18	Gaseous Organic Compounds (Methane)	GC

Analytical Method

™ Bag Sample)

USEPA Method 25A	Total Hydrocarbon Compounds	FID

Instrumental Analyzer Method

STACK GAS VELOCITY AND FLOWRATES (USEPA METHODS 1-2)

3.1.1	Sampling Method

Stack gas velocity traverses were conducted in accordance with the procedures outlined in USEPA Method 1, “Sample and Velocity Traverses for Stationary Sources,” and Method 2, “Determination of Stack Gas Velocity and Volumetric Flowrate.”  Two (2) sampling ports were utilized on each Unit’s exhaust duct, sampling at six (6) points per port for a total of twelve (12) points.  Sampling was conducted in conjunction with the gaseous emissions testing.

A Cyclonic flow check was performed prior to performing the flowrate testing.  Testing in the stacks demonstrated that no cyclonic flow is present.  Data has been included in Appendix E demonstrating the absence of cyclonic flow.

3.1.2	Method 2 Sampling Equipment

DTE Energy’s EPA Method 2 sampling equipment consisted of a 0-10” incline manometer, S-type pitot tube (Cp = 0.84) and a type-K calibrated thermocouple.

OXYGEN AND CARBON DIOXIDE (USEPA METHODS 3A)

3.2.1	Sampling Method

Oxygen (O2) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions were evaluated using USEPA Method 3A, “Gas Analysis for Carbon Dioxide, Oxygen, Excess Air, and Dry Molecular Weight (Instrumental Analyzer Method)”.   The analyzers utilize paramagnetic sensors.

3.2.2	O2 / CO2 Sampling Train

™ sampling line, (3) a Universal( gas conditioner with particulate filter, (4) a flexible unheated Teflon™ sampling line, (5) a Servomax 1400 O2/CO2 gas analyzer, (6) appropriate USEPA Protocol 1 calibration gases, and (7) a ThermoWestronics( Data Acquisition System.

Refer to Figure 2 for a schematic of the O2, CO2, NOx, and CO sampling train.

3.2.3	Sampling Train Calibration

The O2 and CO2 analyzers were calibrated according to procedures outlined in USEPA Method 7E.  Zero, span, and mid range calibration gases were introduced directly into the analyzer to determine the instruments linearity.  A zero and mid range span gas for each pollutant was then introduced through the entire sampling system to determine sampling system bias for each analyzer at the completion of each test.

MOISTURE DETERMINATION (USEPA METHOD 4)

3.3.1	Sampling Method

	Determination of the moisture content at the outlet each unit was performed using the method described in USEPA Method 4, “Determination of Moisture Content in Stack Gases”.  The moisture was collected in glass impingers, and the percentage of water was then derived from calculations outlined in USEPA Method 4.  A 30-minute moisture sample was collected during each test run.

OXIDES OF NITROGEN AND CARBON MONOXIDE (USEPA METHODS 7E AND 10)

3.4.1	Sampling Method

Oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions were evaluated using USEPA Method 7E, “Determination of Oxides of Nitrogen Emissions from Stationary Sources”.  The NOx analyzer utilizes a Chemilumenecent detector.  Carbon monoxide (CO) emissions were evaluated using USEPA Method 10, “Determination of Carbon Monoxide Emissions from Stationary Sources”.  The CO analyzer utilizes a NDIR detector.

3.4.2	NOx, and CO Sampling Train

The EPA Methods 7E and 10 sampling system consisted of (1) a single-point sampling probe (placed in the center of the stack), (2) a heated Teflon™ sampling line, (3) a Universal( gas conditioner with particulate filter, (4) a flexible unheated Teflon™ sampling line, (5) a TECO 42i Chemilumenecent NO/NOx gas analyzer, and TECO 48i NDIR CO gas analyzer, (6) appropriate

USEPA Protocol 1 calibration gases, and (7) a ThermoWestronics( Data Acquisition System.

Refer to Figure 2 for a schematic of the O2, CO2, NOx, and CO sampling train.

3.4.3	Sampling Train Calibration

The Sampling train was calibrated according to procedures outlined in USEPA Method 7E.  Zero, span, and mid range calibration gases were introduced directly into the analyzer to determine the instruments linearity.  A zero and mid range span gas for each pollutant was then introduced through the entire sampling system to determine sampling system bias for each analyzer at the completion of each test.

METHANE (USEPA METHOD 18)

3.5.1	Sampling Method

™ Bag Sampling)”.  This method involves the collection of exhaust gas in a Tedlar™ bag, which is then analyzed at an off-site laboratory by gas chromatography (GC). According to the test plan submitted to the NCDER, DTE was originally going to test for non-methane organic compounds (NMOC), utilizing a methane/non-methane FID.  Following discussions with the Agency, Method 18 was substituted as the method performed to collect the CH4.  This modification to the test plan was agreed upon with the NCDER prior to the initiation of field activities.

3.5.2	CH4 Sampling Train

™ sampling line (kept to the minimum length required), (3) a sampling lung with 15-liter Tedlar™ bag, and (4) a vacuum pump with regulator.

Refer to Figure 4 for a schematic of the Method 18 sampling train.

3.5.3	Sampling Duration & Frequency

	Methane samples were collected simultaneously with the other gaseous pollutants measured.  The vacuum pump flowrate was set to allow for a constant rate sample, collected for the duration of each test run. Analytical results for M18 are located in Appendix G.

TOTAL HYDROCARBON COMPOUNDS (USEPA METHOD 25A)

3.6.1	Sampling Method

Total hydrocarbon compound (THC) emissions were evaluated using USEPA Method 25A, “Determination of Total Hydrocarbon Emissions from Stationary Sources (Instrumental Analyzer Method)”.  The THC analyzer utilizes a flame ionization detector (FID).  The FID measures total hydrocarbon compounds.

3.6.2	THC Sampling Train

™ sampling line, (3) a JUM 109A( THC gas analyzer, (4) appropriate certified calibration gases, and (5) a ThermoWestronics( Data Acquisition System.

Refer to Figure 3 for a schematic of the THC sampling train.

3.6.3	Sampling Train Calibration

In accordance with USEPA Method 25A, a 4-point (zero, low, mid, and high) calibration check was performed on the THC analyzer.  The analyzer was calibrated in the 0-1,600 ppm range.  Calibration drift checks were performed at the completion of each run.

3.6.4	Sampling Duration & Frequency

The THC gaseous emission testing was performed simultaneously with the O2, CO2, NOx, and CO sampling.  Data was recorded at 4-second intervals and average over 1-minute periods.

3.7	QA/QC AND POST TEST PROCEDURES

3.7.1	Quality Control and Assurance (O2, CO2, NOx, and CO)

All sampling and analytical equipment was calibrated according to the guidelines referenced in Methods 3A, 7E, and 10.  Calibration gases were EPA Protocol 1 gases and the concentrations were within the acceptable ranges (40-60% mid range and span) specified in Methods 3A and 7E.  Calibration gas certification sheets are located in Appendix B.

DTE performed converter efficiency testing by directly challenging the NOx analyzer with a nitrogen dioxide (NO2) calibration gas of 51.5 ppm.  Results from the converter efficiency test demonstrated that the analyzer met the requirements of Method 7E(Eq. 1).

Eq. 1

3.7.2	Quality Control and Assurance (NMOC)

The THC sampling equipment was calibrated with propane (C3H8) according to the guidelines referenced in Methods 25A.  Calibration gases were EPA Protocol 1 gases and the concentrations were within the acceptable ranges (25-35% low range, 45-55% mid range and 80-100 span).

An analyzer response factor (RF) for CH4 of 3 was applied to the CH4 concentration in the exhaust gas, as determined by Method 18.  The CH4 (as methane) is converted to CH4 (as propane) in order to subtract the CH4 from the THC measured in the field(Eq. 2).

Eq. 2

Calibration gas certification sheets are located in Appendix E.

3.8	DATA  REDUCTION

Data collected during the emissions testing was reported according to emissions limits specified in the facility’s Air Permit.  NOx, CO, and NMOC emissions are reported as parts per million, corrected to 15% O2.

Emissions calculations are based on calculations located in USEPA Method 1-4, 7E, 10, 18, and 25A.  The results are located in the Results Tables.

4.0	OPERATING PARAMETERS

The test program included the collection of generator load (kW), engine speed (RPM), inlet manifold air pressure (psi), fuel upper heating value (BTU), fuel flow (scfm) and generator operating hours (kW-hour).

	Operational data are located in Appendix F.

5.0	RESULTS

The Results of the testing indicate that Units 1 & 2 are in compliance with North Carolina Air Permit No. 08634T03  and EPA sub-part JJJJ.

.

Emissions Testing Summary

Iredell Transmission, LLC

Statesville, NC

Units 1 & 2

November 5, 2008

Unit 1	Load

(%)	Oxides of Nitrogen(1)

(ppm)	Carbon Monoxide(1)

(ppm)	NMOC(1)

(ppm)

Test 1	97.0	56.1	410.6	10.5

Test 2	96.7	55.9	403.6	12.2

Test 3	96.9	56.5	410.3	12.2

Average

56.2	408.1	11.6

Unit 2	Load

(%)	Oxides of Nitrogen(1)

(ppm)	Carbon Monoxide(1)

(ppm)	NMOC(1)

(ppm)

Test 1	96.9	54.8	426.6	15.4

Test 2	97.1	55.1	429.4	13.9

Test 3	97.5	54.7	427.6	19.6

Average

54.9	427.9	16.3

Permit Limit(1)

160	540	86

(1) ppm, corrected to 15% O2

6.0	CERTIFICATION STATEMENT

“I certify that I believe the information provided in this document is true, accurate, and complete.  Results of testing are based on the good faith application of sound professional judgment, using techniques, factors, or standards approved by the Local, State, or Federal Governing body, or generally accepted in the trade.”

_________________________________

Mark R. Grigereit, QSTI

This report prepared by:

	  Mr. Mark R. Grigereit, QSTI

	  Specialist, Stationary Source & Ambient Monitoring

	  Environmental Management and Resources

	  DTE Energy Corporate Services, LLC

This report reviewed by:

	  Mr. Mark Mullen

	  Supervisor, Stationary Source & Ambient Monitoring

	  Environmental Management and Resources

	  DTE Energy Corporate Services, LLC

Results tableS

FIGURES

APPENDIX a

NCDER TEST PLAN AND

APPROVAL LETTER

APPENDIX B

EQUIpmENT AND analyzer calibration data

APPENDIX C

EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS

ExAMPLE CALCULATIONS

Note: answers obtained by sample calculations may deviate from that presented within the report because of rounding differences.

UNIT 1 – RUN 2

USEPA Method 4

Moisture Content

Where:	Vwc = volume of water vapor condensed in impingers at standard conditions (ft3)

		K1 = 0.04707 ft3/mL water

		V1 = volume of water collected in impingers (mL)

Vwsg = volume of water vapor collected in silica gel at standard conditions (ft3)

K2 = 0.04715 ft3/g water

V2 = mass of water collected by silica gel (g)

For example, 72 g of water were condensed in the impingers and the silica gel.  The volume of water collected in each section of the sampling train, in ft3, was calculated as follows: (Note: Impingers and silica gel were weighed)

The total volume of water collected was 3.3948 ft3.

Gas Volume Standardization

Where:	Vstd = volume of gas sampled at standard conditions

Vm = volume of gas measured by dry gas meter (ft3)

		Ym = dry gas meter correction factor (dimensionless)

		Tstd = standard temperature (oR = 460 + oF)

		Pstd = standard pressure (“Hg)

		Pb = barometric pressure (“Hg)

		(H = average orifice differential pressure (“H2O)

		Tm = average meter temperature (oR)

For example, the volume of gas measured at the dry gas meter for of the moisture sampling was 22.990 ft3.  The dry gas meter correction factor was 0.972.  Standard temperature and pressure are 530oR and 29.92”Hg, respectively.  The barometric pressure at the time of testing was 29.29”Hg.  The average orifice differential, and meter temperature were 1.70 and 532.72oR, respectively.  The volume of gas sampled was corrected to standard conditions as follows:

Moisture Fraction

Where:	Bws = exhaust gas moisture content

For example, from previously calculated values, the exhaust gas moisture fraction was calculated as follows:

Absolute Stack Gas Temperature, Ts (oR)

Where:	ts = Measured stack gas temperature (oF)

For example, the average stack temperature was 944.8oF.  The average temperature in degrees Rankine is therefore 944.8+ 460 = 1,404.8oR.

Absolute Stack Gas Pressure, Ps (in. Hg)

Where:	Pbar = Barometric pressure at test site (in. Hg)

		Pstat = Stack static pressure (in. Hg)

For example, the barometric and stack static pressures were 29.29”Hg, and –0.76” H2O, respectively.  The absolute stack pressure is then:

Stack Gas Molecular Weight, Dry Basis (lb/lb mole)

For example, the average O2 content of the exhaust gas stream was 7.6%.  The CO2 content of the gas stream was 11.9%.  The CO content was assumed to be negligible, and the N2 content is assumed to make up the balance of the gas content (i.e. 100-7.6-11.9-0.0-0.0 = 80.5%).  The dry stack gas molecular weight is therefore:

Stack Gas Molecular Weight, Wet Basis (lb/lb mole)

The stack gas moisture content for at the stack exhaust was 13.55%.  The wet stack gas molecular weight is then:

Stack Gas Velocity, Vs (fpm)

Cp = Pitot tube coefficient, dimensionless

(P = The average square root of the velocity head of stack gas (in. H2O)

Ms = Molecular weight of the stack gas, wet basis (lb/lb mole)

For example, flowrate testing at the boiler stack exhaust, the average square root of the velocity head of the stack gas was 1.7148”H2O.  Using values already calculated, the average stack gas velocity was calculated as follows:

Average Stack Gas Volumetric Flowrate, Qs (cfm)

Where:	Vs = Stack gas velocity (fpm)

For example, the exhaust stack has a 16” diameter.  The cross-sectional area of the stack is calculated as follows:

The stack gas volumetric flowrate was then calculated as follows:

Standard Stack Gas Volumetric Flowrate, Qstd (scfm)

Ps = Absolute stack gas pressure (in. Hg)

For example, the standard stack gas volumetric flowrate was calculated as follows:

Dry Standard Stack Gas Volumetric Flowrate, Qstd,dry (dscfm)

For example, the dry standard stack gas volumetric flowrate was calculated as follows:

USEPA Methods 3A, 7E, And 10

Analyzer Drift Correction

 = Effluent gas concentration, dry basis (ppm).

 = Average gas concentration indicated by gas analyzer, dry basis (ppm).

3

-

.

/

0

1

2

3

4

5

Q

R

S

T

Y

Z

u

v

w

‘

’

*’

“

”

•

–

—

˜

™

µ

¶

·

¸

»

¼

è

é

ê

-3

—

%

“

ë

!

"

#

$

%

&

'

C

D

E

F

I

+I

J

`

p

q

r

s

Ž

‘

’

“

”

•

±

²

³

´

¹

º

É

Ê

Ë

å

æ

ç

è

é

ê

ë

ì

í

$

hÊ~

ᘉ쵨뤺㸀*ᘆ쵨뤺

hÊ~

hÊ~

h

hÊ~

hÊ~

&

hÊ~

hÊ~

hÊ~

hÊx

hÊ~

hÊ~

̝ͪoᔀ餇ᘀ쩨൸䔀嗿Ĉ䩞̥楪텙ੌĈ栖磊

萏ː葞ː摧璲ࠀ-萏ː葞ː摧罴܀␃愃̤摧磊

$

 hÊ~

j

 = Average of initial and final system calibration bias check responses for the zero gas (ppm).

 = Actual concentration of the upscale calibration gas (ppm).

 = Average of initial and final system calibration bias check responses for the upscale calibration gas (ppm).

For example, the average of the initial and final NOx outlet zero gas calibration checks was 2.1ppmv.  The average of the initial and final NOx midscale gas calibration checks was 190.85 ppmv.  The actual concentration was 191.8 ppmv.  The average outlet NOx concentration indicated by the gas analyzer was 126.2 ppmv.  The actual stack gas NOx concentration, corrected for analyzer drift, is then:

Concentration Standardization to 15% Oxygen

Where:	%O2 = measured exhaust gas oxygen content (%)

		C'NOx = NOx concentration (ppmv)

For example, the measured exhaust gas oxygen content for Run 2 was 7.6%.  The NOx concentration (C’NOx) was standardized to 15% oxygen as follows:

USEPA Method 18 & 25A

For example, the measured concentration of methane (per Method 18) was 1,326 ppm (as CH4).  The results must be converted to parts per million (as C3H8).

Therefore, the non-methane organic compounds (NMOC) are determined as follows:

The NMOC concentration is then corrected for 15% O2 following the same procedure used for Methods 7E and 10.

APPENDIX D

Flowrate and moisture data

APPENDIX e

Raw Analyzer Data

APPENDIX F

operational data

APPENDIX g

analytical Data

1 NCDER, Test Plan, Submitted September 22, 2008.  (Attached-Appendix A)

2 NCDER, Approval Letter. (Attached-Appendix A)

 PAGE

  PAGE  iv

	 PAGE   10


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 28 (Monday, February 11, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 3158]
[FR Doc No: 2019-01917]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9989-25-Region 6]

Notice of Proposed Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order
on Consent for Share of Reimbursement for Removal Action for the CES
Environmental Services, Inc. Site, Houston, Texas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed settlement; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (``CERCLA''), notice
is hereby given that the Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA''), has
entered into a proposed settlement, embodied in an Administrative
Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent for Removal Action
(``Settlement Agreement''), with 144 separate parties (see list below).
Under the Settlement Agreement, the settling parties will pay EPA
$4,577,099.64. The settling parties are paying their share of the costs
incurred for a removal action and cleanup involving the removal of
waste tanks, containers, totes, etc. and associated chemicals and
contaminated soil from an abandoned chemical facility located in
Houston, Texas. Total costs of the removal action were approximately
$4.6 million.
    For thirty (30) days beginning from the date of publication of this
notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to this
notice and will receive written comments relating to the settlement.
The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or
withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose
facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is
inappropriate, improper or inadequate. The Agency's response to any
comments received will be available for public inspection at 1445 Ross
Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before March 13, 2019.

ADDRESSES: The Settlement Agreement is available for public inspection
at 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 or by calling 214-665-
6529. Comments should reference the CES Environmental Services, Inc.
Superfund Site, located in the city of Houston, Harris County, Texas
and be addressed to David Eppler, Enforcement Officer, Superfund
Division (6SF-TE), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733; or Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and
should reference EPA CERCLA Docket Number 06-03-18. EPA's response to
any comments received will be available for public inspection at the
same address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Salinas, Assistant Regional
Counsel, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733; or call (214) 665-
8063.

    Dated: December 20, 2018.
Anne L. Idsal,
Regional Administrator (6RA).
[FR Doc. 2019-01917 Filed 2-8-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 198 (Friday, October 12, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62292-62293]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25083]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67995; File No. SR-BX-2012-066]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Inbound Routing From an Affiliated Exchange

October 5, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on September 28, 2012, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to continue to accept inbound orders routed
by Nasdaq Execution Services LLC (``NES'') from the NASDAQ OMX PSX
facility (``PSX'') of NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``PHLX'') (with the
attendant obligations and conditions), as described further below, for
an additional six month pilot period. The text of the proposed rule
change is available at http://nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com, at BX's
principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    Currently, NES is the approved outbound routing facility of PSX,
providing outbound routing to other market centers.\3\ The Exchange and
PSX have previously adopted rules to permit BX to receive inbound
routes of certain orders by NES in its capacity as an order routing
facility of PSX.\4\ The Exchange specifically has adopted a rule to
prevent potential informational advantages resulting from the
affiliation between BX and NES, as related to NES's authority to route
certain orders from PSX to BX.\5\ NES's authority to

route these orders to BX is subject to a pilot period ending September
30, 2012.\6\ The Exchange hereby seeks to extend the previously
approved pilot period (with the attendant obligations and conditions)
for an additional six months, through March 30, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ PHLX Rule 3315(b).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 65514 (October 7,
2011), 76 FR 63969 (October 14, 2011) (SR-BX-2011-066); and 65469
(October 3, 2011), 76 FR 62486 (October 7, 2011) (SR-Phlx-2011-108).
    \5\ See BX Rule 2140(c).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65514 (October 7,
2011), 76 FR 63969 (October 14, 2011) (SR-BX-2011-066).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\7\ in general, and with
Sections 6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in particular, in that the proposal is
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest, because the
proposed rule change will allow the Exchange to continue to receive
inbound routes of orders from NES, acting in its capacity as a facility
of PHLX, in a manner consistent with prior approvals and established
protections. The Exchange believes that extending the previously
approved pilot period for six months is a sufficient length of time to
permit both the Exchange and the Commission to assess the impact of the
Exchange's authority to permit it to receive inbound routes of certain
orders via NES (including the attendant obligations and conditions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest, does not
impose any significant burden on competition, and, by its terms, does
not become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed,
or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay. The Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest because such waiver would allow the pilot period to be
extended without undue delay through March 30, 2013.\11\ Accordingly,
the Commission hereby grants the Exchange's request and designates the
proposal operative upon filing.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See SR-BX-2012-066, Item 7.
    \12\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
include File Number SR-BX-2012-066 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2012-066. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2012-066 and should be
submitted on or before November 2, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-25083 Filed 10-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: May 31, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 104)]
[Notices]
[Page 30366-30367]
[DOCID:fr31my07-61]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL07-63-000]

Strategic Transmission, LLC, Complainant v. PJM Interconnection,
LLC, Respondent; Notice of Complaint Requesting Fast Track Processing

May 22, 2007.
    Take notice that on May 21, 2007, Strategic Transmission, LLC
(Strategic), pursuant to sections 206 and 306 of the Federal Power Act,
16 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  824(e) and 825 (e), and sections 206 and 212 of
the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures, 18 CFR Sec. Sec.
385.206 and 385.212, filed a complaint requesting fast track processing
against PJM Interconnection, LLC (PJM) alleging that, in contravention
of PJM's Open Access Transmission Tariff and the Federal Power Act, PJM
has failed to identify on a timely basis the Incremental Capacity
Transfer Rights for merchant transmission project S16 (advancement of
the upgrade of the Gilbert-Glen Gardner 230 kv circuit).
    Strategic certified that a copy of the complaint has been served on
PJM.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on May 29, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-10452 Filed 5-30-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 17, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70101-70102]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28458]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0490; Directorate Identifier 2010-SW-037-AD;
Amendment 39-16514; AD 2010-23-24]
RIN 2120-AA64

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

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

DATES: Effective December 22, 2010.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of December 22, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may get the service information identified in this AD
from Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Attn: Manager, Commercial Technical
Support, mailstop s581a, 6900 Main Street, Stratford, CT, telephone
(203) 383-4866, e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or at http://www.sikorsky.com.
    Examining the Docket: You may examine the docket that contains this
AD, any comments, and other information on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Docket Operations office, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Schwetz, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax
(781) 238-7170.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend 14 CFR part 39 to
include an AD for the specified model helicopters was published in the
Federal Register on May 13, 2010 (75 FR 26888). That action proposed to
require a UT inspection of the gear for a crack and replacing any
cracked gear before further flight. The proposal was prompted by three
gear crack incidents, one of which resulted in the tail rotor
separating from the helicopter. The tail gearbox on the helicopter
where the tail rotor separated from the helicopter experienced a
fracture of the output shaft spline that drives the tail rotor blades.
An investigation into the cause of the cracks is ongoing. The unsafe
condition described previously, if not corrected, could result in a
tail rotor separating, loss of tail rotor control, and subsequent loss
of control of the helicopter.
    We have reviewed Sikorsky Alert Service Bulletin No. 70-06-28A,
Revision A, dated May 21, 2009 (ASB), which refers to procedures for a
UT inspection of the gear in accordance with Special Service
Instructions (SSI) No. 70-121A or latest revision.
    This unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other
helicopters of the same type design. Therefore, this AD requires a UT
inspection of the gear, part number 70358-06620, for a crack. If a
crack is found, this AD requires replacing the gear with an airworthy
gear before further flight. The actions are required to be to be done
by following the SSI described previously.
    We provided the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the proposal or on the
determination of the cost to the public. Therefore, we are adopting the
action as proposed with only minor non-substantive changes.
    We estimate that this AD affects 5 helicopters in the U.S.
registry. The actions will take about 4 work hours per helicopter at an
average labor rate of $85 per work hour. Required parts cost about
$20,000 for each gear. Based on these figures, we estimate the total
cost impact of this AD on U.S. operators to be $101,700, assuming the
gear is replaced on the entire fleet.

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this 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 the regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this AD. See the AD docket to examine the economic evaluation.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (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. FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2010-23-24 Sikorsky Aircraft Corp.: Amendment 39-16514; Docket No.
FAA-2010-0490; Directorate Identifier 2010-SW-037-AD.

    Applicability: Model S-70A and S-70C helicopters with a tail
gearbox output bevel gear (gear), part number 70358-06620,
certificated in any category.
    Compliance: Required as indicated.
    To prevent a tail rotor separating, loss of tail rotor control,
and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter, do the following:
    (a) Within 500 hours time-in-service (TIS), unless accomplished
previously, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 500 hours TIS,
remove the tail rotor servo control and pitch beam shaft, and using
a Level II Ultrasonic Testing Technician or equivalent, ultransonic
inspect the gear for a crack. Ultrasonic inspect the gear by
following paragraphs A.(5)a. through A(5)n. of Special Service
Instructions No. 70-121A, Revision A, dated May 21, 2009. If you
find a crack, before further flight, replace the gear with an
airworthy gear.
    (b) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Contact the Manager, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, FAA,
Attn: Michael Schwetz, Aviation Safety Engineer, Boston Aircraft
Certification Office, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA
01803, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for information
about previously approved alternative methods of compliance.
    (c) The Joint Aircraft System/Component (JASC) Code is 6520:
Tail rotor gearbox.
    (d) The inspections shall be done in accordance with the
specified portions of Sikorsky Special Service Instructions No. 70-
121A, Revision A, dated May 21, 2009. The Director of the Federal
Register approved this incorporation by reference in accordance with
5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from
Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Attn: Manager, Commercial Technical
Support, mailstop s581a, 6900 Main Street, Stratford, CT, telephone
(203) 383-4866, e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or at http://www.sikorsky.com. Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663,
Fort Worth, Texas or 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/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    (e) This amendment becomes effective on December 22, 2010.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on November 1, 2010.
Kim Smith,
Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-28458 Filed 11-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 220 (Tuesday, November 15, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 80161]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27391]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Second RTCA SC-236 Joint Plenary With EUROCAE WG-96

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

ACTION: Second RTCA SC-236 Joint Plenary with EUROCAE WG-96.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of Second RTCA SC-236 Joint Plenary with EUROCAE WG-96.

DATES: The meeting will be held December 5-7, 2016, 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at: Texas A&M University, College
Station, Texas.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Morrison at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite
910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax at
(202) 833-9434, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a meeting of the Second RTCA SC-236 Joint Plenary with
EUROCAE WG-96. The agenda will include the following:

Monday Through Wednesday, December 5-7, 2016, 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.

1. Welcome/Administrative Duties
2. IPR/Membership Call-Out and Introductions
3. Acceptance of Meeting Minutes for the First Joint Plenary of SC-236/
WG-96
4. Recap of Sub-working Group Structure and Scope Statements
5. Review of Schedule for Sub-working groups
6. Break-out into Initial Working Groups
7. Reports of the Plans for the Working Groups
8. New Business Discussions
9. Review of Action Items
10. Plan for next meeting
11. Adjourn

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 9, 2016.
Mohannad Dawoud,
Management & Program Analyst, Partnership Contracts Branch, ANG-A17,
NextGen, Procurement Services Division, Federal Aviation
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2016-27391 Filed 11-14-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 245 (Monday, December 22, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76387-76391]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29826]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket Nos. OSHA-2014-0020, 0017, 0010, 0008, 0006, 0003, 0002, OSHA-
2013-0014, 0001, OSHA-2012-0056, 0053, 0052, 0051, 0050, 0049, 0048,
0047, 0046, 0045, 0044, 0043, 0042, 0041, OSHA-2011-0093]

Authorization To Open Dockets of Denied Variance Applications for
Public Access

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, OSHA announces its intent to update the
publication of the dockets of variance applications that it denied in
the past. Because OSHA denied these applications, it did not publish
them in the Federal Register for public review. OSHA is making this
information available to the public to enhance

transparency concerning the variance process, to assist the public in
understanding the variance process, and to reduce errors in applying
for future variances.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information regarding this notice is
available from the following sources:
    Press inquiries: Contact Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office
of Communications, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue
NW., Room N-3647, Washington, DC 20210; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    General and technical information: Contact Mr. Stefan Weisz, Office
of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, Directorate of
Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW., Room N-3655, Washington, DC 20210; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The principal objective of the Occupational Safety and Health Act
of 1970 (``the OSH Act'') is ``to assure so far as possible every
working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working
conditions and to preserve our human resources'' (29 U.S.C. 651 et
seq.). In fulfilling this objective, the OSH Act authorizes the
implementation of ``such rules and regulations as [the Assistant
Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health] may deem
necessary to carry out [his/her] responsibilities under this Act'' (29
U.S.C. 657(g)(2)).
    Under several provisions of the OSH Act, employers may apply for
four different types of variances from the requirements of OSHA
standards. Employers submit variance applications voluntarily to OSHA,
and the applications specify alternative means of complying with the
requirements of OSHA standards. The four types of variances are
temporary, experimental, permanent, and national-defense variances.
OSHA promulgated rules implementing these statutory provisions in 29
CFR part 1905 (``Rules of Practice for Variances, Limitations,
Variations, Tolerances, and Exemptions under the William-Steiger
Occuptional Safety and Health Act of 1970''). The following paragraphs
further describe each of these four types of variances.
    Temporary variance.\1\ This variance delays the date on which an
employer must comply with requirements of a newly issued OSHA standard.
The employer must submit the variance application to OSHA after OSHA
issues the standard, but prior to the effective date of the standard.
In the variance application, the employer must demonstrate an inability
to comply with the standard by its effective date ``because of
unavailability of professional or technical personnel or of materials
and equipment needed to come into compliance with the standard or
because necessary construction or alteration of facilities cannot be
completed by the effective date.'' Employers also must establish that
they are ``taking all available steps to safeguard [their] employees
against the hazards covered by the standard,'' and that they have ``an
effective program for coming into compliance with the standard as
quickly as practicable.'' (29 U.S.C. 655(b)(6)(A)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Section 6(b)(6)(A) of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 655) and 29
CFR 1905.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Experimental variance.\2\ OSHA may grant this variance as an
alternative to complying with the requirements of a standard whenever
it determines that the variance ``is necessary to permit an employer to
participate in an experiment . . . designed to demonstrate or validate
new and improved techniques to protect the health or safety of
employees.'' (29 U.S.C. 655(b)(6)(C)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Section 6(b)(6)(C) of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 655).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Permanent variance.\3\ This variance authorizes employers (or
groups of employers) to use alternative means of complying with the
requirements of OSHA standards when the employers demonstrate, with a
preponderance of evidence, that the proposed alternative protects
employees at least as effectively as the requirements of the standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Section 6(d) of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 655) and 29 CFR
1905.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    National defense variance.\4\ Under this variance, OSHA, ``may
provide such reasonable limitations and may make such rules and
regulations allowing reasonable variations, tolerances, or exceptions
to and from'' the requirements of its standards that it ``find[s] are
necessary and proper to avoid serious impairment of the national
defense'' (29 U.S.C. 665). Such variances can be in effect no longer
than six months without notifying the affected employees and affording
them an opportunity for a hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Section 16 of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 665) and 29 CFR
1905.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, OSHA developed optional stardardized variance
application forms, and obtained the requried Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) approval for the information collection requirement
(control no. 1218-0265), in order to assist employers in meeting the
paperwork requirements contained in these regulations. Further, in
order to facilitate and simplify the completion of the complex variance
applications and reduce the information collection burden on
applicants, OSHA made the variance application forms and accompanying
completion instructions, as well as variance application checklists,
accessible from its ``How to Apply for a Variance'' Web page (http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/variances/index.html).

II. Denied Variance Applications

    Generally, when receiving a variance application, OSHA conducts an
administrative and technical review, which includes verifying an
applicant completed the application fully and included required
information and evaluating the effectiveness of the alternate safety
measures proposed by the applicant. Part of OSHA's administrative
variance application evaluation is to establish a docket for each case.
OSHA then places the variance application and other related materials
submitted by the applicant in the docket without revision. Initially,
these materials are not made public.
    Upon completion of the technical review, if OSHA determines to move
forward with the grant of a variance, it develops and publishes a
preliminary Federal Register notice (FRN) announcing the variance
application, grant of an interim order (when such was requested by the
applicant), and request for public comment. When the preliminary FRN is
published, OSHA makes the case docket public and available online at
the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov).
    Following publication of the preliminary FRN, interested parties
may submit their comments and attachments electronically to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. OSHA monitors public comments received (if any),
and at the expiration of the comment period reviews and analyzes them.
Based on the review results, OSHA develops and publishes the final FRN
granting or denying the variance.
    If OSHA determines to not move forward with the grant of a
variance, it does not publish the variance docket. A variance
application may be denied for a variety of reasons upon completion of
the technical review. Often these reasons stem from errors employers
commit in completing their applications. Reviewing the variance
application forms' completion

instructions, the application checklists, and previously denied
variance applications prior to completing a variance application will
assist applicants in determining whether their applications are
complete and appropriate, as well as to avoid common errors. The
following are examples of common errors that lead to the denial of
applications:
    Denied--unresolved citation. An employer cannot use a variance
application to avoid or resolve an existing citation while contesting
the citation. If OSHA has issued a citation on the standard (or
provision of the standard) for which an employer is seeking a variance,
OSHA may deny the application or place it on hold until the parties
resolve the citation (29 CFR 1905.5). Therefore, in order to avoid this
type of error, a variance application should not contain a request for
resolving a contested citation.
    Denied--exemption requested. An application for a variance is a
request for regulatory action proposing use of alternate means for
protecting workers at least as effectively as the standards from which
the applicant is seeking the variance. Therefore, in order to avoid
this type of error, a variance application should not contain a request
for an outright exemption or waiver that permits the applicant to avoid
complying with the requirements of an applicable standard. Only
national-defense variances may provide outright exemptions from OSHA
standards (29 CFR 1905.12).
    Denied--not as protective as standard. The technical review of the
variance application found that it failed to demonstrate by a
preponderance of evidence that the proposed alternate means of
compliance protects workers at least as effectively as the protection
afforded by the standard from which the applicant is seeking the
variance (29 CFR 1905.11). Therefore, in order to avoid this type of
error, a variance application should contain proposed alternate safety
measures that are at least as effective as the protection afforded by
the applicable standard.
    Denied--standard or interpretation already exists. The applicant
proposes use of alternate means that OSHA previously determined
acceptable for use by issuing a letter of interpretation (LOI). Since
use of the proposed alternate was allowed prior to the filing of the
variance application, the application is unnecessary. The applicant may
use the means of compliance in the manner determined acceptable and
described by the LOI.
    Denied--site located solely in State-Plan state.\5\ When obtaining
a variance for establishment(s) located solely in states that operate
their own OSHA-approved occupational safety and health plans,
employer(s) must follow the variance-application procedures specified
by the State Plan(s) covering states in which they have
establishment(s) named in the variance application(s) (29 CFR 1952).
Therefore, in order to avoid this type of error, a variance application
for establishment(s) located solely in State Plan states should be
filed in the state(s) where the establishments are located.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Section 18 of the OSH Act of 1970 encourages States to
develop and operate their own job safety and health programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Denied--application inappropriately requests product or product
design approval. The variable working conditions at jobsites and the
possible alteration or misapplication of an otherwise safe piece of
equipment could easily create hazardous conditions beyond the control
of the equipment manufacturer. Therefore, it is OSHA's policy not to
approve or endorse products or product designs.\6\ In order to avoid
this type of error, a variance application should not contain a request
for product or product design approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See LOI dated December 30, 1983 @ http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=19170.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Denied--application inappropriately addresses proposed standard.
The applicant is seeking a variance from a proposed standard that has
not been published as a final rule and is subject to possible
alteration and revision. A variance is an alternate means of compliance
that is different from the means of compliance required by a specific
(in effect) OSHA standard (29 CFR 1905.11). Therefore, in order to
avoid this type of error, a variance application should not contain a
request for a variance from a proposed standard that has not been
published as a final rule.
    Denied--application inappropriately addresses a ``performance''
standard or ``definition'' in a standard. The variance application did
not propose use of alternate means of compliance from a standard that
describes a specific method for meeting its safety requirements.
Instead, the applicant is requesting a variance from a ``performance
standard'' or ``definition'' that leaves ``open ended'' or
``unspecified'' the means and methods for meeting its safety
requirements (29 CFR 1905.11). Therefore, in order to avoid this type
of error, a variance application should not contain a request for a
variance from a performance standard or definition in a standard.
    Withdrawn--During the administrative and technical evaluations,
OSHA will evaluate a variance application for appropriateness,
completeness, and effectiveness. When an application fails to pass the
administrative review, OSHA will inform the applicant regarding the
application's defect(s). At that point, an applicant may choose to
amend its application to fix its defect(s) or withdraw its application
without prejudice. For example, an applicant may withdraw its
application when it determines that: A variance is no longer necessary;
its application is incomplete and the applicant chooses to stop
pursuing the matter; or the applicant's work place is located solely in
a state operating an OSHA-approved State Plan so that the application
should have been submitted to the State Plan.

II. Denial of Multi-State Variance Applications

    Under the provisions of Section 18 of the OSH Act of 1970 and 29
CFR 1952, states can develop and operate their own job safety and
health programs. OSHA approves and monitors State Plans and provides up
to 50 percent of an approved plans' operating costs. Currently, there
are 22 states and territories operating complete State Plans (covering
both the private sector and State and local government employees) and
five states covering state and local government employees only. States
with OSHA-approved State Plans may have additional requirements for
variances. For more information on these requirements, as well as State
Plan addresses, visit OSHA's State Plans Web page: (http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/index.html).
    Employers filing a variance application for multiple workplaces
located in one or more states under Federal OSHA authority may submit
their applications to Federal OSHA by meeting the requirements set
forth in the OSH Act and the implementing regulations (29 CFR 1905).
Employers filing a variance application for multiple workplaces located
in one or more states exclusively under State Plan authority must
submit their applications in that particular state or states. Note that
State Plans vary in their applicability to public sector and private
sector places of employment. For example, Virginia's plan does not
cover private-sector maritime employers, while California's plan covers
most private-sector maritime employer activities, except as specified
by 29 CFR 1952.172. Employers should follow the variance-

application procedures specified by the State Plan(s) for states in
which they have an establishment named in the variance application.
    Applicants with workplaces in one or more states under State Plan
authority and at least one state under Federal OSHA authority may apply
to Federal OSHA for a variance by meeting the requirements set forth in
the OSH Act and the implementing regulations (29 CFR 1905 and 1952).
When applicants perform work in a number of states that operate OSHA-
approved safety and health programs, such states (and territories) have
primary enforcement responsibility over the work performed within their
borders. Under the provisions of 29 CFR 1952.9 (``Variance affecting
multi-state employers'') and 29 CFR 1905.14(b)(3) (``Actions on
applications''), a permanent variance or interim order granted, denied,
modified, or revoked by the Agency becomes effective in State Plans as
an authoritative interpretation of the applicants' compliance
obligation when: (1) The variance request involves the same material
facts for the places of employment; (2) the relevant state standards
are the same as the Federal OSHA standards from which the applicants
are seeking the variance; and (3) the State Plan does not object to the
terms of the variance application.

III. Granting Public Access to Dockets of Denied Variance Applications

    OSHA has denied a large number of variance applications since its
inception in the early 1970s. As previously indicated in this notice,
because OSHA denied these applications, initially they were not
published in the Federal Register for public review.\7\ However, in
2010, OSHA made public a sizable number of illustrative variance
applications (approximately 200) that it denied during the period from
1995 through 2010. The dockets for these denied or withdrawn variance
applications are accessible online at the Federal eRulemaking Portal
(http://www.regulations.gov), as well as on OSHA's ``Denied and
Withdrawn Variance Applications for 1995-2010'' Web page: (http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/variances/denied_withdrawn95-10.html).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Sections 6(b), 6(d), and 16 of the OSH Act and 29 CFR 1905
set out the laws and regulations applicable to Variances. Whereas,
these provisions require OSHA to announce variance applications and
grants by publication in the Federal Register, no such provisions
are in place for denied variance applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA made this information available to the public to enhance
transparency concerning the variance process, to assist the public in
understanding the variance process, and to reduce errors in applying
for future variances. This action was consistent with the policy
established by the Open Government Directive, M-10-06, issued by the
Office of Management and Budget on December 8, 2009 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/memoranda_2010/m10-06.pdf).
    OSHA decided to publish the dockets of the variance applications
that the Agency denied during FY 2010-2014 \8\ on the Federal
eRulemaking Portal and OSHA's ``Denied and Withdrawn Variance
Applications for 1995-2014 Web page. These denied variance application
dockets are presented in the table below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Completed between the governmental fiscal years of October
1, 2010 and September 30, 2014.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Standard from     Date of
         Docket ID             Company name     which variance    denial or       State(s)      Reason denied or
                                                   requested      withdrawal                        withdrawn
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OSHA-2014-0020.............  Upland            1910.215(a)(2)       9/8/2014  MO..............  Denied_unresolve
                              Industries,       and                                              d citation.
                              Inc., dba         1910.215(a)(4).
                              Elegius Bronze.
OSHA-2014-0017.............  Bennett           1926.1419(a)(2).    8/19/2014  OK..............  Denied_not as
                              Construction,                                                      protective as
                              Inc.                                                               standard and
                                                                                exemption
                                                                                requested.
OSHA-2012-0049.............  Green Barn Farms  1910.142(a)(2)..      7/24/14  WI..............  Withdrawn_varian
                                                                                ce not
                                                                                necessary.
OSHA-2014-0008.............  ITW Food          1910.23(c)(1)       6/11/2014  AK, AZ, CA, CT,   Denied_not as
                              Equipment Group   and                            HI, IA, IL, IN,   protective as
                              LLC; dba Hobart   1926.501(b)(1).                KY, MD, MI, MN,   standard and
                              Service.                                         NC, NJ, NM, NV,   exemption
                                                                               NY, OR, PR, SC,   requested.
                                                                               TN, UT, VA, VI,
                                                                               VT, WA, WY.
OSHA-2014-0006.............  Ned Stevens.....  1910.23(c)(1)...     5/6/2014  CT, IL, MA, MD,   Denied_unresolve
                                                                               NC, NJ, NY, PA,   d citation.
                                                                               SC, TX, VA.
OSHA-2014-0010.............  Southland         1926.602(a)(9)(i    4/16/2014  HI..............  Withdrawn_site
                              Contracting.      i).                                              located solely
                                                                                in State Plan
                                                                                state.
OSHA-2014-0003.............  Johnstown Wire    1910.1025(d)(6)(    3/26/2014  NY..............  Denied_exemption
                              Technologies.     iii).                                            requested.
OSHA-2014-0002.............  Puerto Rico       1919.410(c),        3/27/2014  PR..............  Denied_exemption
                              Harbor Diving     1910.424(c)(1),                                  requested.
                              Services.         &
                                                1910.424(c)(2).
OSHA-2013-0001.............  Tonawanda Coke    1910.1029(f)(3)(    8/22/2013  NY..............  Denied_not as
                              Corporation.      iii)(a).                                         protective as
                                                                                standard.
OSHA-2013-0014.............  McLean            1926.1041(e)(10)     6/4/2013  DC, DE, MD, NC,   Denied_not as
                              Contracting Co.                                  SC, VA.           protective as
                                                                                standard.
OSHA-2012-0056.............  Sunrise Senior    1910.151(c).....    4/10/2013  CO, CT, DC, DE,   Denied_standard
                              Living, Inc.                                     FL, GA, IL, KS,   or
                                                                               LA, MA, ME, MO,   interpretation
                                                                               NE, NJ, NY, OH,   already exists.
                                                                               PA, TX.
OSHA-2012-0053.............  Key Energy        1910.23(c)(1)...     1/4/2013  AK, AZ, CA, KY,   Denied_not as
                              Services.                                        MD, MI, NM, NC,   protective as
                                                                               TN, UT, VA, WY.   standard.

OSHA-2012-0052.............  U.S. Postal       1910.333(a)(1) &   12/19/2012  All Fed OSHA &    Denied_not as
                              Service.          1910.333(a)(2).                State Plan        protective as
                                                                               states.           standard.
OSHA-2012-0041.............  The Scotts        1910.178(n)(4)..    9/12/2012  AL, AZ, CA, CO,   Denied_standard
                              Company, LLC.                                    CN, FL, GA, IA,   or
                                                                               IL, IN, KY, LA,   interpretation
                                                                               MI, MS, MO, OH,   already exists.
                                                                               PA, SC, SD, TX,
                                                                               VA, WI.
OSHA-2012-0042.............  T & T Fertilizer  1910.27(d)(2)...    7/13/2012  IN..............  Denied_site
                                                                                located solely
                                                                                in State Plan
                                                                                state.
OSHA-2012-0043.............  U.S. Pipe and     1910.23(c)(1) &     2/16/2012  AL..............  Denied_standard
                              Foundry Company.  1920.23(e)(1).                                   or
                                                                                interpretation
                                                                                already exists.
OSHA-2012-0044.............  GTECH Corp......  1926.501(b)(1)..     1/3/2012  AZ, CA, FL, GA,   Denied_not as
                                                                               KS, KY, MI, MN,   protective as
                                                                               MO, NE, NJ, NY,   standard.
                                                                               NC, OR, RI, SD,
                                                                               TX, VA, WA, WV,
                                                                               WI.
OSHA-2012-0045.............  Timothy Raymond.  1026.1400(a) &       1/3/2012  All Fed OSHA &    Denied_applicati
                                                (b);                           State Plan        on
                                                1926.1431(a) &                 states.           inappropriately
                                                (b);                                             addresses
                                                1926.1431(h)(1)                                  request for
                                                & (h)(2).                                        product design
                                                                                approval.
OSHA-2012-0046.............  Cedar Fair, LP..  1910.28,            12/2/2011  CA, MI, MN, MO,   Denied_applicati
                                                1910.29, &                     NC, OH, PA, VA.   on
                                                1910.32.                                         inappropriately
                                                                                addresses
                                                                                proposed
                                                                                standard.
OSHA-2012-0047.............  NSS               1926.602........   10/27/2011  MI..............  Denied_site
                              Construction,                                                      located solely
                              Inc.                                                               in State Plan
                                                                                state.
OSHA-2012-0048.............  National Chimney  1926.452(o) &       9/29/2011  All Fed OSHA &    Denied_standard
                              and Stack, Inc.   1926.552(c).                   State Plan        or
                                                                               states.           interpretation
                                                                                already exists.
OSHA-2012-0050.............  Industrial        1926.452(o) &        8/4/2011  All Fed OSHA &    Denied_standard
                              Access, Inc.      1926.552(c).                   State Plan        or
                                                                               states.           interpretation
                                                                                already exists.
OSHA-2011-0093.............  Eagle Worker's    1904.3..........    4/28/2011  PA..............  Denied_not as
                              Compensation                                                       protective as
                              Trust.                                                             standard.
OSHA-2012-0051.............  SL Chase Welding  1926.300(a).....    12/8/2010  MA, NH, VT......  Denied_not as
                              and                                                                protective as
                              Fabricating,                                                       standard.
                              Inc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice.
Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
655, Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012),
and 29 CFR part 1905.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on December 15, 2014.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2014-29826 Filed 12-19-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P